• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #67 - Patch 1.1 (part 3)

16_9.jpg

Happy Thursday! Today we'll talk about some more changes we've introduced in patch 1.1, including how Morale works.

For starters, why rework morale? One piece of feedback we heard a lot of post-release was that it was frustrating to watch long, drawn-out battles that tied up the front while your battalions that weren't in that combat perished from attrition. Our goal with these changes is primarily to make battles snappier, ensuring that battles that are all but decided can come to a rapid conclusion so the front can start moving again. Some nice side effects are that your supply, morale recovery rates, and having reinforcements and reserves start to play a greater role than they used to.

In the new system, instead of the losers typically being the only side to take morale damage, units on both sides will take a certain amount of morale damage for each round of combat. That morale damage can be modified by various factors, such as technologies and production methods. In addition, the side that has taken the most casualties will suffer an additional multiplier to their loss of morale, ensuring that combat superiority is still what ultimately wins battles.

The basis for how much morale units lose each day is determined by the organization or ship class production method groups in Barracks / Conscription Centers and Naval Bases respectively. The more modern the method of warfare, the lower the loss of morale. Also, conscripts now differ from regular Battalions in that they suffer more morale damage.

These Ohioan conscripts have a relatively high base morale loss of 15 men per day, but this is reduced due to National Militia. Their morale losses increase somewhat from currently being in a battle where more casualties have been inflicted on them than they have on the enemy. When all remaining men in the unit have been lost to casualties or morale loss, the battalion will detach from the battle. Once fighting has concluded, their commanding General's Experienced Diplomat trait will increase the speed by which their morale recovers. Morale will also recover along with fresh reinforcements from the Conscription Center supporting them.
DD67_1.png

Modifiers can affect how much morale your own troops lose, such as good modifiers from First Aid and Field Hospitals, or bad modifiers from battle conditions such as Broken Supply Lines or commander traits like Reckless. But the morale damage you take can also be modified by the enemy's forces, for example via production methods like Siege Artillery or Chemical Weapon Specialists, or character traits like Wrathful.

When battles start, units are now deprioritized to enter combat if they are injured or demoralized. What this means is that even if you end up with fewer than your full complement of battalions in a particular fight, the rest of them will make use of this short respite to recover for the next one.

Speaking of recovery, we have also made a few changes to the way Wage levels work. Higher military wages than usual now affect how quickly units recover morale when not in combat, letting flush governments push frontlines by gradually overcoming the enemy's fighting spirit - at least as long as you're able and willing to rack up an enormous body count in the process.

Recovering Morale faster than the enemy does could be well worth the expense in the long run. It will also give your Officers and Servicemen a better Standard of Living, building Loyalists in your Armed Forces over time. Their increased Wealth will provide them with more Clout to throw around in internal politics as well, of course, so take that into account.
DD67_2.png

This isn't the extent of the changes to government and military wages in 1.1. These settings used to be a highly efficient way of directly and immediately altering your Interest Groups' Approval scores, which we have toned down a bit in 1.1 by making the Approval changes limited to -2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2 for the five different levels. Of course, the act of raising or lowering wages still has the usual knock-on effects on Approval by increasing or decreasing the purchasing power of the pops that tend to make up those groups, leading to changes in Standard of Living and therefore Radicals and Loyalists.

High or low military wages also affect your armed forces' Power Projection, leading to a Prestige impact also during peacetime. Low military wages also affect your buildings' training rate, i.e. how rapidly they can reinforce battalions and flotillas that have become underpowered due to casualties. To round it out, low government wages provide a direct impact on Prestige while higher levels now provide additional Authority.

As a final note, an update from our first Patch 1.1 update on Legitimacy levels. One oft-repeated concern with how Legitimacy works currently is that under most democratic systems, having two parties in a coalition government does not provide much of a penalty, even if those parties are vehemently opposed to each other. From one perspective this was working as intended, as it represents a trade-off between Legitimacy (in this case, popular representation) and ability to actually enact any new Laws (since the incoherence between the ideologies in government would make debate and stall outcomes very common). But on the other hand it felt wrong to have the two completely incompatible parties working together in a highly functional government - as long as they didn't try to make any changes, that is.

In response, we have changed the Legitimacy penalty from government size to one that actually represents ideological incoherence. Adding a party or Interest Group to government will now cause any conflicting ideologies (as measured by their stances on Laws) outside party boundaries to inflict a Legitimacy penalty. This encourages formation of government groups that are both strong and effective together. We're very interested in hearing how this change feels to you all, once patch 1.1 drops!

Despite representing the majority of Clout and Votes in Great Britain, an unholy alliance between Tories and Whigs is just too incoherent to form government together. You could still confirm such a government, but the penalties for doing so would be enormous and no legislation could be passed while Legitimacy is that poor.
DD67_3.png

The changes we have discussed in this and the previous two dev diaries represent just a fraction of the changes you will see in the new update. These ones are maybe the most visible, but a number of under-the-hood improvements and bugfixes have been made as well. Next week we will go through the full changelog! Until then!
 
  • 177Like
  • 48Love
  • 12
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
This comment is reserved by the Community Team for gathering Dev Responses in, for ease of reading.


finik34 said:


Please allow more than one battle at a time.
We're looking into it! The challenge with it is not technical per se, but rather an issue of what it would mean for the complexity of the frontline mechanics - for example, if your general advances with 90% of the troops on the front (woo!) but the enemy has two generals, one that's defending and one that's advancing, and now while you're fighting the big battle the other guy advances against your remaining 10% (boo!), and while that fight is going on his two allies on the same front advances and just easily marches in to occupy territory because there's nobody left to defend (nooo!), so in response you frantically hire several more generals, and before long you're saddled with dozens of boring randos leading your army instead of a handful of interesting ones, requiring dozens of clicks to manage... So this is the core issue, not enabling multiple battles per front. I can promise a thorough design investigation, and I hope we can find a good solution!


Sanzhar23414 said:


Hi! Thank you for reworking some points, but I have a question. Are you changing/reworking the Service Centre? Now these centres do not work normally in the middle and end of the game, because the consumption of services is lower than production, especially when we use high methods in service centers.
That's good feedback, thanks! It's not necessarily a given that all buildings will be more profitable at high technology tiers though, it's (as you've noticed) very much conditional on your population's demand and the supply of your input goods. Demand for services is virtually infinite, as it increases exponentially for wealthier pops, so to build your demand for services you need a large population of very wealthy people - or you could focus more on your supply of Glass, maybe by subsidizing your Glassworks.

But we'll keep your feedback in mind, maybe the balance is a bit off on the high-end Urban Center PMs!


Telenil said:


Something doesn't feel right. If you do some sort of national union, your governement will be seen as illegitimate and radicals will appear? You risk revolution because two parties who disagree join the same governement?

I get the incentive from a gameplay perspective, but flavor-wise it doesn't sound logical.
I understand your perspective, but note that these radicals will come only from the politically active part of the population - i.e. the ones whose Interest Groups are forced to work side-by-side with hated enemies, or are kept out of government while an unholy, incoherent alliance reigns.


Sanzhar23414 said:


Hi! Thank you for reworking some points, but I have a question. Are you changing/reworking the Service Centre? Now these centres do not work normally in the middle and end of the game, because the consumption of services is lower than production, especially when we use high methods in service centers.
Its on my list of things to look at, just sadly down a bit further from the things I am currently working on.


Logist said:


Are there any plans to rework how generals are assigned troops? Having them tied to strategic areas creates a lot of undesirable edge cases. I’d love to be able to actually build army groups from the ground up and assign generals to lead them.
Yeah, this is cool, but would conflict with the political side of the military gameplay. Currently, you promote your commanders to lead more troops, which give them more political power and makes them a bigger threat in case of uprisings. If you could just give your Field Marshal command of five conscripts with muskets to declaw him, he's not much of a potential threat to you.

Not to say there aren't solutions to this and it is one area we're looking to explore in the future, but we have to be careful that it doesn't wreck existing features.


LucasG21 said:


How does ideological incoherency gets calculated? Do internal party disagreements count if the government is a coalition?

(i.e. will a PB Ints liberal party have a penalty to legitimacy because of different Home Office preferences once another party is invited to the government? Or will the penalty be ignored due to them being in the same party?)
The penalty is ignored within party boundaries. Of course, law enactment penalties (stalls, debates) still increase in frequency with such a party in government.

Andarnio said:


Alive game

Is oil never being bought for pop needs also getting fixed in 1.1?
You're the first person I've heard complain about too little demand for oil :)

I haven't seen this bug show up yet, so likely not for 1.1, but I'll keep an eye on it!


Gerulus Sum said:


Are there any plans to improve migration in this patch? Right now the Colonial Resettlement law gives +100% migration attraction in unincorporated states, which is insane. I've run several test games while working on mods and I've consistently noticed the Eastern United States becoming depopulated because everyone is migrating to become peasants in unincorporated North Dakota.
Sweet, sweet tax evasion :)

Most migration work is being done for 1.2 alongside a big rebalancing of Arable Land.


Shavius said:


Whatabout political strength overflow
Fixed in 1.1. Full changelog next week!




Iamwinterborn said:


Are there any plans to "fix" the current implementation of how units are picked from battle (top of the list down), so that if a General has 30 troops, the top 10 of which are depleted from a recent battle, and they get a 12 width engagement, they do not once again just have 10 depleted armies and 2 fresh ones taken into battle, and they can actually draw from the bottom of the list as well?
Yes:
When battles start, units are now deprioritized to enter combat if they are injured or demoralized.


Meanmanturbo said:


Sounds to me more like a question about goods substitution in general working for goods where you start at zero demand. That is a known issue right?

lachek said:


You're the first person I've heard complain about too little demand for oil

I haven't seen this bug show up yet, so likely not for 1.1, but I'll keep an eye on it!
This one is written up and in our database at current.



Beefalaxx said:


Please make pocket fronts close automatically after some time if no troops are inside.
Some updates to the behavior of fronts to make them more manageable are being prioritized for patch 1.2!


RhoxOS said:


Will there be any change to life expectancy of generals? I see, and gets lots of reports about cases of starting generals like Elder Moltke living to the end of the game.
Yes, the bug that caused extremely long-lived characters will also be fixed for 1.1. Full changelog next week.


Pl4t0n1c said:


Will 1.1 seek to improve the warfare UI? My biggest challenge right now as a player is simply reading the screens to determine what is going on--I know devs are aware and working on the overall display of info (which is really hard in a game this comprehensively huge!) but am curious if there are any specific tweaks that, for instance, will help players better understand up front why troop numbers alone don't determine a battle (i.e. putting the kill rate front and center on the battle screen).
Some improvements and bugfixes have been made in this area, but more enhancements to military UX are scheduled for 1.2.


Ato1 said:


At least, you could allow to reassign them to a more prestigious position. The prestige here would be determined by number of battalions, with some bonus for home countries. So you could reassign a good general from colonies to command a main front at home, and they would happily accept it. And it would be either forbidden in the other way (easy to do), or, preferably, it would be possible but with some sort of penalty (malus to opinion of general's interest group, or if the said group is already unhappy and powerful enough, chance of uprising).
Yep, something like this is likely how we would handle it. It would also permit for another requested feature, the ability to reassign commanders (permanently) to another HQ, but with some sort of impact or penalty to discourage the player from just shuffling commanders around all the time.


Kimlin1004 said:


Is the A.I going to utilize the buffs from wages? If they don’t it will make the player even more OP.
Of course the AI will be using the wage levels.

It's important to note though - both in response to your comment and other comments here - that the positive modifiers from wages are actually not particularly powerful, and this is intended. They may provide the boost you need in certain circumstances, but they're not tuned to be a must-have in every relevant situation such that for example you feel compelling to bump your military wages as soon as you get into a conflict as a matter of course. Their biggest impact is and will remain the actual money paid out and the effect that has on the pops.

The reason not to make that the only impact is a player psychology thing. Seeing that pressing a button to raise wages will make your expenses increase will discourage you from ever pushing it proactively if there are no other effects. More importantly, seeing that pressing a button to lower wages will reduce your expenses incentivizes you to push it, but this is a trap that causes your military to become rebellious over time. By putting some pretty high-value penalties on the reduction of wages we encourage players to only reduce wages when absolutely needed, while putting some low-value bonuses on the increase of wages we give a small incentive to at least try it out from time to time.

The same rationale goes for positive and negative Capacity balances. A positive Capacity balance provide a minor bonus so you don't feel bad for having some Capacity in reserve, but it's still almost always better to spend it than save it. A negative Capacity balance provide a major malus so you try to get back in the green ASAP and don't get used to operating at a deficit and dig yourself a bigger and bigger hole.


kamik said:


Could You pls add some reduction of infrastructure usage if input goods are locally available. It would balance whole game and enforce gathering of industry in state where resources are mined. Thx If not, pls tell me why and is it possible (and how) to add such modifier by modder??????????????????????????? Thx a lot.

enforce gathering of industry in state where resources are mined

This is precisely why we don't do it. The notion that manufacturing industries are located in the same place as resource industries they rely on is not a universal truth, and in fact very frequently it's the exact opposite - manufacturing industries tend to cluster in population centers where both workforce and consumers are plentiful, and ensuring good infrastructure connections between those hubs and the more rural areas where the raw materials are sourced should be key to developing a successful economy.

What you will find though is that if you do cluster your manufacturing and resources economies together without expanding infrastructure, you will still be able to run profitable industries if there are local workforce and consumers, because more of the economy will be local due to the reduced market access. With raw materials in high supply your manufacturing industries will get a better deal, and as long as locals buy the finished products you can sustain this economy without infrastructure. It won't scale well to multiple supply chains, and your international trade will suffer, but this is the trade-off between local low-infrastructure operations and market-wide ones.

In the future we do plan on experimenting more with the differences between local and market prices to make this effect more noticeable and relevant to gameplay.


JamesJameson said:


I agree in land battles, but in Sea battles please allow this to happen as currently invasions can just bypass navies because 1 navy in the sea province happens to be fighting in a battle.
This is a bug. Should be fixed in 1.1.
 
  • 9Like
  • 3
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Whoa this is really good, the incoherency~legitimacy change specifically
 
  • 24
  • 9Like
Reactions:
This is not the military system that needs to be solved, I think it's not 1-2 buff or nerf, it bothers me that in every paradox game, the soldier's morale drops just because there is little money.
 
  • 41
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Happy Thursday! Today we'll talk about some more changes we've introduced in patch 1.1, including how Morale works.

For starters, why rework morale? One piece of feedback we heard a lot of post-release was that it was frustrating to watch long, drawn-out battles that tied up the front while your battalions that weren't in that combat perished from attrition. Our goal with these changes is primarily to make battles snappier, ensuring that battles that are all but decided can come to a rapid conclusion so the front can start moving again. Some nice side effects are that your supply, morale recovery rates, and having reinforcements and reserves start to play a greater role than they used to.

In the new system, instead of the losers typically being the only side to take morale damage, units on both sides will take a certain amount of morale damage for each round of combat. That morale damage can be modified by various factors, such as technologies and production methods. In addition, the side that has taken the most casualties will suffer an additional multiplier to their loss of morale, ensuring that combat superiority is still what ultimately wins battles.

The basis for how much morale units lose each day is determined by the organization or ship class production method groups in Barracks / Conscription Centers and Naval Bases respectively. The more modern the method of warfare, the lower the loss of morale. Also, conscripts now differ from regular Battalions in that they suffer more morale damage.

These Ohioan conscripts have a relatively high base morale loss of 15 men per day, but this is reduced due to National Militia. Their morale losses increase somewhat from currently being in a battle where more casualties have been inflicted on them than they have on the enemy. When all remaining men in the unit have been lost to casualties or morale loss, the battalion will detach from the battle. Once fighting has concluded, their commanding General's Experienced Diplomat trait will increase the speed by which their morale recovers. Morale will also recover along with fresh reinforcements from the Conscription Center supporting them.
View attachment 917063
Modifiers can affect how much morale your own troops lose, such as good modifiers from First Aid and Field Hospitals, or bad modifiers from battle conditions such as Broken Supply Lines or commander traits like Reckless. But the morale damage you take can also be modified by the enemy's forces, for example via production methods like Siege Artillery or Chemical Weapon Specialists, or character traits like Wrathful.

When battles start, units are now deprioritized to enter combat if they are injured or demoralized. What this means is that even if you end up with fewer than your full complement of battalions in a particular fight, the rest of them will make use of this short respite to recover for the next one.

Speaking of recovery, we have also made a few changes to the way Wage levels work. Higher military wages than usual now affect how quickly units recover morale when not in combat, letting flush governments push frontlines by gradually overcoming the enemy's fighting spirit - at least as long as you're able and willing to rack up an enormous body count in the process.

Recovering Morale faster than the enemy does could be well worth the expense in the long run. It will also give your Officers and Servicemen a better Standard of Living, building Loyalists in your Armed Forces over time. Their increased Wealth will provide them with more Clout to throw around in internal politics as well, of course, so take that into account.
View attachment 917065
This isn't the extent of the changes to government and military wages in 1.1. These settings used to be a highly efficient way of directly and immediately altering your Interest Groups' Approval scores, which we have toned down a bit in 1.1 by making the Approval changes limited to -2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2 for the five different levels. Of course, the act of raising or lowering wages still has the usual knock-on effects on Approval by increasing or decreasing the purchasing power of the pops that tend to make up those groups, leading to changes in Standard of Living and therefore Radicals and Loyalists.

High or low military wages also affect your armed forces' Power Projection, leading to a Prestige impact also during peacetime. Low military wages also affect your buildings' training rate, i.e. how rapidly they can reinforce battalions and flotillas that have become underpowered due to casualties. To round it out, low government wages provide a direct impact on Prestige while higher levels now provide additional Authority.

As a final note, an update from our first Patch 1.1 update on Legitimacy levels. One oft-repeated concern with how Legitimacy works currently is that under most democratic systems, having two parties in a coalition government does not provide much of a penalty, even if those parties are vehemently opposed to each other. From one perspective this was working as intended, as it represents a trade-off between Legitimacy (in this case, popular representation) and ability to actually enact any new Laws (since the incoherence between the ideologies in government would make debate and stall outcomes very common). But on the other hand it felt wrong to have the two completely incompatible parties working together in a highly functional government - as long as they didn't try to make any changes, that is.

In response, we have changed the Legitimacy penalty from government size to one that actually represents ideological incoherence. Adding a party or Interest Group to government will now cause any conflicting ideologies (as measured by their stances on Laws) outside party boundaries to inflict a Legitimacy penalty. This encourages formation of government groups that are both strong and effective together. We're very interested in hearing how this change feels to you all, once patch 1.1 drops!

Despite representing the majority of Clout and Votes in Great Britain, an unholy alliance between Tories and Whigs is just too incoherent to form government together. You could still confirm such a government, but the penalties for doing so would be enormous and no legislation could be passed while Legitimacy is that poor.
View attachment 917066

The changes we have discussed in this and the previous two dev diaries represent just a fraction of the changes you will see in the new update. These ones are maybe the most visible, but a number of under-the-hood improvements and bugfixes have been made as well. Next week we will go through the full changelog! Until then!
That's pretty cool, thank you! I dearly hope that in the full changelog we will see balancing changes to the world which will make it a bit more plausible like: weaker france population growth, russia progressing not regressing in terms of gdp, sol, pop growth, generally countries more progressing end game! This woupd make game more fun as late game when human completely eclipses AI one can lose motivation to play..
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Hi! Thank you for reworking some points, but I have a question. Are you changing/reworking the Service Centre? Now these centres do not work normally in the middle and end of the game, because the consumption of services is lower than production, especially when we use high methods in service centers.
 
  • 8
  • 2
Reactions:
Noice! But can we do something about the Parties? It seems odd to not have Abe Lincoln form the Republican Party for example, Democratic party getting renamed in a matter of a few years, or we simply get new parties every once in a while.
 
  • 13Like
Reactions:
Are there any plans to rework how generals are assigned troops? Having them tied to strategic areas creates a lot of undesirable edge cases. I’d love to be able to actually build army groups from the ground up and assign generals to lead them.
 
  • 30
  • 4Like
Reactions:
How does ideological incoherency gets calculated? Do internal party disagreements count if the government is a coalition?

(i.e. will a PB Ints liberal party have a penalty to legitimacy because of different Home Office preferences once another party is invited to the government? Or will the penalty be ignored due to them being in the same party?)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Are there any plans to improve migration in this patch? Right now the Colonial Resettlement law gives +100% migration attraction in unincorporated states, which is insane. I've run several test games while working on mods and I've consistently noticed the Eastern United States becoming depopulated because everyone is migrating to become peasants in unincorporated North Dakota.
 
  • 9Like
  • 5Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
You can see them on the pop up after the election is over but once you click on it, it can never be seen again.
 
  • 1
Reactions: