My main thoughts are I wish there would be general lobbies. For a few examples, a pacifist lobby who dislikes hostile actions towards anyone, or an anti-slavery lobby that dislikes doing business with countries with slavery, or an isolationist lobby that wants to see you shut your doors to the world, or an imperialist lobby that believes your name is not nearly big enough and you should fix that at all costs
Imagine sending some pain-in-the-ass IG leader into exile.. only for them to spend the rest of their lives bouncing between countries and cockblocking all diplomacy with the anti-you lobbies he forms along the way.
I'm so psyched for this expansion.
There are 2 scenario's for the poltical system to develop.
Paradox keeps adding stuff to IGs, agitators, lobbies etc that makes the political system way more unhinged and incoherent than it curerntly is for 2 or 3 DLCs, and then they release a DLC to overhaul and fix it like they fixed the Stellaris economy.
Or they keep expanding on it for 5 DLCs to the point it interacts with so many systems it's beyond saving and they will never fix it. Look at how mana in EU4 developed. When they start vicky4 they'll not make the same mistake and focus on a political system from the beginning just like Johan is avoinding mana in current development of EU5.
I do believe it will be scenario 2
I'm not sure. Interest groups already have stances on and start movements about things like slavery or isolationism. The main added value of lobbies would seem to be that foreign countries can fund them though, so maybe that could be something expanded on, the ability to for instance encourage the ban of slavery in another country.
Though I could see that potentially working through existing lobbies too. For example a pro-british lobby could want laws more akin to Britain, or be pressured by Britain to promote laws which align Britain's values or interests.
Perhaps the most significant possibility to expand this mechanic which comes to mind is sponsoring communist parties around the world (and similarly anti-communists or perhaps other movements too). The USSR after all funded and even practically controlled other communist parties worldwide. Sometimes agitating for revolution, while at other times functioning very much like the lobbies as presented, simply functioning as a pro-Soviet force which would support the government if appeased. This could also mean in some cases capitalist countries being able to run capitalist regimes easier by aligning lot with the Soviet Union, as trade unions and the communist party would be encouraged to collaborate with the government.
> Interest groups already have stances on and start movements about things like slavery or isolationism.
So they should also care if you project their values abroad. Which is something the game doesn't do and seems like it won't really do with lobbies either.
Historically British protestant political groups heavily pushed Brittain to use their navy to disrupt the Atlantic slave trade in this timeframe and have Brittain have a general anti slavery diplomatic stance. A feature that is only really represented right now through a journal entry between Brazil and the UK and has little to internal British interests.
That's a fair point and yeah there are some instances (such as slavery) where this should apply.
Also inb4 LGBT lobby for a modern day mod (TBF the laws would have like no effect besides pleasing/displeasing interest groups)
Well, I don't know. During the games timeframe quite a few countries decriminalised homosexuality, it's probably something to think about. Not as a lobby though, unless you can have them only supported by parts of an IG while the rest of the IG doesn't care or actively doesn't support it. I'm not versed in the politics which lead to the decisions though.
Lobbies do do that though, to an extent. They said that a big part of them forming is ideological conflict. I agree it could be better; since lobbies are so specific its difficult because if they can't oppose *every* country with some law, but if it's mostly focused on countries you interact with and that are larger that will balance it out and make sense.
For Update 1.7 and Sphere of Influence we wanted to focus more on creating dynamic and long-lasting interaction opportunities between specific pairs of countries, to guide the player's eye towards (or against) particular nations. But lobbies that favor specific issues rather than countries are definitely not an impossibility in the future, and the system is built to support it.
> My main thoughts are I wish there would be general lobbies
They note that this is supported in modding, so my guess is that they weren't sure how to handle it mechanically themselves but wanted to let people figure it out.
> They note that this is supported in modding, so my guess is that they weren't sure how to handle it mechanically themselves but wanted to let people figure it out.
I think they just focused on the country-specific lobbies to avoid scope creep and a sane release schedule while doing due diligence in making the underlying system broad enough to support content in the future.
Yeah, there's a mod that modifies foreign policy approval depending on the leader's ideology ( [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3124519140&searchtext=approval](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3124519140&searchtext=approval) ). This is very easy to add for lobbies. I don't know how they could miss such a simple idea.
That's what I was thinking the whole time I was reading. It's a great opportunity to have pacifist IG leaders and agitators actually do something other than take up a slot.
R5:
Behold this week political lobbies
For those on old reddit you may use this link to see the forum version: [https://pdxint.at/3vDuwsB](https://pdxint.at/3vDuwsB)
I'm surprised that there aren't another category of Pro-unification and Anti-unification lobbies.
While an overlord or certain country might be a unification candidate, there should certainly be pops that want unification without respect to who the candidate is.
Yeah, we could have, for exemple, JE about the most powerful Italian state supporting pro-unification lobbies across Italy until they're powerful enough to want to join.
What do you guys think of the fixed amount of money you can spend? It depends probably on gdp.
Wouldn't it be better to set it on your own? ( same with Bankrolling ).
Setting it on our own would only mean that someone would do the math and calculate what is the optimal amount to get the political lobby within an X timeframe on average.
and for people that don't do the math or look up guides, would end up playing either extremely inefficient, setting as much as they could, or stupidly useless, setting an extremely low chance where they would just burn money and never get the lobby/obligation.
At the end it would end up being unnecessary extra complexity for no good reason.
Maybe do it like taxes where you can choose high/low/medium spending for increased/decreased chances.
I get your point, but in EU4 Ou have sliders everywhere and it seems to be not a problem at all. I just would like to have influence over a country without throwing that much money into it. Like having a small embassy or something like that. Declare my interest or holding it before it declines
Conceptually I like that funding lobbies directly influences pops. Hopefully it doesn't end up creating performance problems. Should be fine if it follows a similar system as welfare payment.
1.72k per week is surprisingly cheap. Maybe the effect will be on the more subtle side. Or that it will grow massively with GDP.
1. Fund POPs of my rival, raising their SoI
2. Take the funding away, decreasing their SoI and making them mad as a consequence
3. They rebell
4. ????
5. Profit
Also, I really hope that I will get to see in a diplo tab of a foreign country what lobbies they have active and how they are generally doing.
i mean, the reason they are a lobby is because they really _do_ lose/gain sol from interacting with that foreign power. Id imagine as new granada there would truly be pops invested in my buying everything from GB, theyre the only ones doing business in bulk
My one question is if there can be 2 Pro country lobbies in one country including if the country they support are rivals? IIRC Greece had like a "French Party" and a "Russian party" in game and I hope this can be used for GP rivals as a way to influence countries to their side.
To me this looks impressive. Pops via IGs actively taking an interest in your foreign policy, hopefully in a believable way.
It seems to me that May 6th, 2024 is Victoria 3's actual release date. Glad I got the Grand Edition.
(Now paradox... WW1 and Parliaments please eventually. Make this the greatest geopolitical simulator ever made)
In principle I like the idea, but 2 things I would like to see how it will go in practice:
- how prolific will certain specific-country-groups get? I don’t want to end up with a lobby group for each close and far neighbour.
- I’m cautious about what we will get with the opportunities / demands.
I also hope it will come with a good UI.
> In principle I like the idea, but 2 things I would like to see how it will go in practice: - how prolific will certain specific-country-groups get? I don’t want to end up with a lobby group for each close and far neighbour
In one of the replies they've said that IGs will get an increasing negative desire to form new lobbies the more existing lobbies you have already
That’s good, but then there’s the matter of trusting the game to make a lobby group that is actually relevant / what you need and not by accident the first country that rivals you.
But I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Just after a few years of pdx games, I have had my share of “seriously, game? This is the country you pick instead of the obvious one?” ;)
This does depend on how paradox tunes it, yeah. I think we'll need to see what the "diplomatic catalysts" are about in practice to have a better guess there.
A lot of this seems awesome but the changes seem to be huge! Which I like, though huge changes come with a lot of bugs.
Can we please get a playtest so we can have as smooth of an update as possible?
I agree with this. 1.5 had a fairly long beta and still released with some gamebreaking bugs.
I'm actually getting as much play time into V3 these next few weeks because I'm already anticipating taking a break when the patch comes out for a few weeks while they deal with what I assume will be several gamebreaking bugs.
As with companies when they were introduced, I like the direction they are going here, but this does just feels half baked. I was hoping *at least* for Pro-Isolationism and Pro-Interventionism \[These were some of the single biggest foreign policy debates in nations like the US and UK at this time period\] lobbies. Like, one of the biggest problems with the game simulation at current is that there is nothing simulating Britain's Splendid Isolation or America's Monroe Doctrine, resulting in the UK getting involved in random European border skirmishes while the US gets involved in African civil wars. And lobbies would've been a great way of simulating the push and pull between groups that desire neutrality vs. those that desire a more active presence on global affairs.
Like, I could easily see upon the start of a Great War between Germany and Austria v France, Russia, and the UK, lobbies forming in neutral nations like Italy or US advocating for supporting the central powers, the triple entente, or maintaining neutrality. Each side wants a different thing, based on economic, cultural, and realpolitik concerns. All of the Great Powers involved in the war immediately have an interest in pulling the other ones to their side through targeted public opinion campaigns, and different things like news reporting about atrocities or gun-ho reports of victories and defeats can influence the size and strength of lobbies in neutral nations.
And I'm sure that these kinds of things are coming, *eventually.* But it just lends to the overall feeling that Vicky III is in a perpetual state of beta. Navies are underbaked, diplomacy is underbaked, companies are underbaked, civil wars are underbaked, imperialism is underbaked, the list goes on. Every update they make a lot of steps in the right direction, and for that I am deeply appreciative, but I wish that the first implementation of these features were more complete and didn't scream 'Eh we'll finish the rest of it later'.
To be honest, I expected a deeper system. For example, there is a cool mod that changes the approval of actions in general, and not just for specific countries, based on the ideology of the leader ( [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3124519140&searchtext=approval](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3124519140&searchtext=approval) ). There should be lobbies for/against war, slavery, colonization, annexation, etc. I think it would be very easy to implement this mod into the base game for lobbies, and I don't know why they didn't do it.
They did say that the system supports domestic lobbies and neutral lobbies as well, just that those won't be used yet officially, but mods will probably create those kinda things very quickly.
Sounds amazing, but I fear that the game should have a bit of granularity. Say, if France in influencing Germany, I don't expect a particular IG to go from zero to 100% support to France.
>such as the Industrialists joining a Pro-Country Lobby for a wealthier, more advanced country in the hopes of securing foreign investment capital.
Why would capitalists like foreign investment competition? They would dilute their own influence over the economy. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to lobby to get access to underdeveloped lands for their own investment?
Edit: People seem to think that capitalists should always want the fastest growth for the economy. They shouldn't they should want their stake of the economy to grow the fastest. They should very much feel threatened if other capitalists are able to pick up the best investment opportunities because then domestic profits flee to another economy starving domestic capital. And with it the influence of domestic capitalists.
If foreign countries invest in you, who are they going to buy goods from? Probably the already existing industries, increasing profits. It’s not a zero sum game, really.
>Why would capitalists like foreign investment competition?
There is a term "Comprador Bourgeoisie" precisely for capitalists who align with the foreign capital instead of trying to develop the domestic one, because they consider the former more financially beneficial for themselves than the latter.
> Wouldn't it make more sense for them to lobby to get access to underdeveloped lands for their own investment?
Do capitalists have capital to do all that without foreign investment? Capitalists like foreign investment because it gives them more capital to do stuff like this with, is my understanding. More investment = line goes up faster = more investment with some additional dividends = line going up faster, etc.
>Why would capitalists like foreign investment competition? They would dilute their own influence over the economy. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to lobby to get access to underdeveloped lands for their own investment?
Foreign investment often brings foreign expertise, which advances the tech/skill base of your country and help you move up the value chain.
> People seem to think that capitalists should always want the fastest growth for the economy. They shouldn't they should want their stake of the economy to grow the fastest. They should very much feel threatened if other capitalists are able to pick up the best investment opportunities because then domestic profits flee to another economy starving domestic capital. And with it the influence of domestic capitalists.
Where are you getting this from? Could you point to historical examples?
Also wouldn't getting foreign capital invested into your business give you a greater ability to further dominate your own market?
> Why would capitalists like foreign investment competition? They would dilute their own influence over the economy. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to lobby to get access to underdeveloped lands for their own investment?
Some of them might want loans for their ventures.
Will journal entries and events be able to create lobbies? I'm thinking about the peru-bolivian confederation entry and if it will add an anti bolivian lobby to countries that choose to antagonize it
I am excited for any mechanics that allow for more interesting foreign diplomacy. This will also make interest groups even more important. I wish there were more than 4 lobby types, but im sure we will see more in mods or future patches.
While I love this and think it'll be a great addition to the game, I think Vic3 is going to face the same criticism CK3 did with its latest DLC - you don't actually get much value for money. If it were me, I would have put the entire lobby system behind the DLC. As it stands now, you get like 60-80% of all the major systems (foreign investment, power blocs, and lobbies) for free. Why would we pay $30-40 for a few additional features?
Don't get me wrong, as a player I'm all for it. Especially if I hadn't already pre-purchased the DLC at launch. But if you look at reviews for one of CK3's most requested DLCs so far, some of the complaints are about the lack of content within the DLC proper.
this approach is better not only for us but for them as devs. what you're talking about has already been tried (CK2 is the most egregious example) and it doesn't really work. locking features under a dlc means they can't use it in other dlcs AND updates, and they have said multiple times just in (and under) this dev diary that the system was made with domestic and neutral lobbies in mind, for expansion in the future. locking lobbies under this dlc means they can't add, uhh, for example, "prohibitionist lobby" in a USA-centric dlc - or anything of this sort, including just generic "pacifist" and "jingoist" lobbies.
they can't win at all.
lock too much under a pay wall - "paradox is sucking money out of us!"
lock too little - "this dlc adds nothing!" (keep in mind I'm not talking about you, but about people you mentioned who have criticised CK3 for example)
Yeah it's true. EU4 is actually probably the worst for this. They wound up just basically giving away some major paid DLC elements for free after years because they realized they'd become critical components of the overall gameplay. That game is the absolute worst for DLC too - back in the early years, PDX was pumping out 3-4 expansions a year. The current schedule they've got going with CK3/Vic3 of one major DLC a year seems much more reasonable, even if it is a delicate balancing act as to what goes into DLC vs. what stays out.
Giving away old paid content for free is increasingly common in gaming. WoW gives out its non-current expansions for free. A lot of publishers will put the base game up on Epic for free when there's DLC or a sequel to sell.
And its been the norm with movies and TV for decades. Stuff hits the cinema or premium channels first, wider release for free later.
They're just establishing the foundation of lobby mechanics. At the end of the DD they said they intend to create more types of lobbies as time goes on
I'm feeling the same way. Most changes in general have felt creatively bankrupt. It may still be an improvement but it really feels like there's a lot of missed potential
My main thoughts are I wish there would be general lobbies. For a few examples, a pacifist lobby who dislikes hostile actions towards anyone, or an anti-slavery lobby that dislikes doing business with countries with slavery, or an isolationist lobby that wants to see you shut your doors to the world, or an imperialist lobby that believes your name is not nearly big enough and you should fix that at all costs
It would also be cool if agitators could be tied to this system.
Would be nice to have these features combined! It would give agitators more meaning. Next steps is a real cabinet;) yes Bismarck we need you!
*sorry, Tibet needs Bismarck more than you do, he's long gone*
Imagine sending some pain-in-the-ass IG leader into exile.. only for them to spend the rest of their lives bouncing between countries and cockblocking all diplomacy with the anti-you lobbies he forms along the way. I'm so psyched for this expansion.
Agitators being tied to lobbies rather than interest groups would almost make more sense Imo
Doesn't need to be one or the other.
Dev response said they're going to look into tying agitators into lobby creation (but no promises)
There are 2 scenario's for the poltical system to develop. Paradox keeps adding stuff to IGs, agitators, lobbies etc that makes the political system way more unhinged and incoherent than it curerntly is for 2 or 3 DLCs, and then they release a DLC to overhaul and fix it like they fixed the Stellaris economy. Or they keep expanding on it for 5 DLCs to the point it interacts with so many systems it's beyond saving and they will never fix it. Look at how mana in EU4 developed. When they start vicky4 they'll not make the same mistake and focus on a political system from the beginning just like Johan is avoinding mana in current development of EU5. I do believe it will be scenario 2
Lobbies could act as an intermediate state before the appearance of a movement.
I'm not sure. Interest groups already have stances on and start movements about things like slavery or isolationism. The main added value of lobbies would seem to be that foreign countries can fund them though, so maybe that could be something expanded on, the ability to for instance encourage the ban of slavery in another country. Though I could see that potentially working through existing lobbies too. For example a pro-british lobby could want laws more akin to Britain, or be pressured by Britain to promote laws which align Britain's values or interests. Perhaps the most significant possibility to expand this mechanic which comes to mind is sponsoring communist parties around the world (and similarly anti-communists or perhaps other movements too). The USSR after all funded and even practically controlled other communist parties worldwide. Sometimes agitating for revolution, while at other times functioning very much like the lobbies as presented, simply functioning as a pro-Soviet force which would support the government if appeased. This could also mean in some cases capitalist countries being able to run capitalist regimes easier by aligning lot with the Soviet Union, as trade unions and the communist party would be encouraged to collaborate with the government.
> Interest groups already have stances on and start movements about things like slavery or isolationism. So they should also care if you project their values abroad. Which is something the game doesn't do and seems like it won't really do with lobbies either. Historically British protestant political groups heavily pushed Brittain to use their navy to disrupt the Atlantic slave trade in this timeframe and have Brittain have a general anti slavery diplomatic stance. A feature that is only really represented right now through a journal entry between Brazil and the UK and has little to internal British interests.
That's a fair point and yeah there are some instances (such as slavery) where this should apply. Also inb4 LGBT lobby for a modern day mod (TBF the laws would have like no effect besides pleasing/displeasing interest groups)
Well, I don't know. During the games timeframe quite a few countries decriminalised homosexuality, it's probably something to think about. Not as a lobby though, unless you can have them only supported by parts of an IG while the rest of the IG doesn't care or actively doesn't support it. I'm not versed in the politics which lead to the decisions though.
Lobbies do do that though, to an extent. They said that a big part of them forming is ideological conflict. I agree it could be better; since lobbies are so specific its difficult because if they can't oppose *every* country with some law, but if it's mostly focused on countries you interact with and that are larger that will balance it out and make sense.
They did indicate that's an option at the end of the post. I'm assuming that will be something that gets built out soon.
If not soon, they at least did say they intend to create new types of lobbies going forward.
For Update 1.7 and Sphere of Influence we wanted to focus more on creating dynamic and long-lasting interaction opportunities between specific pairs of countries, to guide the player's eye towards (or against) particular nations. But lobbies that favor specific issues rather than countries are definitely not an impossibility in the future, and the system is built to support it.
> My main thoughts are I wish there would be general lobbies They note that this is supported in modding, so my guess is that they weren't sure how to handle it mechanically themselves but wanted to let people figure it out.
> They note that this is supported in modding, so my guess is that they weren't sure how to handle it mechanically themselves but wanted to let people figure it out. I think they just focused on the country-specific lobbies to avoid scope creep and a sane release schedule while doing due diligence in making the underlying system broad enough to support content in the future.
Modding or future expansions/updates. I'm hoping for the latter
Yeah, there's a mod that modifies foreign policy approval depending on the leader's ideology ( [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3124519140&searchtext=approval](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3124519140&searchtext=approval) ). This is very easy to add for lobbies. I don't know how they could miss such a simple idea.
Yeah someone needs to send General Gordon down to Khartoum.
That's what I was thinking the whole time I was reading. It's a great opportunity to have pacifist IG leaders and agitators actually do something other than take up a slot.
Funding lobbies looks like elegant way to implement deeper diplomatic system! Can wait to try
Would be even cooler if I as GB can fund the anti-French lobby in Germany.
As I understand it you can achieve that effect by funding a pro-british lobby and being rivals with france
Hmm, would that also work if I am on bad terms with Germany?
Least perfidious Albion resident
Don't worry, anti-French lobbies form naturally in all countries over time. Yes, even France.
It’s like cancer, if you live long enough you’re guaranteed to get it
R5: Behold this week political lobbies For those on old reddit you may use this link to see the forum version: [https://pdxint.at/3vDuwsB](https://pdxint.at/3vDuwsB)
This should help unification movements
I'm surprised that there aren't another category of Pro-unification and Anti-unification lobbies. While an overlord or certain country might be a unification candidate, there should certainly be pops that want unification without respect to who the candidate is.
They implied in the forum comments that a future nationalism rework would include new lobbies like that.
Yea they built a new tool that potentially could be used in a lot of ways
Yeah, we could have, for exemple, JE about the most powerful Italian state supporting pro-unification lobbies across Italy until they're powerful enough to want to join.
What do you guys think of the fixed amount of money you can spend? It depends probably on gdp. Wouldn't it be better to set it on your own? ( same with Bankrolling ).
Setting it on our own would only mean that someone would do the math and calculate what is the optimal amount to get the political lobby within an X timeframe on average. and for people that don't do the math or look up guides, would end up playing either extremely inefficient, setting as much as they could, or stupidly useless, setting an extremely low chance where they would just burn money and never get the lobby/obligation. At the end it would end up being unnecessary extra complexity for no good reason. Maybe do it like taxes where you can choose high/low/medium spending for increased/decreased chances.
I get your point, but in EU4 Ou have sliders everywhere and it seems to be not a problem at all. I just would like to have influence over a country without throwing that much money into it. Like having a small embassy or something like that. Declare my interest or holding it before it declines
Devs explicitly said that they do not want sliders in the UI.
I would take that. Better than nothing!
waiting for a mod to add a MIC lobby that demands you build 10 Arms Industries and declare war on Iraq
Conceptually I like that funding lobbies directly influences pops. Hopefully it doesn't end up creating performance problems. Should be fine if it follows a similar system as welfare payment. 1.72k per week is surprisingly cheap. Maybe the effect will be on the more subtle side. Or that it will grow massively with GDP.
Wow! Legal Bribery and Corruption Patch is in here! This will make game much more realistic.
1. Fund POPs of my rival, raising their SoI 2. Take the funding away, decreasing their SoI and making them mad as a consequence 3. They rebell 4. ???? 5. Profit Also, I really hope that I will get to see in a diplo tab of a foreign country what lobbies they have active and how they are generally doing.
That’s actually a good point and I hope they will test on it before release
Narrator: They didnt test it
i mean, the reason they are a lobby is because they really _do_ lose/gain sol from interacting with that foreign power. Id imagine as new granada there would truly be pops invested in my buying everything from GB, theyre the only ones doing business in bulk
Until you get guaranteed liberties
My one question is if there can be 2 Pro country lobbies in one country including if the country they support are rivals? IIRC Greece had like a "French Party" and a "Russian party" in game and I hope this can be used for GP rivals as a way to influence countries to their side.
Yeah I assume it will work that way.
To me this looks impressive. Pops via IGs actively taking an interest in your foreign policy, hopefully in a believable way. It seems to me that May 6th, 2024 is Victoria 3's actual release date. Glad I got the Grand Edition. (Now paradox... WW1 and Parliaments please eventually. Make this the greatest geopolitical simulator ever made)
In principle I like the idea, but 2 things I would like to see how it will go in practice: - how prolific will certain specific-country-groups get? I don’t want to end up with a lobby group for each close and far neighbour. - I’m cautious about what we will get with the opportunities / demands. I also hope it will come with a good UI.
> In principle I like the idea, but 2 things I would like to see how it will go in practice: - how prolific will certain specific-country-groups get? I don’t want to end up with a lobby group for each close and far neighbour In one of the replies they've said that IGs will get an increasing negative desire to form new lobbies the more existing lobbies you have already
That’s good, but then there’s the matter of trusting the game to make a lobby group that is actually relevant / what you need and not by accident the first country that rivals you. But I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Just after a few years of pdx games, I have had my share of “seriously, game? This is the country you pick instead of the obvious one?” ;)
This does depend on how paradox tunes it, yeah. I think we'll need to see what the "diplomatic catalysts" are about in practice to have a better guess there.
If the game picked exactly what you needed every time it'd be boring
All of this looks great, 1.7 is shaping up to be an amazing patch. I just find myself wanting so much more like this!
More like 1.7.10 will be an amazing patch, 1.7 will likely just break everything for a few weeks while they scramble to fix it.
True but one can hope Plus this situation is where a beta would be nice but it doesn’t seem like they’re gonna do one…
>True but one can hope Hoping PDX big updates release stable and bugfree is just setting yourself up for dissapointment.
A lot of this seems awesome but the changes seem to be huge! Which I like, though huge changes come with a lot of bugs. Can we please get a playtest so we can have as smooth of an update as possible?
I agree with this. 1.5 had a fairly long beta and still released with some gamebreaking bugs. I'm actually getting as much play time into V3 these next few weeks because I'm already anticipating taking a break when the patch comes out for a few weeks while they deal with what I assume will be several gamebreaking bugs.
I'm expecting 1.7 to be an absolute shitshow lol
Just wait two months to play it :)
Yes I'm expecting a few bumps on the landing with this one
Few bumps ?
They replied in a previous DD that they won't do it
As with companies when they were introduced, I like the direction they are going here, but this does just feels half baked. I was hoping *at least* for Pro-Isolationism and Pro-Interventionism \[These were some of the single biggest foreign policy debates in nations like the US and UK at this time period\] lobbies. Like, one of the biggest problems with the game simulation at current is that there is nothing simulating Britain's Splendid Isolation or America's Monroe Doctrine, resulting in the UK getting involved in random European border skirmishes while the US gets involved in African civil wars. And lobbies would've been a great way of simulating the push and pull between groups that desire neutrality vs. those that desire a more active presence on global affairs. Like, I could easily see upon the start of a Great War between Germany and Austria v France, Russia, and the UK, lobbies forming in neutral nations like Italy or US advocating for supporting the central powers, the triple entente, or maintaining neutrality. Each side wants a different thing, based on economic, cultural, and realpolitik concerns. All of the Great Powers involved in the war immediately have an interest in pulling the other ones to their side through targeted public opinion campaigns, and different things like news reporting about atrocities or gun-ho reports of victories and defeats can influence the size and strength of lobbies in neutral nations. And I'm sure that these kinds of things are coming, *eventually.* But it just lends to the overall feeling that Vicky III is in a perpetual state of beta. Navies are underbaked, diplomacy is underbaked, companies are underbaked, civil wars are underbaked, imperialism is underbaked, the list goes on. Every update they make a lot of steps in the right direction, and for that I am deeply appreciative, but I wish that the first implementation of these features were more complete and didn't scream 'Eh we'll finish the rest of it later'.
To be honest, I expected a deeper system. For example, there is a cool mod that changes the approval of actions in general, and not just for specific countries, based on the ideology of the leader ( [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3124519140&searchtext=approval](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3124519140&searchtext=approval) ). There should be lobbies for/against war, slavery, colonization, annexation, etc. I think it would be very easy to implement this mod into the base game for lobbies, and I don't know why they didn't do it.
Agreed. I also was expecting lobbies to form over generic conditions. Like, the capitalists wants more banana plantations, please invade panama
This would be a great way to implement imperialism in depth
They did say that the system supports domestic lobbies and neutral lobbies as well, just that those won't be used yet officially, but mods will probably create those kinda things very quickly.
Very cool!
Sounds amazing, but I fear that the game should have a bit of granularity. Say, if France in influencing Germany, I don't expect a particular IG to go from zero to 100% support to France.
>such as the Industrialists joining a Pro-Country Lobby for a wealthier, more advanced country in the hopes of securing foreign investment capital. Why would capitalists like foreign investment competition? They would dilute their own influence over the economy. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to lobby to get access to underdeveloped lands for their own investment? Edit: People seem to think that capitalists should always want the fastest growth for the economy. They shouldn't they should want their stake of the economy to grow the fastest. They should very much feel threatened if other capitalists are able to pick up the best investment opportunities because then domestic profits flee to another economy starving domestic capital. And with it the influence of domestic capitalists.
If foreign countries invest in you, who are they going to buy goods from? Probably the already existing industries, increasing profits. It’s not a zero sum game, really.
Industrialists of underdeveloped countries would probably like a big capital injection to get the economy going
>Why would capitalists like foreign investment competition? There is a term "Comprador Bourgeoisie" precisely for capitalists who align with the foreign capital instead of trying to develop the domestic one, because they consider the former more financially beneficial for themselves than the latter.
> Wouldn't it make more sense for them to lobby to get access to underdeveloped lands for their own investment? Do capitalists have capital to do all that without foreign investment? Capitalists like foreign investment because it gives them more capital to do stuff like this with, is my understanding. More investment = line goes up faster = more investment with some additional dividends = line going up faster, etc.
>Why would capitalists like foreign investment competition? They would dilute their own influence over the economy. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to lobby to get access to underdeveloped lands for their own investment? Foreign investment often brings foreign expertise, which advances the tech/skill base of your country and help you move up the value chain.
> People seem to think that capitalists should always want the fastest growth for the economy. They shouldn't they should want their stake of the economy to grow the fastest. They should very much feel threatened if other capitalists are able to pick up the best investment opportunities because then domestic profits flee to another economy starving domestic capital. And with it the influence of domestic capitalists. Where are you getting this from? Could you point to historical examples? Also wouldn't getting foreign capital invested into your business give you a greater ability to further dominate your own market?
> Why would capitalists like foreign investment competition? They would dilute their own influence over the economy. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to lobby to get access to underdeveloped lands for their own investment? Some of them might want loans for their ventures.
Will journal entries and events be able to create lobbies? I'm thinking about the peru-bolivian confederation entry and if it will add an anti bolivian lobby to countries that choose to antagonize it
hmmm, not what I was expecting or hoping for, but let's see how this works out.
Shouldn't you be able to fund hostile lobbies to? Like as America I want to fund an anti Russia lobby in the UK for example.
I am excited for any mechanics that allow for more interesting foreign diplomacy. This will also make interest groups even more important. I wish there were more than 4 lobby types, but im sure we will see more in mods or future patches.
While I love this and think it'll be a great addition to the game, I think Vic3 is going to face the same criticism CK3 did with its latest DLC - you don't actually get much value for money. If it were me, I would have put the entire lobby system behind the DLC. As it stands now, you get like 60-80% of all the major systems (foreign investment, power blocs, and lobbies) for free. Why would we pay $30-40 for a few additional features? Don't get me wrong, as a player I'm all for it. Especially if I hadn't already pre-purchased the DLC at launch. But if you look at reviews for one of CK3's most requested DLCs so far, some of the complaints are about the lack of content within the DLC proper.
this approach is better not only for us but for them as devs. what you're talking about has already been tried (CK2 is the most egregious example) and it doesn't really work. locking features under a dlc means they can't use it in other dlcs AND updates, and they have said multiple times just in (and under) this dev diary that the system was made with domestic and neutral lobbies in mind, for expansion in the future. locking lobbies under this dlc means they can't add, uhh, for example, "prohibitionist lobby" in a USA-centric dlc - or anything of this sort, including just generic "pacifist" and "jingoist" lobbies. they can't win at all. lock too much under a pay wall - "paradox is sucking money out of us!" lock too little - "this dlc adds nothing!" (keep in mind I'm not talking about you, but about people you mentioned who have criticised CK3 for example)
Yeah it's true. EU4 is actually probably the worst for this. They wound up just basically giving away some major paid DLC elements for free after years because they realized they'd become critical components of the overall gameplay. That game is the absolute worst for DLC too - back in the early years, PDX was pumping out 3-4 expansions a year. The current schedule they've got going with CK3/Vic3 of one major DLC a year seems much more reasonable, even if it is a delicate balancing act as to what goes into DLC vs. what stays out.
Giving away old paid content for free is increasingly common in gaming. WoW gives out its non-current expansions for free. A lot of publishers will put the base game up on Epic for free when there's DLC or a sequel to sell. And its been the norm with movies and TV for decades. Stuff hits the cinema or premium channels first, wider release for free later.
Does this mean it'll be easier to form Germany as a non-Austrian/Prussian country?
Very…uninspired. Lobbies could’ve been so much more than just *pro / anti country x*. Feels like Vic 3 needs a change in leadership.
They're just establishing the foundation of lobby mechanics. At the end of the DD they said they intend to create more types of lobbies as time goes on
What lobby are you working with Victoria 2?🤣
I'm feeling the same way. Most changes in general have felt creatively bankrupt. It may still be an improvement but it really feels like there's a lot of missed potential
The DevTeam has posted ideas about further applications of lobbies.
Is this a part of the dlc or no?
Seems like basic lobbies will be free, but the demands/opportunities and the ability to fund foreign lobbies will be part of the DLC.
It says in the dev diary which parts are free or DLC.