• 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 #34 - Canals & Monuments

16_9.jpg

Good evening and welcome to this week’s Victoria 3 development diary! Today’s topic is Canals & Monuments, unique buildings with special inputs, outputs, and effects.

The Vatican City is the seat of the Catholic Church and a great asset to the Papal States in Victoria 3. As Europe developed and industrialized, the power of religious authority in national politics declined steeply but never lost its relevance. Can you change the course of history and renew the temporal power of the Pope?
DD34 01.png

Monuments are unique buildings only available in specific states, each with its own 3D model on the map. They make use of some of the more interesting aspects of the production methods system; just as buildings can output Goods, they can also output both national and local modifiers, Capacities, and effects on the pops working there. The Vatican City for instance outputs the Influence capacity as well as greatly increasing the political strength of the Devout Interest Group. Meanwhile the White House adds a multiplier to your national Bureaucracy output as well as increasing the amount of political strength Pops gain from votes. Not all Monuments are present at the start date. Some, like the Eiffel Tower, must be constructed, and Monuments are significantly more costly and time-consuming to construct than standard buildings. Monuments are subsidized by government funding, so if you decide that a Monument is unaffordable or that you aren’t interested in its effects (for instance if you as communist Italy no longer want to Church to wield so much power) you can simply defund them. On release we intend to have eleven different Monuments in total.

The Panama Canal links the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Finally completed in 1914 after decades of planning and construction, ships no longer had to take the long and treacherous route around South America to travel between the East and West. Yes, we can see the trees and houses in the Canal - we’ll fix it!
DD34 02.png

Like Monuments, Canals are unique buildings with a special set of inputs and outputs. But the true allure of constructing a Canal is that it allows you to create new connections between sea nodes, allowing ships to travel through the isthmuses of Panama and Suez. This significantly reduces the Convoy costs for trading and supplying armies across vast ocean distances, as well as your vulnerability to unscrupulous rivals trying to disrupt your supply lines.

We use the Journal Entry system to track the progress of your canal survey. Behind the scenes a variable is increased every month until the goal is reached, which triggers the completion event. The Journal Entry also acts as a reminder that you are spending a lot of Bureaucracy on this project, and that it will eventually be made available again once the survey is complete.
DD34 03.png

Constructing a Canal is far from trivial. Before any work can begin, an extensive survey of the region needs to be conducted, costing a hefty chunk of Bureaucracy for the surveyor for around 3 years. Either the owner of the state or a Great Power with an Interest in the region can conduct a survey. Any number of countries can potentially conduct their own surveys and compete to build the Canal themselves.

We’ve made the conscious decision to avoid starting wars or Diplomatic Plays through scripted content wherever possible, instead offering incentives for the player to start their own Plays and encouraging the AI to pursue Journal Entry goals. In this case, the player has the option to either gain a Claim on Sinai or to improve relations with the owner country, helping you along your chosen path but not locking you into a particular course of action.
DD34 04.png

Once you’ve completed your survey, the path diverges depending on whether you own the appropriate land. If you already own either a Treaty Port or the whole state region you can simply begin constructing the canal, but if not you’ll need to find a way to acquire it, either through monetary or coercive means. A Decision becomes available allowing you to purchase a Treaty Port in the appropriate State Region in exchange for a series of very large weekly payments, assuming you can convince the local rulers to part with the port. You might however decide that you’d rather keep your money and start a Diplomatic Play for a Treaty Port or the entire State Region (the former will cost you a lot less Infamy), which might lead either to a peaceful concession to your demands or to war.

And that’s all for today! Next week I’ll be handing you over to one of our Content Designers to talk about Expeditions and Decisions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 202
  • 172Like
  • 28
  • 17Love
  • 5
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
I'm not sure if I missed it but if we build a canal can we restrict access to certain nations or taxing the canal as income ?

I just hope it is not like EU4
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Looks pretty cool!

Considering the graphical fidelity of the game, would it be possible to adjust the model for the panama canal to include the topograhical reality of the region, and have at least Lake Gatun present as a part of landscape and the canal structure? I think that would increase immersion a lot compared to a magical straight canal that the model presents at the moment.

Panama_Canal_Map_EN.png
 
  • 18
  • 5Like
  • 5Haha
  • 3
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Please remove the Whitehouse and make it instead a unique bulding a nation can build in their capital. It doesn't need to be a monument
 
  • 12Like
  • 12
  • 5
Reactions:
Can you restrict access to canals you build and control? For instance I build Panama Canal as USA but do not want any European powers to benefit from its use can I ban their ships and trade from using the canal? If not I think it could add a layer to the economic and diplomatic systems; a power that is banned from using the canal could start a diplomatic play to open the canal to their shipping and/or military fleet or to outright seize the canal.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:
On the other hand, some monument buildings ought to have national effects, as symbols of the nation's accomplishments or identity - the Eiffel Tower or the Hagia Sophia are good examples of these. And if the Ottoman Empire conquers Rome and don't want their Devout IG to gain additional political strength from having taken control of the Vatican, they (or anyone who controls it) can certainly burn it to the ground. It is just a building, and follow all the normal building rules.

In my opinion this alone makes monuments worth having. If and when Canadians ever return to Washington DC, the White House will burn.
 
  • 8Love
  • 6Haha
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Why restrict these monuments to special states? I mean, even the Statue of Liberty is built by France and sent to America as a gift. So the monuments that do not present at the start of the game, should be available to those states that fits a general (somehow restrictive) conditions. Therefore, the Eiffel Tower for instance, can be built by any country that hosts Universal Exposition whose economy is great and the culture is prosperous and romantic
 
  • 16
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Is World Fair in 1889 locked to Paris? Is it possible to build Eiffel Tower in Philadelphia in 1876?
How are this systems connected? Does every country have chance to build own monument?
What if Paris is owned by Germany? Then Germany can build Eiffel Tower or just France, but in different city?

Was getting vibes "no country specific bonuses - shape your own alternate history" from DD's - now getting confused.
 
  • 28
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Great point! You're right that some of the current effects of monument-type buildings are perhaps unsuitable for the game's theme. As usual the exact numbers are WIP and we definitely appreciate the feedback. I hear you on the White House's national Bureaucracy multiplier for example - will rework this into a larger bonus to local Government Administration buildings instead.

On the other hand, some monument buildings ought to have national effects, as symbols of the nation's accomplishments or identity - the Eiffel Tower or the Hagia Sophia are good examples of these. And if the Ottoman Empire conquers Rome and don't want their Devout IG to gain additional political strength from having taken control of the Vatican, they (or anyone who controls it) can certainly burn it to the ground. It is just a building, and follow all the normal building rules. Monuments don't have any special powers to affect the country in non-immersive, "magical" seeming ways - if they do, we may have made a mistake, and mistakes can be easily fixed. :)
Will Vatican City still give increased influence? Since that one also seems a bit like a "magical effect", since a player is incentivized to conquer Rome and fund the Vatican to get the influence bonus. If I'm the Ottomans and I conquer Rome, it doesn't make sense to have more global influence which I could use to sway Middle Eastern nations with.

I can see what the Devs are going for, where controlling the Vatican gives increased influence over Catholics worldwide but gives the Pope more political power. But a lot of these modifiers just feel gamey and arbitrary. It would be better if things like that are modelled as specific influence modifiers (eg. less influence required for diplomacy with Catholic countries), or events (the Pope keeps trying to butt into politics).
 
  • 30
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
On the other hand, some monument buildings ought to have national effects, as symbols of the nation's accomplishments or identity - the Eiffel Tower or the Hagia Sophia are good examples of these. And if the Ottoman Empire conquers Rome and don't want their Devout IG to gain additional political strength from having taken control of the Vatican, they (or anyone who controls it) can certainly burn it to the ground. It is just a building, and follow all the normal building rules. Monuments don't have any special powers to affect the country in non-immersive, "magical" seeming ways - if they do, we may have made a mistake, and mistakes can be easily fixed. :)
I think there needs to be some more consideration of what monuments should do here. Historically speaking monuments are not something nations build to establish their capabilities; they are something built to commemorate traits that are already there. Washington DC was created after the establishment of the Federal Government (and grew and evolved as the government did), the Eiffel Tower was created as a reflection of France's new Industrial Might, the Vatican, or Hagia Sophia were reflections of the might of the Church and the Ottoman Dynasty.

Making monuments with unique, nation-wide, material buffs is a bad move IMO because all those things should already be simulated by the standard mechanics. Housing bueraucrats in a fancy house in DC shouldn't make any part of the US government, federal or local, function more effectively. What they should do is serve as ways to put icing on top of what's already been achived by amplifying prestige or maybe ideological tendencies... but only in ways that make sense.
 
Last edited:
  • 44
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
A bit disappointed the Panama Canal is still unrealistically depicted as a single straight line and Lake Gatun isn't shown, but it is still very nice even so.
 
  • 10
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
A few of my concerns already expressed by others but summarized in list format:

  1. Having monuments tied to specific provinces goes directly against the overall design philosophy of the game of, not doing that. If there are no country specific bonuses in the form of traditions, ideas, cultures etc, why include buildings that will indirectly give them? Seems quite arbitrary, especially if they're already built at the start of the game.
  2. In general, having national bonus from unique buildings doesn't scale very well and results in power creep. One time bonuses or local moderate effects are acceptable though.
  3. There should be a distinction between "legacy" monuments, those that were built before the game start, and "victorian" monuments, those that were built to flex your industrial muscle. The first ones should be merely for flavor, if they exist at all. The second ones are more interesting, and should be your focus. This means no White House, or Vatican, or Ankor Wat. Instead, please do give us the Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty BUT please make them constructible by anyone that meets the right criteria.

I sincerely believe these suggestion would appease the community interest groups and lower their brewing radicalism.
 
  • 36
  • 6Like
  • 4
  • 2Love
Reactions:
And if the Ottoman Empire conquers Rome and don't want their Devout IG to gain additional political strength from having taken control of the Vatican, they (or anyone who controls it) can certainly burn it to the ground.

What sort of outcome(s) would burning down the Vatican be? Would Catholic pops (and countries) be angered by such an action?
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Great point! You're right that some of the current effects of monument-type buildings are perhaps unsuitable for the game's theme. As usual the exact numbers are WIP and we definitely appreciate the feedback. I hear you on the White House's national Bureaucracy multiplier for example - will rework this into a larger bonus to local Government Administration buildings instead.

On the other hand, some monument buildings ought to have national effects, as symbols of the nation's accomplishments or identity - the Eiffel Tower or the Hagia Sophia are good examples of these. And if the Ottoman Empire conquers Rome and don't want their Devout IG to gain additional political strength from having taken control of the Vatican, they (or anyone who controls it) can certainly burn it to the ground. It is just a building, and follow all the normal building rules. Monuments don't have any special powers to affect the country in non-immersive, "magical" seeming ways - if they do, we may have made a mistake, and mistakes can be easily fixed. :)
Purely based off the clear vision and attitude in your response as devs, this could possibly be the best game ever made. Always inspiring to hear such an honest response and a commitment to creating games as an art!
 
  • 10Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I can’t tell if this is the case or not, but I feel like any country with the prerequisites should be able to build an Eiffel Tower or White House equivalent. I prefer dynamic worlds over railroaded ones.
 
  • 14
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Is World Fair in 1889 locked to Paris? Is it possible to build Eiffel Tower in Philadelphia in 1876?
How are this systems connected? Does every country have chance to build own monument?
What if Paris is owned by Germany? Then Germany can build Eiffel Tower or just France, but in different city?

Was getting vibes "no country specific bonuses - shape your own alternate history" from DD's - now getting confused.
I hope some monuments are able to be built by any country if they are able to. Like the Eiffel Tower as you mention, or like the Statue of Liberty (should require a democratic form of government and a costal state, and give an immigration bonus).
 
  • 9
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Great point! You're right that some of the current effects of monument-type buildings are perhaps unsuitable for the game's theme. As usual the exact numbers are WIP and we definitely appreciate the feedback. I hear you on the White House's national Bureaucracy multiplier for example - will rework this into a larger bonus to local Government Administration buildings instead.

On the other hand, some monument buildings ought to have national effects, as symbols of the nation's accomplishments or identity - the Eiffel Tower or the Hagia Sophia are good examples of these. And if the Ottoman Empire conquers Rome and don't want their Devout IG to gain additional political strength from having taken control of the Vatican, they (or anyone who controls it) can certainly burn it to the ground. It is just a building, and follow all the normal building rules. Monuments don't have any special powers to affect the country in non-immersive, "magical" seeming ways - if they do, we may have made a mistake, and mistakes can be easily fixed. :)

Why would holding Vatican city, the house of the catholic church, give devout IG bonuses to a country (in your example the ottomans) who are not Catholic and may have policies that discriminate against Catholic pops?

This may be the first DD that has given me pause on the direction of Vic3. This feels very "gamey" and will introduce a non-trivial amount of power creep (control these monuments to min-max) that I don't think has helped EU4 and didn't help CK2.

The idea of constructing monuments is interesting. Will monuments that are not in game at the start (Eiffel tower) have static modifiers? Are the restricted to their real world provinces? Is there a world's fair that nations can lobby for that may open up the ability to construct the Eiffel towers? Actually, now that I think about it, a world's fair would be an fun mechanic for a country to show off its power and prestige.
 
  • 40
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
Monuments work exactly the same way other buildings do, including employing Pops to produce their effects. They just happen to be unique. But just like other buildings, you can of course mod them (including out) to your heart's content.
So what makes the United States and the white house uniquely more capable of running an extensive bureaucracy than any other building or country in the world? The effects don't feel exactly realistic.

In Vic2 terms it makes sense for the Eiffel Tower or Statue of Liberty to grant prestige to a country, or to increase tourism if that's a thing, because the whole point is that it is a unique and prestigious wonder. One might even argue that so long as the Statue of Liberty exists it would serve as a reminder of what America was even under an authoritarian regime, and thus increase attraction to liberalism and democracy.

But I'm not sure I see why the Vatican would inherently strengthen the devout interest group. What if as a communist I want to turn it into a museum instead, similar to how the Hagia Sophia was a museum until recently? It might even be a point of secular pride that it's a museum when it is contextualized like that.

I'm apprehensive about inherent unique effects in buildings.
 
  • 13Like
  • 12
  • 3
Reactions:
And if the Ottoman Empire conquers Rome and don't want their Devout IG to gain additional political strength from having taken control of the Vatican, they (or anyone who controls it) can certainly burn it to the ground. It is just a building, and follow all the normal building rules.

...burn Vatican? I mean, surely burning an iconic location for Catholic Christianity, and to a degree Christianity overall, should be a horrible idea for anyone who happened to conquer it in this time period? It should cause substantial unrest and hatred?

I think monuments like this shouldn't be in the game, but if they are, I think they should mainly be prestige or influence or some other not directly tangible things. Surely the political strength of the Devout faction isn't dictated by whoever possesses Vatican, but rather by the Papal government form? However, being the Pope probably was pretty prestigeous in the catholic world even in the 1800s, and conquering Vatican as Ottomans probaly still would've been prestigeous, even if also politically very risky. After all, there probably was a great reason why Vatican was left independent when Italy unified, and I doubt it was the personal piety of Victor Emmanuel II.
 
  • 26
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I think there needs to be some more consideration of what monuments should do here. Historically speaking monuments are not something nations build to establish their capabilities; they are something built to commemorate traits that are already there. Washington DC was created after the establishment of the Federal Government (and grew and evolved as the government did), the Eiffel Tower was created as a reflection of France's new Industrial Might, the Vatican, or Hagia Sophia were reflections of the might of the Church and the Ottoman Dynasty.

Making monuments with unique, nation-wide, material buffs is a bad move IMO because all those things should already be simulated by the standard mechanics. Housing bueraucrats in a fancy fouse in DC shouldn't make any part of the US government, federal or local, function more effectively. What they should do is serve as ways to put icing on top of what's already been achived by amplifying prestige or maybe ideological tendencies... but only in ways that make sense.
Absolutely, unless the monument is some kind of masterwork in infrastructure or a giant bureaucratic office or something, the effects of a monument should be more toward the ethereal than physical. Increase prestige and promote ideology, as well as tourism. At least to fit the spirit of the game we've been shown so far.
 
  • 10Like
  • 2
Reactions: