Thats quite a good idea, it at least might help with the majority of POPs going to the same place...
Megathread : Immigration In Victoria 2
- Thread starter Niptium
- Start date
-
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.
Thats quite a good idea, it at least might help with the majority of POPs going to the same place...
Shouldn't we just have "overcrowd" modifier, that would lower attractiveness of the province/region as it fills up with immigrants? Depedning on the value (again, full modability) of such modifier we would be able to cause more balanced migration or keep more focused one - whatever fits the game (or game period) more.
I don't mind having more types of immigrants and them choosing different targets for their new homes, but it doesn't result in self-regulating (or at least self-regulating to some extend) mechanism we really need.
I don't mind having more types of immigrants and them choosing different targets for their new homes, but it doesn't result in self-regulating (or at least self-regulating to some extend) mechanism we really need.
Well, a broader move could be to set up a "size limit" for each province(maybe modifiable bu infrastructure or techs or whatever), under which Growth & immigration happen well, but above which growth is slower & attractivity mediocre.
What you're calling "ideological" immigration is the natural tendency of immigrants to migrate to places that already have a community of their own group. It would be realistic if all immigrants in Victoria took this into consideration.
It would be good to reduce the exploit associated with conquering a Chinese province (or alternatively, gifting China one of your provinces then getting it back) and getting a vast flood of immigrants into your (non-European) provinces.
Another, somewhat related, idea might be to have racial friction events - historically there was very considerable racism in period, which saw strong protests against Chinese migration into many areas. Substantial influx of pops with differing nationality (and religion, etc) should increase mil of existing pops. For example Know-Nothings in the US, Maori wars in NZ, etc.
Another, somewhat related, idea might be to have racial friction events - historically there was very considerable racism in period, which saw strong protests against Chinese migration into many areas. Substantial influx of pops with differing nationality (and religion, etc) should increase mil of existing pops. For example Know-Nothings in the US, Maori wars in NZ, etc.
I'd add repatriation - pretty much speaks for itself - pop's of same culture migrate to its home country more likely in a period after it has been created.
@Alojzy - Another idea of land desireability. for now 'if it is fertile and/or rich in minerals and still largely unoccupied - it is desirable' - provinces should have their size in sq km, population and density shown (pop/sq km).
however we don't know if immigrants have to pay for land (and how much) or do they get it for free - some just can't afford to live in point A, so will go to point B, where they can get their free land. Either provincial or national decission (or both) on land aqquisition price/land tax could help control migration. So far we only tax pops' work 'income', not their property ('land'). Adding land tax would increase income or -by lowering it- could attract more immigrants to our provinces. 'Giving' away land for free would hurt player's wallet, and attract immigrants.
Result would be interesting for poor countries with valuable minerals. Those countries would still attract immigrants, but could earn some cash on selling their land to willing prospectors/miners.
Last edited:
well, that's the problem, your end game pop was higher.
generally for majority of the game usa takes in majority of immigrants regardless of what kind of environment you create in your country. even if it is in americas, still us has the upper hand. i have edited scenario files, edited parties, enacted a full democracy, laissez faire with pluralism etc, low taxes and whatnot and high plurality, and im only getting comparable immigration as usa, while playing californian republic.
this is making alternate histories unlikely. ie, majority of the european countries lose their population to usa and can get few immigrants regardless of how good an environment they create.
i think there should be an 'equal' setting and a 'historical' setting for the game.
in 'equal' setting, the game can reset the various in built multipliers and advantages for countries. or reset the most important ones. (like usa tag doubling plurality and preventing emigration etc). and leave the immigration totally to the environment created through the mechanics in the game.
in 'historic' setting, it should load with historical multipliers.
this can even be applied to the events i think. you are trying to play an alternate history, doing this, doing that, and suddenly italy pops in front of you or germany unifies to the top of your head and breaks the alternative scenario.
I think it was suggested few times regarding all the Paradox titles in general. Having "historical" and "sandbox" switch, with game being balanced and tuned around different values - in the first one aiming for historical or close to historical results of AI actions, in the latter - for optimal AI actions countering the human player.
Problem is - it pretty much doubles amount of work with testing and balancing the game. Yes, it's at least useful effort (contrary to things like fantasy scenarios or battle scenarios of HoI2), but it's still quite an effort and we all know how much testing Paradox titles require already even without such thing.
Last edited:
i doubt that.
vic is apparently using eu2 engine, but still a lot of modifications to events etc has been done over the duration.
its not hard to introduce a 'historic = yes' tag to events and separate the country multiplier values to a separate db include file and ignore/change these if historic setting is turned off while starting the game.
No offense, but your assumption that it's enough to change events outcomes to historical to have historical game experience speaks volumes about how much testing it would require in reality.
Using your example, just compare EU3 and EU3 with Magna Mundi mod on. First one is "AI goes against player" other - "AI attempts to go historically plausible".
It's not hard to separate the parameters and set some values for historical/gamey scenarios. True problem is doing it properly, then test it as the game changes over time with patches and devs interventions.
i also mentioned changing country multipliers and some certain characteristics. and it really is enough.
i disagree.
the magic is in the multipliers and events. ai can stay the same, it makes little difference. an austria with equal setting with any other country can try to invade ottoman empire as much as it wants. it will be on equal footing in everything else. or usa in equal footing in regard to industrialization and immigration with mexico or any other american nation can attempt to dominate americas as much as it wants - it wont have the power to tip the scales that easily as it does now -> manpower, cash.
furthermore, current ai should be precisely left as it is. countries can have motives and aims whether they lack the means to fulfill them or not. and what we are trying to attain is 'what if' scenarios. taking a specific date of the world map, and play out what ifs, when the setting is equal or we change certain stuff during the course of the game through our actions.
changing ai of the countries would just hamper that goal. it wouldnt be a what if scenario then.
for example i released californian republic and then edited the savegame file at 1836 to give usa befriend CAL 90 , combat 10 settings. now in 1870, usa is going south and eating up mexico towards yucatan instead of progressing west, and northwest usa is taken by british up till the californian republic border. usa didnt declare war on me once, and made allies out of me, and california republic has 10 million population at 1870 despite starting with 500 k in 1836, due to the policies and their immigration result. and that's despite i didnt modify anything in regard to usa in terms of immigration. im even taking up yankee, british immigrants. if usa didnt have that early pluralism and the usa tag that doubles pluralism in regard to immigration, californian republic with its 6 states could have more population than u.s. at this date in this game.
edit : and thats despite perchance, i was able to research ideology technology in the 6th-7th technology research because it didnt chance up in the slot, and i also had to research a few economic ones. therefore i had no plurality at all up till i researched that, and got no immigrants. if perchance it appeared right as the first tech to be researchable in culture, things could have changed a lot more.
edit : and thats despite perchance, i was able to research ideology technology in the 6th-7th technology research because it didnt chance up in the slot, and i also had to research a few economic ones. therefore i had no plurality at all up till i researched that, and got no immigrants. if perchance it appeared right as the first tech to be researchable in culture, things could have changed a lot more.
Still you should take liberty, democracy, politics, resources and reforms in consideration. Perhaps you could be able to enact certain policies to draw immigrants to some place you want them to go. Provide incentives in a way to produce something you really need. You dont have to be an immigration powerhouse like USA to get some people to work in your south african gold mines.
What really turned me off about immigration in Vic 1 is that it behaved much like a on-off switch. You didn't get any and next day you max out all reforms put liberals in power and get thousands every day.
You dont have to be an immigration powerhouse like USA always. As UK you should be able to attract some work immigrants (contract labour) to fill up you southafrican gold mines or your oil fields in brunei. You dont really need millions.
You dont have to be an immigration powerhouse like USA always. As UK you should be able to attract some work immigrants (contract labour) to fill up you southafrican gold mines or your oil fields in brunei. You dont really need millions.
Well, Brazil in the 1910s~~1920s, wanting to atract Immigrants payed their travel to there, gave them a place to stay or its first days. There should be a way to the Government Sponsor Immigrants.
I say a limited ability to designate "immigration" ports/havens, which would attract let's say 70% of all immigration. The limitation itself would be automated and would depend on factors such as the standard of living/appeal of the province. If a player does not designate a province he would like to see populated by immigrants (provided that the province is appealing to them in the first place), then the immigrants would settle on their own accord, as it was in Vicky 1. To solidify this point, many countries had immigration laws that were locally restricted, a kind of an "open doors" policy if you will but for certain cities or regions.
Within this proposal (that being player designated immigration zones), I would also consider including re-settlement options for countries that are not appealing to immigrants but are in need of workforce elsewhere within their borders. For example Austria might consider subsidizing immigration to coal-rich regions to the north of the Empire. This would result in spending money, as well as problems with the local population, not excluding certain nationalistic/xenophobic local events raising militancy etc...
Within this proposal (that being player designated immigration zones), I would also consider including re-settlement options for countries that are not appealing to immigrants but are in need of workforce elsewhere within their borders. For example Austria might consider subsidizing immigration to coal-rich regions to the north of the Empire. This would result in spending money, as well as problems with the local population, not excluding certain nationalistic/xenophobic local events raising militancy etc...
Unenployment, Pop Density,Knowledge
Ok, we are talking about human behavior so the reason, someone gets-up and leaves all they have to settle in a country they have no idea about is complex.
Some thoughts, one the type of population should be atracted to diffrent types of providends. Farmers, to where there is a lot of open fertal farmland, labors, the same, craftman, were there are factory, and the same with clerks.
So one each nation needs a imigration bonus if say Britan is immigrating from UK to a providence held by them overseas.
Secondly, there needs to be population density modifiers for farmers. Very Fertal areas would allow more densly populated areas and the type of product should matter also. Cattle should have smaller population densities compaired to fruit.
Trade routes also need to be considered. For example the cost would drive where the immigrant would go. There is a reason a lot of brits went to India. Trade, and jobs avaible for them to work in.
I think every month each population needs to have a modifry do I immigrant and how many do I immigrant. Then each 10 population then selects were to go based on the modifiers.
I also think areas currently popluar for immigration need to get a bonus. This is due to the fact you are more likely to go were everyone else is going from what you here.
I think prestige should be a large modifer also. Populations are more likely to go to a area that is well know verses not know. Prestige is how powerful you are.
A totally seperate model needs to be made for inter country/oversea providence/Border immigration. Verses new immigration.
Ok, we are talking about human behavior so the reason, someone gets-up and leaves all they have to settle in a country they have no idea about is complex.
Some thoughts, one the type of population should be atracted to diffrent types of providends. Farmers, to where there is a lot of open fertal farmland, labors, the same, craftman, were there are factory, and the same with clerks.
So one each nation needs a imigration bonus if say Britan is immigrating from UK to a providence held by them overseas.
Secondly, there needs to be population density modifiers for farmers. Very Fertal areas would allow more densly populated areas and the type of product should matter also. Cattle should have smaller population densities compaired to fruit.
Trade routes also need to be considered. For example the cost would drive where the immigrant would go. There is a reason a lot of brits went to India. Trade, and jobs avaible for them to work in.
I think every month each population needs to have a modifry do I immigrant and how many do I immigrant. Then each 10 population then selects were to go based on the modifiers.
I also think areas currently popluar for immigration need to get a bonus. This is due to the fact you are more likely to go were everyone else is going from what you here.
I think prestige should be a large modifer also. Populations are more likely to go to a area that is well know verses not know. Prestige is how powerful you are.
A totally seperate model needs to be made for inter country/oversea providence/Border immigration. Verses new immigration.
Immigration in my current game of Vicky (playing as Canada from 1840 onward) is...well a mess. British Columbia receives ALL of the immigration within my game. Ontario has received some (some Russian Orthodox farmers, scripted events from the VIP mod...or from the original, I dunno) as well as Alberta and Manitoba (not sure how, but they had a small boost until it stopped).
Right now, British Columbia has absolutely no industry, for the fact that the capitalists builds where factories already are (New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec) but not where the population s (BC, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia). I've tried creating capitalists POPs in BC, but they had no impact. Things like social reforms (Which was at good before the immigration went bonkers) are now too expensive as I have dozens of usuable POPs in BC (clerks, factory workers) because I can't seemingly figure out Full Citizenship.
I like a few ideas that would make immigrants move to areas where there are jobs, or at least internal migration, but whatever the programmers choose, don't leave it as is.
Edit: AT LEAST make capitalists build factories where there is a large number of POPs then.
Right now, British Columbia has absolutely no industry, for the fact that the capitalists builds where factories already are (New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec) but not where the population s (BC, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia). I've tried creating capitalists POPs in BC, but they had no impact. Things like social reforms (Which was at good before the immigration went bonkers) are now too expensive as I have dozens of usuable POPs in BC (clerks, factory workers) because I can't seemingly figure out Full Citizenship.
I like a few ideas that would make immigrants move to areas where there are jobs, or at least internal migration, but whatever the programmers choose, don't leave it as is.
Edit: AT LEAST make capitalists build factories where there is a large number of POPs then.
If your immigrants are from Eastern Europe, that would explain why BC is getting them all. Migration in V1 is based on shortest number of provinces to cross to get from original nation to new nation. Since province are larger in Siberia, there are fewer of them to cross than going across Europe, and thus Eastern European immigrants tend to migrate to the West coast of North America rather than the east coast. (this is also why NW Argentina got most immigrants, it was the closest part of Argentina in terms of number of provinces from sources of immigrants in the Old World)
That is most likely the cause of what you are seeing, and hopefully V2 will have a different system to determine where migrants go to a country at first.
In the end though, any system will probably never be able to replicate migration patterns perfectly, there are simply too many exceptions for each rule one could create to determine where migrants go to make a system that will ever be perfect. For example, there was a suggestion that all immigrants should come to coastal provinces first before moving inland as assimilated pops - that flies in the face of numerous examples in US and Canadian immigration history, from the Scandinavians in Minnesota and the Dakotas to the Ukrainians in Saskatchewan. Hopefully the system in V2 will be able to create more flexibility, but in the end human migration patterns in the 19th and 20th centuries are probably too complex and variegated to reduce to a few simple algorhythms.
I would hope that base prestige would be calculated by regions, so different amounts of prestige to a region. The more prestige the more immigrants that flock there. There also should be taxes and ideological considerations, but people always flock to the major prestigious areas.