Victoria 3 | Monthly Update #5 | November

[InsidiousMage]

These sorts of transactional tit-for-tat deals are not part of our diplomatic system repertoire, no. Certain effects (e.g. I'll trade you 10% of my income for 10% of your Influence, or whatever) could theoretically be modeled using bilateral Pacts and one might argue that e.g. Subject pacts are all about trading autonomy for protection and economic benefits. But freeform diplomatic negotiations that you might see in Stellaris or Civ, where you put some stuff of yours in a bucket and asks for a similarly-valued bucket of stuff in return, is not modeled for a couple of reasons: 1, it's very gamey and often pretty unrealistic in practice (100 barrels of oil per week plus a suitcase with £645k in unmarked bills in exchange for a research pact and the entire state of Loire seems to have equal value, sign on the dotted line please!) and 2, it's very difficult to balance to make it worth your while while not also being extremely exploitable.

Makes sense. Looking forward to the game and really interested in the changes to warfare.

 

[Call Me Vandal]

These sorts of transactional tit-for-tat deals are not part of our diplomatic system repertoire, no. Certain effects (e.g. I'll trade you 10% of my income for 10% of your Influence, or whatever) could theoretically be modeled using bilateral Pacts and one might argue that e.g. Subject pacts are all about trading autonomy for protection and economic benefits. But freeform diplomatic negotiations that you might see in Stellaris or Civ, where you put some stuff of yours in a bucket and asks for a similarly-valued bucket of stuff in return, is not modeled for a couple of reasons: 1, it's very gamey and often pretty unrealistic in practice (100 barrels of oil per week plus a suitcase with £645k in unmarked bills in exchange for a research pact and the entire state of Loire seems to have equal value, sign on the dotted line please!) and 2, it's very difficult to balance to make it worth your while while not also being extremely exploitable.

How are historical events such as the Alaska Purchase modeled, if not by Diplomatic Actions? Decisions? Not at all?

 

[David Tah]

Thank you! But have a little correction about LanFang Company flag:

The word in this flag "客家" means Hakka chinese settlers, although LanFang was build by the Hakka chinese people but they never use this flag. The correct flag of LanFang company should be this:

This four word"蘭芳公司",“蘭芳”means "LanFang" and “公司” means "company" , according to history, the leader of LangFang - Low Lan Pak has send report to China (Great Qing) to become a tribute of Great Qing, and this is the reason why Dutch did not openly annex the lands controlled by the Lanfang Company until 1912 when the Qing Dynasty collapsed.

 

[Nelfe]

"Organized Sport", we gonna have an event about the Olympics ??

 

[Spartakus]

A Diplomatic Play is not to be thought of as a negotiation between two sides to come to a mutually satisfactory resolution. It is best thought of as a demand and implied threat by one side, which they at least pretend is totally legitimate - much like a Casus Belli / War Justification.

The other side can add demands of their own, again not to negotiate an agreement, but to up the stakes. The Diplomatic Play can only escalate, never de-escalate, much like how in poker nobody can take their ante back if they also agree another player may return theirs.

So no, a Diplomatic Play cannot end in a negotiated agreement where both sides walk away having won some/lost some. Either one side submit to the other's demand, or this chest-puffing leads to an actual conflict with both greater risks and greater rewards. That conflict can end in a compromise agreement, but that's because all pretense that the claimant was fully justified in their demands is now gone and participants are bargaining with their lives.

Understandable, but then how is the US supposed to get their hands on Alaska? By event?

 

[Clophiroth]

"Organized Sport", we gonna have an event about the Olympics ??

I think it is a Social/Cultural Tech representing organised national sports in the country. Or a Decision enabled from a Tech

 

[Torkel]

VIC4 when?

Vicky 1: 2003
Vicky 2: 2010
Vicky 3: 2022 (not 2023, surely?)
7 years, then 12 years. That's a 70% increase in time between releases. 12 × 1.7 = 20.4. 2022+20=2042.
Vicky 4 in 2042!

 

[Al-Khalidi]

These sorts of transactional tit-for-tat deals are not part of our diplomatic system repertoire, no. Certain effects (e.g. I'll trade you 10% of my income for 10% of your Influence, or whatever) could theoretically be modeled using bilateral Pacts and one might argue that e.g. Subject pacts are all about trading autonomy for protection and economic benefits. But freeform diplomatic negotiations that you might see in Stellaris or Civ, where you put some stuff of yours in a bucket and asks for a similarly-valued bucket of stuff in return, is not modeled for a couple of reasons: 1, it's very gamey and often pretty unrealistic in practice (100 barrels of oil per week plus a suitcase with £645k in unmarked bills in exchange for a research pact and the entire state of Loire seems to have equal value, sign on the dotted line please!) and 2, it's very difficult to balance to make it worth your while while not also being extremely exploitable.

Thanks for explanation! Do I understand right that preconditions are never needed for a play? Like can I force a country to become puppet through a play, and after truce finishes, annex this puppet with a play even if they hate me? Is there a territorial limit for making a puppet? (I think in vic2 it was possible only for small and at most moderate size countries)

 

[Checco]

I saw something I'd like a clarification about, the 'Rival' relation.

My own experience in EU4 taught me that the AI is programmed to declare some nations 'Rivals' -no matter if it would make a lot sense, or not at all-, and it means that there always will be some guys out there whose only aim will be to undermine you and work towards your collapse and undoing as their first priority.

Diplomacy is utterly useless towards those types, and that makes for a very limited game overall as you have no options but to smash them to pieces. (and as soon as you undo rivals, others will take their place and the cycle repeats itself)

I described how it works in EU4, my question is: "How does it work in Vic3?".

 

[Svenska Super]

A question which developed in my mind when viewing the screenshots is how will prdx portay conflict between gran colombia and england?

As can be seen GC is clearly outnumbered by 15 to 1. What often happens in not so realistic strategy games is you can pull over almost all of your troops to crush GC. But as I understand correctly from previous warfare diary prdx would like to make this more realistic and make such a potential move from england more costly. By a leaving other territory from England less defended weakness can be exploited b by somehow costs are inflicted when taking military action towards gc from england.
i dont have much problems how bataillons are depicted and counted, but the fleet mechanic i dont like so much. I rather see here a more granular strength composition, thinks could be copied potentially from hoi 4. Although it is clear to me that ship variety at the time wasn't so important or much different from each other as during ww2.

 

[Muelleri]

New dragon flag for Korea? It looks very similar with Qing flag. I’ve never seen that kind of flag as Joseon dynasty’s flag. And from devs mini-aar from discord, Korean flag was tageukgi.
So Korean flag was changed? Or Korea use dragon flag when it is vassal of Qing, and use tageuki when it is indepedent?

 

[GrafKeks]

These sorts of transactional tit-for-tat deals are not part of our diplomatic system repertoire, no. Certain effects (e.g. I'll trade you 10% of my income for 10% of your Influence, or whatever) could theoretically be modeled using bilateral Pacts and one might argue that e.g. Subject pacts are all about trading autonomy for protection and economic benefits. But freeform diplomatic negotiations that you might see in Stellaris or Civ, where you put some stuff of yours in a bucket and asks for a similarly-valued bucket of stuff in return, is not modeled for a couple of reasons: 1, it's very gamey and often pretty unrealistic in practice (100 barrels of oil per week plus a suitcase with £645k in unmarked bills in exchange for a research pact and the entire state of Loire seems to have equal value, sign on the dotted line please!) and 2, it's very difficult to balance to make it worth your while while not also being extremely exploitable.

How hard would it be to mod them in? ( I know you can add new dipo actions, but can the diplomatic play system be called without having the call to initiate a war at the end?

 

[Sarmatian]

.... expel diplomats, which permanently, for 5 years...

 

[edbotin2]

Português Brasileiro por Favor

 

[Nis Baggesen]

These sorts of transactional tit-for-tat deals are not part of our diplomatic system repertoire, no. Certain effects (e.g. I'll trade you 10% of my income for 10% of your Influence, or whatever) could theoretically be modeled using bilateral Pacts and one might argue that e.g. Subject pacts are all about trading autonomy for protection and economic benefits. But freeform diplomatic negotiations that you might see in Stellaris or Civ, where you put some stuff of yours in a bucket and asks for a similarly-valued bucket of stuff in return, is not modeled for a couple of reasons: 1, it's very gamey and often pretty unrealistic in practice (100 barrels of oil per week plus a suitcase with £645k in unmarked bills in exchange for a research pact and the entire state of Loire seems to have equal value, sign on the dotted line please!) and 2, it's very difficult to balance to make it worth your while while not also being extremely exploitable.

Will you then at least try to cover some of this with historical events? E.g. several minor powers sold off their colonial possessions in this period, and e.g Denmark was pressured into stopping the Sound Due, but got a significant one-time payment in return. I am sure there are several other examples.

 

[Testeria]

These sorts of transactional tit-for-tat deals are not part of our diplomatic system repertoire, no. Certain effects (e.g. I'll trade you 10% of my income for 10% of your Influence, or whatever) could theoretically be modeled using bilateral Pacts and one might argue that e.g. Subject pacts are all about trading autonomy for protection and economic benefits. But freeform diplomatic negotiations that you might see in Stellaris or Civ, where you put some stuff of yours in a bucket and asks for a similarly-valued bucket of stuff in return, is not modeled for a couple of reasons: 1, it's very gamey and often pretty unrealistic in practice (100 barrels of oil per week plus a suitcase with £645k in unmarked bills in exchange for a research pact and the entire state of Loire seems to have equal value, sign on the dotted line please!) and 2, it's very difficult to balance to make it worth your while while not also being extremely exploitable.

So no buying of Alaska in CK3? We need war for that?

 

[lachek]

So no buying of Alaska in CK3? We need war for that?

There are situations in which land can change hands outside of Diplomatic Plays and peace deals, which includes the Alaska Purchase. It just isn't dealt with through a diplomatic trade system, for the aforementioned reasons.

 

[Testeria]

There are situations in which land can change hands outside of Diplomatic Plays and peace deals, which includes the Alaska Purchase. It just isn't dealt with through a diplomatic trade system, for the aforementioned reasons.

I hope not another event like mechanic locked only for "historical" tags and places.
Thanks for the answer.

 

[Cruel_]

what's grao-para supposed to be?

The Captaincy of Grão-Pará, or just Pará, has its origins in the context of the conquest of the Amazon River, a period of conflict with foreign forces. The region was first called with the terminology of Conquista do Pará, but the term Rio das Amazonas is also used. The oldest document that mentions the term captaincy, to name the region of conquest, dates back to the year 1620. Therefore, the legitimacy of the territory as Captaincy only occurs in parallel with the creation of the State of Maranhão, in the year of 1621.

The Province of Grão-Pará, which at the time was commonly called Pará (from the Tupi-Guarani, Sea River or Great River), was an administrative unit from the end of the colonial period and the Brazilian imperial period, originated from the captaincies of the Grão- Pará and the Rio Negro. It existed from 1821 to 1889. The Portuguese initially called the territory "Terra de Feliz Lusitânia" (Land of Happy Lusitania) , soon replaced by Grão-Pará, and finally became just Pará in 1889.

The process of political rupture between Brazil and Portugal created, in the province of Grão-Pará, a situation of uncertainty. In 1821, the captaincy of Rio Negro was elevated to a province, like all other captaincies. However, the Rio Negro was not included among the provinces of the Empire in the Constitution of 1824. Its situation would only be defined in 1833, when the Criminal Code demoted it to the legal status of a district subordinate to the province of Pará. The region would only regain its autonomy in 1850, with the creation of the province of Amazonas.

Grão-Pará was the main starting point and support for the irradiation of Portuguese penetration in the north coast of Brazil, expanding and acquiring, especially between 1580 and 1616, the date of the expulsion of the French and the definitive incorporation of these territories to the crown of Portugal.

 

[Beef_Supreme]

I struggle to find the means by which to explain just how stoked I am for this game.