• 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 #121 - Maps Maps Maps

16_9.png

Greetings fellow map-starers! I am Lufthansi, one of the narrative designers on Victoria 3, and I’m here to talk about the upcoming map and pop setup changes for Sphere of Influence. Since there’s quite a few of them, let’s just jump straight into it.

Persia and Central Asia
The lands of Iran and Turan have gotten a much needed facelift for the upcoming expansion.
Say goodbye to the conspicuously modern-looking looking Afghanistan (bar Wakhan dongle) of 1.6, and say hello to your new best friends in the region: the emirates of Kabul, Kandahar, and Herat. These three Pashtun realms will be the main contenders for the struggle to unify Afghanistan under one banner, though the Uzbek khanates of Maimana and Kunduz might give them a run for their money.

DD121_01.png

To their immediate south, the Khanate of Kalat’s influence in the region has grown considerably, with an enlarged Makran now starting as a Kalati vassal, standing in for the plethora of local Baluchi tribes that owed the Kalati Khans their allegiance.
Further east, the Sikh Empire’s borders have been redrawn to better reflect the situation in 1836 and the Nawabate of Bahawalpur has been established on the left bank of the Sutlej river. In the Eastern Hindu Kush, Chitral emerges as a new power, representing both itself and dozens of smaller statelets and tribes such as Hunza and the yet-Islamised ‘Kafiristan’.

In Central Asia proper, borders have been polished and shifted around slightly, with the most notable addition being the establishment of a decentralised Turkmen area, representing various Turkmen tribes outside Khivan control, chief among them the Tekke.

Persia has seen its starting territories further reduced, losing control of more of its coastline to Arab and Baluchi rulers and having to contend with a new vassal: the influential Sheikhdom of Muhammara, conveniently parked right on top of the country’s major oil reserves. (Surely nothing bad will ever come of this). Oh, and Persia is now blue (dabadee dabadi).

DD121_02.png

In terms of state regions, there’s quite a few new ones, and we have tried our very best to toe the line between what is historically appropriate and what is recognizable to the modern eye. The state regions represent a mixture of historical provinces, borders, and cultural areas, so while the initial setup might look alien to some, to all you Durand line fans out there, I say: ‘fear not, there is still a way’.

DD121_03.png

The old pop setup of Persia and Central Asia included many oddities, like the vast majority of Persian Jews and Armenians being slaves for some reason. This has now been rectified, and pop numbers and cultures for the entire region has been reworked, working off a motley collection of primary and secondary sources of varying trustworthiness as well as a good pinch of creative licence. You will also find three new cultures added to the region: Luri, Mazanderani, and Chitrali, each with their own accompanying country/releasable.

The Russian Empire
Another big change this patch will come in the form of a map rework to the Russian Empire and its surroundings. A whole lot of new states have been added to the game, and even more remoulded to better reflect the international, cultural, and administrative divisions of the time.

DD121_04.png

Accompanying this state rework is another pop setup change. Primarily based on downscaled and modified data from the 1897 census, it adds a number of new cultures to the game, such as the Mordvins, Bashkirs, Chuvash, Udmurts, and the Buryat.

DD121_05.png


DD121_06.png

The Baltic Governorates under General-Governor Carl Magnus von der Pahlen will also make their debut in this patch. Starting as a German-cultured puppet under the Russian Empire, it is there to reflect the unique cultural and political situation of the three governorates of Estonia, Livonia, and Courland.

DD121_07.png


DD121_08.png

Of course, no map rework is complete without a slew of new releasables to populate it. I’m not going to list them all here, so feel free to look around and identify your own favourites!

East Asia
Sphere of Influence will also see the arrival of a much requested religion, namely Confucianism. Confucianism will start out as the state religion of China, Korea, and Vietnam, though they all retain large Buddhist minorities. (In Vietnam’s case with the Buddhists making up the majority of the population.) Due to a change in the countries’ law setup, China and Vietnam will both start out by tolerating their Buddhist subjects, whereas the Buddhist practitioners in Korea will be persecuted by the state, representing Korea’s historical anti-Buddhist movement.

DD121_09.png

America and Australia
To all those still grieving the loss of Noongar some patches back, I bring good tidings: Noongar is back, and it brought some friends! Wati and Miring together help reduce Anglo control over the Outback, better reflecting the limited control settlers then enjoyed over the country’s interior.

DD121_10.png

North America is also getting a bit busier, with the addition of the Seminoles of Florida (at long last), the Salish and Bannocks of the Western Plains, and the Athabaska of Alaska.

DD121_11.png

The addition of the Seminole is also accompanied by a new starting Journal Entry for the United States, ‘The Seminole Wars’, detailing the grim conquest and eventual displacement of the Seminole peoples of Florida by the United States.

DD121_12.png

Miscellaneous Changes
Some other changes include the beautification of the Southern Bessarabian strip ceded as part of Romania’s ‘All for One’ Journal Entry, and the addition of more straits around the Tierra del Fuego to sort out some colonisation wonkiness, which would cause some individual island provinces to not be colonised by either Argentina or Chile.

DD121_13.png


DD121_14.png

Well, that’s all for now! I hope you are all as excited for Sphere of Influence as we are! See you all in the next developer diary where WHO WILL DO WHAT?

Editor's Note: We left this because it's funny. But next week the ‘WHAT’ our diary will be is the Changelog for 1.7 and Sphere of Influence, and the ‘WHO’ is writing it is Mikael! With that, have a Happy Thursday all!
 
  • 144Like
  • 60Love
  • 7
  • 7
  • 4Haha
  • 4
Reactions:
The Dev Diary for the Great Game mentions having a treaty port in Manchuria as an objective for Russia, will the Liaodong peninsula change to Manchuria strategic region from North China?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Im quite annoyed with those politically motivated changes in every paradox game. In Vic3 timeframe ukrainian language only thrived in Austrian Galicia. Kiev was in majority Russian speaking city until XXI century. There is absolutely no rational reason to change the name.
Even if true:
Would we want German regions in the writings of 1830? And south france in the languague I can't name in English (Ocitental?). I don't think so. We use modern names and in the language the game is set to.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Seems like Ukraine is no longer released in all of Ukrainian homelands, just like Mongolia. Is there any chance we get a Journal Entry that allows Ukraine to puppet Don Host diplomatically, similarly to how Romania can puppet a released Transylvania? Kuban Rada voting to join Ukraine as an autonomous region was a thing that historically happened.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The Australian map changes are very confusing. I understand it is to incrementally "better reflect" the actual control of the colonies, but the changes are trying to have their cake and eat it too. I imagine it's a performance consideration, but doing it half-way like this looks utterly bizarre and implies wrong things about the colonial territories and Aboriginal nations. Instead of doing it half-way like this, a more consistent interpretative rule about colonial claim or control could be better? i.e. All colonised, or mostly uncolonised.

I'd be happy to offer up the map changes (and colonization speed balancing) used in the Australia & New Zealand Flavor mod if that was a direction the team would want to take. With the map below, Victoria and New South Wales are usually fully colonised by the 1850s with South Australia and Queensland soon after and Western Australia around 1890s/1900, all being pretty historically accurate.

.View attachment 1148006


The other strange thing is Kaurna. There are many Aboriginal tags you could include in South Australia, but the single one that probably shouldn't be is Kaurna because it takes up the space of the South Australian capital and is the only area that actually was colonised, so I'm surprised they stuck around after a map revisit. Using information from this website (also supported by this interactive map dating colonial-aboriginal encounters) we can see that by 1840 (excusing 1836 because the first settlers literally just arrived and technically not proclaimed as a colony until the end of the year) the area that Kaurna takes up in-game is where nearly all of South Australia's settlements are, including of course, the capital, Adelaide.

View attachment 1148012View attachment 1148015

Happy to collaborate or provide more historical sources if needed.
Thanks for posting this - I was planning to do the same as soon as I saw the new map. Strong agree. The placement of Kaurna is the worst offender; but the whole continent is quite wonky.

Im quite annoyed with those politically motivated changes in every paradox game. In Vic3 timeframe ukrainian language only thrived in Austrian Galicia. Kiev was in majority Russian speaking city until XXI century. There is absolutely no rational reason to change the name.

Maps, and the labels on them, are inherently, intrinsically, and ineluctably political. There is every rational reason to be mindful of the names used on a map of Ukraine in 2024.

The Ukrainian language was spoken far beyond Galicia in 1836. (What, did it somehow dramatically increase its range after decades of tsarist repression?) The figures for Kyiv itself are complicated by the fact that Russian authorities called Ukrainian "Little Russian" and would often count speakers of Ukrainian dialects, especially transitional north-eastern ones, as speakers of Russian dialects. (The census of 1874, for example, recorded that 80% of people spoke "Russian" in Kyiv -- but only 10% of those spoke "Greater Russian", i.e. what we would call Russian today). It does not appear that Kyiv was majority Russian speaking until the very late 19th or early 20th century, and even then only for several decades. It is fairly unlikely that speakers of what we would today call Russian constituted the majority of Kyiv in 1836.

Your appeal to historicity is also completely off. An English language map maker in the early 19th century wouldn't have cared one jot what language they spoke in a place. The traditional English spellings were any of Kiou, Kiow, Kiiow, Kiew, or Kiovia. (I.e. there was no consistent spelling, because Kyiv was a far away place of which the English knew next to nothing.)

Exactly! The Kingdom of Poland (popularly called the Congress Kingdom) was a state that was in personal union with Russia (the Tsar of Russia was the king of Poland).

Just create such a state like you did with the Baltic Governorate - in the case of Poland, it has a greater historical basis! Simply put, the Congress Kingdom of Poland would have virtually zero autonomy in the game. Krakow could invest in fueling independence aspirations for the Polish Congress Kingdom as a center for the development of Polish independence movements. It may seem that this could significantly simplify the creation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but there are certainly ways to make it not so simple - the requirement to destabilize Russia so that the Kingdom of Poland could have an alone opportunity to fight for independence.

This doesn't seem all that unusual to me. The Austrian Empire was also a real union - with the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Kingdom of Hungary etc all being bodies politic sharing the person of the monarch. Great Britain and Ireland too, before 1800/1801. But none of Ireland or Bohemia or Congress Poland were meaningfully autonomous subjects of international politics, able to act sui potens on the international stage. Personally I don't really see the Baltic Governorates as being any different.

I think what's needed here is a federalism mechanic, where sub-state units can differ in laws from their 'parent' country, and become more or less autonomous over time (possibly transitioning to vassals or even becoming independent in certain cases).

I even think it would be fun to make these playable - that way we can ease the pressure for everything to be released just because people want to play it. Imagine a run as a US state, for example, building up your economy, taking sides in the civil war, etc. Or as Bohemia, fighting against Austrian centralisation, organising your own units to fight on the other side of major conflicts (a la the Czechoslovak Legions in WW1), etc. Fun!
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't care where you get your info to name states but as an Iranian I tell you Irak_e_Ajami is an Arab Insult to Iranians so Please change it to Tehran or better Ray and Bampur back to Sistan and Arabistan back to Khuzestan
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
No fixes this patch, but I'll mark it down as something to investigate at a later date.
There's a similar issue with Segou in West Africa not controlling its capital... Segou. It's obviously not the most important thing, it just really bothers me that the country doesn't control the city it's named after.

Ideally the southern chunk of Mali around Sikasso would also be given its own tag, Kenedougou, that would be the most optimal and historic solution, but honestly for now just giving it all to Segou so as to fix the Segou not being controlled by Segou issue is enough to remove most of my annoyance hah. The town is also in the wrong spot (it's on the wrong river, should be in the province to the north between the rivers), but I don't blame you for misplacing that.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I would ask the developers to study in more detail the ethnography and territorial structure of the western regions of the Russian Empire.
If you look at "Ethnic map of European Russia by Aleksandr Rittich 1875 (Not 1836 start date lol), it becomes clear that the population and size of, for example, the Smolensk province clearly do not coincide with what is presented in the game and in the planned update.
For example, the population of the Smolensk province during this historical period were Belarusians. And the size of the Smolensk province in the period from 1802 to 1918 was many times larger than what is planned in the update.
It would be cool if developers paid attention to player feedback :)
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The Ukrainian language was spoken far beyond Galicia in 1836. (What, did it somehow dramatically increase its range after decades of tsarist repression?) The figures for Kyiv itself are complicated by the fact that Russian authorities called Ukrainian "Little Russian" and would often count speakers of Ukrainian dialects, especially transitional north-eastern ones, as speakers of Russian dialects. (The census of 1874, for example, recorded that 80% of people spoke "Russian" in Kyiv -- but only 10% of those spoke "Greater Russian", i.e. what we would call Russian today). It does not appear that Kyiv was majority Russian speaking until the very late 19th or early 20th century, and even then only for several decades. It is fairly unlikely that speakers of what we would today call Russian constituted the majority of Kyiv in 1836.

By the way, you can see how, for example, the Belarusian ethnic group abruptly disappeared from the maps of the late 19th century, or becoming “Russian” or being limited to some tiny region, although before that it placed on maps right up to Vyazma.

The imperial policy of Russia (as well as any empire) tended to attempt to destroy the identity of the various peoples of its regions.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
The fact is that current abstractions (military laws, MAPI, migration, ports, etc...) in V3 rely on the fact that States have a roughly similar size. A 1-to-10 size & pop difference may be manageable (even if it imposed the whole rice farm vs wheat farm employment split). But IG, in the US alone, Texas has about 30 time the arable land of Rhode Island, while IRL Texas is *175 times* larger than RH.

At this point, you have 3 solutions to the issue :
- Consolidating states like RH and co to make them better work with the system with larger states, at the cost of some historical accuracy
- Splitting large states (like Texas) toward something more comparable to the New England ones. Realism and granularity would be better, but management would become a chore, and performance collapse would make the tower of babel look like a quaint game of jenga
- Redesining the economy entierly to work correctly with arbitrary state size. But at this point, you're looking at the kind of effort needed to make Victoria 4.

For me it is the size of building levels and MAPI that become hoard to balance with such disparate state sizes. Personally I would change levels from 5k people down to 1k people as this would help the 'simulation' of the smaller states and smaller nations.

Edit: this would probably be a performance hit though.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Simply put, the Congress Kingdom of Poland would have virtually zero autonomy in the game. Krakow could invest in fueling independence aspirations for the Polish Congress Kingdom as a center for the development of Polish independence movements.
Especially with the new mechanics regarding lobbies and fomenting unrest.

I think what's needed here is a federalism mechanic, where sub-state units can differ in laws from their 'parent' country, and become more or less autonomous over time (possibly transitioning to vassals or even becoming independent in certain cases).

I even think it would be fun to make these playable - that way we can ease the pressure for everything to be released just because people want to play it. Imagine a run as a US state, for example, building up your economy, taking sides in the civil war, etc. Or as Bohemia, fighting against Austrian centralisation, organising your own units to fight on the other side of major conflicts (a la the Czechoslovak Legions in WW1), etc. Fun!
Yes, definitely. I'd love a multiplayer game of various US states. Not to mention the ability for one player to play as federal US and another, perhaps a newer player, playing as one of the states. Might be a bit late into the development, but Crusader Kings 3 shows that there is fun to be had to play as the "underling" too.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I think what's needed here is a federalism mechanic, where sub-state units can differ in laws from their 'parent' country, and become more or less autonomous over time (possibly transitioning to vassals or even becoming independent in certain cases).
This a million times. Sub-states as a special subject type or a new mechanic solves so many problems: austria-hungarian stability issues, the fact that Southern states in the US should absolutely have tenent farming rather than homesteading, giving more options for some of the country formations/unifications like Germany and Canada that ended up with federalist systems, etc.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Can't Poland be at least a puppet? This part of Europe is really dire in terms of playable tags.
I do think that by far the best reason to support the inclusion Poland as a starting tag is that they're really fun to play as, there are so few viable minor powers which start in Europe that increasing the number by just one is very meaningful. On the other hand, the greater Iran region has gone from being already fairly interesting to possibly one of the most diverse parts of the map.

Thanks to devs for continuing map updates - people are going to always argue about the specifics, but it's good that regions are gradually being reworked to improve them, and I very much look forward to when some of the more obvious errors in Africa are addressed, especially when it comes to resource availability.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Fantastic change, much better than having everyone be Buddhist. Though I do wonder what the basis is for these Buddhist vs. Confucianism percentages. A better solution would maybe to represent Chinese folk religion as "Shendao/Shenxian" and consider Confucianism and Taoism as part of it.


That's not exactly correct. Confucianism has a very much implied belief system in Tian/Heaven that is inherent to it, as well as mandated religious practices that come as part of the belief system. Confucianism does not only uphold a correct form of state governance but also a correct individual behaviour, a moral framework, religious practices that need to be upheld and a belief in Tian and Shangdi- all of this forms a theology. Confucianism also has a cosmology, that is shared with other Chinese native religions.
It's also important to note that many Chinese individuals throughout history, both scholars and emperors, called themselves exclusively Confucian and criticised or repressed Buddhism and Daoism.

It's a bit problematic to truly say that a given part of China is a "Confucianist" but I assume they're grouping in all Chinese folk religion under the framework of Confucianism, which is better than grouping them all under Buddhism.
Confucianism very much does not have an implied belief system in Heaven.

The spiritual aspects of Confucianism are more since Confucianism is a product of a religious society, not since they're a strict requirement to be Confucian. Heaven is a traditional Chinese religious belief that predates Confucianism and has never been unique to it. It's similar to if a Christian philosopher developed a moral code but also happened to assume that Christianity was true. Kant argued that god existed, but Kant being religious doesn't make Kantianism a religion.

In Christianity there is some debate about the nature of god, but generally being Christian requires belief in the Christian god. Among Confucians, there is so much diversity in how Heaven is conceived that there isn't really a Confucian conception of Heaven. To compare 3 classical Confucian philosophers, Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi:

Slingerland in his translation of Confucius' Analects notes (p, xviii):

“Heaven” is a fairly good rendering of tian, as long as the reader keeps in mind that “Heaven” refers to an anthropomorphic figure—someone who can be communicated with, angered,or pleased—rather than a physical place.

But in the Xunzi, Hutton's translation makes it clear that Heaven is the opposite of an anthropomorphic supernatural figure (p. xxix):

Xunzi, however, espouses an understanding of Heaven as much more like what we might call “Nature,” namely an impersonal force in the world that is responsible for various phenomena and does not react to human virtue or vice, or supplication (chap. 17). Hence, human performance of rituals can have no power to affect Heaven, and Xunzi takes a similar view of other rituals that purport to influence other beings such as ghosts and spirits, about whose existence he seems skeptical. While not believing in the supposed supernatural efficacy of such rituals, neither does Xunzi advocate abandoning them. Rather, in his view they are to remain part of the practice of even cultivated people, whom he expects to understand that the rituals lack supernatural efficacy but are still valuable for their psychological and social effects.

And finally, van Norden's translation of Mencius shows that Mencius held a position in between Confucius and Xunzi (p. xxxviii):

On the one hand, Mengzi sometimes treats Heaven as almost identical with the natural (and amoral) course of events (2B1, 4A7). But, on the other hand, Heaven provides a moral standard. [...] He stresses that Heaven is the ultimate source of political legitimacy (5A5.2). However, Heaven primarily manifests itself in the reactions of the common people, rather than in any supernatural agency: “Hence, I say that Heaven does not speak but simply reveals the Mandate through actions and affairs” (5A5.5).
So there is really no unifying spiritual doctrine of Heaven in Confucianism, like there is in religions like Christianity and god. In fact, Confucianism has so little metaphysical doctrine that one of the most well known Confucian philosophers, Xunzi, didn't even believe in the supernatural.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
Confucianism very much does not have an implied belief system in Heaven.

The spiritual aspects of Confucianism are more since Confucianism is a product of a religious society, not since they're a strict requirement to be Confucian. Heaven is a traditional Chinese religious belief that predates Confucianism and has never been unique to it. It's similar to if a Christian philosopher developed a moral code but also happened to assume that Christianity was true. Kant argued that god existed, but Kant being religious doesn't make Kantianism a religion.

In Christianity there is some debate about the nature of god, but generally being Christian requires belief in the Christian god. Among Confucians, there is so much diversity in how Heaven is conceived that there isn't really a Confucian conception of Heaven. To compare 3 classical Confucian philosophers, Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi:

Slingerland in his translation of Confucius' Analects notes (p, xviii):



But in the Xunzi, Hutton's translation makes it clear that Heaven is the opposite of an anthropomorphic supernatural figure (p. xxix):



And finally, van Norden's translation of Mencius shows that Mencius held a position in between Confucius and Xunzi (p. xxxviii):


So there is really no unifying spiritual doctrine of Heaven in Confucianism, like there is in religions like Christianity and god. In fact, Confucianism has so little metaphysical doctrine that one of the most well known Confucian philosophers, Xunzi, didn't even believe in the supernatural.
As I mentioned in my post, Confucianism has a shared cosmology with other Chinese native religions- this includes the concept of Tian.

And I'm not sure what is the point of your other statements. Never did I imply there is a universal interpretation of Heaven or claimed that it is seen as a deity or otherwise.

Confucianism, like any other diffused belief system diverged significantly throughout different time periods, throughout the stretch of China and depending even on individual perspectives of scholars- the New Text school of the Qing dynasty and the Old Text school had incredibly different views on Confucianism, with one of them seeing Confucius as a transcendental deity and the other as a human whose work had to be analysed through a rational lense. This is in line with many belief systems and faiths that have existed in the history of humanity. Clearly cut-out belief systems with a decisive theology are exclusive to some world religions. Importantly, Confucianism is not an institutional belief system- its practice and social context lies in the secular realm, not in an outside religious institution.

However, there is in Confucianism a series of core beliefs, and implications of them. No matter what, Confucianism by definition maintains the need for xiushen (self-cultivation) and believes that this MUST be done in regards to Tian. The individual derives virtue through alignment with Heaven, the individual has his own morality anchored in Heaven. Everything in Confucianism from the state to the family to the individual derives from Heaven. Confucius also described how rituals should be performed. In Analects, Confucius condemns the performance of ritual without reverence (jing 敬). He also condemns views of ritual that focus only on the offerings, or views of music that focus only on the instruments.

For further reading on this topic, this provides a good overview: https://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Writings/Confucianism_as_Religious_Tradition.pdf
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Can I urge boundaries changes in the North of England, the North East and Yorkshire needs to split up, doesn't really make sense but these two distinct but fairly big regions together, as the North East alone (with a capital in Newcastle) with its coal and steel works much better than calling the entire North of England Yorkshire and Yorkshire with its industrial power is strong enough to be a separate region to highlight the growth of Leeds and Sheffield at this time
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
No matter what, Confucianism by definition maintains the need for xiushen (self-cultivation) and believes that this MUST be done in regards to Tian.

If I accept this definition of Confucianism, it would not be enough to establish that Confucianism has an implied belief system towards Heaven that results in Confucianism being a religion. The purpose of the later statements were to highlight the fact that there is no universal concept of what Heaven even is in Confucianism. In fact, they are so diverse that some Confucians like Xunzi take Heaven to be a completely naturalistic process without spiritual or other easily recognizable as religious processes involved. Self-cultivation happening in regards to Tian can in some cases be rendered as "Self cultivation needs to happen in regard to the physical forces of the world" unless Xunzi is suddenly not a true Confucian.

Just because many Confucians were religious like Confucius or Qing Dynasty NeoConfucians doesn't mean Confucianism itself is a religion. Again, this is like calling Kantianism a religion since Kant was religious. Just like many Kantians disagree with Kant's arguments for god, many Confucians don't agree with Confucius' conception of Heaven. I'm not saying this is your argument, but it's important to highlight the difference between a philosophy influenced by a religious belief (Confucianism or Kantianism) and an actual religion (Christianity or Buddhism).
 
Last edited: