Yes, it's based on proportion of population vs Arable Land.
- 53
- 32
- 26
-
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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
No, countries have fixed primary culture (one or several) and this does not change other than if the country's definition changes (e.g. through forming a new nation). More context here.
Discrimination law effects are measured against the primary cultures, so a large population of non-primary culture immigrants may demand equal treatment or pack up and move elsewhere, or even demand self-governance under certain conditions.
Last edited:
- 46
- 30
- 29
- 3
We still haven't done our final pass on all the factors that play into creating Mass Migration Targets, shared cultural traits (like language) is one aspect we're looking at.
- 59
- 21
- 14
- 4
Cultural Assimilation and Religious Conversion are separate mechanics which we'll cover in a later DD, but these will often come into play after a migration wave.
For as long as a Pop retains their original culture, they will also be subject to that culture's consumption habits.
- 47
- 19
- 1
It's based on cultures yes, just because the Migration Target exists doesn't mean that all Pops of that culture will automatically be pulled toward it. The well-to-do Pops won't be interested in moving, even if the presence of the Migration Target means they technically could.
- 46
- 16
- 1
If there are enough wealthy Pops to markedly increase the average, then the immigrant will be hearing about the glorious country overseas where the streets are paved with gold, scrape together enough to embark to this promised land, but perhaps find themselves stuck due to poor social mobility once they get there. Sucks for them, but not unrealistic!
Last edited:
- 60
- 38
- 14
- 8
- 6
War can have a number of deleterious effects on a society simply due to emergent mechanics affecting the Pops. We will learn more about this in later DDs. This means that prolonged wars definitely can cause migration waves away from the war-torn country, or perhaps just shift the population away from the worst affected region to other parts of the market.
- 38
- 14
- 8
It's determined by a weighted random, so if one is more attractive it might have a 55% chance vs 45% chance of being selected.
- 35
- 9
- 1
- 1
Yes, Migration Targets can be created via scripted effects through e.g. Events.
- 45
- 19
- 2
- 1
A couple of general answers:
Anything pertaining to encouraging or discouraging certain kinds of migration will be dealt with via the as-yet-unfinished Migration Policy Laws.
When I mentioned a cultural minority might "demand self-governance" under certain conditions I'm referring to the Secession mechanics, which we will talk about in the future.
There is no direct interaction with Pops in Victoria 3, all interaction are through other mediums like Buildings, Interest Groups, Decrees, Institutions etcetera. Similarly there are no direct interactions with cultures or religions, for example you're not able to ban or encourage migration of Pops of a specific culture. All such interaction is handled through the Citizenship and Church & State Laws, which determine if a Pop is Discriminated due to culture and/or religion. It's the distinction between non-Discriminated and Discriminated Pops that determine how specific policies work, rather than selecting a specific policy for a specific kind of person. Not denying that happened on occasion, but it's certainly less common and not the level of granularity we want the game to operate on.
We've considered and experimented with adjacency-based migration in the past, but ended up deciding not to have 3 distinct systems for migration in the game. Economic migration (poor Pops moving to where the jobs are) is handled via market migration. Turmoil-based migration (destitute or oppressed Pops moving abroad) is handled via mass migration. While cross-border migration as well as a steady trickle of global migrants are certainly not ahistorical, it is irrelevant for a player when the effect is very low and difficult to explain or do something about when it's already very high. Economic migration is usually something a player is happy for and can control to some degree with Decrees, while Mass Migration is easier to signal and explain to the player and can be controlled with Laws. The effects of other forms of migration are also less relevant to model and would result in a lot of Pop fracturing (and performance problems) for no major discernible benefit.
Anything pertaining to encouraging or discouraging certain kinds of migration will be dealt with via the as-yet-unfinished Migration Policy Laws.
When I mentioned a cultural minority might "demand self-governance" under certain conditions I'm referring to the Secession mechanics, which we will talk about in the future.
There is no direct interaction with Pops in Victoria 3, all interaction are through other mediums like Buildings, Interest Groups, Decrees, Institutions etcetera. Similarly there are no direct interactions with cultures or religions, for example you're not able to ban or encourage migration of Pops of a specific culture. All such interaction is handled through the Citizenship and Church & State Laws, which determine if a Pop is Discriminated due to culture and/or religion. It's the distinction between non-Discriminated and Discriminated Pops that determine how specific policies work, rather than selecting a specific policy for a specific kind of person. Not denying that happened on occasion, but it's certainly less common and not the level of granularity we want the game to operate on.
We've considered and experimented with adjacency-based migration in the past, but ended up deciding not to have 3 distinct systems for migration in the game. Economic migration (poor Pops moving to where the jobs are) is handled via market migration. Turmoil-based migration (destitute or oppressed Pops moving abroad) is handled via mass migration. While cross-border migration as well as a steady trickle of global migrants are certainly not ahistorical, it is irrelevant for a player when the effect is very low and difficult to explain or do something about when it's already very high. Economic migration is usually something a player is happy for and can control to some degree with Decrees, while Mass Migration is easier to signal and explain to the player and can be controlled with Laws. The effects of other forms of migration are also less relevant to model and would result in a lot of Pop fracturing (and performance problems) for no major discernible benefit.
- 59
- 23
- 6
- 4
There can be several simultaneous Migration Targets for a given culture, depending on how high that culture's Turmoil is.
- 38
- 19
- 2
- 2
They will migrate if they see a benefit in doing so, either economic or political. So it depends on how relatively attractive the target country is to them.
- 24
- 8
- 5
- 1
Yes one of the benefits of being in another countries market
- 26
- 8
- 4
Discrimination Laws are a bit more granular than just "primary vs others" and together with the two discrimination vectors (culture + religion) can create quite a bit of detail. Being able to effectively target your "culture management" with a finer legal instrument than that is both unrealistic and not particularly meaningful in terms of what it adds to the gameplay.
Having said that, it's well worth noting that our decision to make Primary Culture(s) static to the country tag is very intentional. In addition to being set in the revolutionary era, Victoria 3 is also set in the era of nationalism and the notion that culture = country, "natural" cultural homelands, pan-national sentiments, and so on are important themes. So in Victoria 3, culture and country are intrinsically connected as it would be nonsensical in this era for a nation-state to change its primary cultures while still retaining its fundamental national identity.
- 57
- 17
- 10
- 3
Mass Migration is triggered by average Turmoil in a culture, and Turmoil in turn comes from Radicalism and Discrimination. Radicalism gets particularly high in Pops that are starving, but for example if most Pops of a certain culture used to be really well off but then became oppressed and a lot poorer in their current country / countries, this could cause a Migration Target for them to go elsewhere as well.
- 21
- 5
- 1
- 1
- 1
I know I sound like a broken record, but this emerges from the simulation!
Backlash isn't something created by the migration itself but rather emerging from the effects of that migration. If the people moving have a lot of Radicals, as they're prone to have since Mass Migration is triggered by high average Turmoil in the culture, this will impact the state they're moving to and by extension also the other Pops who live there. If the moving Pops become non-Discriminated in the process and perhaps are able to fill job opportunities that increase their Standard of Living, this Turmoil will dissipate quite rapidly and is unlikely to cause long-term problems. But if the immigrating Pops continue to be oppressed and can't improve their living conditions in their new country, this could become a problem for everybody.
Getting a little more granular about it, a major influx of potential labor with low expectations can also depress wages by making it unnecessary for profitable buildings to raise their wage rates to increase their attractiveness. This could aggravate stratification of the owner/shareholder classes and the working classes in the state, creating Radicals among the local population. But on the other hand, this additional labor might be exactly what is needed to expand production of local staple goods, making it cheaper to satisfy those needs. So while migration waves will always have a substantial effect on your economy and therefore politics, the precise effect it will have all comes down to the details and how you choose to deal with it.
- 17
- 15
- 10
- 3
Italians in Argentina won't form separatist movements, as opposed to e.g. Italians in Austria-occupied Italy. The reason for this is because no part of Argentina is considered an Italian Homeland, so Italian people in Argentina will always consider themselves immigrants - at least unless they assimilate into the primary culture. Discriminated or otherwise unhappy Italians in Argentina will become a semi-permanent source of Turmoil, but this might be compensated for - at least in the short-term - through increased living standards.
In the long-term you can only eliminate this source of Turmoil through discontinuing your discriminatory laws, which is always an option. If the primary culture is Spanish then the only reason Italian Pops would be (culturally) discriminated is if Argentina has the "National Supremacy" Citizenship Law, the most restrictive option. Due to their shared European heritage, Italians would be accepted even under the second-most severe Citizenship Law, "Racial Segregation".
- 18
- 1
- 1