• 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 #17 - Migration

Thumbnail.jpg

Hello and welcome to yet another Victoria 3 dev diary. Today’s topic is Migration (meaning the movement of Pops between states), what role it plays in Victoria 3, and how it functions mechanically. There are two types of Migration in Victoria 3: Intra-Market Migration and Mass Migration, and we’ll be explaining both of these starting with Intra-Market Migration.

Intra-Market Migration is the movement of Pops between two States that are part of the same Market. Barring certain exceptions (such as slaves not being able to migrate, as covered in the previous dev diary), Pops are generally always able to move between States in the Market, though the number of individuals that are able to change their homes on a weekly basis varies based on factors such as the local Infrastructure and Market Access in the two States.

Which Pops migrate from and to what States depends on the Migration Attraction of each State. Migration Attraction is a value that is based on the average Standard of Living in the state, and modified by various factors such as over/underpopulation, unemployment/available jobs and so on. It is possible for a country to directly encourage Migration to a specific state through the ‘Greener Grass Campaign’ Decree, at the cost of some Authority. In general, Pops will move from States with a low standard of living and a lack of employment opportunities to states with a high standard of living and jobs to offer. States with a low population compared to the amount of available land are especially attractive to economic immigrants.

Kansas, already an attractive state for American settlers due to its sparse population, has been further prioritized for migration through the use of a Greener Grass Campaign decree
image1.png

Discrimination, too, plays a role in migration. Pops that are being discriminated against in a particular State, and have the opportunity to migrate to another State in that market where they would not be discriminated against (perhaps because of multiple countries sharing the same Market, and one of those countries having more liberal citizenship or religious laws) will take that opportunity in greater numbers, provided of course that there is an underlying economic reason for them to want to move there in the first place. After all, while enjoying voting rights is certainly nice, putting food on the table is higher on the agenda for most Pops.

Discrimination can also have the opposite effect: Pops that are already enjoying full citizen rights are generally going to need to be in pretty dire economic straits to consider moving somewhere where those rights are going to be taken away, and in the case of a Pop that is going to be discriminated against no matter where they go in the Market, they tend to stick to their cultural Homelands.

French colonial settlement policies means that their colony of Algiers receives a steady trickle of immigrants from mainland France every week
image2.png

So, what then of Mass Migration? Mass Migration is a mechanic introduced to try and model the migration of large amounts of people to places such as the US, Brazil and Australia in the 19th century. Mass Migration can happen when a particular culture experiences Turmoil, which is a product of having a large number of radicalized pops. A culture that has enough Turmoil to meet the threshold has a chance to create a Migration Target somewhere in the world, which is a flag set on a particular State that attracts huge numbers of migrants from that culture over the course of a limited timespan to that State and any States neighboring it.
Migration Targets are more likely to be created if the Pops in the culture have a low Standard of Living and high Literacy, and particularly likely to be created if there is widespread starvation among the Pops of that culture.

The selection of States for Migration Targets is based on a number of factors, including the state’s Migration Attraction, whether or not the culture is legally discriminated against in the country, and if there is a logical ‘path’ that Pops of the migrating culture would be able to follow from their Homelands to the target (such as trade routes). There is no inherent advantage in certain country ‘tags’ for who gets migrants - the US tends to get migrations because of availability of jobs and land combined with liberal citizenship laws, not because they have a built-in migration attraction bonus.

Fed up with economic hardship and political oppression in their homelands, a large group of Polish people have decided to try their luck at a new life in France
image3.png

There is one more aspect of migration that we’re only going to briefly touch on: Migration Policy. This is a group of Laws which lets you set the stance of your country on migration. For example, whether you want to promote the movement of people from your core lands to your colonies, attract skilled workers from other countries for your manufacturing economy, or even just minimize all migration (external and internal) as a way of maintaining your iron grip over the population. The reason we won’t be going into this today is because it’s currently in the process of being redesigned to this end (from a previous, much simpler set of laws). We’ll try to return to it at a later time!

With that said, we’ve reached the end of this dev diary, and in fact, the end of the current string of politics dev diaries, as next we’ll be changing our focus from inwards to outwards and talking about Diplomacy, on the topic of Prestige and Rank!
 
  • 241Like
  • 93Love
  • 13
  • 7
Reactions:
Interest groups are a think countries have that pops can belong too there's no "bringing" of interests groups anywhere as countries all have the same interest groups (with small variations). If the conditions are fairly similar in the new country you'd expect the pops to support the same interest group.
I understand countries have mostly identical interest groups. I'm assuming some interest groups are dormant, then activated based on social conditions and the development of political thought (like political parties in V2), so all nations wouldn't have the same interest groups. That's why I used the example of socialism. A country without a union tradition (don't have the tech, or enough industrialization) may well get immigrants who activate the trade union interest group. Same for female suffrage IG. And why not catholic immigrants importing their catholic interest group to a protestant country?
 
Will this game divide nations/cultures according to the branches of nationality/culture or sub-nations/cultures. (For example, in V2, those who have been criticized by Chinese players for a long time: separate Cantonese, Hakka and Min from Han nationality, and then simply or wrongly divide the remaining Han nationality into South and North Han people.) I think it is better in V3 to simply divided into eight dialects, or in more detail according to the 16 ethnic groups considered by Chinese academic circles, or divided into seven regions according to geography.
 
So, to use the example of Argentina that someone advanced: say that a mass Italian migration results in a majority of Italians living in (some states of) Argentina.

Assuming that Argentina's primary culture is Spanish, and given that no "easy" (i.e., through laws) way to add primary cultures is possible, will disgruntled Italians form separatist movements to secede the Italian-majority states?
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
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I understand countries have mostly identical interest groups. I'm assuming some interest groups are dormant, then activated based on social conditions and the development of political thought (like political parties in V2), so all nations wouldn't have the same interest groups. That's why I used the example of socialism. A country without a union tradition (don't have the tech, or enough industrialization) may well get immigrants who activate the trade union interest group. Same for female suffrage IG. And why not catholic immigrants importing their catholic interest group to a protestant country?

That's still not how interest groups work. There is only one devout interest group per country with relates to the official or dominant religion in that country. Catholics will not support it in a protestant country unless it's the interest group they most agree with. There will always be a trade union interest group but it might have very little support there is nothing to activate. All countries have the same interest groups.
 
Does the way mass migration works mean that having a single state split into 2 with the same conditions (but obviously half the population and area) would double your chance of being a target of a migration wave? So countries with lots of states just arbitrarily get a bonus even if conditions in each state are the same?
It seems fine (for me at least) that migration is state driven. If it were country driven, then US (1 country) would have same chance than, say Haiti (1 country). And also US chances would be 15 times less than a South America divided in 15 countries. Migration tied to states (but affected greatly by proportion of arable land, employment and standard of living) makes sense to me.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Great to hear that there are no hardcodes in migration factors! With Victoria 2's "+300% if country capital is in North America OR South America OR Oceania", if you re-conquer South America as Spain, the whole region is doomed, as it doesn't receive any migration.
 
I really like the new system. One of the things that greatly irked me about Vicky 2's migration system was seeing day one migration from the Ottoman Empire to Texas, which looks like it's not going to be an issue here.
 
There is a Platinean culture in Victoria II, and based on the fact that Breton is a confirmed new culture, I expect rather more than less cultures. No the primary culture will not be Spanish in Argentina.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It seems fine (for me at least) that migration is state driven. If it were country driven, then US (1 country) would have same chance than, say Haiti (1 country). And also US chances would be 15 times less than a South America divided in 15 countries. Migration tied to states (but affected greatly by proportion of arable land, employment and standard of living) makes sense to me.

The issue is that it tends to lead to a pretty even distribution of immigrants. During this period people didn't have a better standard of living in New York city than they did elsewhere in the US but people kept going there as the ir initial migration destination. Immigrant populations tend to be way more concentrated than longer term populations which is the opposite of what this system will do. I think it would be better to have a different system at least for international immigration.

I was thinking maybe it would be better to use total income (or something else that reflects the actual state of the economy not arbitrary borders). So if one state produces 1000 pounds of income for its pops per day and another has 2000 then the second state has twice the base chance of being chose as a migration target, standard of living, available jobs and sparsely population would then provide large modifiers on top of that base number. The advantage of this is that it is not per capita so it doesn't arbitrarily drive states towards equality but actually pushes international migrants to accumulate in certain places (like new york for example). Then internal migration would do the job of pushing people around to reflect more local concerns (which could be closer to what they describe since there is no concern of historical state set up disdvantage different countries for internal migration).

Doing it that way would produce something much closer to a historical distribution of immigration and would avoid countries with more states being given an arbitrary buff (which is supposed to be represented by populaiton density modifiers)
 
  • 1
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Maybe the Greener Grass Campaign should also give a small flat bonus, like +2? We need a scam to encourage people to move to 'Greenland', for example.
Of course we need this. How else is Jan Mayan supposed to gain enough population to take over the world?
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Can cultural homelands change over time? For example, if there are railroaded events for the tail of tears, would the cultural homeland for the Cherokee switch to
Oklahoma. Is it possible for a state to become your cultural homeland if enough of your primary culture migrate/exist there?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
With migration within a market based due to discrimination, would this only be caused by a market including multiple countries, or can pops experience different levels of discrimination in different states? Like, the Great Migration of African Americans to northern states was in part driven by Jim Crow laws and segregation. Or, in the Russian Empire, Jewish people were forbidden from residing outside the Pale of Settlement. Will specific states have discriminatory laws which would drive (or prevent) migration from Pops?
Or, the Mormon migration to Utah. Is Missouri going to be flagged as "discriminatory to Mormons", then Illinois (or wherever they go in the simulation) until they migrate west to Utah (or some other state) where they're a majority and won't be discriminated against?

Or are these sorts of things going to just be events?