• 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 #20 - Diplomatic Actions

16_9 (1).jpg

Hello and welcome to yet another Victoria 3 dev diary! Today we’ll be continuing to talk about Diplomacy, specifically on the topic of Diplomatic Actions, which are the means by which countries in Victoria 3 conduct diplomacy, build (or tear down) relations, and sign various kinds of agreements with each other.

Diplomatic Actions and how they work should be pretty familiar to anyone who’s played pretty much any other Paradox Grand Strategy game. In short, a Diplomatic Action is a type of interaction that is carried out by one country towards another, and which sometimes (but not always) requires the agreement of the other party.

As the exact requirements and effects of a Diplomatic Action are unique to each type of action, this Dev Diary will mostly just be going over which actions currently exist in the game, but before I get into that I want to briefly explain about the three distinct categories that all actions fall into and how they differ:
  • Instant Actions: These are actions that are carried out immediately upon use and/or acceptance (if acceptance is needed). They do not cost any Influence capacity as they do not require maintenance.
  • Ongoing Actions: These are unilateral actions that are carried out over time by one party towards the other, and can only be cancelled by the first party. They can have an Influence maintenance cost, in which case only the first party is the one to pay it.
  • Pacts: These are bilateral actions that are carried out over time as an agreement between two parties. If there is a maintenance cost, both parties have to pay it unless the agreement has a clear senior and junior partner (such as Subject relationships). Both parties can break the pact off, though in some cases it may require the agreement of the other party.
A look at some of the actions and pacts available between two independent countries
dd20 1v2.png

If you’re still a bit unclear on the difference between these three, don’t worry! It should hopefully become clearer once we start going into examples. So with no further ado, let’s talk about what actions there currently are available in the game. Please note that, as always, the game is still under active development so what’s in here may not exactly match what we have for release.

Instant Actions (not necessarily an exhaustive list):
  • Expel Diplomats: This is an action that immediately lowers Relations with the target country, stops any ongoing attempt by them to Improve Relations with you, and blocks further Improve Relations attempts for a period of 5 years. Using Expel Diplomats also gives the acting country some Infamy, and prevents them from using Expel Diplomats on the same country for 5 years.
  • Take on Debt: This is an action that allows one country to take on the debt of another in exchange for being owed an Obligation (more on this in later dev diaries).
  • Redeem Obligation: This is an action that forgives an Obligation owed to the acting country in exchange for a large boost in Relations.
  • Violate Sovereignty: This is an action that allows the acting country to violate the neutrality of another country through whom they need military access, creating a Diplomatic Incident and potentially bringing new countries into the conflict. We’ll go more into under what conditions you can use this and exactly how it works at a later time.

Russia’s unexpected attempt to build stronger relations with the Ottomans is not being received well at the Sublime Porte
dd20 2v2.png

Ongoing Actions (not necessarily an exhaustive list):
  • Improve Relations: This is an ongoing action that slowly raises relations up to a maximum value of 50 (out of 100). Costs Influence to maintain, with the cost increasing if the target has a high Rank
  • Damage Relations: This is an ongoing action that slowly lowers relations down to a minimum value of -50 (out of -100). Costs Influence to maintain, with the cost increasing if the target has a high Rank
  • Bankroll: This is an ongoing action where one country pays a part of its monetary income to another each week as direct subsidies to their state treasury.

The contest between Siam and Dai Nam for control of Cambodia led to a longstanding regional rivalry that sparked several wars in the early 19th century
dd20 3v2.png

Non-Subject Pacts (not necessarily an exhaustive list):
  • Alliance: This is a diplomatic pact that allows two countries to help each other when attacked in a Diplomatic Play, even if they do not have an Interest in the relevant area (more on this next week). Costs Influence to maintain, with the cost increasing if the other part has a high Rank.
  • Customs Union: This is a diplomatic pact where there is a senior and a junior partner, and makes the junior partner part of the senior partner’s national market instead of having their own market. Costs Influence to maintain for the senior partner only, with the cost increasing if the other part has a high Rank.
  • Trade Agreement: This is a diplomatic pact which gives both countries competitive advantages when establishing trade routes in the market of the other country. Costs Influence to maintain, with the cost increasing if the other part has a high Rank.

A trade agreement between Russia and Prussia would let the latter tap even more deeply into the former’s timber exports and improve Russia’s access to German-made tools
dd20 4v2.png


Subject Pacts (not necessarily an exhaustive list):
  • Protectorate: This is a type of non-colonial subject relationship where the subject is very autonomous, the only restriction placed on them being that they are not able to have a fully independent foreign policy. Can be turned into a Puppet by their overlord through a Diplomatic Play.
  • Puppet: This is a type of non-colonial subject relationship where the subject has no diplomatic autonomy, pays part of their income to their overlord and is part of the overlord’s national market. Can be annexed by their overlord through a Diplomatic Play.
  • Dominion: This is a type of colonial subject relationship where the subject has extensive diplomatic autonomy and can have their own subjects, though they’re still required to be part of their overlord’s market. Can be turned into a Territory by their overlord through a Diplomatic Play.
  • Territory: This is a type of colonial subject relationship where the subject has limited diplomatic autonomy, pays part of their income to their overlord and is part of the overlord’s national market. Can be annexed by their overlord through a Diplomatic Play.
  • Tributary: This is a special subject relationship only available to Unrecognized Powers where the subject has extensive diplomatic autonomy and can have their own subjects, though they’re required to pay part of their income to their overlord. Can be turned into a Vassal by their overlord through a Diplomatic Play.
  • Vassal: This is a special subject relationship only available to Unrecognized Powers where the subject has no diplomatic autonomy, pays part of their income to their overlord and is part of the overlord’s national market. Can be annexed by their overlord through a Diplomatic Play.
Afghanistan has no intention of becoming a Persian tributary peacefully, and Persia will have to resort to a threat of force if they intend to press the matter further
dd20 5v2.png

Before I leave off, I also just want to briefly mention that as with many of our systems, the Diplomatic Action system is built to be completely moddable, up to and including adding new forms of Subjects or entirely new Pacts with completely custom effects. We’re quite excited to see how you all take advantage of all this moddability once the game is finally out!

Well then, that’s it! This has of course been something of a brief overview, and we’ve left out a bunch of details regarding a number of the interactions that we’ll come back to later, but it should give you a good idea of the limits of diplomacy in Victoria 3… that is, unless you’re willing to get a bit more bold, in which case you should check back next week, as we talk about Diplomatic Plays and how they will let you shatter those limits!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 224Like
  • 73Love
  • 15
  • 9
  • 5
Reactions:
Will there be some sort of secret diplomatic plays or pacts hidden from the player or other AI, considering that historically, there have been secret treaties only actionable upon certain conditions? Examples of them were the German-Ottoman and Romanian-Entente secret pacts, both of which were crucial to the escalation of WW1.
 
  • 7
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Glad the differences between Protectorates, Territories, Dominions, etc. are clearly marked here. In ViC II these were somewhat unclear, which made diplomacy, colonization, and wargoals more confusing.
Also hope that secret treaties are implemented in some form. Maybe a large Infamy hit if they get exposed to make them balanced?
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Pity, I was hoping that there could be a way in the early game for a possible union between Portugal and Brazil should either of the young monarchs die, them being siblings and all. Though the personal union should be very unstable because of the reluctance of both parties being united again as somewhat equals it could become a stepping stone for the reformation of the United Kingdom of Brazil, Portugal and Algarve, with primary culture being either Portuguese or Brazilian depending on who was the senior member and the other culture becoming an accepted culture.
I think technically Pedro II of Brazil was disallowed from the Portuguese throne? I don't think he was in the line of succession at all. I mean, his father abdicated from the throne of Portugal to avoid the personal union, so that is a very niche situation that clearly nobody wants in the first place. I think such a scenario would be more appropriate for a script event and thus don't need a generic system for creating personal unions (if one of monarch dies the default behavior should be finding a different successor, I think).
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Wait a minute. What would be the status of actual historical Protectorates? Like Morrocco for instance, which was a French colony but with a sultan, a Morrocan administration but not a lot of autonomy. A Territory?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
In addition to the tribute some subjects must pay, subject nations also confer a portion of their Prestige onto their overlord. Since they also tend to be in their overlord's market they also supply goods, add to demand, provide a semi-mobile workforce, etcetera. There's currently no other transfers of resources planned but the scriptable Pact system makes it very easy to add, so not saying it's impossible.
If a subject's POP's are working in your states and then they become independent, do their people rubberband back to their originating province or are they stuck in your lands?
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If a subject's POP's are working in your states and then they become independent, do their people rubberband back to their
Judging by everything, it's definitely the latter. There is no such thing in the game as temporary migration — if somewone works in a certain state, that means they are permanently settled in this state. They could migrate back if they become worse off, but this is definitely not automatic, and probably not widespread.

In other words, if any pop is working in your state, it is now your pop, and not your subject's.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I hope there will be neutrality and non aggression pacts. As well as only defensive pact or only offensive pact, I don't want to join your offensive war but I'll accept to defend if you're being attacked.
Cordial relations (+20 and above) acts as an automatic non agression pact.

I guess that would make a molotov ribbentrop deal kinda hard.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
What about adding an option to ban countries from exporting/importing in diplomacy? and are also tariffs on a specific country to simulate economic sanctions against the country?
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Give arbitrary amount of money -> immediately receive lump sum opinion is a lot more "gamey" than what we've seen so far for Victoria 3.
I'm talking about the attract/antagonize option you have in CK2 where random events will pop up between you and other characters that can result in improved relations however, it can also result in negative relations, or it can result in bribery in exchange for improved relations.

I was hoping for something along those lines
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Obligations... I never really liked those "favor" type diplomatic actions in other PDX games but who knows, maybe here it fits well. One thing tho, I for one think they should be non-mandatory. Sure, declining an obligation should bring a shaitteload of infamy, scaling up with the type of refusal, but to me there is great potential for the AI not being a good sport about this if it is mandatory. Like, as a minor nation you indebt yourself for an inconsequential naval access and soon the other nation looses its mind and declares holy war on Great Britain and drags you into it.

To me it feels like the type of thing most diplomats would say "oh nooooo, no no no forget it. Shame on me but count me out... whats that, oh I owe you? Yeah fudge that".
Well with EU4 favour system after Leviathan is clearly not the answer, neither is the pre-Leviathan favour system. I'm interested with the Hook system from CK3 and the favour system in CK2 as you can only gain them from certain actions against/with characters.

I don't know, we'll see how it evolves further
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Looking good Paradox.
 
Well with EU4 favour system after Leviathan is clearly not the answer, neither is the pre-Leviathan favour system. I'm interested with the Hook system from CK3 and the favour system in CK2 as you can only gain them from certain actions against/with characters.

I don't know, we'll see how it evolves further

Yes not to mention stellaris, whose favor system for votes in the galactic community stinks.

My main beef with this is mandatory actions. As if a "giant hand of god" was there enforcing player moves. In EU4 you have this GREAT mechainc which is refusing to honor an alliance and bail on your allies: what is more lifelike than that? Now off course, you also have a diplomatic reputation mechanic to go along with it.

Here we have the infamy mechanic. A big deal in fact. I say, allow the player to conduct his nation's affairs as a real jerk if he wishes. Not returning favors when asked included. Infamy will pile up anyway and things will even out, he may even become fair game for punitive wars (though everyone refraining from concluding favorable deals with him is enough. Iirc infamy affects willingness towards diplo actions doesnt it?)

Edit/PS: eu4 had, iirc, "agressive expansion" to punish bullies and "diplomatic reputation" to punish/reward diplomatic behavior. I am kinda assuming that in Vic3, infamy does both.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Subjects, including Puppets, have their own Influence which they can start their own Pacts with, manipulate Relations, etcetera. The precise nature of their subject relationship might block some of these interactions but generally the approach we've taken is to be make subject nations as autonomously playable as possible without making your subjects too annoying when you're playing as the overlord. The rule of thumb is we want entering into (or being forced into) a subject relationship with a higher-ranking country to be a strategic medium-term choice rather than a death sentence.
This will be quite wonderful to play with, thank you!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Here we have the infamy mechanic. A big deal in fact. I say, allow the player to conduct his nation's affairs as a real jerk if he wishes. Not returning favors when asked included. Infamy will pile up anyway and things will even out, he may even become fair game for punitive wars (though everyone refraining from concluding favorable deals with him is enough. Iirc infamy affects willingness towards diplo actions doesnt it?)
Even more importantly, we have pops and interest groups that can get upset.

Your own pops of the abused nations primary culture can feel betrayed, high-ranking people in the state can feel threatened (if the current rulership won't even consider the obligations owed to an entire nation, who is to say they won't move on and start maltreating the upper echelon in their own nations. Also they can have invested in continued good relations that will now get disturbed.)
Also other nations with obligations upon you should drop relations and start pressing for cashing them right away (unless relations are still very high even after the drop) and nations should be very wary of forming new obligations with you for at least a decade, maybe three. ('Remember the XXX')

So something like the "stability loss" of being mean in EU, but suddenly highly variable depending upon what obligation you ignore and what the populus feels about the partner. (Because obligations and treaties were largely upheld in these times, because the alternative was usually seen as risking a war)
But also more, since this is a genuine "dagger in the back", and as and Diplomacy player knows, you're unlikely to get to do more than one of those per game, per opponent.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think technically Pedro II of Brazil was disallowed from the Portuguese throne? I don't think he was in the line of succession at all. I mean, his father abdicated from the throne of Portugal to avoid the personal union, so that is a very niche situation that clearly nobody wants in the first place. I think such a scenario would be more appropriate for a script event and thus don't need a generic system for creating personal unions (if one of monarch dies the default behavior should be finding a different successor, I think).
Well after a quick research I found that Maria II of Portugal couldn't ascent to the Brazilian throne by a Brazilian law implemented just a few months before game start ( October. 1835) and the in the Portuguese case the monarchs siblings could inherit the crown as long as they weren't foreigners ( which would cause some problems because all of Maria II siblings were, by law, Brazilians). Specifically the Portuguese constitution that implemented this law was implemented in 1838, two years after the game start, but the succession law was the same as the previous constitution of 1822.

In my vision since both monarchs were still very young there could be another entanglement of the crowns in the event of their untimely deaths, but it would be quite messy indeed, with Portugal possibly entering another civil war between miguelists and liberals (who may or may not rally behind an Brazilian pretender), and Brazil either accepting one of Pedro II's sisters as empress ( perhaps even Maria II of Portugal) or opting for a republic, with either option resulting in greater strife and emboldening the separatist movements in Brazil. Though I think a personal union is possible it would be as I said, very unstable and a real challenge to keep in place.

But I do agree with you, it would be better represented as an scripted event. And possibly something more at home in a mod rather than the base game.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: