• 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:
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

This probably exists but they've not mentioned it.
 
I'm reminded of the differences between relations and trust in EU3. Keeping your word gradually built up mutual trust with other countries, so answering a call to war, sending troops to assist in fighting rebels in their territory, or merely existing peacefully as neighbors for long spans of time increased trust. It took a long time (decades, and usually a LOT of them) to build, and could quickly be reduced by a single bad action.

Relations were easier to build or destroy, to the point where two countries at war could often patch Relations and be at +100 within a couple of years. I see this as closer to "Realpolitik", as opposed to a true friendship.

Those were both different from Reputation, the universally recognized threat that you posed due to previous aggressive actions. While there is overlap between them, these are all different enough to each warrant their own considerations.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
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.

Oh yeah there's that too, now we have pops pushing up agendas. I woukd find it awesome if a country got political instability because it ran away from its diplomatic obligations.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
5 year ban on improving relationship after expelling diplomats is IMO too long.

A question - how will change of government / type of government affect diplomatic actions and relationship?

For example Cuban colonial government pre US - Spanish war will probably be pro-Spanish and anti-USA. Quite possible it might expell US diplomats.
After the war there will be a pro-USA government (at least if war goes historical). Why would this new government be bound by historical relations established by previous regime including the limit on improve relationship action?

In a less extreme case - suppose in a free city of Frankfurt a pro-Prussian government is replaced by a pro-Austria government. Will the new government be totally free to reverse foreign policy?
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
5 year ban on improving relationship after expelling diplomats is IMO too long.

  • Five years feels a bit long for the Expel Diplomats cooldown - but that's just the vibe I got reading it, I may be off.
But if the cooldown should be shortened then the amount of time the diplomats remain expelled should be reduced, since that was apparently also five years.

Best would maybe be to have "expel diplomats" have a one-time cost (infamy) but also constant influence maintenance cost, and you have to actively click a button to "allow diplomacy with nation B". (So no particular cooldown, but no automatic ending either. Instead of cooldown we get infamy and possibly some kind of pop or interest group aggravation)

But expelling diplomats should also be bilateral (so when you expel your diplomats they automatically pay back in kind), and the only thing that happens when you "allow diplomacy" is that the maintenance cost switches over to the victim. If they don't want to restore relations, the relations remain broken, but now *they* are the ones paying the influence fee for it (which means they'll probably reopen diplomacy unless they now have a strong reason to keep keeping you out)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
5 year ban on improving relationship after expelling diplomats is IMO too long.

Yes - or perhaps it could be maintained like that but there could be a "invite new diplomatic mission" thing of sorts to curtail that hiatus. You know, nations every now and then want to make a fuss but eventually just want to forget about it real quick.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Yes - or perhaps it could be maintained like that but there could be a "invite new diplomatic mission" thing of sorts to curtail that hiatus. You know, nations every now and then want to make a fuss but eventually just want to forget about it real quick.
If you want to make a fuss but forget about it quickly, that's what damaging relations and then stopping damaging relations is for. The thing about the expel diplomats action is that it's an instant action, not ongoing like improve or damage relations. If you going to take that instant action, it's most likely going to be a counter to the other country trying to improve relations with you, so it needs to actually have some actual long term consequences, which is represented by the longer cooldown.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
If you want to make a fuss but forget about it quickly, that's what damaging relations and then stopping damaging relations is for. The thing about the expel diplomats action is that it's an instant action, not ongoing like improve or damage relations. If you going to take that instant action, it's most likely going to be a counter to the other country trying to improve relations with you, so it needs to actually have some actual long term consequences, which is represented by the longer cooldown.

Yes good point, that mechanic already fills that purpose, in a more competent "plug/unplug" fashion. Then the "expel" function would generate more lasting results.

Hmmm. Come to think of it.... why would you want to prevent another nation from wanting to improve relations with you? This is outside my experience, I've never done it before. I did try to imprive relations with others, for evident reasons, and decrease relations to force them to a war that would trigger a different alliance from me starting the same war. But what of preventing them from trying to befriend us?
 
Yes good point, that mechanic already fills that purpose, in a more competent "plug/unplug" fashion. Then the "expel" function would generate more lasting results.

Hmmm. Come to think of it.... why would you want to prevent another nation from wanting to improve relations with you? This is outside my experience, I've never done it before. I did try to imprive relations with others, for evident reasons, and decrease relations to force them to a war that would trigger a different alliance from me starting the same war. But what of preventing them from trying to befriend us?
The big reason you would want to prevent a country from improving relations with you is there is no longer an asymmetrical relation value, meaning relations between countries is just represented by a single value. So perhaps some diplomatic plays require a certain amount of antagonism between two countries through a low enough relation value, and you would want to stop the other country from improving relations with you as a preparation for launching that diplomatic play. Which of course also means you are signaling to that country and others in the region that you are probably about to try for a diplomatic play, and they can then make preparations of their own.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
But if the cooldown should be shortened then the amount of time the diplomats remain expelled should be reduced, since that was apparently also five years.

Aye, sorry - I meant both at once, but didn't want to make too big a thing of it (and was confident the devs wouldn't change one without the other).
 
The big reason you would want to prevent a country from improving relations with you is there is no longer an asymmetrical relation value, meaning relations between countries is just represented by a single value. So perhaps some diplomatic plays require a certain amount of antagonism between two countries through a low enough relation value, and you would want to stop the other country from improving relations with you as a preparation for launching that diplomatic play. Which of course also means you are signaling to that country and others in the region that you are probably about to try for a diplomatic play, and they can then make preparations of their own.

I get it. Those diplomatic plays, we need to know more about them. I for one am very curious.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Is there a limited number of diplomats like EU? Obviously a focus on foreign policy could raise this, but what about Japan during the Shogunate that really had internal forces attempt to shut external forces out.
I know you've talked about policies changing the popularity of some demographics within the country but I may have missed, or it hasn't been discussed yet, of isolationism. Wherein, isolationism wouldn't be a negative effect on a particular country but should limit countries ability to perform some diplomatic relations.
 
Yes good point, that mechanic already fills that purpose, in a more competent "plug/unplug" fashion. Then the "expel" function would generate more lasting results.

Hmmm. Come to think of it.... why would you want to prevent another nation from wanting to improve relations with you? This is outside my experience, I've never done it before. I did try to imprive relations with others, for evident reasons, and decrease relations to force them to a war that would trigger a different alliance from me starting the same war. But what of preventing them from trying to befriend us?

relations are bilateral in V3 (see dev diary 19), so if they raise relations with you it simultaniously raises your relations with them (or rather there's only one relationship number and you like them as much as they like you)
I assume certain (or all) hostile actions are prohibited at high relations
 
Is there a limited number of diplomats like EU? Obviously a focus on foreign policy could raise this, but what about Japan during the Shogunate that really had internal forces attempt to shut external forces out.
I know you've talked about policies changing the popularity of some demographics within the country but I may have missed, or it hasn't been discussed yet, of isolationism. Wherein, isolationism wouldn't be a negative effect on a particular country but should limit countries ability to perform some diplomatic relations.

Your limit is your influence capacity. And the bigger the target country the more influence cost.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
relations are bilateral in V3 (see dev diary 19), so if they raise relations with you it simultaniously raises your relations with them (or rather there's only one relationship number and you like them as much as they like you)
I assume certain (or all) hostile actions are prohibited at high relations
Oh thats right. It did not pass my mind that some negative actions may be impossible at good relations levels, as some positive actions are sure forbidden under negative relations. A good and gamey way to prevent someone from DoW'ing you would be to just to endlessly improve relations, expell diplomats counters that.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
This system of diplomacy is good enough for other games like EU4 or CK3, but for the more diplomacy focused Vic3, I was hoping for deeper mechanics. Like instead of just having 2-3 types of pacts, some type of system to make custom pacts. Nations in this time didn't usually just form generic alliances, they formed alliances and coalitions with different countries against specific threats, usually in exchange for some concessions. A lot of them made pacts that had nothing to do with war either. Some kind of system that's similar to trading systems in MMORPGs, where you can manually add or subtract "features" of the pact you're proposing, like "I will join your side if you find yourself in a war against russia", "You will give up interest in west africa", "I will limit my navy to 10 battleships", etc, and each will have positive and negative effects on the "reasons to agree" thing until both sides are happy with the other's proposals and they sign the treaty. Kinda similar to the vassal contract mechanic in CK3 but with more options. Also in a similar vein, I hope that unlike in other games, you can make both demands and concessions in the same peace treaty, if it wasn't a very decisive war or both sides wanna stop before either is decisively beaten.
 
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions: