• 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:
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.
The problem is that becomes very hard to have an AI evaluate. The more nuance you add the more likely that Great Britain decides to limit its fleet to 10 battleships because Switzerland will do the same.
 
  • 4Like
  • 3Haha
  • 1
  • 1
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

There are probably going to be events that only fire if you are improving or harming relations, that would function in largely the same way.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
If a country changes country type, its subjects are automatically converted to new appropriate types of subjects (so a vassal would become a territory for instance).
So a country is only allowed the two subject types at a time? So China can have vassals and tributaries, but America can't (unless America somehow loses recognition)? Or is it the other way, that China can be forced to be someone's vassal or tributary, but America can only be forced to be a dominion?
 
Please can someone mod a pact for transfering weapons between nations?
 
Will there be a screen with an easy to browse list of active diplomatic actions, what countries they're being used on, how much influence is being used to maintain them, and how long they've been active?
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Will there be a screen with an easy to browse list of active diplomatic actions, what countries they're being used on, how much influence is being used to maintain them, and how long they've been active?
Id like a list of casus belli too. Both ones I have against others, and the ones other countries have against me
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Please can someone mod a pact for transfering weapons between nations?
..do you mean a trade agreement? (Else please expand your question for further clarity.)
 
..do you mean a trade agreement? (Else please expand your question for further clarity.)
I'm quite sure he means supporting less technologically advanced nation with semi-modern weapons against a rival of the supporter. Examples include Russian support for Ethiopia during the first Italo-Ethiopian war.
 
  • 2Like
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.
I honestly think colonial era EU is more important for a fleshed out diplomatic system. Victoria is a lot about population as during this period. There was a gigantic change in politics, globalism which brought migration and spheres of influence, explosion of development in North America, fall of multiple monarchies including Japan's modernization of politics and policies, industrialization and industrial centers which brought a big migration from the countryside to cities within nations.
I agree to a certain point that there should be an in-depth political system, but it is still in development and we don't even know all the aspects of the game yet.
 
So a country is only allowed the two subject types at a time? So China can have vassals and tributaries, but America can't (unless America somehow loses recognition)? Or is it the other way, that China can be forced to be someone's vassal or tributary, but America can only be forced to be a dominion?

The status is decided by the country that is the overlord so tributaries and vassals would only be countries that have unrecognized powers as their master.
 
  • 1
  • 1
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.
This sounds great! Thank you for the reply.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
@harold lorre
Is there a reason you don't think there will be in game events that occur while improving or harming relations? Or are you just downvoting my old posts because you are upset about me disagreeing with you in the other thread? This also goes for all the other people that have disagreed with you in a seperate thread that you seem to be going through and downvoting other unrelated posts.
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Will custom unions always have a junior or senior partner? This seems somewhat ahistoric. Suppose Scandinavian Countries decided to form a customs union (in 1873, Denmark, Sweden and Norway formed a monetary union, so it is not unreasonable to think they could have formed a customs union as well), then there may not have been a clear senior partner.

Or we can take a different example -- suppose in an alternate history, France, Germany and Austria-Hungary decided to make peace and form a Customs Union as a precursor to the EU -- again, there may not have been a senior partner as such.

I get that there is a need to have someone in charge but this can be handled via a rotating presidency or via some presidency mechanic similar to how Federations is handled in Stellaris.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Personal Union is also a type of relatively autonomous "legacy" subject. Some PUs exist at start of game but you can't make new ones.

But historically, PUs WERE formed in this era. The most significant ones are the Austria-Hungary - created because Kingdom of Hungary was given more autonomy under the Habsburg rule and, of course, parts of the British Commonwealth (Australia, New Zealand, most of Canada and South Africa) wherein the lands formerly under control of UK Government were no longer under the control of the UK Government and the UK Parliament thanks to the Statute of Westminster and their only connection with UK remained the Personal Union under the monarch.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
But historically, PUs WERE formed in this era. The most significant ones are the Austria-Hungary - created because Kingdom of Hungary was given more autonomy under the Habsburg rule and, of course, parts of the British Commonwealth (Australia, New Zealand, most of Canada and South Africa) wherein the lands formerly under control of UK Government were no longer under the control of the UK Government and the UK Parliament thanks to the Statute of Westminster and their only connection with UK remained the Personal Union under the monarch.

An ever-so-minor point, but iirc Australia at least didn't ratify the Statute of Westminster until after the Vicky 3 timeframe, and apparently New Zealand didn't either.
 
An ever-so-minor point, but iirc Australia at least didn't ratify the Statute of Westminster until after the Vicky 3 timeframe, and apparently New Zealand didn't either.
Technically, Australian Parliament they didn't need to -- the British Parliament was the one who had to ratify it and they did it in 1931.

But historically, the Statute could have been passed earlier as well. The main driver for the statute (and the preceding Balfour Declaration) was the effect of World War I on the British Treasury and its subsequent impact on British Government's ability to direct affairs of the entire Empire from London. Had the war taken place earlier (as it sometimes does in Victoria) we could have had the effective personal unions within the Commonwealth form earlier as well.
 
@harold lorre
Is there a reason you don't think there will be in game events that occur while improving or harming relations? Or are you just downvoting my old posts because you are upset about me disagreeing with you in the other thread? This also goes for all the other people that have disagreed with you in a seperate thread that you seem to be going through and downvoting other unrelated posts.

Probably that you disagreed with him, i've got the same on a response just above
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I think that in-game PUs mean a much more closer relation between partners than mid-20th century British Empire.

The A-H example seems pretty relevant though. But maybe when devs said new PUs can't be formed, they meant they couldn't be formed through regular gameplay means, and Austria has a scripted mechanic to split into A-H under certain conditions.
 
I think that in-game PUs mean a much more closer relation between partners than mid-20th century British Empire.

The A-H example seems pretty relevant though. But maybe when devs said new PUs can't be formed, they meant they couldn't be formed through regular gameplay means, and Austria has a scripted mechanic to split into A-H under certain conditions.

The relations were pretty close considering there was freedom of movement, freedom of trade and citizens were able to vote in each other's elections and, prior to Suez Crisis, Britain had never been involved in a war without the rest of the realms in the personal union joining in. Even during the Suez Crisis, only Canada stayed away, Australia could have joined in had the war continued longer.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: