• 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 #39 - Shipping Lanes

16_9.jpg

Ave and welcome to another Dev Diary! I am Johan (No, the other Johan) a tech lead on Victoria 3 and today I will be talking about Shipping Lanes. It is an interesting addition to maritime empires in that there is now a cost to overseas possessions and sending a military expedition halfway across the globe is no longer as straightforward as in some older Paradox titles.

But first we have to talk about Convoys which are an essential part in maintaining shipping lanes. They are produced from Ports, a government building which requires Clippers (or their era-equivalents) and possibly other goods.

Each country has a set number of required convoys and not having enough will incur penalties on all shipping lanes. This may for example occur due to an overstretched colonial empire or hostile convoy raiders.

Ports also fulfill an important role in connecting your overseas territories but more on that later.

“Aha! I told you the Clipper factory was a good investment!”
DD39 01.png

Shipping Lanes represents port-to-port connections and are established for three different reasons:
  • Trade Routes to an overseas market
  • Supply Routes for an overseas General
  • Port Connections to link states in a market

Each shipping lane must have its own origin and destination port. Once established it will span across a number of sea nodes and have its own individual cost in convoys which adds up to the country’s total convoy requirement.

It also tracks its own Effectiveness score which is based on the overall Supply Network strength (more on that later) and may be reduced by any local convoy damage done along the route.

While India provides Great Britain numerous benefits such as raw materials and population it is clear that the Crown Jewel of the British Empire is by no means cheap. A massive civilian and military naval industry is required to maintain it and keep it safe and thus it is by no means obvious whether such overseas possessions are always worth it.
Note that UI and values are very much WIP.

DD39 02.png

Trade Routes between two markets which do not share a common land border must be done overseas and will necessitate a shipping lane. Land adjacency is determined from where the two market capitals are located.

The convoy cost is influenced by the number of sea nodes, quantity of goods and any goods-specific modifier (if any). The effectiveness affects the trade route competitiveness and by extension the quantity of goods shipped.
It will use the two closest ports in the respective market capitals region. If either country lacks ports no overseas trade routes can be established.

Supply Routes are required when a general is sent to a front that is not reachable by land. It will use a friendly port connected by land to the generals headquarters and trace to the closest friendly port reachable from the front.
The convoy cost is based on the number of sea nodes, battalions supplied and any general traits. Low effectiveness reduces supply status of the general and his troops. If a front is landlocked no generals can be sent there.

Supplying troops over great distances is quite an enterprise. Rather than sending an expeditionary force from England all the way around the Cape to reach India perhaps Britain should consider building a standing army using either colonial settlers or locals?
DD39 03 v2.png

Lastly, Port Connections are a bit more complicated. In order for a state to access the goods within the market it needs to be able to trace a path back to the market capital. If this path requires it to go via the sea (meaning it is overseas) a shipping lane must be established to the market capital.
This must be done for every state within the market including foreign ones. Rather than a single state having its own shipping lane a group of adjacent overseas states can form a cluster with a single exit port to the market capital - such as Bombay in the case of British India.

This assumes such a port exists however. If the connection is severed from either end then the overseas states cannot access the market and thus forms its own isolated enclave. Likewise if the shipping lane effectiveness is strained it will lower the accessibility of goods to and from the overseas states. Reflect back on previous dev diaries and consider the cascading consequences that were to occur if a maritime empire reliant on its overseas possessions were to suddenly lose control of its shipping lanes.

It is the market owner which must establish and pay for the port connections to all overseas market states. To somewhat compensate for this its subjects must share a portion of their convoys with their overlord. Subjects are still required to pay for their own trade and supply routes however.

The convoy cost of a port connection is influenced by the number of sea nodes and the overseas infrastructure usage. By extracting your raw materials from overseas colonial plantations and mines, while the high-Infrastructure manufacturing industries producing finished goods are located near the market capital, you can keep your Port Connection cost down - though at the expense of the development and wealth of your colonies.

Connecting India to the British market means it has to go all the way around the Cape to reach the British Isles which significantly impacts costs. But what if Britain somehow managed to discover a shortcut?
DD39 04.png

And lastly when combining all the shipping lanes of a country we get its overall Supply Network. As outlined early on we derive its Strength score from the costs of all individual shipping lanes compared to the country's total supply.

That is all for today! Hope you enjoyed this dev diary and in the words of Admiral John Fischer you may sleep easy in your beds. In next week's Dev Diary, Daniel will be back to tell us about how the Opium Wars are represented in the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 169Like
  • 50Love
  • 16
  • 14
  • 4
Reactions:
Perhaps unusually for me, I don't care whether it works or not.

It makes no sense.
Markets as implemented in general don't make perfect sense. IRL, there isn't one singular national market in a country unless it's very small. Neither the Vic2 World Market nor the Vic3 National Market system fully models how real world logistics create de facto separate markets the way you want a country's national market to act when it's separated from it's customs union market capital. It would require a dynamic market system that is almost certainly beyond the scope for a game run on everyday PCs.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Markets as implemented in general don't make perfect sense. IRL, there isn't one singular national market in a country unless it's very small.
Indeed.

But "oh no Toronto can't talk to London so Toronto can't buy whale oil from St. John's" is just... blech.

Unwishlisted, anyway.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
The latter
I understand development is too advanced to change the system. But maybe you can come up with a solution for that?

For example, a temporary market is automatically created between territories connected by land (Canadian states) that don't have access to the market capital (London), and that temporary market will end when there is access again to the market capital (London).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
thx, i agree also with prdx has definitely talented people (wouldnt like using smart versus dumb descriptions)
but over time see need as a customer to voice my needs, this seems still invaluable
if they implement some of your naval tech suggestiosn and for land warfare ultimate general civil war mechanics.. this game will be a blast to play
than as paraguay despite the odds can try to hype yourself up.. And as a cool side effect if u as paraguay buy better rifles out of the market you deny other nations
the ability to field them as such they have come with lower quality equipment, giving also better realism for large nations which rely on kind of hoi4: mass assault doctrin/human wave less weapon quality more manpower.

Oh aye, sorry, I wasn't suggesting for a second you (or anyone else) shouldn't speak up for what they want in the game - I think that's very important, and you should keep doing it :)
 
I think the current national market system should work well overall, but I can definitely see several situations in which it could be exploited to cause very weird things to happen.
 
The latter

Thank you for answering - although it's the worst alternative. I really hope this will be rethought before release or soon after, as many others pointed out it is not just unrealistic, but might result in paradoxical situations.

Leaving aside that they can move their market capital at will, think about what you're saying here. "I have a perfect way to ruin the British Empire: blockade London!" Yes, that's a strategy that will be devastating if it works, but I think you're underestimating how hard it will be to actually isolate a great power from its market.
Sure, that was an extreme example. But say that British disconnect the Netherlands from Dutch Indies by disrupting the lines both in the North sea and the Channel.

Obviously that would impede whatever kind of colonial trade happens between the Netherland, Java and Sumatra. But why on earth shouldn't Java and Sumatra be able to trade between themselves, and suffer the economic consequences of being isolated from their immediate neighbours?

Do you really think that having, say, a famine in Java because it can't import enough fruits from Sumatra would be a system that works?
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Indeed.

But "oh no Toronto can't talk to London so Toronto can't buy whale oil from St. John's" is just... blech.

Unwishlisted, anyway.
Unwishlisted it's a step too far... But I agree that the Toronto can't talk to London so Toronto can't buy whale oil from St. John's is *not* a minor fault.

It would require a dynamic market system that is almost certainly beyond the scope for a game run on everyday PCs.
I understand development is too advanced to change the system. But maybe you can come up with a solution for that?

For example, a temporary market is automatically created between territories connected by land (Canadian states) that don't have access to the market capital (London), and that temporary market will end when there is access again to the market capital (London).

You don't need to have a full dynamic market system, a system like the one described by @RaccoonCity would suffice as an approximation to avoid paradoxical situations.

The temporary "cluster" market's capital could be defaulted to the largest city of the cluster or whatever. That would not require changing the existing system, but would still allow for much more realistic outcomes.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Indeed.

But "oh no Toronto can't talk to London so Toronto can't buy whale oil from St. John's" is just... blech.

Unwishlisted, anyway.
So, is this only if if Ontario were to be a separate tag from Newfoundland & Labrador or if Canada is already unified even then Ontario and Newfoundland & Labrador wouldn't be trading among themselves? (and let's assume Newfoundland and Labrador joined the confederation way early)
While both scenarios are bad if they can't trade among themselves, one is particularly worse than the other.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Do you really think that having, say, a famine in Java because it can't import enough fruits from Sumatra would be a system that works?
Yes.

Specifically, a situation in which 1) Java is colonized, vassalized, or otherwise impressed into the Dutch market, 2) can't leave (if it leaves the customs union, it instantly reverts to having its own market capital), 3) reconfigures its own economy - or has it reconfigured by its overlord - to the point of not being able to provide food for itself, and 4) the Netherlands is completely blockaded for long enough for shortages to grow to deadly effect - that situation should have consequences that are more severe than "I'll just buy food from somewhere else". The whole point of customs unions, naval blockades, and the whole political/economic gameplay in Vic 3 is that it has an actual impact on your actual pops, not just reducing your balancesheet.

So, is this only if if Ontario were to be a separate tag from Newfoundland & Labrador or if Canada is already unified even then Ontario and Newfoundland & Labrador wouldn't be trading among themselves? (and let's assume Newfoundland and Labrador joined the confederation way early)
It doesn't matter how the states are organized into countries, if they're in the same customs union then they have a shared market and market capital. (With the exception that an independent country can withdraw from the market, and probably should under these conditions.)
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Indeed.

But "oh no Toronto can't talk to London so Toronto can't buy whale oil from St. John's" is just... blech.

Unwishlisted, anyway.
Here's the thing I think people need to keep in mind (not just you but this was just a good post to use as a segue).

In earlier versions of the internal build we actually had countries split into multiple markets, trying out a variety of design solutions for this, but none of them resulted in satisfying gameplay as keeping track of all your markets and managing goods flow between them felt more like a chore than anything else and made it very difficult to understand the overall economic situation in your country. Moving to a single national market basically just made for a better game as it allows the player to focus their efforts and have a far better understanding of the consequences of the actions they're taking in that market. That said, we haven't completely ruled out having special cases like separate colonial markets if we can get that working in a way that doesn't create the problems I mentioned above.

They have tried using regional markets, which are what would effectively be needed for what people are suggesting, in past builds. What they found was that regional markets did not create satisfying gameplay and ended up being too complex to really be fun to work with. They haven't ruled out something like it if they can keep it simple enough for most players to want to keep track of and have fun managing, but right now it sounds like they have not found a way to do so that doesn't just end up being frustrating. And when the choice is between creating a completely realistic model and creating a fun and engaging experience for the player and doing both is simply not feasible, the fun and engaging experience for the player should win out every time. So they made something that isn't entirely realistic but that works on a level that's good enough for a game. Because at the end of the day, they're creating a game and not an academic economic model, so the game part is what needs to be prioritized.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
Here's the thing I think people need to keep in mind (not just you but this was just a good post to use as a segue).
Given that I need to establish and maintain the oceanic routes anyway to exploit my overseas colonies, I'd settle for one auto-defined submarket per contiguous blob.

So Toronto can trade with St. John's without having to go across the Atlantic, and Punjab can trade with Kashmir without having to go all the way down the Indus to Sindh, halfway round the world to London, and back again.

When the game is confirmed to have that, it gets back on the wishlist.
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You could have national market act as state region and each exclave always act as state within market equivalent of state region.

That is if exclave has no land connection with national market, then it always would be considered as separate submarket.
If exclaves get connected either with each other or with market capital, then they get automatically merged.

It could get slow if you have tons of islands or market exclaves though.

Alternative approach:
If state directly borders another state then both of them could trade with each other, even if exclave they are in is cut off from market capital.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Given that I need to establish and maintain the oceanic routes anyway to exploit my overseas colonies, I'd settle for one auto-defined submarket per contiguous blob.

So Toronto can trade with St. John's without having to go across the Atlantic, and Punjab can trade with Kashmir without having to go all the way down the Indus to Sindh, halfway round the world to London, and back again.

When the game is confirmed to have that, it gets back on the wishlist.

Isn't that what puppets/dominions are for. Make them their own nation with their own market and then trade with them normally.

Depending on what benefits puppet masters get in this game of course.

If you want all the benefits you have to pay for all the responsibilities. If you want them to have independence then you have to allow them independence. Players choice (baring radical uprisings of course!)
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Dynamic sub-markets should be on the developers list of stuff to work on post release.

The current system of it always being a full market or only individual states is fine for the base game, but this type of illogical consequence should be solved down the line. I does not make intuitive sense, it does not make logical sense and it is not fun gameplay to have your dominions starve because they cannot access the grain one state over due to their sea connection to Europe being blocked.

But I respect that actually making a good solution to the issue is not something we can realistically expect at release. Victoria 2 also had its idiosyncrasies due to system limitations. Most games do.
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
While I agree that the current market system does have limitations that will need to be worked on, I'd rather have a working if flawed system at release than one that is technically more realistic but is overcomplicated and breaks constantly.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
While I agree that the current market system does have limitations that will need to be worked on, I'd rather have a working if flawed system at release than one that is technically more realistic but is overcomplicated and breaks constantly.
I agree with that. But I also agree that there can be temporary solutions to #canadagate that do not involve revolutionising the current system - just adding a fallback option for contiguous states that get isolated from their main market centre, so that they can at least trade between them.

By the way this is not just the case for colonies - the same could happen to any nation being "cut in two", as the result of a war, if one of the halves ends up being landlocked.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
There are plans to make land trade/transport routes cost something in the future or it is not possible?

It costs Infrastructure.


Also regarding markets cut off from the market capital; there is such a thing as a trade center.

If we accept that all shipping lanes are also trade routes, every trade center can act as a market capital. We can also then conclude that
1) Every State has its own state market, which trades within itself, and with a greater market according to its connection.
2) Every collection of States with a shipping lane has its own sub market, which trades with the greater, national market according to its connection with the national market, as well as facilitates trade within the collection of states according to their Market Access to the trading center anchoring the shipping lane.
3) There is a national market, which is formed by all the States, and it accesses the markets of the States according to their Market Access and any impact from the shipping lanes.

Of course, a trade center/shipping lane port should not act as a Market Capital if the shipping efficiency is 100%. It's just a useless calculation in that case.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
say for the sake of argument that I'm landlocked, but in customs union with someone who isn't. since my market, if not me directly, has a port, I should be able to traide by sea, right? however, I can't build my own ports, so I can't make my own convoys, right? how's this work out?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
however, I can't build my own ports, so I can't make my own convoys, right? how's this work out?
Convoy usage is shared among the whole market. If your market leaders (or other members with ports) don't provide them, then they will share the penalties. That's part of the downside of blobbing lots of people into your market. The upside for them is that they will likely end up with trade centers, so they'll make some profit off your trade routes.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
They have tried using regional markets, which are what would effectively be needed for what people are suggesting, in past builds. What they found was that regional markets did not create satisfying gameplay and ended up being too complex to really be fun to work with. They haven't ruled out something like it if they can keep it simple enough for most players to want to keep track of and have fun managing, but right now it sounds like they have not found a way to do so that doesn't just end up being frustrating. And when the choice is between creating a completely realistic model and creating a fun and engaging experience for the player and doing both is simply not feasible, the fun and engaging experience for the player should win out every time. So they made something that isn't entirely realistic but that works on a level that's good enough for a game. Because at the end of the day, they're creating a game and not an academic economic model, so the game part is what needs to be prioritized.
So let's dumb it down :rolleyes:
The important part is that anyone starting with a OPM can become GP n.1 within 10 years.
 
Last edited:
  • 10
  • 1
Reactions: