• 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:
"Convoys" are not to be thought of as goods as such and cannot be traded; they represent the ability to move things overseas, including the ship, crew, dockworkers, etc. Ports consume ships (Clippers or Steamers) and turn them into convoys. You can trade Clippers and Steamers with other markets, but you have to turn them into convoys through ports yourself - you cannot outsource your shipping lanes to another country (that would be best thought of as waiting for another country to export their goods to / import your goods from your market).
Yes, but trade relations implying two partners, who "pays" for the convoy cost necessary to upkeep a trade route?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Will there be a system to simulate piracy? And for fleets to protect sea-lanes for everybody else?
It would be a good way to simulate the pax britannica and an incentive for small nations to get a navy protecting their coasts
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Another great DD.

Though a great shame that convoys always have to be provided by route owner. Pretty much kills any idea of carrying trade (which was important part of national economies for many countries) and such important part of colonial and international politics as limitations and regulations on whose ships can enter whose ports. IRL a lot of income disparity between colonies and metropolitan countries was caused by laws that prohibited colonies from having their own merchant marines and having direct trade with each other. Likewise the whole great stories of "opening Japan" and of competition for trade with China fall by the side.
Hope this can be re-done before release or in updates thereafter.

Also - please add at least some possibility to supply or at least land some armies without ports. Otherwise any landing in hostile country would become impossible. How can we have proper WW1 without disastrous flanking operations decided upon unilaterally? Or US interventions in South America and Caribbean?

Questions:
1. Will ports have throughput limits? Can your exports be limited by how much products can actually be loaded each day/month? Or your expeditionary forces limited in quantity by how many supplies can be un-loaded in a given area?

2. How will competition between overland and sea trade routes work when both are possible? For example wool can be moved from Scotland to London both by cabotage and by overland routes.

3. Will it be possible to combine land and sea routes on one trade route? Suppose Canada wants to buy sugar from Cuba - can it move it by sea to Mobile and then by railway to Ottawa?

4. Will there be a difference between cabotage sea lanes and blue-water sea lanes?

5. How will the river trade routes be represented?

6. Will there be any representation of passenger traffic? Can we have Great Eastern, please?
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
It is a bit backwards here. The level 5 shipyard will make more clippers or steamships. It is the port that is making the conveys and I assume based on Johan's answer that the level X port will make more conveys when steamships are consumed instead of clippers.

The Shipyard produces steamships or clippers, the Port consumes steamships or clippers. depending on production method. A Port consuming steamships will produce more convoys per level/employee

Ah, so a shipyard level X produces 27 clippers that are then consumed by a level 5 port and produces 1000 convoys.
So, could we assume a shipyard level X produces 3 steamships that are then consumed by a level 5 port and produces 1000 convoys?

Of course all numbers not final and and all. Just trying to understand the order of effects and scale here, because right now, GB needs A LOT of ports and shipyards.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
So from this I understand that
1) It is absolutely critical as a nation that any overseas territories exist only to extract raw materials
2) Any industry overseas is best destroyed and duplicated at the market capital
3) Port capacity is completely abstract, and only counts from the closest harbours
4) Because of this, having vast plantations in southern Egypt can get a lot cheaper shipping if you get any port on the Mediterranean as a European power
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
This makes the naval scare very real. If britain doesn't rule the waves their empire will crumble.

I just fear that the absense of submarkets might make oversea nations forced into someone elses market overly vulnerable. Like, do I understand it correctly that an India that is in the british market relies completely on local ressources and couldn't transport goods between indian states if their ports are blockaded?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
If I don't have enough convoys, can I prioritize certain routes to lower or remove penalties on that route, at the cost of raising the penalties on others? For example, if I have two trade routes that each want 100 convoys, but I only have 150 convoys, that would mean that each route would only get 75 convoys from their desired 100. What I am curious about is if I can steal convoys from one route for the other, so that one route has 100/100 convoys, while the other only has 50/100. I could see wanting to do this while at war, for example, to prioritize the supply line, or if one trade route is bringing the materials I need to build more convoys, I definitely would not want to not get everything I could from that route.


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.
Could it be possible to trade "through" other countries if your country is landlocked, with the country the goods are passing through getting tariffs or transportation fees or something?
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Ah, so a shipyard level X produces 27 clippers that are then consumed by a level 5 port and produces 1000 convoys.
So, could we assume a shipyard level X produces 3 steamships that are then consumed by a level 5 port and produces 1000 convoys?

Of course all numbers not final and and all. Just trying to understand the order of effects and scale here, because right now, GB needs A LOT of ports and shipyards.
It is more like a level 5 port will consume 27 steam ships and produce 4000 convoys (assuming full staffing in all examples), using your previous xample numbers (it probably wont be as big a a factor 4 differnce).

edit

and since it is a government building it will always be fully staffed as long as there are enough qualified pops available.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
So does this mean if e.g. Brazil is in the French market and Brazil wants to make a trade route to Argentina, France is forced to pay to supply a shipping lane from Brazil to Paris to Argentina instead of Brazil just trading with Argentina directly over their land border? How does that make any sense?

Edit: What if for example Argentina is also in the Japanese market, and then the trade route has to go Brazil > Paris > Tokyo > Argentina, this just seems like it's going to get absurd very quickly. If you're a junior partner in a market couldn't you just sabotage the senior member by creating intentionally convoluted trade routes that the senior is then forced to pay for?

Also, what happens if Brazil wants to trade with a landlocked country it borders but the market leader doesn't like e.g. Bolivia. How does the Brazil > Paris > Bolivia route function?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 3
  • 2Haha
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes, it refers to the older heavy special event driving of deterministic history, using special events for stuff the game can not handle with the general mechanics.,
One would assume any content of this kind would be handled through journal entries, likely with specific conditions necessary to either start or avoid it.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Ah, so a shipyard level X produces 27 clippers that are then consumed by a level 5 port and produces 1000 convoys.
So, could we assume a shipyard level X produces 3 steamships that are then consumed by a level 5 port and produces 1000 convoys?

Of course all numbers not final and and all. Just trying to understand the order of effects and scale here, because right now, GB needs A LOT of ports and shipyards.
Yes, I believe your example is what would actually happen. So it is important to keep an eye on the port level and the shipyard level (or the price of clippers/steamships) for trade purposes. I can foresee trade collapse doom loop problems where your port level or conveys becomes a bottleneck and that affects your importation of clippers/steamships which further exacerbates your trade convey problems, rinse and repeat.

Seems like clippers/steamships are definitely an autarky industry.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
Forgot to ask in my earlier post, but if a country is cut off from market access and forms an enclave, can it still trade with the countries it borders on land, or is ALL trade cut off for some reason?
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
So all seaborne transport is handled domestically?

There is no way to have another nation transport goods? Historically especially Norway and Greece have been very nations in this market, with vastly larger merchant marines than their own trade needed.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Regarding ports being government owned with no option to privatize them like railways, we agree that's a bit suboptimal - having Port-based trading companies make big bucks selling goods transport to Trade Centers who make clever decisions whether it's cheap enough to buy them given the profit of the routes they manage etc sounds really neat, but also one step too far in complexity at the moment. Your supply network is crucial for your ability to operate an intercontinental empire, and seeing your overseas expeditionary forces go undersupplied because some Pops on the other side of the world decided to switch to coffee instead of tea, bringing the profit of trade centers and thereby ports down below the point where they can offer competitive wages with your Steel Mills... well, it sounds cool, but is not a UX challenge we want to try to tackle at this time.
Can't you at least make the private sector pay for the convoys through the investment pool or something? It makes no sense that the state is paying for the transportation of goods.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Thanks for great job. Can't wait to play it. One question, can we decide what sort of goods shall be transported in regards to port connections e.g.???
 
  • 1
Reactions:
One would assume any content of this kind would be handled through journal entries, likely with specific conditions necessary to either start or avoid it.
Yeah, I am expecting it to be something like the sick man of europe example for the Ottomans. Not nececearily Britain causing it etc.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Can't you at least make the private sector pay for the convoys through the investment pool or something? It makes no sense that the state is paying for the transportation of goods.

I guess you could use tariffs to get money back from the transportation. Which makes free trade policies the most statist ones since they can't use tariffs and are forced to subsidize all imports for both pops and industries with tax money they need to collect in other ways. Ah well.
 
  • 1
  • 1Haha
Reactions: