• 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:
Am I understanding correctly that the convoy supply/demand is on the national level? For example, as GB, you can connect India to East Anglia using only first-level port, even if it can't produce all of the required convoys for that shipping lane, as long as you have enough convoys produced in your entire nation?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The response to an earlier question wasn't clear - If Canada got cut off from the UK market, would each canadian state become isolated and on their own, or would canada trade internally?
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
  • Do steamships consume coal when travelling? If they did, it could help emphasise the value of sail, particularly for bulk goods (although I know this'll all be averaged out over the supply network). Sailing cargo ships continued to operate on a few routes where the nature of the cargo and other considerations meant it made sense right up to the Second World War. It'd be sad to see sailing cargo ships disappear in the mid-to-late 19th century in-game.
Steamers do not consume anything. Coal (and other things) is consumed to make Steamers. Steamers are consumed to make 'convoys' in order to support trade.

It looks like provinces can form "clusters" that have land access and can trade with each other in the event that they become isolated from the market capital. So India could trade with itself, but might not be able to trade with South Africa or Australia since the breakdown of the British market applies equally across all its shipping lanes.
Do you have a source for this?
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
How would you conquer a piece of land that is completely surrounded by the sea and doesn't have any adjacent friendly ports?
Because you stated that generals need a friendly port for supply. So do they have a limited amount of supply with them to be able to establish a foothold?
 
How would you conquer a piece of land that is completely surrounded by the sea and doesn't have any adjacent friendly ports?
Because you stated that generals need a friendly port for supply. So do they have a limited amount of supply with them to be able to establish a foothold?
Most likely yes. It would be like Naval invasions in HOI4, where the first priority is securing a port, before the ever increasing debuff from lack of supply means your troops get squished.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
what about landlocked nations and trade?
Well, I guess that that's where strategic decisions have to be made: go for autarchy, rely only on adjacent markets, form a market union with a non-landlocked nation as the senior partner if you can, accept to enter into a market union as a junior partner if you can't - or of course do things the old way and declare war on a non-landlocked neighbour.

After all, it's not unheard of to have wars waged with the goal of obtaining access to the sea or to a major port.

How would you conquer a piece of land that is completely surrounded by the sea and doesn't have any adjacent friendly ports?
Because you stated that generals need a friendly port for supply. So do they have a limited amount of supply with them to be able to establish a foothold?
Interesting question...
 
1. Employment level and supply chain complexity. Employment level can be fixed with subsidies, yes, the main question is when would you ever turn them off? There are extremely few cases where you'd ever be OK with not having full Port employment. Since that means you have to cover any shortfall anyway, that means the only mechanical advantage to you (the player) to have Ports operate independently is that if they're making enough from Trade Centers buying their services, you don't have to pay their operating costs.

However, this means these cost will be borne by Trade Centers instead, meaning you have to babysit your trade routes more to ensure they remain profitable - otherwise the interplay between Trade Centers and Ports could turn into an extremely hard to troubleshoot death spiral, where there aren't enough Convoys to do efficient Trade and Trade isn't profitable enough to buy Convoys. If in practice these problems are so difficult to manage that you just turn on the "subsidize" buttons on every building type involved in the trade supply chain and then just poke at them to try to bring your total marginal cost down a bit, there's no real advantage to it compared to making only the terminus of the supply chain (Ports) government owned and the other buildings private.

In addition, since Shipping Lanes created for reasons other than Trade Routes (military supply and port connections) should actually be state expenses, having all Convoys bought by Trade Centers is also non-immersive. To fix that you'd need some way of having the state buy goods from the market directly, which likely means the player should be able to determine what price they're willing to pay for those goods, as this would be what calibrates the economy of the privately owned building supplying it. Since choosing the amount you're paying a building for its services freely in order to ensure it's profitable enough to not fail to provide you with those services is essentially a roundabout way of subsidizing it (something I've discussed at length elsewhere on the forum) this would be a whole new system to replicate the functionality of an existing one, only in the service of making the mechanic feel a tad more true-to-life.

Thank you for your reply.
Shouldn't ports generate revenue by servicing ships - i.e. charge ship's owners some small sum for each entry into port? This would represent RL harbourage fees, navigation fees, costs of fuelling, provisioning, repairs and money spent by visiting crews in portside establishments.

Non-trading Shipping Lanes: please clarify - will there be distinction between civilian and military ports? In early 1800s the difference might have been slight, but by 1900 or so military and civilian ships required completely different infrastructure.
 
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Suggestion for something after release:
Model overland trade with its own convoy system. Max convoy usage (and so, max volume of trade) should be limited by the infrastructure between the two trading market capitals. Pre-train convoys should be effectively free, but limited in volume. Train convoys should require locomotives in the same way ocean convoys use ships, and enable you to easily hit the convoy cap from infrastructure.

I'm not sure if river and canal trade is worth modeling, because there are very few international connections that would be facilitated by it. New York-Toronto (via the Erie Canal), the Rhine, and the Danube are the only significant examples I can think of. Maybe Russia-Persia via the Volga and Caspian, but I don't know if there was a lot of trade on that route.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2Love
Reactions:
Steamers do not consume anything. Coal (and other things) is consumed to make Steamers. Steamers are consumed to make 'convoys' in order to support trade.
I would expect that port production methods can have a variety of inputs, so you could have "steamers + coal + engineers -> convoys" and "steamers + oil + engineers -> convoys" among others, without necessarily changing the source of your steamers.

Having the "steamer" trade good represent the ship and a lifetime supply of fuel would be a bit odd, to say the least.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Steamers do not consume anything. Coal (and other things) is consumed to make Steamers. Steamers are consumed to make 'convoys' in order to support trade.


Do you have a source for this?
I would expect that port production methods can have a variety of inputs, so you could have "steamers + coal + engineers -> convoys" and "steamers + oil + engineers -> convoys" among others, without necessarily changing the source of your steamers.

Having the "steamer" trade good represent the ship and a lifetime supply of fuel would be a bit odd, to say the least.

Cheers Oglesby :) My head got confused by the "ships don't actually exist" thing (ships as a service, so to speak) - quite counterintuitive relative to how ships actually work/worked historically. Jamaican Castle - as best I understand it (thanks to Oglesby) ships don't exist, per se, they don't have a 'life', so the ongoing cost of convoys represents the fuel and the production. Presumably with the structural/fuel costs balanced to match the expected costs over the life of the vessel. It's not like HoI4 at launch, but more like "Schroedinger's Ship", where the ship kind of exists and kind of doesn't. I like your idea of different production methods for different fuels (and oil, for example, requiring less people on ships because there's a need for far fewer stokers).

In early 1800s the difference might have been slight, but by 1900 or so military and civilian ships required completely different infrastructure.

Even in Napoleonic times and earlier, facilities for storing and servicing the munitions of military vessels were still important - but you're quite right in that as military ships became more and more specialised, their supporting infrastructure also became moreso.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
The response to an earlier question wasn't clear - If Canada got cut off from the UK market, would each canadian state become isolated and on their own, or would canada trade internally?
Obviously, it would become Canada's internal market. Why would each Canadian state become completely isolated just because access to the UK market got cut off? As long as the Canadian states have trade access to each other (not surrounded by hostile territory), Canada would in effect be leaving the UK customs union on a temporary basis until access to the UK market is restored.

This would be economically disastrous for your Pops and politically destabilizing as you would go through a See-Saw of industry gains and losses and your Pops would gain and lose access to many critical goods in a cyclical manner.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Obviously, it would become Canada's internal market. Why would each Canadian state become completely isolated just because access to the UK market got cut off? As long as the Canadian states have trade access to each other (not surrounded by hostile territory), Canada would in effect be leaving the UK customs union on a temporary basis until access to the UK market is restored.

This would be economically disastrous for your Pops and politically destabilizing as you would go through a See-Saw of industry gains and losses and your Pops would gain and lose access to many critical goods in a cyclical manner.
What you say makes sense from a IRL perspective, but the game may not be programmed that way. From what we know, what a national market is absorbed into a custom's union it pretty much ceases to exist as a separate entity. Everything is routed through the customs unions market capital. And we know if a state doesn't have access to the market capital it reverts to local access. I don't think it's obvious at all that if a country gets cut off from its custom union market capital that it begins to trade internally as though it's a separate market again. If a customs union acts the same as a national market just larger, which seems to be the case from what we've seen, it seems like the base assumption would be that states do become isolated just like they would in a non-customs union national market.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Cheers Oglesby :) My head got confused by the "ships don't actually exist" thing (ships as a service, so to speak) - quite counterintuitive relative to how ships actually work/worked historically. Jamaican Castle - as best I understand it (thanks to Oglesby) ships don't exist, per se, they don't have a 'life', so the ongoing cost of convoys represents the fuel and the production. Presumably with the structural/fuel costs balanced to match the expected costs over the life of the vessel. It's not like HoI4 at launch, but more like "Schroedinger's Ship", where the ship kind of exists and kind of doesn't. I like your idea of different production methods for different fuels (and oil, for example, requiring less people on ships because there's a need for far fewer stokers).



Even in Napoleonic times and earlier, facilities for storing and servicing the munitions of military vessels were still important - but you're quite right in that as military ships became more and more specialised, their supporting infrastructure also became moreso.
interesting, i would like to know more about the difference 19th and 20th century shipping infrastructure..
it raises indeed question connecting to similar questions what if a single port of a colony is captured, how realistic is it to somehow still receives supplies and export as party who lost the port. I understand they not have viking ships which are simply rammed on the shore.
again hope devs look into stockpiling mechanics for goods etc. like game Ultimate General: Civil War
 
nice DD, I'm srry if this information has been out alrdy but I couldn't find it anywhere.

how would trade work with landlocked countries like Paraguay? are they limited to trade only with countries they share a border with? and what if they get in a customs union under Brazil, it means it could be possible for them to trade using brazilian trade ports with overseas nations?
 
  • 1
  • 1Love
Reactions: