• 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:
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.
I'm not sure how you're reaching that conclusion- as i read the dev diary it sounds like convoys exist per country, not per market. It would make a lot of sense if you're right, though. also, a Maritime power in customs union would likely be building ships for landlocked partners, as well as for itself. sounds like a lot of jobs, and a lot of income tax revenue.

edit -sp
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm not sure how you're reaching that conclusion- as i read the dev diary it sounds like convoys exist per country, not per market.
There was a discussion about this in the AAR thread regarding the Canada AAR, where it was mentioned that Great Britain was handling the cost for Canada. Looking at it again, I'm not sure if it was because they're in the same customs union or that Canada was an actual subject.
 
It may be necessary to pool convoys from all the members in the market in that case.

Although that may lead to players/AI drawing from the pool without contributing, because that's the most mechanically optimal way to do it. It might be better to do it the same way rail transportation is done, which is IIRC through the sale of a 'ticket' good that pops and buildings need for certain production processes.
 
Although that may lead to players/AI drawing from the pool without contributing, because that's the most mechanically optimal way to do it.
The flipside to this is that in the previous DD, they mentioned that trade centers will tend to be built near ports. If you're not building and maintaining ports, you can create trade routes using your market partners' ships but that means those partners will get the profits.
 
If I understand correctly, if Paraguay is a member of a customs union and any member of that union has ports, Paraguay can use them to facilitate its trade routes. Hence why the starting German customs union is so important to all the landlocked German minors.
yeah but then who would pay for the port costs? if I'm playing as brazil and allow Paraguay to join my customs, they'll use my convoys?

also, if they aren't part of any customs union, they can only trade with its neighbours?
 
If devs decide to make game design which tracks every single trade good (eg. piece of wood or furniture) like a pop, there will be a need for paraguay to trade with its neighbours and import - buy their goods. But historically wise paraguay should be at that time a nation in its early stages with relative low demand compared to its european counterparts. On top of that historically correct they faced as a tiny nation the tripple alliance which decimated their territorial ambitions.
Only in case if devs implement a bit deeper war system which includes equipment, they can be early on hyped to stand a chance to conquer a nearest sea port on easter shore near brasil-uruguawy
I'm pretty sure there is no unit of trade goods, didn't they say that in one of the first DD?

if Paraguay's trade can only be done with its neighbors then their neighbors will have a great advantage in selling to them, no?

Also that would be good if it worked like in hoi4, then if Paraguay manages to control a port in war, they can buy equipment to help in the ongoing war.
 
If two market capitals have a direct land connection then it will trade overland, for example Berlin and Vienna but not Berlin and Paris. Land connections dosn't cost anything at the moment no.

A question about certain edge cases for border between nations being needed for trade routes; If I am playing as Austria, can I not establish a trade route with Baden and Württemberg, dues to lacking a border OR sea access with them, even though in reality they are only separated from each other by the navigable lake Constance and a few kilometers (Bregenz, Austria is less than 50km from Konstanz and Uberlingen, Baden, and about 20km from Friedrichshafen, in Württemberg, and all are along the lake)?
 
A question about certain edge cases for border between nations being needed for trade routes; If I am playing as Austria, can I not establish a trade route with Baden and Württemberg, dues to lacking a border OR sea access with them, even though in reality they are only separated from each other by the navigable lake Constance and a few kilometers (Bregenz, Austria is less than 50km from Konstanz and Uberlingen, Baden, and about 20km from Friedrichshafen, in Württemberg, and all are along the lake)?
I wouldn't be surprised if shared lake access counted as a land border, but who knows how those edge cases have actually been coded.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Given that sea travel was so much cheaper than land travel I find it odd that it is free. Russia getting goods back from Vladivostok is hard (dev diary 10). Britain getting goods back from China is hard. Russia getting goods back from China is easy??

Russia getting goods back overland from China could depend on infrastructure capacity on the provinces in the way (just like getting goods from Vladivostok to the Market capital), and if Russia wants to ship it by sea they could?

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.
Also please tell me that Britain can trade with Inland Indian Princes. If inland colonies could and inland countries couldn't (no matter the relationship strength) it would be odd. Surely either could trade through Bombay and overseas from there.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Given that sea travel was so much cheaper than land travel I find it odd that it is free. Russia getting goods back from Vladivostok is hard (dev diary 10). Britain getting goods back from China is hard. Russia getting goods back from China is easy??

Russia getting goods back overland from China could depend on infrastructure capacity on the provinces in the way (just like getting goods from Vladivostok to the Market capital), and if Russia wants to ship it by sea they could?
They even have a ressource called "Transport" wich is produced by rails and consumed by pops. That should definitely be consumed for overland trade, scaled up by having a bad infrastructure between both trade capitals.

That would also make hybrid land/sea routes make more sense. Right now I think we can have situations where you are forced to use an inefficient land route through terrible infrastructure despite a better connection being possible through a sea lane. For example connecting Beijing to Hongkong should be much cheaper by ship than by train.

If land and sea are treated similar you could simply search for a a cheapest connection no matter how often it goes through ports and over land again.
 
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
This could also be handled by just forcing the national markets to have an overland traceable connection of sufficient Infrastructure, with the States with where the connections interface have a Trade Station or something. This really helps early on for nations that have things like Canal or Major River modifiers along the border.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Still a bit sad that you don't (as far as I know) have the possibility to set manually the path of shipping lanes

I could totally see situations where you would rather take a longer path to have it easier to protect, for example going through the Atlantic even if the Pacific path is shorter.

I'm also sad that you cannot choose to use a sea path instead of a bad land path
 
Will it be possible to establish shipping lanes between foreign ports - specifically, to buy goods from one foreign port and sell to another foreign port for a profit? In general, I'm interested in what support there is for nations to play the role of trade broker / intermediary.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
Will it be possible to establish shipping lanes between foreign ports - specifically, to buy goods from one foreign port and sell to another foreign port for a profit? In general, I'm interested in what support there is nations to play the role of trade broker / intermediary.
I think that would be covered as you selling ships to the country who is buying the goods.
 
So let's dumb it down :rolleyes:
Sure, let's dumb down the whole dialogue around the inherent tradeoffs in the design of complex computer strategy games by dismissing a choice to simplify the way a subsystem operates as "dumbing down".
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions: