Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #119 - Smörgåsbord of Changes in 1.7

[howlling]

I'm really looking forward to it. We support the developers.
Oh, and will additional countries be added in the next patch, or will there be additional access to existing countries? Especially in the Circassian region.
Personally, I like to form a nation and evolve(?).

 

[AlfredRWallace]

Migration laws will no longer prevent pops moving between states in your country.

Will that mean that unaccepted pops from my colonies can move towards incorporated states? I'd like to be able to prevent that.

 

[Galadredid]

Have you created a generic version of the late era military uniform for other countries or is it just Britain and France that will have it?

"New late era uniforms" that look more generic were showcased in this dev diary

 

[LegendaryManDude]

Any chance for a communist and fascism rework in the future?

And a World War mechanic pls

 

[sr_lobo92]

I think Serfdom should strongly limit internal migration, to represent the lords tying up the peasants

 

[Arizal]

Neat! Having the ability to declare war while my subjects are imploding as always is something I wanted for a while! Now you only have to make naval warfare work and fix (somehow) how warscore (doesn’t) work.

 

[W4RPER]

New Companies​

We have a number of new companies coming for Sphere of Influence owners! Here’s some of my favorite ones:

View attachment 1140185
View attachment 1140186
View attachment 1140187​

In addition to these, the following companies will also be introduced with Sphere of Influence:

• Perskhlopok
• Persshelk
• Šerkat-e Eslāmiya
• West Ural Petroleum Company, Limited
• Kirgizian Mining [Joint Stock] Company
• Moscow Irrigation Company
• Tashkent Railroad
• MM. Nicolas Portalis et Cie.
• Anglo-Persian Oil Company

The following companies will be available for all players as part of the 1.7 free update:

• Iranian State Railway
• Šerkat-e Etteḥādīya-ye Welāyat-e Šemālī
• Bongāh-e Enḥeṣār-e Ṣāderāt-e Taryāk
• Arthur Guinness Son & Co. Ltd
• Oriental Development Company
• Turkish Petroleum Company

Thank you Alex for giving us a comprehensive list of the new companies. Very excited to see what all their modifiers are.

I have a question regarding multi-national companies.
Right now, companies are only represented as national entities within their country of origin. During the 1880s companies for the first time sprang up as international entities. Rio Tinto (GB, Spain, Australia), BHP (GB, Australia), Unilever (GB, Netherlands) and the Colombo-German Air Transport Company (Colombia, Germany) are just a few of these.
Is there a chance that we will see representation of such entities in the future?
Giving all nations, that had a historical stake in such a company the same opportunity to slot it in as a national company after acquiring ownership of the resources in the other involved countr(y/ies) AND creating a positive political lobby in all nations with a claim to the company would feel like the correct way to implement it.

As an example: If Britain buys 3 levels of lead mines in Valencia, Spain, they should get access to Rio Tinto the same way Spain would.

Additonally, I would like to suggest some new company modifiers that as of right now do not exist in the game. This is due to the company Arnhold, Karberg & Co. It was a german owned trading company that specialized in building infrastructure in China in addition to creating the building materials there. Could there be a modifier that increases the building efficency such as the current "state_construction_mult" but only when building in foreign countries (and if possible, specific countries)?

Finally, for a future update, is there a way to split airplanes from tanks into a seperate building that may switch between war or civic fosued airplane production, as by the late 1920s, airplane travel started being commercialized.

 

[Kaeryth]

Please, if buildings will auto downsize, there NEEDS to be some sort of refund.

If you do the maths right now on infrastructure costs and construction costs, even if you downsize a building at the very start of the game the reduced infrastructure usage will literally never recoup the cost of constructing the building in the first place. As it stands now, downsizing buildings is literally always a terrible idea that throws money away. At best this change will force you to play inefficiently (nobody who min/maxes their economy will ever choose to downsize a single building as it currently works), at worst it can have dreadful consequences for military:

Considering the increase in military goods demand post-mobilisation, especially with conscription, the best thing to do is to have a bunch of superfluous military goods production buildings which can surge with new staff when demand grows. With Laissez-Faire in 1.7 making all buildings automatically privately owned, this would now be impossible.

Please reconsider this change. Or at the very least add an option to disable it. Or at the very very least, some way for modders like me to disable it. Please please do not make this a baseline behaviour that mods cannot interact with, at minimum please have the 12 month time limit as a define so it can be set to 1200 months if I wish to disable that feature.

Alternatively of course, making it actually useful in any context to downsize buildings would work too. At present that is simply never the case.

 

[Caracus]

Very nice! Im particularly pleased with alliances getting war goals. As alliance partners joining for nothing and then being forced to quit wars prematurely and on a white peace basis turned lots of conflicts nonsensical.

This is a good next step into a less restricted war diplomacy system.

 

[Metz]

Absolute monarchies/dictatorships should get the option to force laws through at the expense of double the radicalism of the IGs so that it’s not overpowered or used often but at the same time realistic for a ruler to push a law if he knows the the reactions won’t be dangerous to his rule.

 

[Notme1]

Economy of scale bonus is scaled by workforce now

That is no more 50% throughput from economy of scale if building is half-empty.

 

[Olauron]

Migration laws will no longer prevent pops moving between states in your country. Instead, your migration laws will only prevent pops from moving out of or into your country, be it through mass migrations or through regular market migration from other countries within your market or power bloc.

Very good news indeed. Also I would really like to have "out of" and "into" differentiation to allow discriminated pops move out without giving them a right to move in (I mean, how much should I discriminate them before they get a hint?). I would be glad even for modifiers without any laws using them.

As you might imagine, they allow you to signal to a country that you will side with them in a potential war for their independence. Guarantee Independence works essentially as a one-sided defensive pact letting you support a country if they were to be attacked, while Support Independence is for countries that are not currently independent. One particularly cool aspect of this is that subjects can now support the independence of other subjects of the same overlord, potentially leading to a big war for joint independence.

One would hope now for a pact to protect some minor from others without preventing the protector from eating it

Another highly requested feature! For a long time you’ve been asking for this and now we were finally able to do it. In the current version of the game you can’t initiate a war if you already have another war in progress. Starting in 1.7, you will be able to initiate as many simultaneous wars as you want. You still need to wait for each diplomatic play to progress to war before starting another one, but other than that if you wish to wage war against the whole world, you’re free to do so.

Great news!

With the coming update, at high enough liberty desire levels, a subject might offer to support your enemies in exchange for their support in getting independence from you or simply raising your subject’s autonomy.

Speaking of subjects and changing autonomy, why is personal union needs to be made a puppet before annexing? Isn't it already closer to overlord by having the same monarch (puppet would have another ruler, so it would be farther from parent country)?

 

[NATOaster]

arghhh i feel so spoiled! i was really hoping for some changes to infamy in the new patch but i love all of these changes they're amazing.

 

[sigismundus]

I like the change of inter-state migration.But I think the inter-state migration should be connect to Serfdom.
Respective Serfdom should prevent it because it tied peasants with land and they can not move/migrate.

 

[Nowor_Never]

I am so amazed, so caught off guard by this tons of updates, devs are just amazing. Now I am so worried about the possible bugs at release, let's pray it will be better this time.

 

[Timych]

What might be the reason for the British to guarantee the independence of Belgium?

 

[FeelsAmazingMan]

What might be the reason for the British to guarantee the independence of Belgium?

Lore

 

[funnyfritz]

Hi devs! First of all, good work! Secondly, one easy question: we see how the AI will automatically reduce the dimension of their factory: why so? Is there now an intrinsic, fixed cost for having a build (even if it is not full)? Or there has always been? Because if there are not reason to reduce size, why would they do that? Thanks!

 

[Galadredid]

What might be the reason for the British to guarantee the independence of Belgium?

Neutrality was agreed upon by the other powers because it had just declared independence from the Netherlands, in a revolution inspired by the one France had in 1830. There was a genuine desire for some to join France, and this was scary to the other powers as the July Monarchy hadn't yet proved that it wasn't going to completely upend the borders of the Congress of Vienna. Given that the region had kind of been a thorny issue since 1789, the great powers agreed that an independent but neutral country protected by everyone else was also the best way to stop the back-and-forth disputes.

 

[FireLordBulb]

Is there some limitation on being able to support the rebelling side in a subject's civil war if they're too ideologically different? If there isn't, I think there should be. If there's e.g. a communist uprising in Canada it doesn't make much sense if they go "Sure, British Empire, we'll be a subject of your monarchy if you help us against the current Canadian government." Subject revolts that are too ideologically different should refuse the overlord's offer of military help because they consider the cost of that help, becoming a subject, not worth it because of the ideological difference.