• 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 #146 - Diplomatic Treaties

16_9.jpg


Hello Victorians,

My name is Alex, I’m a multiclass programmer and designer on Victoria 3 and today it’s finally time for another Dev Diary on this very Happy Thursday!
Today we will be taking a look at Diplomatic Treaties, one of the features arriving with the free 1.9 update on June 17 together with our Mechanics Pack “Charters of Commerce”.

Before we begin though, I should mention that today is a public holiday (ig_tradeunions) for us here in Sweden (and in a lot of other places). This dev diary was as usual written ahead of time, but when it comes to questions, this means I won’t actually be around to answer them when it comes out. Instead, Martin will be around to answer some of your more pressing questions to begin with and I’ll try to answer any remaining important questions on Monday (as we also get tomorrow off as a bridge day).

With all that said, I should also remind you that as always any values, texts, designs, graphics etc. are work in progress and are subject to change!

But now, without further ado, enter Treaties:

DD146_01.gif

Diplomatic Treaties​

As part of the changes to the World Market we described in Dev Diary #143 and with Trade Routes as you know them going away, we wanted to introduce a new mechanic that let you actively establish pointed strategic ways of elevating your industries or exploiting other countries through trade. We wanted more ways for you to peacefully (but aggressively) compete against your rivals (and allies) and establish your dominance across the globe.

Initially, this was drafted to be a relatively simple tit-for-tat deal: “you give me grain, I give you coal”. But we of course got thinking and, particularly in the context of how often the community asks for more in-depth diplomacy, we thought: what if we went a step or two (or twenty) further and made it a full-blown system of treaties where you can weigh a bunch of different types of things against each other? Maybe to get Prussia to agree to an alliance you can sweeten the deal by promising to give them a certain amount of weapons every week. Or maybe you can say you’ll pay off Haiti’s debts in exchange for them granting you investment rights.

And well, that’s what we did.

Diplomatic Treaties are a new way for you to interact with other countries diplomatically. They are, in a way, a natural extension of what the diplomatic actions and pacts currently in the game do (more on that later), but instead of just having you propose one thing at a time in a vacuum, you can combine them and have the whole context of what you want be available and weighted together.

Pedro had some aggressive negotiation tactics
DD146_02.png

In short, the way it works is like this: you decide you want a treaty with another country, so you open the Treaty Draft panel (shown in the animation above). You then select what articles you’d like to have, both offers and requests. When you’re happy you send the proposal to the other country. They can then look at what you have proposed and either accept or reject of course, but they can also choose to negotiate further. Negotiating further lets them tweak the proposal however they want and then send it back to you. This is then repeated until either you agree on a treaty or you decide to just end the process. Assuming you sign the treaty, it is now in effect and remains so until either side withdraws from it.

A big crux on a system like this is of course how the AI handles it. We want to make sure that you can’t just scam the AI, but we also want you to feel you are drafting clever treaties and making use of any advantages you might have. In particular, we also want to feed into the fantasy of you being able to draft clearly unequal treaties with other countries because maybe you are able to remind them that you have big boats and a big army next door. These are all goals we have in mind while working on the balancing of this feature.

Before we go into the details of this a bit more though, I want to specifically address something I know will come up in the comments: are multilateral treaties possible? No. Making this system support multilateral treaties would be on a completely different level of complexity and would be a massive undertaking. If nothing else it would immensely complicate the UX and require a completely different way of tackling AI, drafting and all that. So, unfortunately, it’s not feasible. That is of course not to say that we don’t want multilateral treaties (they would be super cool!) or that a system like that couldn’t in the future build on treaties, but at least for now, it’s not something we are doing.

Enough of that though, let’s dive into the details.

Articles​

This is the core part of treaties that actually defines what they do. Articles have a few different classifications. On a fundamental level, articles can be either Mutual or Directional. This mostly just indicates whether the article is something that affects both sides equally or not. A prime example of a mutual article is an Alliance: both sides are involved equally. On the other hand, Transfer Goods is an example of a Directional article: one side (the source) is sending the goods and the other (the target) is receiving them.

The next important aspect of articles is Inputs. Some articles have required inputs and others do not. Again, an Alliance is just an Alliance, you don’t need to define anything else, but for Transfer Goods you need to specify which goods you want to transfer and how many.

Supporting Texas with some good ol’ ammo
DD146_03.png

Articles can have a number of different inputs depending on what they’re meant to do.

What these inputs are actually used for differs and is up for the article to define.

As for what articles you can expect to be in the game, a lot of them will be things we are moving over from the old diplomatic actions system. This includes of course Alliances and Defensive Pacts, but also e.g. State Transfer and Join Power Bloc and if you own Sphere of Influence, Investment Rights.

For the majority of the articles that have counterparts as diplomatic actions, the corresponding diplomatic actions or pacts will be removed and Treaties will be the new way through which you access them. Do note that not all diplomatic actions have been made into articles, only the ones that made sense, this means that actions like Declare Rivalry or Improve Relations will still work as they used to.

We’ve taken the opportunity to rework Treaty Ports by turning them into an article instead of a consequence of geography. No Treaty, no Treaty Port! (Historical treaties aren’t setup yet, so ignore the date and binding time details)
DD146_04.png
In addition to those, we also have some completely new articles coming with 1.9. One of them Lino talked about on the previous Dev Diary DD #145: Military Access. That Dev Diary already went into detail on how Military Access works, so let’s talk about the other new article coming with 1.9: Transit Rights.

Who’s gonna play Switzerland as their first run when 1.9 drops?
DD146_05.png

If Military Access lets you march your troops through another country, Transit Rights lets landlocked countries pass through a country to access the world market. This can be chained through multiple countries if needed. Switzerland stans can calm down.

Ending a Treaty​

A Treaty ends when either side withdraws from the treaty. Easy. Of course, if you gave away Angola in exchange for Spain transferring you a certain amount of money every week, you want to make sure they actually follow through and you don’t get scammed. This is where binding periods come in.

When signing a treaty, you also define for how long that treaty will be binding (e.g. 5, 10, 15 years). When the binding duration for the treaty lapses, either side can end the treaty at any point without consequences.

We’re still looking at a few alternatives for how to pick the binding period. This is one, but it could also maybe be a slider?
DD146_06.png

You can still end a treaty before the binding period ends of course, but then you would be in breach of the treaty and subject to hefty penalties depending on the articles present in the treaty.

(Re)Negotiation​

If you made some poor choices and a Treaty is really not good for you, you can attempt to renegotiate the treaty instead of just withdrawing from it. To do so, you select what treaty you want to renegotiate and simply click on the button. This will bring you to a flow similar to the original drafting panel, but instead of having a blank slate, the existing articles will be the baseline. From there you can add or remove articles, change inputs or even change the binding period. When you’re happy, you send the proposal as usual and the other side has the opportunity to respond. If they agree, great, the old treaty is replaced with this new one. If they reject your offer though, the old treaty remains in force as it was.

New Granada is starting to feel like maybe this wasn’t such a good deal after all
DD146_07.png

It is worth noting though that some articles are not renegotiable. This mostly applies to articles that have some kind of immediate effect upon signing, like transferring a state, because you can’t just undo that simply by changing the terms somewhat.

Non-fulfillment Consequences​

Say you are playing as Belgium and you need paper, but don’t feel like actually making it yourself. You could set up a treaty where you give the Netherlands some of your Sulfur and in exchange they give you some of the Paper they produce. They agree to this, but then for whatever reason, say a foreign power annexed their only paper mills, they are not able to produce the Paper they should deliver to you. This would likely lead to a shortage of Paper in the Dutch Market which would mean they are not able to deliver the Paper to you.

In such a case, the Netherlands would be considered to be in non-fulfillment of their part of the Treaty. When that happens, generally one of two things will happen depending on what Article is not being fulfilled: if it’s a serious breach, like not answering the call of an Alliance, that will break the whole treaty and the party at fault will receive all the penalties tied to an early withdrawal if the treaty is still binding.

For less serious breaches though, like with the example above, what happens is that the other side of the treaty will be inactive until the breach is addressed, at which point the treaty resumes as usual. In our example, if the Netherlands stopped delivering Paper because they had a shortage due to not producing it, Belgium would stop delivering Sulfur in return as well. This would then hold until the Paper deliveries resume. If there are any other articles on Belgium’s side (including mutual articles) those are also inactivated for as long as the other side is in non-fulfillment. The side that isn’t fulfilling one of their articles stays active though.

Finally, I’d like to note that not all articles will be non-fulfillable. For some articles like investment rights, you can’t not fulfill it, it just happens anyway.

Obligations​

As usual, you can call in obligations to make countries more likely to accept a treaty you propose. When it comes to how you get those obligations we’re making some changes though. Broadly speaking, you will be able to say you consider a certain treaty as essentially a favor to the other side. This will reduce their acceptance of the treaty, but in turn, if the binding period of the treaty lapses and everyone fulfills their parts it will grant you an obligation you can then use as usual.

Signed treaties will take on different names depending on different circumstances. There will also be some historical treaties scripted in with their historical names. Additionally, you will also be able to give your treaties a custom name if you so wish. (shout out to Default Window Line Two)
DD146_08.png

Modding​

As always we have made an active effort to keep this feature as moddable as possible. Many times when thinking about how to solve a certain problem we could see an easy solution which would just work within the assumptions of what we have planned to do with the feature and a more complicated solution where making things work on a more abstract level meant more combinations were possible for modders and as much as possible we chose the latter. As such, I’d like to take a little bit of time to talk about what you can do with this system, primarily centered around modding articles.
A lot of article modding is similar to diplomatic action modding: you can set AI weights, modifiers, effects, costs and so on. What is a bit different here with how articles work, is that you are also able to set if an article should be mutual or directional, but more importantly, you can have the article take any combination of the following inputs (although only one of each):

  • Quantity
  • Goods
  • Building Type
  • Law Type
  • Strategic Region
  • Country
  • State
  • Company
You can then reference these inputs in the immediate effect of the article to do whatever you want that can be done in an effect block.

A little example of how flags and inputs are set in script on articles
DD146_09.png

There are of course some significant parts of articles that are hard coded, but we tried to make them flexible in that. For instance, most vanilla articles work by setting behavior flags. So Transfer Goods has an is_transfer_goods flag. This then tells the code what behavior it should call and makes it take in the expected inputs that is_transfer_goods requires. There’s also say is_investment_rights, or is_alliance. And the cool thing here is that you can actually to some degree combine these. So if you want to make an article that grants both military access and transit rights at the same time, you can do that. The main limitation here is if you have two flags that look at the same input type, they will have to use the same input. So combining transfer goods with no tariffs would necessarily both target the same input.

Another cool thing you can do is mod the non-fulfillment conditions. You could for instance have a version of Transfer Goods that is only active while the countries are at peace or something and then if that is broken maybe you’d want the treaty to auto-break or maybe you want it to freeze instead. Up to you.

Charters of Commerce​

While everything I have described so far will be part of the free 1.9 update, the Mechanics Pack Charters of Commerce will also include a number of new articles exclusive to it:

  • No Tariffs on Goods
    • The country is not allowed to set tariffs on a specific input good when trading with the World Market
  • No Subventions on Goods
    • The country is not allowed to set subventions on a specific input good when trading with the World Market
  • Prohibit trade of good with World Market
    • The country is not allowed to trade a specific input good with the World Market
  • Law commitment
    • The country commits to passing a specific law. As long as they don’t, their side is not fulfilled and the other side of the treaty is inactive
  • Non-Colonization Agreement
    • The country is not allowed to colonize a specific strategic region
  • Grant Monopoly to Foreign Company
    • Tune in to the next dev diary when Lino will talk more about this

Portugal would really like to be left alone with their colonies
DD146_10.png




I feel like there is something I forgot to mention…hmmm

Just one more thing​

There’s one more thing I’d like to show before we end this though. In addition to the flow I’ve already explained above, there’s another way Treaties can be used: Diplomatic Plays.

In 1.9, as part of the free update, we’re adding a new war goal: Enforce Treaty Article. This war goal lets you select between a number of articles that are specifically classified (in script) as enforceable. You can select this war goal multiple times targeting different articles. Then, at the end of the war, all instances of the war goal against the same country will result in a War Reparations Treaty against that country. This treaty, being enforced, cannot be withdrawn from.

What this means is that on a base level you can have war reparations work as they used to, but if you prefer, as part of war reparations you can instead demand getting investment rights in the country in question. Or you can prohibit them from trading weapons and artillery with the world market. Or you could mod some other article we haven’t thought about and do that instead. Or all of the above.

Now you’ll have more ways in which you can make the Prussians pay
DD146_11.png




Alright, now that was actually all I had to show you today. I hope you are as excited about all this as I have been to tell you about it. It’s been a whole journey to work on it and it’s awesome finally getting to share it with you all. Let me know what you think: are there any article combinations you are particularly excited about? And for the modders out there, have the modding gears started turning already? I’m very much looking forward to seeing what clever treaties you all come up with and hearing about all the backstabbing in MP when 1.9 releases on June 17.

Before that though, Lino will be back in two weeks to tell you some more about what we have been cooking with Companies and Executives. Until then!

DD146_12.jpg

 
  • 196Love
  • 74Like
  • 6
  • 4
Reactions:
Is there any historical precedent to countries actually negotiating direct goods transfers within markets, as opposed to just negotiating tariffs and trade deals? Seems odd to me that governments would be sending X goods rather than just liberalising trade
Bartering? Commodity swaps? Yeah, very common and still happen to this day. I'd argue that tariffs and trade deals are the newcomers
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You know what, this system would be great to implement into vassals system, so its stops being binary thing you either a puppet or protectorate and actually gives depth to the system where both sided would negotiate what both parties obligated to do
Yeah, I’d love that. Using this system for subject interactions, sort of like CK3’s vassal agreements.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:
Will be there integration of this system with Diplomatic Plays and Power Blocs? Especially diplo plays can benefit greatly from this new system as it allows negotiations.
 
  • 8Like
Reactions:
It's great to see this, thanks. A few questions:

- When trading goods as an article, where do good come from and where do they go? Are they bought by the government in the capital state (and if so could they be bought from the world market? the example of Belgium running out of paper mills makes me think this is not the case)? Do they go to the recipient's capital state? These must be used by some pops/building somewhere in the world after all
- Can treaty ports also have a binding period? (ie. Britain owning Hong Kong for 100 years) and can you have multiple treaties with one country?

Extra question: I like to see that there is some small interaction with diplomatic plays as articles can now be war goals but I wonder if you have thought about taking this further. Say as the US I want to buy the Mexican states that are on the west coast and Mexico rejects. I am not willing to give more and I really want this treaty to be enforced so I get the option of starting a diplomatic play where my war goal is to enforce the whole treaty (ie. I can't just enforce articles). This have two interesting interactions:
1. Mexico could be more willing to sign the treaty during the diplomatic play given that I am signalling that I am willing to go to war
2. The transfer of states should cost me less infamy given that I want to give something in return. I can see that reduction being somehow scaled by "how good" what I am offering in the treaty is compared to what I am asking for.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Bartering? Commodity swaps? Yeah, very common and still happen to this day. I'd argue that tariffs and trade deals are the newcomers
I get commodity swaps but they're more to do with aid and risk management rather than proper trade. Generally countries negotiate trade deals in this regard.

I think it would be more interesting if countries could negotiate specific export and import rates for themselves. They've already said that specific import/export relationships are tracked, so I think this would be mechanically feasible? Unless I'm understanding the trade system wrong
 
FInally proper peaceful negotiations. Good for singleplayer amazing for Multiplayer. Thank you. Much appreciated. Micro mine critique, at release it would have been better, but thats just complaining for the sake of complaining :D
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Yooo this is cool as shit? If it really ends up as immersive as you described and not prone to just scamming the AI, this will make Victoria 3 have by far the best diplomacy system out of any PDX game.
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
Reactions:
Is there any historical precedent to countries actually negotiating direct goods transfers within markets, as opposed to just negotiating tariffs and trade deals? Seems odd to me that governments would be sending X goods rather than just liberalising trade
Yes, Versaille treaties for instance, where Germany and other losing countries were ordered to provide specific amounts of specific goods (coal, locomotives, timber, even livestock and many things more) in addition to monetary payments.
 
Last edited:
  • 7Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Hey guys, this looks great! I love how this makes the relations between players/actors more unique and different from each other! While I have nothing specific to add to this (other than that im a big fan), I want to take the opportunity to mention something that relates to this:

I would love to see more changes in the future that make use of the geography of the map. I want to use the map more often to get information about the game state in an intuitive way, and also to make decisions more intuitively.
I think it would be really helpful to understand the complex relationships in the game, if you could rely more on your intuitive understanding of the geometry of the world that you are playing in, while you are playing the game. I think the way we use the map to understand and play the game, distinguishes Victoria 3 from being a "Spreadsheet Simulator"

Examples that you in part already mentioned would be things like
- trade route cost affected by geographic distance / sea node distance
- supply for armies affected by geographic distance
- displaying the terrain of states more intuitively when you are at war; making it more possible to use the geography of the land you are fighting on to your advantage
- weather conditions that affect different regions in different ways, and appear in a specific area with more severe effects at the epicenter - WAIT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT ONE, YAY!
- in general everything that takes into account the distance between things and the specific geography of places and the general topology of the world.

I LOVE THIS GAME
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
This reminds me of contractual law I studied in law school. In this century some territorial disputes were solved by international arbitration (like the dispute between Brazil and French Guiana arbitrated by Switzerland) instead of cannons. Also, how about a guarantor of treaties? If “X” doesn’t pay, France will (France always should pay =P). Monetary penalties are default for unfulfilling treaties and your reputation in the market can become blemished. Another idea, you might add deposits or other things (such as territory as a lien) as guarantee to contract fulfillment. Complex, I know, but my lawyer mind just got triggered! :)
 
  • 8Like
Reactions:
You know what, this system would be great to implement into vassals system, so its stops being binary thing you either a puppet or protectorate and actually gives depth to the system where both sided would negotiate what both parties obligated to do
I made a post with the same idea a few days ago, it didn't get reactions, i though something similar would work for Power blocs as well.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Looks very cool!

But will there be possible to draft a new treaty in peace negotiations, one that was not part of the wargoal?

My thinking is that it is a good way to negotiate a new peace. Or just completely humiliate your enemy.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
  • No Tariffs on Goods
    • The country is not allowed to set tariffs on a specific input good when trading with the World Market

Can we ask them to just not tariff a good when trading with OUR market? Or is it always with the World Market?
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
How does this affect the military assistance diplo action? It felt like a placeholder in 1.8, so it would be great if it has a more complex option here where you’re supplying specific military goods and offering additional training.

Related: I think it would be great from a UI perspective to have “treaty templates” and that might help the AI. Eg, a “military assistance template” might automatically add supply of military goods and advisors.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I have a few questions :

A) If we can have non-colonization treaties, could we also have non-interference or sphere of influence treaties? EG, let's say I'm Italy and I want to take Rome and I'm worried about France interfering. I could give them Nice and Savoy in return for France agreeing to not oppose my diplomatic plays in Italy. Or, let's say I'm France and I want to conquer Algeria, but Britain keeps interfering. I could agree to not oppose Britain's diplomatic plays in West Africa in return for him agreeing not to oppose my diplomatic plays in Algeria.

B) If goods transfers means Country A pays for goods in his market, and then sells them in the market of country B, does that mean country A will make money if the price in market B is higher than Market A, and likewise lose money in the opposite case?

C) If you can have a country sell you a good by treaty, can also force them to buy goods? EG, if I'm Britain, can I force the USA to buy my tea at inflated prices? Or do I have to sign a treaty where I sell it(and lose money because tea is more expensive in my market).

D) if its the countries that make money from these goods transfers, doesn't that risk being an excessively easy way to make money from trade when previously the only way to do so was via tariffs and indirectly taxing trade centers?
 
  • 4
  • 3Like
Reactions: