• 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.

Al-Khalidi

Lt. General
1 Badges
Sep 23, 2020
1.590
9.929
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
In older versions when playing as Egypt and Ottomans I was getting millions of migrants from Muslim countries. Here I had one quick run as Ottomans, and initially I got a big influx of Tatars and Circassians from russia, but when I replayed, doing everything pretty much the same, I get no mass migrations by 1900s. Russia has open borders, I have cultural exclusion, pro migration edicts by my power block, good SoL, a lot of jobs, and greener grass edicts in many provinces. What might be the reasons I'm not getting migration this time? Any tips on what else could I do to attract migrants?

I'd especially love historical migration of Muslims from Russia
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Playing as a multicultural USA, I get a constant bombardment of mass migrations.

I know I saw in the UI somewhere a list of mass migration targets. I can’t for the life of me remember where…
 
There seems to be a bug or oversight whereby religious acceptance doesn't count towards attraction calculations for cultural acceptance. This makes it so that you have to have high cultural acceptance without any religious considerations. I really hope they fix and also just add a bit more acceptance for same religion under state religion as it is too low right now.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The ledger has an option for Migration Attraction (unless this is from one of my UI mods, but I don't think it is).

1753040797505.png
 
Yeah something is up with migration. I also noticed Freedom of Movement III either not or barely working.
Same. I created the most perfect conditions ever, yet it hardly took place.
Playing as a multicultural USA, I get a constant bombardment of mass migrations.

I know I saw in the UI somewhere a list of mass migration targets. I can’t for the life of me remember where…
Actually that's another thing, millions of my people migrated to USA too, even though I had better SoL and they were culturally accepted.


As for migration targets, I had a few provinces with extremely high migrant attraction
 
There seems to be a bug or oversight whereby religious acceptance doesn't count towards attraction calculations for cultural acceptance. This makes it so that you have to have high cultural acceptance without any religious considerations. I really hope they fix and also just add a bit more acceptance for same religion under state religion as it is too low right now.
It's waaay past time to do that. It was one of the earliest issues I raised, not long after game announcement, that Muslim Albanians shouldn't be treated in the same way as Orthodox serbs in the Ottoman Empire
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
depends on what OP meant by "older versions". Far as I can tell, since the discrimination/migration rework, migration has always worked like this.
Hm, for example I recall playing as Egypt less than a year ago, I had pretty much the same laws as now, similar sphere of influence, etc. and I had around 10-20 milion migrants concentrated in just Egypt proper, which, I imagine, must have been way less migration friendly. Now as Ottomans I'm desperately trying to attract such migration to Balkans and in 1911 I have perhaps around one milion (I had slave trade as both which might be a factor I guess)
 
Same. I created the most perfect conditions ever, yet it hardly took place.

Actually that's another thing, millions of my people migrated to USA too, even though I had better SoL and they were culturally accepted.


As for migration targets, I had a few provinces with extremely high migrant attraction
Per the wiki, these are the conditions for mass migration:
  • at least 15% State status turmoil.png turmoil in a culture whose homelands its owns
  • at least 100,000 potential emigrants

So, either there’s a bug or you had turmoil in your cultures.
 
I just played as Brazil in my first run on 1.9, and think I remember getting more mass migration on earlier versions. I had cultural exclusion, no migration controls and total separation. I ran the game in observer mode for ten years between 1893 and 1903 and neither Brazil or the US got any mass migration events in that period. The Brazilian state Para had the highest mass migration attraction for most of the time. Other nations got migration, French Niger (who had multiculturalism) and several states in India.

Could it be that turmoil is lower in Europe in this version? Or possibly higher standard of living?
 
I just played as Brazil in my first run on 1.9, and think I remember getting more mass migration on earlier versions. I had cultural exclusion, no migration controls and total separation. I ran the game in observer mode for ten years between 1893 and 1903 and neither Brazil or the US got any mass migration events in that period. The Brazilian state Para had the highest mass migration attraction for most of the time. Other nations got migration, French Niger (who had multiculturalism) and several states in India.

Could it be that turmoil is lower in Europe in this version? Or possibly higher standard of living?
It may vary. I was getting mass migrations firing constantly from all over the world playing as the USA. Granted, I had like the top 20 mass migration targets, so they were all coming my way.

I know I saw a lot from Italy and Russia. Others from countries that got devastated by wars. The fairly constant drumbeat of GP wars might have done a lot to build my population.
 
It may vary. I was getting mass migrations firing constantly from all over the world playing as the USA. Granted, I had like the top 20 mass migration targets, so they were all coming my way.

I know I saw a lot from Italy and Russia. Others from countries that got devastated by wars. The fairly constant drumbeat of GP wars might have done a lot to build my population.
It is possible that Europe was unusually stable in my game, I did not pay that much attention to it, but I did notice that Germany formed much earlier than what I've been used to. Perhaps that had something to do with it