There are no realistic sources of infrastructure until railroads now

[Imp0815]

No, we build in every state. There are 660 states but so many provinces my browser almost crashes trying to load a map of them all. I don't think having to build every line instead of incrementing a number is any more meaningful, it seems like busywork to fill your downtime because you play on slower speeds. We also do not agree that the positives outweigh the negatives, I think it's bad idea to bring in, especially as you've suggested it, and it would kill my interest in the game because I'm tired of busywork in Paradox games that just add clicks, which is all this feels like. I think *improved logistics* is a good idea, which is not the same thing as saying I think building rails between specific points is a good idea.

You assume they don't interact with underlying systems, but there's no reason to assume that.

I don't really care that you don't think performance isn't a valid reason to oppose something, it's something the devs have explicitly said is a determining factor in whether or not they implement certain features. So you can not care about it all you want, it won't make it any less important.

Ok, I see we’re running in circles. What I’m proposing is connecting states by building rail lines at the province level. I’m not entirely sure what hierarchy applies in Victoria 3 — there are so many layers of "location" — so apologies if I wasn’t precise earlier.

But again, I feel there’s a bad faith argument creeping in. I envision a system where we build rail lines from State PoI to State PoI, where the order and level of connection matter. Railways in reality aren’t omnipresent — they’re planned networks, with main lines and side branches. This complexity should be reflected in-game, so long as it adds meaningful decisions.

Historically, trains were the driving force of the industrial revolution. They didn’t just move goods — they unified economies, shaped migration, and dictated military logistics. The U.S. transcontinental railroad connected frontier and industry. In Europe, the German states built lines with political intent, forging national unity. Russia’s Trans-Siberian Railway enabled state control over vast, disconnected regions. These weren’t just infrastructure — they were instruments of transformation.

And yet, Victoria 3 barely depicts this. Rail lines exist, but as abstract modifiers. There's almost no interaction with the map itself. Players often disable handcrafted environments — which is a shame, because they look great. A proper railway system could fix that: it would encourage zooming in, placing lines, shaping geography. It would justify the visual effort — and yes, even the cosmetics they sell for the map.

The “clicks” and “performance” argument feels weak and evasive. It doesn’t actually engage with the suggestion itself — instead, it’s the kind of blanket objection you could apply to any feature or idea. Yes, every addition affects clicks and performance to some extent — that’s a given. The real question is whether the gameplay value justifies that cost. Using it as a catch-all rebuttal is not just unconvincing — it’s sidestepping the core of the discussion.

The main issue with Victoria 3 at launch was that there wasn’t much to do. Now, with 53 mods, it’s OK for me — but vanilla still feels like you’re mostly waiting in large chunks for buildings and laws to tick over. I interpret your argument for speed as: Vicky 3 has so few interactions that you can just fast-forward through the game. And if that’s what you like, that’s fine.

But I argue — if a game has nothing truly to do but speed through it, you might as well play Need for Speed or no game at all.

And to finally shoot the bird: Sid Meier once said, “Games are a series of interesting decisions.”
So, based on that guy Sid — more interesting decisions make a better game.

 

[monksimus]

I agree that the province level is too detailed, but some ability to prioritize the connections between key locations would be useful for balancing strategic concerns. Perhaps using my favorite level of abstraction, the state location nodes. It would allow you to choose which production center to connect first, and would also be limited by geographic choke points. Hopefully it also would be a good balance between performance and interesting decisions.

 

[Imp0815]

I agree that the province level is too detailed, but some ability to prioritize the connections between key locations would be useful for balancing strategic concerns. Perhaps using my favorite level of abstraction, the state location nodes. It would allow you to choose which production center to connect first, and would also be limited by geographic choke points. Hopefully it also would be a good balance between performance and interesting decisions.

Maybe on a state level, but with province-level Points of Interest. We would set a limit for when an industry is so large it gets its own province dedicated to it. This would then pop up on the map with a model and can be connected via rail. In addition, these PoIs could be heavily weighted to form on already existing rail tiles.

The only issue I see with circumventing province-based rail laying is the fact that it would be hard to add any decisions based on time, cost, or length when planning rail lines — as it would just be predefined lines that we basically enable by building a railway from State A to State B.

In addition, having to constantly scan the map for new Industry PoIs could become the kind of busywork that was already prophesied.

So yes, it could be on state level without the province-level interaction of terrain and length. But that would basically push the state-level building to a state-level connection without the extra complexity of rail planning.

I think to avoid issues with busywork, the rail lines must be permanent — meaning, if you connect two states with each other via a rail line, you only come back to upgrade the rail if the demand is there. That could even be done via a UI element like how we build buildings in the state list.
But the initial planning — where the rail flows — would be on province level, to have that interaction and customizability of rails and to add a personal touch and decisions to it.

 

[Prob32]

@Imp0815 @TitaniumMan91 I feel like railways should just cross the spline network as they currently do - just allowing for discrete updates when built. Spline networks do attach themselves to province level but you can't freely choose the specific provinces the spline runs through.

If we're just connecting up states, allowing player choice of which exact provinces a rail runs through seems more tedious.

 

[TitaniumMan91]

Ok, I see we’re running in circles. What I’m proposing is connecting states by building rail lines at the province level. I’m not entirely sure what hierarchy applies in Victoria 3 — there are so many layers of "location" — so apologies if I wasn’t precise earlier.

If all we care about are the states being connected, then the province level doesn't actually matter. Provinces are an almost entirely irrelevant level that exists for army movement, but from what I recall of the dev diaries nothing is calculated on that level.

The “clicks” and “performance” argument feels weak and evasive. It doesn’t actually engage with the suggestion itself — instead, it’s the kind of blanket objection you could apply to any feature or idea. Yes, every addition affects clicks and performance to some extent — that’s a given.

Because the suggestion itself doesn't matter, as I've said there are tons of ideas we could sit around discussing as relevant and important for the time, but unless we account for UX and performance it's an utter waste of time and you end up with bloat like so many of the mods that add "complexity" that tickles an itch for a handful of people. There are games out there for that like Shadow Empire, but they're even more niche than Vic3. Because yes, these are critiques I apply to many features, including how armies are currently build and managed. It's awful clickfest and it drags the game down.

The real question is whether the gameplay value justifies that cost. Using it as a catch-all rebuttal is not just unconvincing — it’s sidestepping the core of the discussion.

I'm not sidestepping anything, gameplay and UX matter more to me than abstract discussion about mechanics that don't currently exist. We both want logistics in game, but I'm very much not convinced that drawing rails on a province level would add any meaningful choice, it would be about as meaningful as whether a state should have infantry or artillery barracks.

I feel like railways should just cross the spline network as they currently do - just allowing for discrete updates when built. Spline networks do attach themselves to province level but you can't freely choose the specific provinces the spline runs through.

If we're just connecting up states, allowing player choice of which exact provinces a rail runs through seems more tedious.

This has been my argument the whole time, apologies if I haven't made it clear. I do want logistics to matter, I don't think drawing rail connections would be fun gameplay in a game with the scope and focus of Vic3. If you build rail in a state, the splines should update to a railed network improving access to neighboring states that also have rail.

 

[monksimus]

Keep calm and reticulate those splines

 

[monksimus]

For anyone who hasn’t seen it, this is what the spline network already existing in game looks like. I believe each state has 4 or 5 nodes, urban, mining, agricultural, manufacturing, and port if applicable. More detail than this would get unwieldy at best. Maybe they could make some extra connections gated by technology like mountain tunneling or whatever.

 

[Prob32]

This has been my argument the whole time, apologies if I haven't made it clear. I do want logistics to matter, I don't think drawing rail connections would be fun gameplay in a game with the scope and focus of Vic3. If you build rail in a state, the splines should update to a railed network improving access to neighboring states that also have rail.

Yeah I imagine it would feel like the videos of seen of EuV's road builder but with some more guard "rails" apologies for the pun.

What I'm more concerned about is there seems to be a misconception that the amount of goods getting shipped within a market area should impact the price of transport. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ure-until-railroads-now.1835099/post-30600276

Example (consider formed Germany year 1860):

You have 10 steel mills in Silesia, supplied by 20 Iron mines in Alsace-Lorraine and 20 Coal Mines in Ruhr. This should have a much larger demand on your total market area transport buy orders. This means that a textile producer in Saxony who produces textiles for the entire nation will pay more for transportation buy orders than if you had located the 20 steel mills in Westphalia.

Co-locating supply chains along rivers, coasts and later rails to get "Market advantage" and reduction in required transport should lower transport demanded which should absolutely benefit the entire market area price for transport.

Historically the US, UK, Germany and Japan benefitted massively from having strong amounts of internal transport "sell orders" amongst its market area which benefits all types of industries.

 

[Prob32]

For anyone who hasn’t seen it, this is what the spline network already existing in game looks like. I believe each state has 4 or 5 nodes, urban, mining, agricultural, manufacturing, and port if applicable. More detail than this would get unwieldy at best. Maybe they could make some extra connections gated by technology like mountain tunneling or whatever. View attachment 1335787

I think that railyards would best simulate the connectivity and infrastructure required between the 5 hubs within a state needing rail connections and that intra state connections could go from urban to urban within states. 5 per state might get messy but I trust the devs to figure out the balance that feels right

 

[Imp0815]

For anyone who hasn’t seen it, this is what the spline network already existing in game looks like. I believe each state has 4 or 5 nodes, urban, mining, agricultural, manufacturing, and port if applicable. More detail than this would get unwieldy at best. Maybe they could make some extra connections gated by technology like mountain tunneling or whatever. View attachment 1335787

Now that price question: Are the connection dots of the network on province level or state level?
How did you access this overlay?

@Prob32 & @TitaniumMan91
I'm confused about your suggestion — how would one connect states and their PoIs? In addition, how does it differ from the current system where we click on a state, build a railway, and it basically connects to all neighbouring states? I mean, I’m hung up on province level because you can take terrain information from a province, and based on where your rail goes through a province, you can gather stats like buildtime, cost, and efficiency of the rail line — making it a decision through which province your rail connects states. And with technology, you can reduce the impact of certain terrain types, until you blow holes into mountains for massive tunnels.
At least that's what I envisioned as a goal with province-level rail laying for players — observing, testing, and knowing where good prime rail locations are as a fun interaction while you wait for your building queue to empty or laws to roll over. Also a reason to look at the gorgeous map.

Sure, a node-based system where we just connect dots could work, but that would be busywork. To be fair, it would maintain the need to think about the order in which you want to connect states and preserve all the strategic decisions about industries and connections.

 

[monksimus]

Now that price question: Are the connection dots of the network on province level or state level?
How did you access this overlay?

@Prob32 & @TitaniumMan91
I'm confused about your suggestion — how would one connect states and their PoIs? In addition, how does it differ from the current system where we click on a state, build a railway, and it basically connects to all neighbouring states? I mean, I’m hung up on province level because you can take terrain information from a province, and based on where your rail goes through a province, you can gather stats like buildtime, cost, and efficiency of the rail line — making it a decision through which province your rail connects states. And with technology, you can reduce the impact of certain terrain types, until you blow holes into mountains for massive tunnels.
At least that's what I envisioned as a goal with province-level rail laying for players — observing, testing, and knowing where good prime rail locations are as a fun interaction while you wait for your building queue to empty or laws to roll over. Also a reason to look at the gorgeous map.

Sure, a node-based system where we just connect dots could work, but that would be busywork. To be fair, it would maintain the need to think about the order in which you want to connect states and preserve all the strategic decisions about industries and connections.

I grabbed it from a modding guide here: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3165669021

Those connections are actually in between the province level and the state level. The tiny black outlines are the provinces, but the nodes in this network are 4-5 per state. My worry with the province level is that at that level of detail you are only really making a decision about the cost of building in certain terrain, when all other calculations are at a higher level. As far as I am aware, military movement is the only thing that is even calculated at the node and spline level - even if they represent it as the province level for front lines. Adding another system that is more detailed feels like unnecessary complication when the decisions are not really strategic.

At the spline and node level you have a little more detail than states and have the added advantage of prioritizing the production centers of a state, in addition to the geographic constraints present in node connections. You could prioritize connection of manufacturing centers to mining centers for a heavy industry focused state, or connections to foreign markets through ports or borders for trade focused economies etc.. On the military level it should matter whether you are connecting to potential front lines and urban centers where troops have their barracks. For national centralization and control perhaps it could matter how well you have connected your hinterlands to your capital.

It feels to me like this level of detail allows you to make the important strategic decisions while minimizing the busywork of choosing the exact right of way that rails use. It also uses something that currently exists in the game (if largely hidden), hopefully making the implementation a little easier for the devs.

 

[Imp0815]

I grabbed it from a modding guide here: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3165669021

Those connections are actually in between the province level and the state level. The tiny black outlines are the provinces, but the nodes in this network are 4-5 per state. My worry with the province level is that at that level of detail you are only really making a decision about the cost of building in certain terrain, when all other calculations are at a higher level. As far as I am aware, military movement is the only thing that is even calculated at the node and spline level - even if they represent it as the province level for front lines. Adding another system that is more detailed feels like unnecessary complication when the decisions are not really strategic.

At the spline and node level you have a little more detail than states and have the added advantage of prioritizing the production centers of a state, in addition to the geographic constraints present in node connections. You could prioritize connection of manufacturing centers to mining centers for a heavy industry focused state, or connections to foreign markets through ports or borders for trade focused economies etc.. On the military level it should matter whether you are connecting to potential front lines and urban centers where troops have their barracks. For national centralization and control perhaps it could matter how well you have connected your hinterlands to your capital.

It feels to me like this level of detail allows you to make the important strategic decisions while minimizing the busywork of choosing the exact right of way that rails use. It also uses something that currently exists in the game (if largely hidden), hopefully making the implementation a little easier for the devs.

I have read the guide, and as far as I understood, it's truly a additional layer of lines connecting dots, with no true regard for provinces.
I agree that having access to the spline network and building rails on this layer would be a compromise for a more interactive and forward rail system. But it feels like a compromise if we could gain access to the real challenges of building rail lines in the 19th century.

Well, as was already mentioned, splines could get terrain traits attached — so it's not possible to build the Gotthard Tunnel in 1836 without dynamite unlocked.

I think I could live with it, and we still could have all the flavor attached to the rail system. For example, having historical routes as journal entries that pass through certain province/spline nodes.

But to add merit to this system, the costs of building and running rail must be really high compared to before, so we're not incentivized to just connect EVERYTHING by rail.
Certain node levels and economic incentives must be a given, and only with later technologies and progressed wealth accumulation should more remote and widespread networks be possible to maintain.

Really neat how we went from “I don't like this” and “but I like this” to a tangible, theoretically feasible and plausible system. Thanks!