• 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.

Dev Diary #38 – Trade Routes & Tariffs

16_9.jpg

If money is the sinews of war, then trade is the lifeblood of nations and in no period is this truer than the Victorian Era. Victoria 3 takes place in a period of time where the nations of the world pushed this concept further than before, through a period of industrialization and growing interconnectivity of first homelands and colonies and then among nation-states themselves. The trade routes on the map connecting our nations became the fabric that underpins many of the understandings of our modern world today.

But what is trade? It may seem obvious to some but to better understand the systems we need to make sure we understand the foundations they are built upon. Thus, trade is understood to be the movement of goods between two markets as a means of commercial transaction so that the other party is effectively paid for their services. Trade is not conducted between businesses and/or nations but is instead conducted through their national markets and by proxy their trade centers. While this may not seem a meaningful distinction, the market and economy of a nation is not synonymous with its national government; while that government may attempt to influence the economy it does not always have an absolute degree of control over it. Thus the trade that goes on in your market is something that you can influence and encourage (or discourage if you like) but never fully control (unless you are the only nation in existence I guess?).

While trade takes place between national markets at the behest of players and AI, it is conducted in the trade centers of those respective countries. Trade centers function similarly to urban centers, talked about in a previous dev diary. These are not buildings that are constructed manually but develop as a result of their engaging in trade routes as they are representative of the many gray areas of industry that necessitate the collection and movement of goods.

If you were to create an import route of goods for your industries, a resulting level of trade centers would develop within your nation. While urban centers tend to develop where you have placed many industrial buildings, trade centers develop in the market capitals and the ports of your nation. While you cannot paint the placement of trace centers outright, you can influence their development by creating ports in states that are naturally suited to such, where infrastructure and pops are readily available to staff them.

Where there is a port and people, there is likely to be trade, and hopefully profit!
DD38 01.png

Yes, trade centers must be staffed. Goods do not just appear in one nation from the next but require the maintenance of bureaucrats, laborers, clerks, and the like to offload and onload cargo, take account of it, tax it, and move it forward. These are for the most part privately owned enterprises that normally have capitalists in charge, instead of government run services. Without pops staffing your trade centers you will find yourself unable to conduct trade in accordance with your aspirations but that shouldn’t be too hard to manage as trade centers have also been historically known to be centers of migration, the first stop of migrants both domestic and international seeking a better life and sometimes finding it.

All the goods moving to and from New York means it's easier for Pops to hitch a ride.
DD38 02.png

Trade centers collect revenue on both sides of the routes they manage, in relation to how many goods are moved and how much the routes affect the prices in their respective markets. This revenue is allocated to the employees and taxed by the same logic as any industry, so who makes money off your trade is related to your domestic policies in the same way as the rest of your economy.

While trade is something every nation can take a part of, how they affect trade in relation to conducting it efficiently, preventing it when it hurts them, or profiting off of it when they can is dependent upon its trade policies, which also dictate how a nation can utiize embargoes and tariffs to achieve such. Yes that’s right, I said tariffs, cue historical excitement of the fanbase.

Where at first there was one law category, now there are two!
DD38 03.png

We’ve done a little restructuring of the economic laws in Victoria 3 since we wrote the Law dev diary, where originally your economic system affected both your domestic and international situations. It has been broken into economic systems which now cover the domestic economy, and trade policy which covers your international endeavors. As such trade policy governs how you interact with a customs union, your ability to set embargoes and tariffs, as well as the general efficiency of your conducted trade.

The Trade Policy laws are broken down into the four categories of ideology relative to the time period which interact with each of the economic systems you can put into place domestically.
DD38 04.png

Embargos represent the ability of a national government to extend its influence in protecting its national market and subsequent interests. Most, if not all nations can engage in embargoing a good but their effectiveness of doing such is dependent upon the trade policy the national government is centered around. A government centered around the ideas of protectionism has an easier time implementing a more efficient embargo on goods vs those that are committed to a more mercantilism or free trade policy. Notice I said influence, not authority there? While it costs authority to enact taxes domestically it costs influence to place embargos as whether or not they are able to be enforced is dependent upon your ability to influence other nations to respect them. Refusing to make fair trade deals will strain your diplomatic corp.

Protectionism means that not only are embargoes easier to maintain, they are also more efficient.
DD38 05.png

And now for the potentially more controversial statement, embargoes are not absolute. Sure you may embargo trade of a specific good into your country but that’s not going to stop it outright, only hinder the ease of its trade. Another nation might try and continue to push goods into your country but it will certainly require more of an effort to facilitate such, it all depends. In history there’s certainly something we can agree upon, embargoing something, making it illegal, or hindering its trade reduces the flow of the good but does not stop it outright if there is a vested interest by another nation and a profit to be made.

Tariffs are the means where a national government extends its influence as an intermediary in the trade between national markets, if not for the means of protecting its national interests, to at the very least ensure it gets its fair share of the profits that such entails. Tariffs are set on both exports and imports leaving the national economy because yes the government is interested in its fair share and if it cannot get the revenue by means of a consumption tax it will find other means. The ratio of this tariff level is dependent on the trade policy set. A more mercantilist trade policy would seek to ensure exports exceed imports so tariffs on exports will undoubtedly be lower. Protectionism is equal in its ratio as it seeks to shelter the domestic economy from booming or busting on either side of the equation. Free Trade, well free trade cares not for tariffs and seeks to profit through other means.

While the laws set the tariff ratio of import/exports these can be customized further in the budget screen by setting their tax levels. Tax levels don’t just bring in revenues but offer incentives to your economic actors, your pops. Lower tariffs encourage trade while higher tariffs will hinder their efficiency because well if the nation is getting a bigger cut, how motivated can you expect the pop to be in engaging in such trade?

A higher tariff means minimizing the profit to be had by business and disincentivizing trade.
DD38 06.png

So how do treaty ports play into these systems, as they certainly existed during the time period? Treaty ports are a means to ensure that you have access to a national market despite such embargoes and tariffs. They are a wedge in the barriers to trade another nation may put up so the goods may be funneled out of the market. Treaty ports have the special function that they permit the bypassing of embargoes and tariffs set in land adjacent markets through trading. They are a more permanent means of opening the market to your access but in the same vein also require a more permanent investment. Since treaty ports are first and foremost ports they will certainly become trade centers and will require the infrastructure and staffing to function. As you invest in this profitable endeavor, be aware that you will need to protect such from the eyes of other imperialist nations who might seek to take it away from you.

At game start Portugal finds itself holding the Treaty Port of Macao, a very profitable trade endeavor, but will such profits attract the attention of greater powers?
DD38 07.png

How do Customs unions come into play here? If you recall from the previous developer diary, customs unions are an agreement between one or more nations where one nation agrees to subject itself to another's national market. By agreeing to subject your national market to another nation you are agreeing to take on the structure set into place by their economic system and policies. While you are still able to enact trade between that national market and another you lose the ability to set embargoes on specific goods and tariff policies across the market, though you do receive your contributing share of the profit of such tariffs. Sometimes this development can be beneficial, sometimes it can majorly hurt your national sources of income, as the previous dev diary goes to great length to summarize “it depends.”

And that's a bit about trade, tariffs, and more! I may not have succeeded in delivering a concise explanation this time but it's certainly a shorter one. Next week is going to be the Kaiser himself (Johan Jons) to talk about Shipping Lanes. I’ll let the fanbase craft their own conspiracy theories about whether or not we are being literal with that one.
 
Last edited:
  • 182Like
  • 68Love
  • 12
  • 11
  • 8
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
Trade Agreements are totally a thing within the diplomatic actions of the game and there are plenty of options you can take within diplomatic plays to pry open more walled off markets and get them to change their systems to better align with yours. While I am always on the lookout for how to tie trade further into the relations of diplomacy, what has been stated in the dev diary is not necessarily everything outright.
Fair enough!

Speaking of it, I don't think the relation of trade agreements on tariffs was ever described in diary #20, is this a suitable moment to describe this, or are you saving it for later?
 
I just realized that introducing treaty ports will also make those weird one-province outposts like Macau much more important and useful. In previous Vicky games they were almost more of a liability than an asset, since their only real use was as coaling stations for your navy.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Do the relations between two nations impact trade between them? For instance, if Sweden hates Denmark, could they refuse to trade with them? And if Austria really likes Germany, can they favour Germany as a trade partner?
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I like the point that one proud bavarian brought up, that goes like that ( as far as i can remember ):

Lets say Canada is in the British market. The UK and Canada are connected by port. Now the market capital of Canada is in London. All states in Canada dont look at each other for trade, they just look at London, Canadian states dont trade with each other.
Lets say a state in Canada produces Food, it does not lower the price of food in the neighbouring Canadian states, since the price is set at the market capital. If the overseas connection to London is bad the price of Food in Canada goes up, although it does not make any sense, since it is produced there.

Is that a possibility in the current Victoria 3 system?

If there are merely trade deals between Canada & UK then no.
If Canada is in UKs market then yes. For a historical case see the Irish Potato famine where the landlords were shipping food to Britain rather than feeding the locals. (although shipping costs from Canada would be impressive! But that's where market access vs local market ratios come in unless you invested a LOT in infrastructure)

Until the low SoL makes the locals radicalise and enact political change.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I just realized that introducing treaty ports will also make those weird one-province outposts like Macau much more important and useful. In previous Vicky games they were almost more of a liability than an asset, since their only real use was as coaling stations for your navy.
Macau is in fact a Treaty Port and can give Portugal a significant leg up on Chinese trade at the start of the game. Hong Kong is another potential Treaty Port in China's main Trade Center.
 
  • 18Like
  • 5
  • 4Love
  • 4
Reactions:
There's two principal issues:
1) It overlaps with how embargos function in that it is a reactive (or proactive) tool to protect a specific good.
2) Using embargoes in a proactive way would effectively be spending Influence on something that doesn't earn you any money, which wouldn't be a very good gameplay flow.

Something we've considered is the ability to selectively make goods duty-free where you want to encourage their import/export.
Hmm, I don't understand the second issue. Even if something costs me influence and I loose money it could still be perfectly viable action to take. I could loose some money and influence to hurt other nation for multiple reasons. For example I could weaken their economy if I'm planning to declare war on them in the future.
I think options to embargo other nations/market and setting tarrifs for specific goods would be great for economic warfare.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Does that mean a country can not subsidise a trade center? In a world where those trade centers are the only way to import goods not produced in the country?
If you look closely at the trade center image you will notice it has a subsidize setting. Its just greyed out because its not currently allowed by the economic laws of that country.

Its totally possible for you to run just trades that would be a loss (maybe to conduct economic warfare?) and to subsidize the trade centers to ensure it takes place.
 
  • 26Like
  • 8
  • 5Love
  • 2
Reactions:
If there's a state - and a power willing to fight for it - there's a treaty port to be had whever that may be.
I want to go back on this. The way you worded this makes it sound like any state can be host to a treaty "port." Does this include inland states? Can Prussia open up Russia by having Warsaw be a treaty "port?" Or is this limited to coastal states?

If the former, this would bring the treaty port game up a whole other level.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I’m curious: so the way that treaty ports are structured - is there any benefit to holding more than one treaty port, in terms of levels of access to the captive market? Maybe that was clear from the diary but I didn’t understand!
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Its one of those things that you kinda just expect that others know about and apologies for not making that clear. Trade is done either through the market screen or the lens for trade on the bottom of the UI, you can choose to import/export a specific good and then the market you wish to get it from/send it to. This interaction will then create a trade center. It is then summarized for ease in the Trade Center Menu (though this UI exists in the Markets summary as well).
Can trade happen independently as well? Can, say, your capitalists start a trade route for good X that is needed in their industry? Or export their surplus... Etc? I am pretty sure that is the case, but I want to double check
 
  • 3
Reactions:
So Treaty Ports allow you to side-step local regulations on goods. Now I need to play a campaign as the EIC/British Raj and drown every market in the world with Opium, Liquor, and Wine. Libertinism will triumph over Temperance!

More seriously, thanks for separating Trade and Economic Policy: it was kind of weird to have them be the same in an economic game in the first place.

But is there a reason why both kinds of tariffs have to be increased at the same time? I can see many situations where you want to import a lot of goods (i.e. temporary war/disaster shortages) but still want to avoid choking your export-based economy.
State enforced drinking now! There'll be no teetotalers in [insert any country I play as]
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
By far the most exciting thing about this Dev Diary was that none of the screenshots had WIP on them somewhere. This obviously means that a release date announcement is due to come out any day now.
It came out yesterday and so far i'm having a blast
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If there's a state - and a power willing to fight for it - there's a treaty port to be had wherever that may be.
Can there be treaty ports that aren't ports? If as France I want to take a chunk of Bavaria to export my delicious wines (whether they want them or not) is that something I can do?

Its totally possible for you to run just trades that would be a loss (maybe to conduct economic warfare?) and to subsidize the trade centers to ensure it takes place.
Can you subsidize exports that are unprofitable specifically to prop up the economy of another nation? e.g. I want to send cheap Tools to my friends to help them industrialize.

I’m curious: so the way that treaty ports are structured - is there any benefit to holding more than one treaty port, in terms of levels of access to the captive market?
I think the benefit is that two treaty ports = two demands if the host state wants to kick you out.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This is the right approach, i see you look at the processes and revise them and now make the game better. Now economic warfare is more plausible.
However, as mentioned plenty of times before it would be nice to prepare for economic warfare by hoarding gold reserves and different currencies.

If your wealth as government can't be stacked there is little incentive for people to take u turns to make impactful embargo etc. decisions.
Regular warfare with boots on the ground should now try to connect with these systems and see like hoi4 you can capture stockpiles - industry centers etc.
Leaving out stockpiling as a whole fully, probably will limit the depth and replay ability..
 
  • 4
Reactions:
So are trade routes are unilaterally set up?
All the discussion about embargoes wouldn't make sense otherwise.
Are both import and export set up unilaterally?
How is it determined when you're allowed to cease a trade route?
 
  • 5
Reactions:
It is not currently possible to embargo a specific country, though if we did put in such functionality it would have to be embargoing a specific national market - as countries themselves do not trade.
Do any history buffs here actually know of any sanctions imposed in victorian times? Genuinely curious that's all.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: