• 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:
There definitely needs to be the ability to embargo countries and set tariffs on specific goods, or this is going to be a major complaint after release.

It's just one of the most obvious expectations. I think if people realize they cant do it, they'll be disappointed.

I agree. We already have consumption taxes on specific goods. Why not add import/export tariffs on specific goods?

And considering a trade route is between 2 markets, a tariff/embargo in that market should be feasible.

And the trade laws should affect the cost/efficiency/size of such actions.

The big question here is: How good is the mod support for trade/tariff?
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
Limited to coastal states - treaty ports require ports at current.
The former is a neat idea to consider for the future but scope creep upon scope creep means the game never gets released sadly.

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!
Having more than one treaty port (if managed) means that your trade centers will likely be balanced between the two ports which puts less stress on infrastructure and makes it easier to maintain a larger volume of trade. It also means more ports to defend so take it as you will.
 
  • 10
  • 9Like
  • 4
  • 1Love
Reactions:
How do Treaty Ports work if the surrounding country change? If Spain holds Melilla as a Treaty Port, and Morocco is annexed by France, does that mean that Spain now has access to the French market as if it had a Treaty Port there? Or if there is a Guandgong tag and it gets independent, now Portugal would get access to it instead of the Chinese market?
 
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
How do Treaty Ports work if the surrounding country change? If Spain holds Melilla as a Treaty Port, and Morocco is annexed by France, does that mean that Spain now has access to the French market as if it had a Treaty Port there? Or if there is a Guandgong tag and it gets independent, now Portugal would get access to it instead of the Chinese market?

I would assume that is how it works, yes. It is also fairly realistic since if Guandgong breaks away from China, there will be trade barriers between the two and Portugal now cannot bring stuff in from China unless Guandgong brings it into their market first via trade routes (or joins the Chinese market). Likewise Opium being flowed into Guandgong now cannot freely enter China, as there is guarded border there.

So Treaty Ports interact in an interesting way with Customs Unions, in that if you allow someone to join your market and they have a hostile Treaty Port next to them, you are now getting potentially predatory trading coming into your market. One of the many cases where adding countries to your market is not necessarily a good thing.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Tariffs are not currently set on specific goods they are set across the board as a policy of all traded goods. Thats the intent for now - going into calling out specific goods beyond that is something that was considered but has not been put into play.
That's a massive shame. Import substitution relies on high tariffs on finished goods and lower tariffs on intermediate goods and raw materials. I think in his report on manufactures, Hamilton already advises as much (although predating the game's time frame). Probably influenced by Friedrich List, the Zollverein in the 1840s also adopted higher tariffs on finished products while keeping tariffs on iron and other raw materials moderate.
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.
Setting per-good tariffs is wrong, but so is a single rate across all imports / exports !
For a basic simulation of 19th century trade policies we need 4 (or, if we separate imports and exports, 8) different rulers:
  • import and export rate for raw materials (coal, cotton...)
  • import and export rate for industrial goods (steel, tools...)
  • import and export rate for consumer goods (clothes, furniture...)
  • import and export rate for luxury goods (meat, luxury clothes...)

tariffs.png
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
First forum post, thus apologies for formatting and etiquette mistakes.

I just wanted to state my disappointment that you cannot tariff specific goods or embargo specific markets right now. While one dev response states that economics can be used as a "weapon" against other nations, to me the lack of these two mechanics make it that economic warfare will probably be impossible?

I was hoping that we could (ideally alongside our allies) for example embargo the neighbouring market, leading it to crash after some time and make our neighbour politically irrelevant in the process. Or maybe I want to buy steel from neighbouring market A, but since I am eyeing the conquest of neighbour B down the line, I don't want to support their war machinery by buying steel from there.

It's not about setting per-good tariffs, it's about splitting the tariff rate in four
  • one rate for raw materials (coal, cotton...)
  • one rate for industrial goods (steel, tools...)
  • one rate for consumer goods (clothes, furniture...)
  • one rate for luxury goods (meat, luxury clothes...)

I think this would be already an improvement to the current idea. Personally I would love to be able to fine-tune tariffs and embargoes on specific goods and markets to strategically boost certain sectors within my own nation while potentially crippling sectors within other neighbours. If I am overlooking mechanics that would allow me to do that, I would be thankful if you point them out to me.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I think goods are already "grouped" into Raw Materials, Industrial Goods, Consumer Goods and Military Goods.

So if those distinctions work for your purposes, they do seem to exist in the game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
First forum post, thus apologies for formatting and etiquette mistakes.

I just wanted to state my disappointment that you cannot tariff specific goods or embargo specific markets right now. While one dev response states that economics can be used as a "weapon" against other nations, to me the lack of these two mechanics make it that economic warfare will probably be impossible?

It definitely sounds possible based on the mechanics we know so far, but requires more specific set-ups. The most basic form is out-competing another country, in particular within the same market but also applicable to elsewhere, and doesn't require tariffs (good-specific or otherwise), even though good-specific tariffs would certainly add another layer there.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This looks really good. I hope both human and AI players will get finer control (e.g. tariffs on specific goods) at a later date, but this looks like some of the complex trade systems we have yet seen, and follows exactly the approach that I was hoping we would get from V3.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Treaty Ports can be demanded from anyone. There's also some Treaty Ports at the start of the game, like Gibraltar and Melilla.

Now that you mention it, as a Spaniard I find it weird that of our two outposts in Africa (Ceuta and Melilla) you picked the historically less important settlement as the one to represent more prominently on the map. I would like to argue for picking the other one instead.

As far as I know, Ceuta was always the more important of the two. It is located on a very defensible strategic position at the Straits of Gibraltar, guarding the waters right across Spain and the British port. The Spanish government always invested more heavily in its defense and buildup over the centuries we controlled it, with large walls erected and deep canals dug up, ultimately with the idea of turning Ceuta into an impregnable fortress-port capable of defending against a potential Moroccan invasion by land while also guarding the sea. (Basically a Spanish counterpart to British Gibraltar...) These impressive structures still stand today, even if they aren't as useful any more.

Melilla, in comparison, was far less defensible, and had a geographical position farther from the Straits that made it less important navy-wise. Because of this, this settlement was noticeably less invested into by the Spanish government, even if they still did their best to keep it ready to defend against Moroccan/British incursions.

So, if I had to pick one of the two historical Spanish ports of North Africa to make it into the game, I would definitely pick Ceuta over Melilla, not the other way around. This would be like allowing Britain to take a random Chinese port that nobody outside experts in Chinese matters knows about, but not Hong Kong or Shanghai; it goes against the logic of representing the most important elements of the real-world history.

Still, if there was a choice, I'd like to have both Ceuta and Melilla included. But if for some reason only one can go in, I'd definitely go for Ceuta.

I am aware that the map setup is far from definitive and likely in constant flux, but please, I hope that you may consider this small map adjustment to be more faithful to the historical reality of this region. Especially since it was a springboard for one of our few inroads into Africa during the European African Scramble of the late 19th century!
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
More treaty port questions:
  • Is there any benefit for owning more than one treaty port in a given market?
  • Is the treaty port status lost if the treaty port's state is expanded in a war?
  • Are treaty ports always un-incorporated?
  • Do treaty ports really grant free market access to all adjacent markets? (eg. my earlier example of a treaty port in Tijuana, that'd be adjacent to both Mexico and the US)
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Good stuff. Thanks for this week DD.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I would assume that is how it works, yes. It is also fairly realistic since if Guandgong breaks away from China, there will be trade barriers between the two and Portugal now cannot bring stuff in from China unless Guandgong brings it into their market first via trade routes (or joins the Chinese market). Likewise Opium being flowed into Guandgong now cannot freely enter China, as there is guarded border there.

So Treaty Ports interact in an interesting way with Customs Unions, in that if you allow someone to join your market and they have a hostile Treaty Port next to them, you are now getting potentially predatory trading coming into your market. One of the many cases where adding countries to your market is not necessarily a good thing.
Does that make sense though? If you gain a treaty port with China, which should include and arrangement to not have fiscal borders between the treaty port and the Chinese market, your treaty is with China. Other tag seceding from China can considered themselves not bounded by that agreement, and as long as China still exists, no point could be made that the new tag is China’s successor.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Setting per-good tariffs is wrong, but so is a single rate across all imports / exports !
For a basic simulation of 19th century trade policies we need 4 (or, if we separate imports and exports, 8) different rulers:
  • import and export rate for raw materials (coal, cotton...)
  • import and export rate for industrial goods (steel, tools...)
  • import and export rate for consumer goods (clothes, furniture...)
  • import and export rate for luxury goods (meat, luxury clothes...)

View attachment 819657

how you back your recommendation up that it has historical fundament relevance? you looked into 19th century trade?
Just curious, as im normally criticis person but this time see devs put efford in
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Where does the money received for the tariffs come from? Is it from the purse of the factory that exported that commodity?
the factory that produces it sells it of to trade center i guess there the tax and tariff is applied, so the trade center has to come up with the tariff as they
are the one benefitting from the 'international trade' - however im not sure im right and wonder what specifically happens in a customs union..
(to me the most interesting part about the game design is devs decision about margins and capital (money) allocation, to do that somewhat historically accurate is almost impossible, but somehow reachable?)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Sorry if this has already been asked / answered, but if I understood well, import trade routes are set up by the player. So if I as Russia want to import luxury furniture, I can open an import route from UK, and the trade may start. But if I don't want to trade with the UK and don't open the route, luxury furniture will never be imported from them. Similarly, I don't get to choose where, and if at all, my extra grain and timber will be exported.

Did I understand that correctly, or there is a way for routes to open automatically between markets, based on supply / demand of some specific goods in them?
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Does that make sense though? If you gain a treaty port with China, which should include and arrangement to not have fiscal borders between the treaty port and the Chinese market, your treaty is with China. Other tag seceding from China can considered themselves not bounded by that agreement, and as long as China still exists, no point could be made that the new tag is China’s successor.
You'd be surprised how well you can make the point that the state's new owners are bound by the agreement if you have enough guns. Yes, they should be able to repudiate the treaty port's treaty, the same way the original owners can, by making a diplomatic play.

That is, if England has a treaty port in China and I take over a bit of China, my options boil down to:
- maintain the special relation with England in that area, or
- demand that they leave, possibly using force if they refuse.

I can't just assume they'll leave a valuable piece of land behind because of a few legalities.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm seeing a lot of modifiers in these various dev diaries that are arbitrarily set to round numbers (i.e., +25%, -10%, etc.). It would be more accurate and interesting to replace some of these modifiers with ones that can change dynamically depending on the strength of the phenomena they represent. I hope some of that will happen later.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions: