• 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:
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.

I think it's probably related to the fact that everything is controlled by 5 buttons. And they already ruled out adding sliders. So the tariffs, trade competitiveness penalties etc will probably be 5 numbers.
 
  • 1
  • 1
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?
I asked a similar question in a previous post, sadly unanswered by the Devs.

I don't think I find stated anywhere in the post or in the devs' answers that trade routes can be initiated only by the player. It is entirely possible that some routes are created independently.

There are element actually to think that is the case.

The strongest one is what @PDJR_Alastorn said about embargoes still allowing the circulation of that good, although in a harder way. If the player controlled all import routes (à la Imperator), that statement would not make any sense: why would the player want both to impose an embargo and to keep trade routes to the embargoed market open? If, on the contrary, a part of the trade happens independently, the "soft" embargo would make more sense.
 
  • 3
  • 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.
Let's assume we build a game, then let's assume we design mechanics ( so in the end algos and functions, ye ye structs etc.) what we base them on? Maybe we check reality on their form okay so far so good. What numbers we put in them? No source material?

Ye doesn't matter it's about the relationship between the numbers and the mechanics, especially if we build on abstraction. There is no such thing in this case as arbitrarily set or not arbitrarily set the numbers will be fine-tuned for balance ( and likely hands down 'beauty', I love non-linearity, but that's behind the scenes, and if we are in base 10 round numbers are easier to grasp for a lot of people, this is just my personal experience though, but I think balancing modifiers is easier if integers are used for the most part, and it looks tidy )

Dynamic modifiers would be great though, no doubt. But like them having a strength modifier rather than being written out might be better.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
What if they don’t have enough guns? Clophiroth mentioned France taking Morocco. Imagine that Spain and France have armies of similar strength, what then? Is France going to be unable to enforce tariffs and embargoes on Spanish products. Spanish wine is going to be flooding Paris markets? What if France is more powerful. Is Spain going to decide between full war with France to keep Melilla, or handing over a Spanish city populated by Spaniards to France, just because Melilla messes with France trades policies?

Going back to China. Why can’t the new nation stablish a border between British controlled territory and their land? The British can keep the territory but why should they keep the trade agreement? This is with other nation. Whether the British keep the trade agreement or not is between the UK and China, not between the UK and the seceded nation. If the UK wants the seceded nation to recognize the trade agreement it should be the UK the one initiating a diplo play for it.

My impression is that treaty ports have only effect with the nation that granted them. So in the case of Macau mentioned by Atalvyr, Portugal will still be having access to China, but not to neighbouring Guandgong.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Going back to China. Why can’t the new nation stablish a border between British controlled territory and their land?
They can. They can establish a diplomatic play telling the British (and the people on the ground) "this is how it's going to be". Maybe the British don't think they can win if things come to blows. Maybe they can be bribed into going away. Maybe another great power weighs in against them. Or maybe their priorities have shifted and they just don't care. Those are all factors that might lead to their concession in the play.

The British can keep the territory but why should they keep the trade agreement? This is with other nation.
Ultimately the agreement is more than the treaty that a handful of people signed. The treaty is the status quo of the whole region, the laws, customs, and people who have gotten used to this being a free port. If the occupying power wants to change that they're going to have to exert effort to do so.
 
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
My impression is that treaty ports have only effect with the nation that granted them. So in the case of Macau mentioned by Atalvyr, Portugal will still be having access to China, but not to neighbouring Guandgong.
That would make sense, but:

Treaty ports have the special function that they permit the bypassing of embargoes and tariffs set in land adjacent markets through trading.​
seems to suggest otherwise...
 
  • 1
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?
The dev answer indicated that the player can set up both import and export routes, not just import. All trade routes are set up by player or AI player proactively purchasing or selling goods from or to neighbors, apparently nothing is automatic.

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).
 
  • 2
Reactions:
They can. They can establish a diplomatic play telling the British (and the people on the ground) "this is how it's going to be". Maybe the British don't think they can win if things come to blows. Maybe they can be bribed into going away. Maybe another great power weighs in against them. Or maybe their priorities have shifted and they just don't care. Those are all factors that might lead to their concession in the play.
What? Why would the new tag need to make a diplo play to place a custom within their own borders?
Ultimately the agreement is more than the treaty that a handful of people signed. The treaty is the status quo of the whole region, the laws, customs, and people who have gotten used to this being a free port. If the occupying power wants to change that they're going to have to exert effort to do so.
The occupying power is the UK not the seceded tag. This new tag is just stablishing a custom in the road going into the British territory. But that custom is in their own territory. See this is the problem with treaty ports in Vic 3. In Vic 3 treaty ports are provinces controlled by a nation which gets access to markets neighbouring that province. Irl treaty ports were coastal cities located inside the nation whose market wanted to be accessed, thus in the case of China, it was an authorization to trade in Chinese cities without restrictions. Hong Kong was not a treaty port it was Shanghai, that was under Chinese control and beyond Chinese customs. Hong Kong was a colony.

That's also why I said that Melilla or Gibraltar doesn’t make sense as treaty ports. Melilla was not a Moroccan city where Spanish traders could make business without restrictions in Morocco, like Sanghai after the treaty of Nanking, but a Spanish city surrounded by a border and with customs in both sides of the border. The same with Gibraltar.
seems to suggest otherwise...
I thought I had read that, but didn't manage to find it, so I imagined I had dreamed it. Thanks. According to that it seems that trade ports avoid restrictions through smuggling, because it wouldn't make any sense that France gaining a treaty port in a Mexican province bordering the USA would give France free access to the American market if the access were the fruit of a treaty between both nations. But if treaty ports bypass restrictions through smuggling, then this should be reciprocal. The USA should have free access to the French market. Also, this phenomenon should happen between any two countries that share a border.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
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.
It may be realistic in the case of Guandgong, but unlikely to work out with the French market. So I do hope that what actually happens is that the party owning a treaty port gets involved in diplomacy/war that affects the zone they are connected to.
 
The strongest one is what @PDJR_Alastorn said about embargoes still allowing the circulation of that good, although in a harder way. If the player controlled all import routes (à la Imperator), that statement would not make any sense: why would the player want both to impose an embargo and to keep trade routes to the embargoed market open? If, on the contrary, a part of the trade happens independently, the "soft" embargo would make more sense.

I think what the devs meant by that comment was that even when embargoed countries can still buy stuff due to the way the game handles buy/sell orders. The number of sell orders will probably be so low that it invokes a shortage effect and the goods will be very expensive but due to the way the economy is simulated in Vic3 there is ALWAYS some goods available. (which is fairly historic representation of smugglers without having to actually represent smugglers)

I think the other nations of the world will send you trade requests but the fundamental design of Vic3 is the player (or at least market leader) is in charge of their own economy. We will have to wait to hear more.
 
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:
Why is that wrong? There are even examples of the USA having different import tariffs for different types of cement during the time period.

If it is simply an anti micro measure, the devs should just tell us straight up that they are not interested in any kind of economic simulation. There won't be any as long as they won't implement mechanics with potential for extreme micro in the game.
 
  • 8
  • 5
Reactions:
The strongest one is what @PDJR_Alastorn said about embargoes still allowing the circulation of that good, although in a harder way. If the player controlled all import routes (à la Imperator), that statement would not make any sense: why would the player want both to impose an embargo and to keep trade routes to the embargoed market open? If, on the contrary, a part of the trade happens independently, the "soft" embargo would make more sense.
I think how it works is that, you might not have any trade route with goods you are embargoing, but that doesn't stop others from pushing that goods into or pulling it out of your market. You can only hinder it.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If it is simply an anti micro measure, the devs should just tell us straight up that they are not interested in any kind of economic simulation. There won't be any as long as they won't implement mechanics with potential for extreme micro in the game.
This is starting to feel like "No true Scotsman" and "False dichotomy"
 
  • 10
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
In Vicy2 there was one economic policy (state capitalism) that was almost always better than the others. Have you done anything to make it so this isn't the case in Vicy3?

Also, will black markets be simulated in some way or another?
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
So... what happens to a trade center when its entire state gets conquered or something, or otherwise gets cut off, or if the only market it was trading with subsumes it into its national market?
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Also, will black markets be simulated in some way or another?

In Vic2 goods were limited by supply and if your global ranking was too low then everybody above you took the goods first and you got nothing, no matter how much you are willing to pay.
In Vic3 all buy & sell orders are completed, even if there is an imbalance between the two. However the price will change to reflect over/under supply and if things get really out of balance there is a shortage mechanic.

The above basically replicates the main feature of the black/grey market - you can always find some goods if you are willing to pay enough.

Similarly they have an obsession/forbidden good system - but even if you forbid a good some of it will still make it to your market but the buyers will have to pay extra. Again basically simulating a black market. (I can't remember the proper name for forbidden goods. Grrr that will bother me now)


As for your question about the economic policy - we do know that the economy is always under the control of the player. We don't know what advantages/disadvantages each economic system will have yet.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
Treaty Ports can be demanded from anyone. There's also some Treaty Ports at the start of the game, like Gibraltar and Melilla.
Should Gibraltar and Melilla work like treaty ports though? Im not sure They really helped avoid tariffs. Spain kept high tariffs on british textiles for a good part of the XIX century and leaders that lowered or removed them suffered strong opposition because of it (like Espartero). Similar for Morocco. A neighbouring port surely helped trade logistically, but I dont think it meant Spain could just avoid embargoes and tariffs. In fact the Moroccan market was relativellt closed until a decade or two into the gane's time frame when they started to trade progressively more and more with Europeans, and even then it wasnt neccesarilly specially with Spain
 
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I have an interesting question here: let's assume that I'm a junior partner in a customs union, and my senior partner is embargoing on certain goods that I desperately need for my nation(grain, fish, coal, etc.) while I can't get those goods from the senior partner. Will my subjects starve to death?
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: