• 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.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #10 - Infrastructure

DD10.png


Hello again and happy Thursday! Today we’re going to follow up on last week’s dev diary about Markets, which touched on Infrastructure but did not explain how it works. Infrastructure is an important mechanic for the economic simulation of the game, simulating the cost of moving goods over land and creating the necessary, well, infrastructure to support wide-scale industrialization.

So what is Infrastructure then? Infrastructure is represented by two distinct values that each State has: Infrastructure and Infrastructure Usage, which together determine its Market Access. So long as the Infrastructure in the State is greater than or equal to the Infrastructure Usage, everything is fine and the State maintains a Market Access of 100%, but if usage starts exceeding the available Infrastructure, Market Access will be reduced by an amount proportional to how much of the usage is not being serviced.

For example, if a state has an Infrastructure of 45 with a usage of 90, its Market Access will only be 50%. Market Access and its effects is something we’ve already covered in the previous development diary, but to briefly go over it again, a low Market Access means that a State is unable to fully integrate its local market into the National Market, which can lead to adverse price conditions from local over-or undersupply of goods.

Minsk has somewhat overextended their local Infrastructure, but with a large population and mostly staple production both their industries and consumers will probably be fine until the railway arrives
image3.png

This imbalance goes in both directions. If you have one bread basket state and one iron mining state, and they both have perfect Market Access, the price of iron and grain will be the same in both. If the iron mining state’s Market Access is reduced, the market’s price of iron goes up while the local price of iron in the mining state goes down. But in addition to this the iron mining state will be unable to source as much grain, raising the local price there but reducing its price somewhat across the rest of the market.

If your consumption matches your local production, as is often the case in rural states where the production consists of staple goods your people require, this isn’t such a big problem! You could perhaps even build some simple Textile Mills and Livestock Ranches in the same underdeveloped state to provide cheap wool clothing if the local population is large enough to demand it in sufficient quantity. But if you’re looking to manufacture more complex goods (or use more demanding Production Methods) you need goods you might only be able to source from another state in your market, or which you can only import from a foreign nation. These goods in turn might be lucrative but only if there are buyers for them - buyers who can actually afford them. Your schemes to get rich off Luxury Clothes and Porcelain won’t work if you can’t reach all the far-flung wealthy Pops of your empire.

The Infrastructure Usage of a State is determined by which types of Buildings exist in a State and which level they are. Generally, the more urban and specialized the building, the more Infrastructure it uses per level, so Chemical Industries (a heavy industry building) will use several times more Infrastructure than a Rye Farms building of the same level.

Minsk’s urban buildings - the Furniture Manufacturies, Textile Mills, even the Government Administrations - account for 2/3rds of its Infrastructure usage despite employing the same number of people as the Logging Camps and Rye Farms. Subsistence Farms and Urban Centers do not use Infrastructure, the former because its production is nearly all for domestic use and the latter because the Infrastructure it provides cancel out the Infrastructure it requires.
image2.png

Infrastructure is provided and modified by numerous sources. Just about all States in the game have at least a little bit of Infrastructure based on the technology level of the country that owns it and its state of incorporation (colonies have lower infrastructure than incorporated states, for example). However, over the course of the game, the most crucial aspect of your Infrastructure is the size of your Railway network. As we’ve previously mentioned, Railways is a Building that produces Transportation, an intangible good sold to Pops, but they are also your main source of Infrastructure.

This means that if you want to industrialize a State, it isn’t enough to simply build those industries there and have the Pops available to work in them, you also need to ensure that said industries have enough infrastructure to support them. This of course has a variety of costs involved in that infrastructure-providing Railways need both Pops to work them and access to goods like Coal and Engines. There are alternatives that can be used in the short-term, such as using your Authority on a Road Maintenance decree to ensure the populace don’t allow the roads to fall into disrepair or become unsafe, but such options will never be sufficient in themselves for large-scale industrialization. Of course, Railways also grow more efficient over the course of the game with such inventions as Diesel trains and Electricity, requiring less levels of rail to support a certain number of Buildings.

This early Railway has rapidly become one of Minsk’s best employers, at least for Pops with the qualifications to become Machinists. Unfortunately few people do, so the Infrastructure production is not currently as high as it might be if the railway was fully staffed. Ticket prices, however, are sky high.
image4.png

Our intention for railways is that they must be able to find their way back to the market capital, or an exit port destined for the market capital, in order to be useful. In effect this means that any railway can only provide infrastructure up to the amount of infrastructure provided by the best adjacent railway that connects it to the market capital. If you want good access to the Sulfur Mines in Aginskoye for your Munition Plants in St. Petersburg, you best get started on that Trans-Siberian Railway sooner rather than later, because it will take a good long while to build.

Geography, of course, also plays a significant role in other ways when it comes to Infrastructure, and this is represented in Victoria 3 through State Traits. State Traits are bonuses and/or maluses given to a particular State representing particular geographical features, climate and so on. State Traits have a variety of effects, but the most common ones are to either affect the production of a particular resource (for example, if a State contains high quality coal this may be represented through a State Trait that makes coal mines in the state more efficient) or, more significantly for the topic on hand, to provide or modify Infrastructure.

The high-yield Russian Forests are of great benefit to the Logging Industry in Minsk, as long as there’s enough infrastructure available to ship the wood off to all the Russian factories and construction sites that demand it.
image1.png

States with significant rivers get a large boost to Infrastructure, making them excellent candidates for early industrialization
image5.png

Before we finish up for today, I also just want to mention that Infrastructure does tie into a number of mechanics besides Market Access, such as military logistics and migration, and that Infrastructure is only meant to simulate the cost of transporting goods on land - where the sea is concerned, there are other systems at play… but all of those are topics for another day, so for now I bid farewell and encourage you all to tune back in next week as Mikael returns with another economy-related dev diary about Employment and Qualifications.
 
  • 233Like
  • 94Love
  • 16
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
One of the most important questions ( not really, but it is for me ). Is there an option to build canals, small ones but also ones large enough to move fleets in it. That would be extremely awesome.

I am a huge fan of all the navigable rivers mods for all Paradox games, but spending money to build canals would be an extremely fun and partially immersive option.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Say you're playing as Mexico, and you have good railroad access within your country to Mexico City. You join the United State's market through a customs union, but don't have a direct rail line to New York City yet. Does your infrastructure and market access suffer because your network is separated from the new market capital? I know ports can transport goods to New York City, but assume those don't have the same capacity as your rail networks had.
I guess the lesson here is that you really shouldn't join the American market unless you make sure you have a direct rail line to NYC.
 
I think this would be an excellent idea, to help drive co-location of suppliers and consumers of intermediate goods. It would be even better if industries need to buy transportation tickets for their goods, and they got a discount on this as well.
If infrastructure usage is what's modelling the cost of transporting goods (as opposed to tickets), then presumably a potential locally-consumed discount should be a discount for infrastructure usage, not prices. i.e., since transporting within a state is presumably less resource intensive than transporting out of the state (let's say it uses 50% as much infrastructure), then if a building produces 500 coal and 250 coal is consumed within the state, then the infrastructure usage of that building would be reduced by 25% (half its goods use half as much infrastructure), whereas the prices would still all be the same as the market price (because pops halfway across the country would still be able to buy coal on that market).

Edit: If tickets are bought by the buildings in order to transport their goods, then I guess the building would have that same 25% discount, needing to buy 25% fewer tickets. And all of this is assuming that infrastructure usage and the buying of tickets are needed only on the production end, not consumption (which seems like a reasonable way to do it to me, making it all production costs, rather than needing to factor that into prices).
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
A question for the devs.

Do all the goods have to go to the market capital for distribution or will say LA oversupply and limited market access give lower cost to connected states as well?

If that is not true maybe we could have local bleed over relative to the oversupply of a surronding state per infrastucture. Or have the ability to designate local hubs which can create pseudo smaller markets where goods flow will try to route to LA and then to New York etc. If the goods cannot reach the market capital they get distributed among the local hub. These can be limited by tech and can allow for local pockets of industry to thrive without connection to the boarder market. A perfect example will be you can create a psuedo market in east russia that fuels itself while goods may not be able to go the wider market through the capital.
 
This, compared to anything in even vaguely comparable competitor games (including earlier Vickys) looks really lovely, and a neat way to handle market connectivity and growth - essential and fascinating aspects of the economic history of the period - bravo! There is just one important facet that seems to be missing, though, and that is regulatory effects on market access. At the start of the period covered by the game, it was common for different towns to have their own systems of weights and measures and their own local standard time, even - not to mention different goods and market laws. Harmonisation (or, from a different perspective, centralisation) of trade, goods and market regulations and standards were fundamental to the development of wider and more "efficient" markets. It seems to me that regulatory framework standardisation should have an effect on market access, perhaps forming an effective cap on the market access that can be attained by states outside the market capital?

Another comment - this time a "nice to have" rather than a real lacuna - would connect to "customs unions". The fact that these can be created (and are a huge arena for the relevance of the regulatory standardisation described above!) suggests that it would be feasible, at least in principle, to allow countries to divide their own "national market" into a few separate "regional markets". This would basically make a "customs union" that was internal to the "nation", but which possibly had more divergent trade laws/less centralisation, but which allowed more industrialised regions to operate better together even if remote from one another (for example the far East of Russia as a separate market from the West).
 
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
One thing about modifiers in general, could you have a popup dialog or window that shows all the modifiers for a state or country? I've been playing Victoria 2's Cold War Enhancement mod and the number of modifiers stacked up above the political window is so ridiculous that I didn't even know why pop growth is going negative. Just suggested this since that I saw the UI and when I measured the modifier icon width, you can only fit five there without making that place way too janky.
 
If infrastructure usage is what's modelling the cost of transporting goods (as opposed to tickets), then presumably a potential locally-consumed discount should be a discount for infrastructure usage, not prices. i.e., since transporting within a state is presumably less resource intensive than transporting out of the state (let's say it uses 50% as much infrastructure), then if a building produces 500 coal and 250 coal is consumed within the state, then the infrastructure usage of that building would be reduced by 25% (half its goods use half as much infrastructure), whereas the prices would still all be the same as the market price (because pops halfway across the country would still be able to buy coal on that market).
I really like this idea. It models nicely advantages of having factories with corresponding needs in nearby locations. It is also easy to add to the game, and easy to understand for the player.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I have a few questions for anyone who can answer them.

1. What's the difference between tickets and infrastructure usage? If the cost to transport goods is modeled via infrastructure usage, then do buildings have to buy tickets to transport their goods (either in or out)? Do pops consume tickets, and if so, what do they need them for? vacationing? migration? business trips?

2. I'm worried about the way modelling rivers as straight infrastructure bonuses will work. Let's say state A has a river that makes up its western border and it borders a state B on its east. State B has a ton of railroads built and is directly connected to the capital (more than enough infrastructure to handle state B's needs). But there's no built infrastructure in state A, just the bonus from that river. But since that river doesn't actually connect to state B, conceptually, the infrastructure granted by that river shouldn't give state A any market access. To use the river to connect to the market, there should have to be some sort of railroad or canal system built in the state to transfer goods from that river across the state to state B's railroads. I'm worried right now that we're effectively pretending that that river will connect up to the railroads even though the river is on the complete opposite side of the state.

3. I certainly understand how having multiple markets per country wouldn't make good gameplay, but I think it'd be good for a few instances, particularly colonies and psuedo-colonial areas of a country. For example, California for the US, BC for Canada, the Far East for Russia, India for Britain, etc. I'd think that it should only be a thing for particularly massive countries and for colonial nations. Not for like Austria-Hungary. I also think they probably shouldn't be "optional," like when Californian settlement starts, a market should appear there, and it should automatically disappear when the transcontinental rail network gets robust enough.

4. Who gets to choose where the market capital moves if there are multiple countries in a single market? This would be especially sticky if there's not a particularly dominant member of what is effectively a customs union.

5. Can mines and farms produce any good in any state? I've heard it won't be one good per state like with RGOs, but will states have a set of resources that can be produced (based on climate for crops and mineral deposits for those goods)? Or will it be like an "all mines in this state produce copper" or "copper mines can be built in any state" system?
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I can very easily see players keeping infrastructure low in rare high value resource states to drive its market price way up. Will the game mechanics allow this? Or would any gains in price be majorly offset by the limited quantities it could export to market?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I can very easily see players keeping infrastructure low in rare high value resource states to drive its market price way up. Will the game mechanics allow this? Or would any gains in price be majorly offset by the limited quantities it could export to market?
The price is a combination of two factors: local market and national market, with the proportion dictated by market access. But supply and demand affect each of those prices separately.

In this scenario, the local market price is probably low due to a lack of demand (because far-flung, underdeveloped provinces don't generally demand a lot of expensive luxury goods). This is the price that will be the bigger factor in how much the goods actually sell for.
In contrast, while the price on the national market may be higher due to lack of supply, that price is a small factor in what you get out of the building.
So overall, isolated rare resources are probably less valuable than connected ones.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I can very easily see players keeping infrastructure low in rare high value resource states to drive its market price way up. Will the game mechanics allow this? Or would any gains in price be majorly offset by the limited quantities it could export to market?
World market and National market will have different prices, so unless you have a monopoly, it's not a good thing.
 
I can very easily see players keeping infrastructure low in rare high value resource states to drive its market price way up. Will the game mechanics allow this? Or would any gains in price be majorly offset by the limited quantities it could export to market?
If you have low infrastructure in a state, then the prices that a producer sells at will be dominated by the local prices rather than the national market. And since if you're producing a reasonable amount for your whole country (but way too much for just this state), the local price (and therefore the sale price) will be very low, then you'll either be selling a medium amount for low prices or you'll cut production (producing just enough for the state), and sell a small amount for a medium price. either way, far less profitable than building infrastructure, opening up the market, and selling a lot for a medium amount instead.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I guess the lesson here is that you really shouldn't join the American market unless you make sure you have a direct rail line to NYC.
I don’t think you’d need a direct rail line, just adequate port capacity (though we don’t know how ports work yet)
Our intention for railways is that they must be able to find their way back to the market capital, or an exit port destined for the market capital, in order to be useful.
 
One of the most important questions ( not really, but it is for me ). Is there an option to build canals, small ones but also ones large enough to move fleets in it. That would be extremely awesome.

I am a huge fan of all the navigable rivers mods for all Paradox games, but spending money to build canals would be an extremely fun and partially immersive option.
I do remember seeing earlier in the thread them saying something about at the very least the Suez and Panama canals will be in. I'd be surprised if other major canals aren't. It's still an open dev question about lesser canals like Erie. They're not sure if they want to do them, and how to really differentiate them from railroads. I guess we'll find out for sure in a few weeks when they do the naval trade diary
 
Say you're playing as Mexico, and you have good railroad access within your country to Mexico City. You join the United State's market through a customs union, but don't have a direct rail line to New York City yet. Does your infrastructure and market access suffer because your network is separated from the new market capital? I know ports can transport goods to New York City, but assume those don't have the same capacity as your rail networks had.

Generally speaking, most ports (even small ones) should have a far greater throughput than railway networks - shipping by water was cheaper and more effective for most goods in the period (and particularly relative to railroads earlier in the game). All being well, as long as you have a port and whatever's required to ship to NYC, not having a railroad shouldn't be an issue.

What I'm concerned about is that this is modelled domestically as well - goods weren't all just trained to NYC, but also ports in the gulf and elsewhere, and then shipped to NYC, even within the US. In countries with lesser railway networks, shipping remained very important - for example, in 1862, by far the cheapest way to send stores from St Petersburg to the Black Sea was by ship to London and then transship them to the Black Sea.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Am I the only one who saw the leader image and immediately started the humming the theme from Bridge on the River Kwai?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Canals will for sure be a thing, at least the major ones like Suez/Panama.
Will the Grand canal in China be a major feature? It was the most important artery of the empire; essential for grain shipments to the capital and commodity transfer between north and south. Can conduct some gun boat diplomacy by sailing up the Yangtze, then the Grand canal to block all essential goods transport and starve the capital?
 
  • 5
Reactions: