Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #39 - Shipping Lanes

[Bearjuden]

> Reflect back on previous dev diaries and consider the cascading consequences that were to occur if a maritime empire reliant on its overseas possessions were to suddenly lose control of its shipping lanes.

(idk why the actual quote function hasn't been working for me at least but this is from the actual DD)

Will AI nations reliant on maritime control be good about fighting rising maritime powers not reliant on this to keep control? For example, if a newly united Germany is expanding its fleets with the industry it now has available, how diligently will the an AI UK try to keep Germany from having a fleet that can contest theirs with or without provocation? Will an AI nation that depends on its fleet be able to recognize that fact?

 

[Axe99]

Cheers for the DD Johan, and the extra info from you and Iachek What's in the DD sounds good, and a huge improvement from Vicky's past (where there were no trade lanes at all) - so please take the comments below in the context of "you've made great strides forward and it's looking good", but there still being room for improvement, rather than anything else - I'm still looking forward to the game a heap, even if the economics of transporting goods seems to have been somewhat turned on its head

Which is, as I'm sure may come as no surprise to some, the main concern I have with this DD - it's not that transporting goods overseas costs resources, but rather, that the cost of transport overland seems negligible, when for most if not all of this period, it was cheaper (and for most of the period, far, far cheaper) to transport goods by water than it was overland (even after the advent of the railroad - even as late as WW2, London relied on coastal convoys for its coal, because it was cheaper to send it by sea than by train).

This, of course, is likely to make trade and supply mechanics in-game somewhat unintuitive and implausible to folks that are familiar with this. This is, as I'm sure long-time Paradox fans will know, nothing new to Paradox games (although HoI4's new supply system makes great strides on the supply front with this, if not for trade) but it's something that impacts on Vicky more than most, given its emphasis on economics and trade.

A quote I've used before, for example, is:

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. (From Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1860-1905

But in Vicky 3, by the sound of it, it will presumably not only be cheaper but free to supply Russian troops in the Crimea, while it would be quite expensive to Russian supply troops holding the port of London (let alone over the distance by sea from St Petersburg to Sevastopol)?

It leads to odd things like (the comment below was a reply about trade between the US and China):

No, not if there exists a land route from New York to California

Historically, trade between the east coast of the US and China, overwhelmingly, was carried out by ships from the east coast of the US sailing to China (and from China to the east coast of the US) - it was uneconomical (I would expect, in the extreme, but this is a guess and could be off) to ship things overland to California and then ship things out to Asia from there - and that's after there are significant railroad connections.

Of course, I appreciate that changing the design of the game no is unlikely to be trivial, but it'd be super-cool if in the future Vicky moved towards a situation where overland trade wasn't magically free and cheap, such that the economic and military supply simulation was far more historically plausible (and, I'd argue, potentially a good deal more interesting from a gameplay perspective to boot).

Some other questions/things to think about:

• As someone else raised, it was often cheaper to transport domestic goods overwater rather than overland (for example, along the coasts of Britain, France or Italy) - this both adds depth to trade/naval warfare gameplay, but without it makes countries that were vulnerable if their coastal trade was disrupted rather less vulnerable than they were historically.
• I don't understand the rationale or point of "The convoy cost of a port connection is influenced by the number of sea nodes and the overseas infrastructure usage. By extracting your raw materials from overseas colonial plantations and mines, while the high-Infrastructure manufacturing industries producing finished goods are located near the market capital, you can keep your Port Connection cost down - though at the expense of the development and wealth of your colonies." Generally, high value-add products are more expensive per unit of weight, and thus more economical to ship than low value-add products. It feels this is a design distortion to encourage domestic manufacturing, but wouldn't the incentive to look after domestic pops do this without needing some kind of odd "infrastructure tax" on shipping?
• Do steamships consume coal when travelling? If they did, it could help emphasise the value of sail, particularly for bulk goods (although I know this'll all be averaged out over the supply network). Sailing cargo ships continued to operate on a few routes where the nature of the cargo and other considerations meant it made sense right up to the Second World War. It'd be sad to see sailing cargo ships disappear in the mid-to-late 19th century in-game.
• I've mentioned it before, but as far as I know, "convoys" were generally only used in wartime (and even then, not for all shipping by any stretch). It feels a bit odd calling all merchant ships, at all times, convoys. Using a name like "Merchant shipping" or "merchant ships" would both make more sense, and open the possibility of actually introducing the concept of convoys (ie, what convoys actually mean, not what the meaning of the word as it's currently used in Vicky 3), which were crucial to the outcome of WW1, into the game down the track.
• All of these things also emphasise the importance of rivers and canals for the movement of goods and military supplies as well, as per my ramblings from early DDs

Apologies for possibly being the most boring Vicky 3 fan alive

"Convoys" are not to be thought of as goods as such and cannot be traded; they represent the ability to move things overseas, including the ship, crew, dockworkers, etc. Ports consume ships (Clippers or Steamers) and turn them into convoys. You can trade Clippers and Steamers with other markets, but you have to turn them into convoys through ports yourself - you cannot outsource your shipping lanes to another country (that would be best thought of as waiting for another country to export their goods to / import your goods from your market).

While I appreciate the design for outsourcing shipping would add complexities, it might be something that's cool to do in the future - during the period in question (and, indeed, even moreso today), outsourcing of shipping was a big thing.

You can't prioritize one shipping lane over another at the moment but it's a great idea.

This would be super-cool if possible - for example, prioritising supply of a key front, or a key trade route bringing in core products.

No but you raise a good point. An easy solution might be flagging specific sea nodes as "no-go" zones for the pathfinding alghorithm.

A big +1 for this - there are all sorts of situations that could be exploited if players and AI can't route their shipping away from enemy fleets.

A super-ease DD for a maritime-themed pic. Here's a pic of Shanghai in 1873 - note the smaller vessels, which are likely to be used for riverine or coastal trade, and that most vessels, despite having some steam propulsion, are still rigged for sailing as well (as the economy of early steam engines was such that over long distances using sails where possible was cheaper than the savings on personnel costs - and in many cases the distance/lack of coal economy equation was such that ships could not complete the journey without use of sails, even though they had steam-powered engines).

 

[nelliott]

Are land connections always used if they exist? Or is there some tradeoff or cutoff when the land route becomes sufficiently long, trade is switched to sea because it is quicker/cheaper/more efficient? For example, if France is importing grain from Egypt, what determines if it would go by ship across the Mediterranean or the long way around by land?

Getting more and more excited!

 

[Revolution 11]

I think Market Capital and political capital are different things, so it doesn't have to be Amsterdam for the Netherlands when Rotterdam is the best for trade.

That is correct. The USA starts with Washington DC as the political capital but New York City is the market capital. I think the market capital can be moved around to better suit your nation's trading networks.

 

[Belegnar]

Great dev diary! I really like this system. If I’m reading it correctly, this will make invasions of nations w/o a shared border, or a friendly port functioning as a beachhead, significantly more challenging than in Vic2, due to a lack of supply, is that correct? So much more historical wars, and no more Britain and France invading each other’s homelands at least 3 times each game?

 

[Brynjar]

​

It is the market owner which must establish and pay for the port connections to all overseas market states. To somewhat compensate for this its subjects must share a portion of their convoys with their overlord. Subjects are still required to pay for their own trade and supply routes however.

So a subject that doesn't have any ports themselves (like Upper Canada), but are connected by a land route to a port in another subject in the same market, there is no cost at all apart from not being in full control of the capacity of your market connection? While such cases may be fairly rare, it does sound like there is room for some interesting 'strategic' destruction of your own ports.

 

[VineFynn]

Since it's not mentioned in the dd,can we buy convoys on other markets if we can't produce enough of them?

The real question: do convoys need to be shipped using convoys?

 

[VineFynn]

View attachment 821890
​

Ave and welcome to another Dev Diary! I am Johan (No, the other Johan) a tech lead on Victoria 3 and today I will be talking about Shipping Lanes. It is an interesting addition to maritime empires in that there is now a cost to overseas possessions and sending a military expedition halfway across the globe is no longer as straightforward as in some older Paradox titles.

But first we have to talk about Convoys which are an essential part in maintaining shipping lanes. They are produced from Ports, a government building which requires Clippers (or their era-equivalents) and possibly other goods.

Each country has a set number of required convoys and not having enough will incur penalties on all shipping lanes. This may for example occur due to an overstretched colonial empire or hostile convoy raiders.

Ports also fulfill an important role in connecting your overseas territories but more on that later.

“Aha! I told you the Clipper factory was a good investment!”
View attachment 821891
​

Shipping Lanes represents port-to-port connections and are established for three different reasons:

• Trade Routes to an overseas market
• Supply Routes for an overseas General
• Port Connections to link states in a market

Each shipping lane must have its own origin and destination port. Once established it will span across a number of sea nodes and have its own individual cost in convoys which adds up to the country’s total convoy requirement.

It also tracks its own Effectiveness score which is based on the overall Supply Network strength (more on that later) and may be reduced by any local convoy damage done along the route.

While India provides Great Britain numerous benefits such as raw materials and population it is clear that the Crown Jewel of the British Empire is by no means cheap. A massive civilian and military naval industry is required to maintain it and keep it safe and thus it is by no means obvious whether such overseas possessions are always worth it.
Note that UI and values are very much WIP.
View attachment 822309​

Trade Routes between two markets which do not share a common land border must be done overseas and will necessitate a shipping lane. Land adjacency is determined from where the two market capitals are located.

The convoy cost is influenced by the number of sea nodes, quantity of goods and any goods-specific modifier (if any). The effectiveness affects the trade route competitiveness and by extension the quantity of goods shipped.
It will use the two closest ports in the respective market capitals region. If either country lacks ports no overseas trade routes can be established.

Supply Routes are required when a general is sent to a front that is not reachable by land. It will use a friendly port connected by land to the generals headquarters and trace to the closest friendly port reachable from the front.
The convoy cost is based on the number of sea nodes, battalions supplied and any general traits. Low effectiveness reduces supply status of the general and his troops. If a front is landlocked no generals can be sent there.

Supplying troops over great distances is quite an enterprise. Rather than sending an expeditionary force from England all the way around the Cape to reach India perhaps Britain should consider building a standing army using either colonial settlers or locals?
View attachment 822274
​

Lastly, Port Connections are a bit more complicated. In order for a state to access the goods within the market it needs to be able to trace a path back to the market capital. If this path requires it to go via the sea (meaning it is overseas) a shipping lane must be established to the market capital.
This must be done for every state within the market including foreign ones. Rather than a single state having its own shipping lane a group of adjacent overseas states can form a cluster with a single exit port to the market capital - such as Bombay in the case of British India.

This assumes such a port exists however. If the connection is severed from either end then the overseas states cannot access the market and thus forms its own isolated enclave. Likewise if the shipping lane effectiveness is strained it will lower the accessibility of goods to and from the overseas states. Reflect back on previous dev diaries and consider the cascading consequences that were to occur if a maritime empire reliant on its overseas possessions were to suddenly lose control of its shipping lanes.

It is the market owner which must establish and pay for the port connections to all overseas market states. To somewhat compensate for this its subjects must share a portion of their convoys with their overlord. Subjects are still required to pay for their own trade and supply routes however.

The convoy cost of a port connection is influenced by the number of sea nodes and the overseas infrastructure usage. By extracting your raw materials from overseas colonial plantations and mines, while the high-Infrastructure manufacturing industries producing finished goods are located near the market capital, you can keep your Port Connection cost down - though at the expense of the development and wealth of your colonies.

Connecting India to the British market means it has to go all the way around the Cape to reach the British Isles which significantly impacts costs. But what if Britain somehow managed to discover a shortcut?
View attachment 821894
​

And lastly when combining all the shipping lanes of a country we get its overall Supply Network. As outlined early on we derive its Strength score from the costs of all individual shipping lanes compared to the country's total supply.

That is all for today! Hope you enjoyed this dev diary and in the words of Admiral John Fischer you may sleep easy in your beds. In next week's Dev Diary, Daniel will be back to tell us about how the Opium Wars are represented in the game.

So can landlocked countries separated by oceans trade with each other?

 

[pttaylor]

Cheers for the DD Johan, and the extra info from you and Iachek What's in the DD sounds good, and a huge improvement from Vicky's past (where there were no trade lanes at all) - so please take the comments below in the context of "you've made great strides forward and it's looking good", but there still being room for improvement, rather than anything else - I'm still looking forward to the game a heap, even if the economics of transporting goods seems to have been somewhat turned on its head

Which is, as I'm sure may come as no surprise to some, the main concern I have with this DD - it's not that transporting goods overseas costs resources, but rather, that the cost of transport overland seems negligible, when for most if not all of this period, it was cheaper (and for most of the period, far, far cheaper) to transport goods by water than it was overland (even after the advent of the railroad - even as late as WW2, London relied on coastal convoys for its coal, because it was cheaper to send it by sea than by train).

This, of course, is likely to make trade and supply mechanics in-game somewhat unintuitive and implausible to folks that are familiar with this. This is, as I'm sure long-time Paradox fans will know, nothing new to Paradox games (although HoI4's new supply system makes great strides on the supply front with this, if not for trade) but it's something that impacts on Vicky more than most, given its emphasis on economics and trade.

A quote I've used before, for example, is:



But in Vicky 3, by the sound of it, it will presumably not only be cheaper but free to supply Russian troops in the Crimea, while it would be quite expensive to Russian supply troops holding the port of London (let alone over the distance by sea from St Petersburg to Sevastopol)?

It leads to odd things like (the comment below was a reply about trade between the US and China):



Historically, trade between the east coast of the US and China, overwhelmingly, was carried out by ships from the east coast of the US sailing to China (and from China to the east coast of the US) - it was uneconomical (I would expect, in the extreme, but this is a guess and could be off) to ship things overland to California and then ship things out to Asia from there - and that's after there are significant railroad connections.

Of course, I appreciate that changing the design of the game no is unlikely to be trivial, but it'd be super-cool if in the future Vicky moved towards a situation where overland trade wasn't magically free and cheap, such that the economic and military supply simulation was far more historically plausible (and, I'd argue, potentially a good deal more interesting from a gameplay perspective to boot).

Some other questions/things to think about:

• As someone else raised, it was often cheaper to transport domestic goods overwater rather than overland (for example, along the coasts of Britain, France or Italy) - this both adds depth to trade/naval warfare gameplay, but without it makes countries that were vulnerable if their coastal trade was disrupted rather less vulnerable than they were historically.
• I don't understand the rationale or point of "The convoy cost of a port connection is influenced by the number of sea nodes and the overseas infrastructure usage. By extracting your raw materials from overseas colonial plantations and mines, while the high-Infrastructure manufacturing industries producing finished goods are located near the market capital, you can keep your Port Connection cost down - though at the expense of the development and wealth of your colonies." Generally, high value-add products are more expensive per unit of weight, and thus more economical to ship than low value-add products. It feels this is a design distortion to encourage domestic manufacturing, but wouldn't the incentive to look after domestic pops do this without needing some kind of odd "infrastructure tax" on shipping?
• Do steamships consume coal when travelling? If they did, it could help emphasise the value of sail, particularly for bulk goods (although I know this'll all be averaged out over the supply network). Sailing cargo ships continued to operate on a few routes where the nature of the cargo and other considerations meant it made sense right up to the Second World War. It'd be sad to see sailing cargo ships disappear in the mid-to-late 19th century in-game.
• I've mentioned it before, but as far as I know, "convoys" were generally only used in wartime (and even then, not for all shipping by any stretch). It feels a bit odd calling all merchant ships, at all times, convoys. Using a name like "Merchant shipping" or "merchant ships" would both make more sense, and open the possibility of actually introducing the concept of convoys (ie, what convoys actually mean, not what the meaning of the word as it's currently used in Vicky 3), which were crucial to the outcome of WW1, into the game down the track.
• All of these things also emphasise the importance of rivers and canals for the movement of goods and military supplies as well, as per my ramblings from early DDs

Apologies for possibly being the most boring Vicky 3 fan alive



While I appreciate the design for outsourcing shipping would add complexities, it might be something that's cool to do in the future - during the period in question (and, indeed, even moreso today), outsourcing of shipping was a big thing.



This would be super-cool if possible - for example, prioritising supply of a key front, or a key trade route bringing in core products.



A big +1 for this - there are all sorts of situations that could be exploited if players and AI can't route their shipping away from enemy fleets.

A super-ease DD for a maritime-themed pic. Here's a pic of Shanghai in 1873 - note the smaller vessels, which are likely to be used for riverine or coastal trade, and that most vessels, despite having some steam propulsion, are still rigged for sailing as well (as the economy of early steam engines was such that over long distances using sails where possible was cheaper than the savings on personnel costs - and in many cases the distance/lack of coal economy equation was such that ships could not complete the journey without use of sails, even though they had steam-powered engines).

View attachment 822452

I was prepared to write a post critiquing details presented in this dev diary, and found that you'd said everything I wanted to and more! Good post, sir!

I particularly want to highlight how artificial it looks to measure colony trade requirements by infrastructure usage, though I gather that's because there no longer is a system where good exist in places, and so there may not be another way to track shipping requirements?

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Without any representation of the costs and limits of overland trade, it sounds like the best way to trade with China is to join the Russian market.

Russia borders China > China ships goods overland to Petersburg > Convoys take goods from Petersburg to Stockholm (or Amsterdam, London, etc.)

 

[dav77-b]

Without any representation of the costs and limits of overland trade, it sounds like the best way to trade with China is to join the Russian market.

Russia borders China > China ships goods overland to Petersburg > Convoys take goods from Petersburg to Stockholm (or Amsterdam, London, etc.)

Though you would need good market access in russia. Imagine you have a nice oversea trade with china going and then you add russia to your market. Because of the land connection your convoys are not used anymore. But because of the bad russian market access your trade with China crumbles into oblivion.

True. Logistics need to be more dynamic.
Maybe we can hope for a big Logistic patch in the future.

 

[Spartakus]

We have played with a few different alternatives but currently thats how it works yes

Hold on, I'm not sure I understand how the "always shortest route" mechanism works together with trade centers. Example time:
Let's say I'm playing Lübeck and build up a giant port. A huge trade center emerges from that and I have shipping lanes into the whole world. Lübeck has become the most important trade city in Europe. Now it's time for expansion. If I turn west and take Hannover, then Emden on the Dutch border suddenly becomes the nearest port for everything but the russian market. It is however a small border town with a tiny trade center nowhere near capable of handling all my oversees business. Meanwhile Lübeck finds itself abandoned.
Smilarly if I turn east and take Pommerania then Wismar suddenly has to handle all my exports to Russia.

Is this actually how it works?

 

[Siddy00]

Cool stuff! Thanks, Johan!

 

[lachek]

Thanks for the response,so to clarify,is there a delay to produce convoys?If it's the case,this means that if you can't have enough clippers or Steamers,you can have an unavoidable shortage of convoys if you don't plan on long term.I really hope so.It would be great.Can you confirm it's the case?
Thanks for any replies about this.

If there's a Shortage of Clippers or Steamers, the output of your Ports will suffer as well - so not only will it be more expensive to run them but the number of convoys produced as a result will also be decreased. Remember though that there are no stockpiles, so there's no "delay" as such - as soon as your Convoy demand increases above your output your shipping lanes will start suffering penalties, and as soon as your demand for Clippers or Steamers outstrips the supply by such a degree there's a shortage you will start to see compounding output penalties.

 

[FranklyJustNess]

Is there a possibility to assign priority to uses of convoys? If I am lacking in capacity I'd rather have control over where the ships are assigned and not have everything at a reduced effectiveness. Surely an army overseas will be more important than some import route.

 

[73ET]

If British India in British market is totally isolated from market capital London due to lack of convoys, can goods be tradable within India? If not, I guess there will be crisis happen in India when goods can only be produced and consumed within single provinces in India? This seems not so in line with the reality?

 

[lachek]

Can't you at least make the private sector pay for the convoys through the investment pool or something? It makes no sense that the state is paying for the transportation of goods.

The logical purchaser of convoy services for Trade Routes would be Trade Centers, not the investment pool - otherwise you might end up in a weird situation where all the trade being done is imports of Clothes while the people paying for these routes are Aristocrats running Grain Farms not involved in international trade at all. But there are two other types of Shipping Lanes as well, and those are best considered purchased by the government (supplying troops overseas and connecting overseas states into the market).

But the source of the money is not the problem, it's about exposing the causality chain to the player and giving them the tools to deal with it. As @KaiserJohan has discussed elsewhere in these comments, the ability to prioritize shipping lanes would help address some of that. But this would also introduce a horrendous degree of micro to execute strategies that in 90% of cases are obvious (prioritize port connections and military supplies) and in 9% of cases are incredibly obtuse for little payoff (where in the priority ladder should Porcelain imports be compared to Coal exports?). Very few cases would end up actually being Interesting Choices, as opposed to busywork to fix the simulation manually. Since it'd require an extensive amount of work on both gameplay logic and new UIs to give the player these tools we've decided to just make Ports government owned for the moment, since it creates the gameplay dynamic we want (=maintaining trade and an overseas presence can be very lucrative but also necessitates extensive infrastructure and tall production chains, which can leave you vulnerable to instability). As we've mentioned elsewhere in the past, our long-term aim is to make as many buildings privately owned as possible without hurting gameplay.

 

[lachek]

Yes, but trade relations implying two partners, who "pays" for the convoy cost necessary to upkeep a trade route?

The initiator of the route pays for shipping the goods, no matter which direction the goods move in. The "partners" in this case are not the countries but the Pops in the Trade Centers on both sides. The work done by the "recipient" Trade Center does help maintain the route's efficiency but does not impact its convoy cost, since they're not the ones sending ships out. In return those Pops get a share of the route's profit.

Not to get ahead of dev diary schedule here, but as an example, consider the East India Company exporting Opium to China. China is not a "partner" in this trade by any means and is doing everything it can to curtail the trade. But there are still people working on the other end to receive and distribute the Opium that does land in China, and they make some money off this trade even though they're not in any way contributing to the convoy cost of the route.

 

[dav77-b]

The logical purchaser of convoy services for Trade Routes would be Trade Centers, not the investment pool - otherwise you might end up in a weird situation where all the trade being done is imports of Clothes while the people paying for these routes are Aristocrats running Grain Farms not involved in international trade at all. But there are two other types of Shipping Lanes as well, and those are best considered purchased by the government (supplying troops overseas and connecting overseas states into the market).

But the source of the money is not the problem, it's about exposing the causality chain to the player and giving them the tools to deal with it. As @KaiserJohan has discussed elsewhere in these comments, the ability to prioritize shipping lanes would help address some of that. But this would also introduce a horrendous degree of micro to execute strategies that in 90% of cases are obvious (prioritize port connections and military supplies) and in 9% of cases are incredibly obtuse for little payoff (where in the priority ladder should Porcelain imports be compared to Coal exports?). Very few cases would end up actually being Interesting Choices, as opposed to busywork to fix the simulation manually. Since it'd require an extensive amount of work on both gameplay logic and new UIs to give the player these tools we've decided to just make Ports government owned for the moment, since it creates the gameplay dynamic we want (=maintaining trade and an overseas presence can be very lucrative but also necessitates extensive infrastructure and tall production chains, which can leave you vulnerable to instability). As we've mentioned elsewhere in the past, our long-term aim i

s to make as many buildings privately owned as possible without hurting gameplay.

The logical purchaser of convoy services for Trade Routes would be Trade Centers, not the investment pool - otherwise you might end up in a weird situation where all the trade being done is imports of Clothes while the people paying for these routes are Aristocrats running Grain Farms not involved in international trade at all. But there are two other types of Shipping Lanes as well, and those are best considered purchased by the government (supplying troops overseas and connecting overseas states into the market).

But the source of the money is not the problem, it's about exposing the causality chain to the player and giving them the tools to deal with it. As @KaiserJohan has discussed elsewhere in these comments, the ability to prioritize shipping lanes would help address some of that. But this would also introduce a horrendous degree of micro to execute strategies that in 90% of cases are obvious (prioritize port connections and military supplies) and in 9% of cases are incredibly obtuse for little payoff (where in the priority ladder should Porcelain imports be compared to Coal exports?). Very few cases would end up actually being Interesting Choices, as opposed to busywork to fix the simulation manually. Since it'd require an extensive amount of work on both gameplay logic and new UIs to give the player these tools we've decided to just make Ports government owned for the moment, since it creates the gameplay dynamic we want (=maintaining trade and an overseas presence can be very lucrative but also necessitates extensive infrastructure and tall production chains, which can leave you vulnerable to instability). As we've mentioned elsewhere in the past, our long-term aim is to make as many buildings privately owned as possible without hurting gameplay.

I seriously do not get this argument. I mean the logic. I reread the devs comments again, but I dont get the grasp of it.

Can you give to me in short and simple english?

1. What is the argument for making ports government owned? For construction companies it was employment level, which is easily fixable via subventions.

2. What is the arguement for making it free? Construction had expenses covered.

If I mod ports to be a private owned building, what will go wrong?

if I mod ports to to be government owned but selling their service, what will go wrong?

 

[lachek]

1. What is the argument for making ports government owned? For construction companies it was employment level, which is easily fixable via subventions.

2. What is the arguement for making it free? Construction had expenses covered.

If I mod ports to be a private owned building, what will go wrong?

if I mod ports to to be government owned but selling their service, what will go wrong?

1. Employment level and supply chain complexity. Employment level can be fixed with subsidies, yes, the main question is when would you ever turn them off? There are extremely few cases where you'd ever be OK with not having full Port employment. Since that means you have to cover any shortfall anyway, that means the only mechanical advantage to you (the player) to have Ports operate independently is that if they're making enough from Trade Centers buying their services, you don't have to pay their operating costs.

However, this means these cost will be borne by Trade Centers instead, meaning you have to babysit your trade routes more to ensure they remain profitable - otherwise the interplay between Trade Centers and Ports could turn into an extremely hard to troubleshoot death spiral, where there aren't enough Convoys to do efficient Trade and Trade isn't profitable enough to buy Convoys. If in practice these problems are so difficult to manage that you just turn on the "subsidize" buttons on every building type involved in the trade supply chain and then just poke at them to try to bring your total marginal cost down a bit, there's no real advantage to it compared to making only the terminus of the supply chain (Ports) government owned and the other buildings private.

In addition, since Shipping Lanes created for reasons other than Trade Routes (military supply and port connections) should actually be state expenses, having all Convoys bought by Trade Centers is also non-immersive. To fix that you'd need some way of having the state buy goods from the market directly, which likely means the player should be able to determine what price they're willing to pay for those goods, as this would be what calibrates the economy of the privately owned building supplying it. Since choosing the amount you're paying a building for its services freely in order to ensure it's profitable enough to not fail to provide you with those services is essentially a roundabout way of subsidizing it (something I've discussed at length elsewhere on the forum) this would be a whole new system to replicate the functionality of an existing one, only in the service of making the mechanic feel a tad more true-to-life.

2. Not sure what you mean by "free" here. Ports cost both materials and labor to operate, just like every other building. That cost is just borne by the treasury directly rather than by other buildings or Pops.

3. If you mod ports to be a privately owned building, it's going to need a source of revenue to operate. This means you have to add a (non-tradeable) market good for it to sell, preferably to Trade Centers. You may be able to turn Convoys into this kind of market good directly even though it also acts as a capacity with other mechanics associated with it, but it'd probably be easier for balancing to make it a separate good. You'd then have to rebalance Trade Centers to ensure they remain profitable enough after buying this new product that they can pay competitive wages. All this is perfectly doable, but like I said in #1 above, I'm pretty sure you'll find that you're going to want to subsidize all buildings involved by default as a result, leading to slightly less compelling gameplay with more complexity. But YMMV!

4. In the current build this would do nothing other than reduce the cost of the goods the building sold - it wouldn't actually improve your treasury balance or even the building's internal economy, since wages are fixed and it's assumed that government buildings do not provide revenue to offset its costs. Having government-owned buildings at least be able to offset its operating expenses by providing goods & services for sale sounds like cool modding functionality though, it's very likely something we'll support in the future.