Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #39 - Shipping Lanes

[owgrunt]

If two market capitals have a direct land connection then it will trade overland, for example Berlin and Vienna but not Berlin and Paris. Land connections dosn't cost anything at the moment no.

While I understand the importance of maritime trade for the period, there were still many countries which heavily relied on overland trade, including caravan trade. More specifically, Central Asia, Middle East, Russia, etc. Are there plans to expand overland trade at some point?

 

[crowdemon]

Good DD. Thanks for the info about shipping lanes.

 

[lachek]

How do ports work to establish market access between places that are also connected by land? Say that my sulfur from Sicily needs reach Naples where the explosive factory is located. Appennines in Sicily and Calabria make it hard to develop "land" infrastructure (I am here positing that the Messina Strait is considered as a "land" connection) - but sending them by sea would make much more sense, at least until the railway infrastructure is developed enough*. How would road, railway and port infrastructure combine in determining the market access?

Ports provide some Infrastructure to the state it's built in, increasing its overall connection to the market. But we don't model the transportation of Sulfur from Sicily to the Chemical Industry in Naples directly, and intra-market trade does not cost Convoys unless it's connecting two state clusters. Sicily is connected via a strait so there's no port-to-market Shipping Lane connection required.

 

[shoebird]

Your supply network is crucial for your ability to operate an intercontinental empire, and seeing your overseas expeditionary forces go undersupplied because some Pops on the other side of the world decided to switch to coffee instead of tea, bringing the profit of trade centers and thereby ports down below the point where they can offer competitive wages with your Steel Mills... well, it sounds cool, but is not a UX challenge we want to try to tackle at this time.

Couldn’t this be solved by having two different kind of convoys, civilian and military? With the military convoys being produced by naval bases. Civilian ports could be militarized with PMs producing military convoys if you need more for your war effort.

 

[Svenska Super]

How would a country like The Netherlands work with this? Historically and to this day lots of good from the Ruhr were transported via Rotterdam. Would you have to have a trade agreement with Germany and then sell it on? Or could they be the middleman with another mechanic? Earning money from the trade that flows through them, not from what they produce or manufacture themselves.

interesting point. If game mechanics allow to control every single pop (its health, wealth) u can to the same with every single trade good (1 piece of wood), as such track its flow and just the margin on it accordingly. This is unfortunately very processor heavy

 

[Atalvyr]

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?

It looks like provinces can form "clusters" that have land access and can trade with each other in the event that they become isolated from the market capital. So India could trade with itself, but might not be able to trade with South Africa or Australia since the breakdown of the British market applies equally across all its shipping lanes.

 

[dav77-b]

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.

Thank you.

With "free" I mean that "shipping" is a free puplic service provided by the government. Trade centers receive the shipping for free.

Why would you always want your ports to be fully staffed? If it is to supply demand, then demand will cause full employment. If the trade routes were not profitable enough to cover cost of transport, the trade routes would make no (economic) sense anyway and should be abandoned. And if there are supply routes, there will be demand and the ports will be stuffed to match the demand.

Why would the player need to babysit trade routes anyway? It Sounds indeed like bad game design if the player has to check every month if the trade routes are still profitable/optimal. But this would be the case with "state owned free puplic service shipping" too.

If such troubleshoot death spiral exists for the trade center port relationship, why will it not exist for the forestey lumber mill relationship? I see no difference.

The government is already paying goods from the market in many cases. Like paper for bureaucracy. Why is it now an issue for shipping?

Is supply routes requiring the state buying shipping from the market more immersion breaking than shipping being a free puplic service?

Why not make supply routes and trade routes a separate thing? Or why are they the same thing?

 

[Spartakus]

Ports provide some Infrastructure to the state it's built in, increasing its overall connection to the market. But we don't model the transportation of Sulfur from Sicily to the Chemical Industry in Naples directly, and intra-market trade does not cost Convoys unless it's connecting two state clusters. Sicily is connected via a strait so there's no port-to-market Shipping Lane connection required.

Uhm, but intra-market trade uses up infrastructure, right? And since Palermo should be the port closest to any trade from the Atlantic therefore almost all overseas goods should arrive there requiring a huge transportation network anyway.
Also won't then all trade centers appear in Sicily leaving Naples unable to serve as a backup port and by extension Messina into a single point of failure for a huge part of the Italian industry?

 

[luxfelix]

Ah, yes, "shipping and handling"; if we're at this stage of checkout, then payment and delivery must be soon?


Curious, will prevailing trade winds and ocean currents, as well as advancements in shipping technology (from sail to steam) have an affect on the effectiveness/cost of shipping lanes?

For example, if trade from Canada to Britain is 1.0x cost, would trade from Britain to Canada be 1.2x or something?

Also, is canal/river trade (and other territorial waters) handled like overland trade?

For example, if Austria trades with Turkey (bordering the Danube but not each other for this scenario), would the shortest path be the Adriatic to the Aegean, or via the beautiful blue Danube?


P.S. I enjoy the featured artwork we've seen in dev diaries, this one included.

 

[Chéris]

If the connection is severed Canada is isolated from the British market and must rely on local goods and prices. Likewise the rest of the British market cannot access Canadian goods. No new market is automatically created but Canada can of course leave the British market and form their own should they wish.

A partially disrupted connection lowers Market Access. For example at 50% market access then the price of Wheat is based on 50% off the british market and 50% of the local price.

In this case where Canada is entirely cut off from the British market, will states in Canada be able to trade with each other despite the lack of market access (as they have a land connection and/or are owned by the same country), or will they only be able to trade locally (in-state)? For example, can your pops in Ontario buy goods from Quebec in that case, or only from Ontario?

 

[namewhichisnottakenyet]

Oh, you meant THOSE clippers.

I've been wondering for months why you kept implying that nail clippers were that important for the economy of the 19th century.

 

[Xain]

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

Wouldn't that sort of remove the interest of building more than X ports (2 or 3 in the case of most nations) per nation? And also: wouldn't that unnaturally concentrate resources / put stress on infrastructure of just a few regions?

Does it mean that landlocked markets are not allowed to trade with markets other than those they already share a border with?

I guess that is one of the cases where market unions become more interesting (even as a junior partner)

 

[Xain]

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.

All well and good. But the post you are answering to is not mine, but dav77-b's ahah.

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?

 

[Revolution 11]

Oh, you meant THOSE clippers.

I've been wondering for months why you kept implying that nail clippers were that important for the economy of the 19th century.

Personal hygiene is a fundamental requirement of a gentleman or lady in Victorian times.

 

[Broe]

what about landlocked nations and trade?

 

[Eddie121]

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.

We are getting farther and farther away from a realistic simulation. One weird design choice leads to more DIY to fix issues down the road.
The obvious solution to 'babysitting your trade routes' is to remove player control over them, so that trade centers automatically start/expand trade routes when they are profitable, and automatically stop/downgrade them when they are losing money.

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.

The state is also buying ammunition, small arms, artillery etc. at market prices, without 'determining the price they are willing to pay'.
In order to establish military support and port connections, the state will have to compete with the trade centers for access to convoys.
In case of war, trade routes that used to be marginally profitable will loose money and be discontinued, rebalancing the demand and price of convoys.

 

[BeauNiddle]

In this case where Canada is entirely cut off from the British market, will states in Canada be able to trade with each other despite the lack of market access (as they have a land connection and/or are owned by the same country), or will they only be able to trade locally (in-state)? For example, can your pops in Ontario buy goods from Quebec in that case, or only from Ontario?

In the early economy DD they said that any state that doesn't have access to the market center will buy & sell goods using a split between the local price & the market price as per their access percentage.

If Canada is a dominion and has its own market center then the states will be able to trade freely - it is only international trade to the UK that will be limited
If Canada has joined the UK market then each state INDIVIDUALLY will pay good prices in the split method mentioned above. (which will probably cause SoL to drop, radicallising Canadian nationalist, leading to them eventually demanding their own market again)

 

[BeauNiddle]

We are getting farther and farther away from a realistic simulation.
The obvious solution to 'babysitting your trade routes' is to remove player control over them, so that trade centers automatically start/expand trade routes when they are profitable, and automatically stop/downgrade them when they are losing money.
If the convoys are in short supply, trade routes that used to be marginally profitable will be ceased, easing the shortage and restoring trade center profitability.

Why is realistic a good aim? realism sucks, it's why we play games

If the sulphur import trade you need to feed your military economy is marginally profitable then you need a way of being able to force your trade ports to keep that going regardless (same with supplying any overseas armies)

Which means you end up jumping through a load of hoops to end up back where you started with the player in control of what's going on - thus any 'realism' you added is just pointless micro.

The question isn't "can't you come up with a more realistic simulation?" it is "can't you come up with a more interesting (but still fast) simulation?" which is not the same thing.

 

[Eddie121]

If the sulphur import trade you need to feed your military economy is marginally profitable then you need a way of being able to force your trade ports to keep that going regardless (same with supplying any overseas armies)

As soon as the prices for sulphur go higher, trade centers will discard less profitable imports (such as silk) and focus more on sulphur.
You can accelerate the process by banning certain 'unnecessary' imports such as silk, and removing tariffs on sulphur imports.
If the government is buying up all the convoys, trade centers will adjust by operating below capacity, only operating those trade routes that are still profitable.

As you see, lots of ways to influence business interests without turning the game into a sandbox.
War has a cost, and any government operating in a capitalist economy will be constrained by business interests, regardless of what you 'need' for an easy win.
Only government-owned trade centers should have the ability to trade at a loss.

Else we end up with a weird form of neoliberal communism, where traders can use government-funded ships for free, where all companies 'selflessly' produce at capacity instead of focusing on profits, where capitalists do not control the investment decisions and allocation of capital.

 

[Svenska Super]

Another great DD.

Though a great shame that convoys always have to be provided by route owner. Pretty much kills any idea of carrying trade (which was important part of national economies for many countries) and such important part of colonial and international politics as limitations and regulations on whose ships can enter whose ports. IRL a lot of income disparity between colonies and metropolitan countries was caused by laws that prohibited colonies from having their own merchant marines and having direct trade with each other. Likewise the whole great stories of "opening Japan" and of competition for trade with China fall by the side.
Hope this can be re-done before release or in updates thereafter.

Also - please add at least some possibility to supply or at least land some armies without ports. Otherwise any landing in hostile country would become impossible. How can we have proper WW1 without disastrous flanking operations decided upon unilaterally? Or US interventions in South America and Caribbean?

Questions:
1. Will ports have throughput limits? Can your exports be limited by how much products can actually be loaded each day/month? Or your expeditionary forces limited in quantity by how many supplies can be un-loaded in a given area?

2. How will competition between overland and sea trade routes work when both are possible? For example wool can be moved from Scotland to London both by cabotage and by overland routes.

3. Will it be possible to combine land and sea routes on one trade route? Suppose Canada wants to buy sugar from Cuba - can it move it by sea to Mobile and then by railway to Ottawa?

4. Will there be a difference between cabotage sea lanes and blue-water sea lanes?

5. How will the river trade routes be represented?

6. Will there be any representation of passenger traffic? Can we have Great Eastern, please?

i gave some input several posts back, game design could consider like every single person ingame to give every single trade commodity ingame (eg, one piece of hardwood) a wider meaning. As such other interesting game mechanics become interesting such as storage, distribution and like u say how distribute and why sea or land or both.
To me still not related to this is the bataillion system of infantry its to abstract i see in screenshot 40/40 troops transported. But i rather see here more depth about what and how to ship. Cool is that the devs think about things like setting up your colonial army, which gives a bit more variety.

(instead of term Effectiveness for shipping lanes i would coin and consider the term transport coverage)