• 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 #5 - Production Methods

DD5 Thumb.png


Hello again and happy Thursday! Today we will be taking a deeper look inside Buildings to explore Production Methods. These determine the functions of the building, its inputs and outputs, and what employee types it requires to operate.

Many management games let you upgrade a building to increase its efficiency or expand its functionality. In these games, after the upgrade investment has been paid the impact is permanent and nearly always superior in every way to the building's previous functionality. But in Victoria 3 there are no actions without reactions, and novel innovations don't just make buildings better with no side effects. Improving industrial processes over time is to be expected, but in some cases those improvements might require goods as input that the country has scant access to, while others permit the output of a new type of end product at the expense of the old one. As a result, buildings in Victoria 3 require more flexible upgrade paths than what's afforded by permanent, linear, “no-brainer” improvements.

All buildings have several categories of Production Methods, usually between 2 and 5. Only one is active at any given time in each category. Most categories fall into one of these types:

Base: governs the general "tech level" and efficiency of the building, produces goods typical for the building type
Refining: reduces output of typical goods in favor of output of specialized or luxury goods, sometimes adding a special input
Automation: adds industrial goods as input to reduce the building's unskilled workforce requirement
Ownership: determines who owns shares in the building; typically governed by Laws

With the right technologies Food Industries can make Groceries from both Grain (Bakeries) and Fish (Canneries). They can also refine Grain and Sugar into Liquor (Distilleries). With advanced technologies Food Industries can be partially automated, drastically reducing the need for unskilled labor. Simple Food Industries are operated by Merchant Guilds (Shopkeepers), while more advanced and profitable Food Industries are owned by Capitalists who reinvest some of their dividends.

dd5_1.png

As one example, an Iron Mine's base Production Method determines if miners use only picks and shovels or if they also use some sort of engine-driven pumping mechanism. There are several different pumping technologies which also determine what fuel is used. The more advanced the pumping mechanism the more deposits can be accessed and the faster Iron can be mined, but the more Coal or Oil is used in the process. With higher tech pumps comes a requirement for more Engineers and Machinists to be on-site to control and oversee its operation. This creates more demand for qualified workers and also opens up a number of better paid positions to those Pops who meet the qualifications.

The revolution in chemical sciences of the era also enabled the use of explosives in mining, which is a secondary Production Method category used only in mines. Once Nitroglycerin is invented, it can be used in mines to generate even more minerals, at the expense of Explosives produced by the Chemical Industry but also with a higher rate of workplace accidents. By researching less volatile Dynamite, even more minerals are extracted at the expense of even more Explosives, with the additional benefit that far fewer workers will blow themselves up on the job.

Once invented, portable Steam Donkey engines can be deployed at mining sites to drastically reduce the amount of manual labor required just for hauling. This costs the building some money in the form of Coal and Engines, but reduces the amount of money they have to pay in wages. Perhaps more importantly it frees those Laborers up to do other work in other buildings if the state is running low on workers. But if wages are already very depressed it might not be a great idea to purchase expensive industrial goods just to increase the unqualified labor pool further, so this might not be a no-brainer decision for a player to make.

In most countries, simple mines are owned and operated by Merchant Guilds at game start. These are small-time purveyors of the goods produced represented by Shopkeepers. Once mines start to industrialize, Capitalists step in to take over ownership. In most cases these Capitalists will come from Shopkeepers promoted to these newly created positions, but some might come from other Pops in the state, even other Capitalists in buildings not quite as lucrative as these new mines. There are fewer Capitalists than Shopkeepers but they draw a higher wage, and more importantly they will reinvest some of their earnings into the country's expanding industry depending on how much profit their workplace is generating for them. As new ideas spread across your society you might be able to make the mining industry publicly traded instead of privately held, and later on in the game perhaps even nationalize them to be run by government bureaucrats or turn them into cooperatives where profit is split between workers.

dd5_2.png

Production Methods aren't limited to consuming and producing goods. Government Administrations employ Bureaucrats and Clerks who use Paper to produce Bureaucracy, one of the game's Capacities that let you govern more people and extend more state services to them. Railways consume Engines and a fuel such as Coal to produce both Transportation and Infrastructure, the former which is sold on the market and the latter which allows the state to support more buildings without loss of Market Access. Universities employ Academics that let the state guide research and development of new technologies and ideas. Virtually any kind of currency, modifier, or effect can be produced by Production Methods in buildings and can be applied in a variety of ways to the country, state, or even the building itself.

A basic Government Administration consumes 10 Paper and produces 50 Bureaucracy per fully-staffed level, but each additional level beyond the first adds a +2% Throughput bonus due to economy of scale. This increases both consumption of Paper and output of Bureaucracy, yielding more productivity from each of the Pops that work the building.

dd5_3.png

This of course adds a tremendous capacity for modding in new Buildings and Production Methods! Embassies that increase your Influence, but which can also be configured to consume Wine and Meat at state expense to increase the speed at which you Improve Relations? Shantytown Temples that can only be built on coastlines, that consume Fish and create jobs for pops qualifying for the Deep Ones profession, increasing state mortality but also the weekly rate of the global cthulhu_rising counter? We can't wait to see what madness you unleash!

If tweaking multiple Production Methods across several categories on every single building in the game sounds a bit complex compared to linear building upgrades - you're right! Thankfully we've built a number of tools to help with this process. Foremost among these are the Buildings panel, where you can get an overview of all buildings in your country organized by major and minor type. For example you could get an overview of all Rural buildings, or all Furniture Manufactories, or all Ports. If you have buildings of the same type in several different states, you can break it down further to view the individual building. On each level you can see how profitable the building is and adjust its Production Methods. You can even set all Production Methods for a certain building type to a specific setting all across your country with one click.

From the Buildings panel you can get a birds-eye view of all industries in your country and see at a glance how they’re doing financially. You can change Production Methods on an individual building or on all of them at once. You can even expand buildings directly from this screen if you so choose, or click on one to get an in-depth view of its balance sheet and workforce.

dd5_4.png

To minimize the requirement for mental math we have also created prediction tools that give you a breakdown of what to expect from choosing a certain Production Method, based on profitability predictions taking adjusted production and consumption into account, and summarizing which new job positions will be created and which will disappear. While it may on the surface seem obvious to just enable the Production Methods that make the buildings more profitable, keep in mind the societal effects as well - are there enough Pops in the state that qualify for the more advanced jobs this new process requires? Will the wage for these new jobs be sufficient to entice those Pops to switch professions? Will you inadvertently create a whole new class of well-to-do Machinists that may have pro-labor union sentiments? Or will the increased profits not lead to higher wages in the building because they're already competitive and fully employed, and will simply result in more dividends for the shareholders which will be funneled into increased luxury consumption? Which you choose might depend on your population’s social mobility, what politics you favor in your country (a socialist uprising may not be in your plans!) and whether you're able to supply luxuries yourself without benefiting your rival. More profitable domestic industries are never bad, but should be far from the only consideration when building your society.

Predictive tooltips will explain the anticipated impact on the building’s Balance as a result of changes in production, consumption, and wage requirements, as well as the changes in employment that could also impact the country’s politics over time. You will also be forewarned if there aren’t enough qualifying Pops to take on any new professions created, as this could limit your industry’s effectiveness.

dd5_5.png

That is all for this week. We will return to discussing more economic intricacies later, but for the next little while we'll be exploring domestic politics - starting next week when Martin will be presenting Interest Groups!
 
  • 338Like
  • 250Love
  • 21
  • 13
  • 2
Reactions:
It's a bit nitpicky, and I know it's an herloom from the PoP system of Vic2, but if we're talking Professions, then Capitalist is a really confusing term.

As someone remarked, Capitalist is a term form Marxist theory/political economy describing a certain role in industrial production - no-one "works as" capitalist, but people owning means of production "are" capitalists. In other words, no-one would self-describe himself as a capitalist when asked about their profession.
They would instead say they're Entrepreneurs, Investors, Industrialists, or, in a slightly more lefty way, Owners.

So, if we are going all the way with "Profession" (as opposed to pop type) "Capitalist" should disappear in favour of Pig... erm.... Entrepreneurs.
Look, in some XIX materials I've already found capitalists as a kind of profession. In the censuses at the end of the 19th, unless I am mistaken, they are counted in these ways, separately, for example, from landowners.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I find it very odd that bureaucrats benefit from economies of scale, I would say the opposite, the more an administration is big and bloated the more inefficient it is even in modern democracies, just look at France that spends more on public services per capita for worse results in comparison to it's EU neighbors.
 
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
Try to build a strong navy

A very minor point, but I'm fairly sure if you're looking for historical scripting, Prussia didn't really do more than a coast defence navy - it wasn't until well into the "German" period that Germany started really getting into the naval side of things. I'm going from memory, though, and could be wrong. Either way, it'd be good for the scripts to adapt to the situation - ie, if Prussia has significant overseas trade or colonies it needs to protect, a strong navy may make a lot of sense, while a continentally-focussed navy that trades mainly with its neighbours may have less need for a strong one.
 
I find it very odd that bureaucrats benefit from economies of scale, I would say the opposite, the more an administration is big and bloated the more inefficient it is even in modern democracies, just look at France that spends more on public services per capita for worse results in comparison to it's EU neighbors.

Sorry for the double-post. Assessing the effectiveness of bureaucracies is a super-complex issue. Just because France's bureaucracy is big doesn't necessarily mean that's the cause of it's inefficiency (ie, correlation =/= causation). It could well be the case, for example, that regulations requiring more administration lead to a larger bureaucracy, and that its these regulations that also drive the inefficiency.

In general, my guess would be that there would be some economies of scale, but with diminishing marginal returns past a certain point - but I'd want to read up on it a lot more before having a strong view.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Sorry for the double-post. Assessing the effectiveness of bureaucracies is a super-complex issue. Just because France's bureaucracy is big doesn't necessarily mean that's the cause of it's inefficiency (ie, correlation =/= causation). It could well be the case, for example, that regulations requiring more administration lead to a larger bureaucracy, and that its these regulations that also drive the inefficiency.

In general, my guess would be that there would be some economies of scale, but with diminishing marginal returns past a certain point - but I'd want to read up on it a lot more before having a strong view.
The slogan about too many bureaucrats is just propaganda. Bureaucrats don't do everything. There are many different areas. In fact, in some areas, they may just be preoccupied with themselves or do the wrong thing. You can't simulate something like that in a game, because in the game they actually all do the same thing and you can see 100% whether they are working or not. The correlation that bureaucracy can create unnecessary or harmful effects cannot be simulated in the context of the game. What can only be simulated is that the need for bureaucrats can rise disproportionately as the population increases.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Sorry but I cannot find a single exemple in the history of mankind where a large bureaucracy was efficient, the ruler of a country had more control , yes, If he wanted a more centralized state and not relying of co-opted local elites to exert power. I guess a nice model would be to tie bureaucratic efficiency to a ratio of bureaucrats per/pop but it would be nice to have some sort of corruption mechanic, I mean if you want Qing dynasty bureaucrats to be as efficient as their western counterparts go ahead but then it will be difficult to model the fall of the Qing dinasty as their cashflow would be massive.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Sorry but I cannot find a single exemple in the history of mankind where a large bureaucracy was efficient, the ruler of a country had more control , yes, If he wanted a more centralized state and not relying of co-opted local elites to exert power. I guess a nice model would be to tie bureaucratic efficiency to a ratio of bureaucrats per/pop but it would be nice to have some sort of corruption mechanic, I mean if you want Qing dynasty bureaucrats to be as efficient as their western counterparts go ahead but then it will be difficult to model the fall of the Qing dinasty as their cashflow would be massive.
How do you define big bureaucracy? Compared to the nineteenth century, most of today's states have a large bureaucracy. At most you can say that the state should hold back in this or that field, or only needs so and so many people. But simply bringing the sum of the fields as evidence of the inefficiency does not work. According to the logic, states like modern Germany would have to lose massively against the USA, for example. Which is obviously not the case.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
Regarding Economy of Scale and the realistic benefits of centralization v. decentralization: generally we want to encourage centralization through the mechanics because decentralization is already indirectly incentivized through the Infrastructure mechanics (which we haven't talked about in detail yet) and EoS makes for a good strategic counterbalance to that. Since we have no hard caps on the number of different building types you can have in each state you're free to decide if you want to build 1 level 10 Textile Mill in one state or 10 level 1 Textile Mills in 10 states. Without a solid reason to centralize, states don't tend to develop the same kinds of distinct identities which also causes the political gameplay to suffer. So we assume that many (not all) buildings benefit from building tall.
 
  • 27Like
  • 11
  • 3
Reactions:
Regarding Economy of Scale and the realistic benefits of centralization v. decentralization: generally we want to encourage centralization through the mechanics because decentralization is already indirectly incentivized through the Infrastructure mechanics (which we haven't talked about in detail yet) and EoS makes for a good strategic counterbalance to that. Since we have no hard caps on the number of different building types you can have in each state you're free to decide if you want to build 1 level 10 Textile Mill in one state or 10 level 1 Textile Mills in 10 states. Without a solid reason to centralize, states don't tend to develop the same kinds of distinct identities which also causes the political gameplay to suffer. So we assume that many (not all) buildings benefit from building tall.
what role do the sub-sectors of a state actually play in economic terms? Everything happens at the state level. What happens if the state is divided?
 
what role do the sub-sectors of a state actually play in economic terms? Everything happens at the state level. What happens if the state is divided?
A single state region (e.g. Piedmont) has access to a number of resources (arable land, mining potential, etc) that represents how much it can be exploited and in what ways. A subsection of that state region (e.g. French Piedmont) only gets access to some of those resources, limiting how many jobs can be created there and thereby how large and wealthy the state can get.
 
  • 14
  • 8Like
  • 2Love
Reactions:
This Dev Diary is the first net negative for me I guess. These production methods would potentially be the perfect solution for allowing easier, faster adjustment of the supply side to the market conditions, while in Victoria 2 this could only happen if a factory went bankrupt and was replaced by another one, a lengthy and expensive process.

However, all this potential is wasted because the player is expected to switch production methods manually. This appears to lead to either a micromanagement hell of a magnitude we've not seen yet, or to a gameplay based on blanket, country-wide massive production changes, which would not only be unrealistic, but also would not allow the aforementioned fine-tuning of the businesses to changing market conditions.

Using the same mechanic for setting building property is even more puzzling. I'm not reopening the "spirit of nation" debate. I can understand the argument that the player is expected to build factories "in the name of" the actual capitalists behind it. But massive, arbitrary transfers of property from one class to another, and which will be enacted again most probably as a blanket, country-wide measure - because no one is going to bother transferring factories from shopkeepers to capitalists one by one - this I simply don't understand how it can be part of the basic gameplay. This is a cataclysmic event you could sometimes have as a result of a particularly radical revolution perhaps, but definitely not something you are supposed to be doing routinely every game.
 
  • 14
  • 2
Reactions:
That's because we have more people, compare the world population in the 19th century (1 billion) to today's population, the best way to simulate bureaucrats efficiency would be through a power law with the number of bureaucrats and the ratio of bureaucrats to pop as variables, there is obviously a point where you need bureaucrats and they bring a massive advantage but the efficiency would deteriorate slightly over time the bigger you empire is, even if you respect the bureaucrat/pop ratio. However democracies, when a transfer of power occurs between certain parties during an election especially when said political parties are very far on the spectrum to simulate a change in the administration and a rejuvenation of the administrative corps. It can also occur in autocratic countries when a ruler is replaced but it would depends on how the ruler gets replaced and the ruler traits for example.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
A single state region (e.g. Piedmont) has access to a number of resources (arable land, mining potential, etc) that represents how much it can be exploited and in what ways. A subsection of that state region (e.g. French Piedmont) only gets access to some of those resources, limiting how many jobs can be created there and thereby how large and wealthy the state can get.
How is it determined which resources go to which part of a split state - is it random, proportional to the number of provinces in each part or the resources are actually assigned to individual provinces and only managed on the state level?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Sorry but I cannot find a single exemple in the history of mankind where a large bureaucracy was efficient, the ruler of a country had more control , yes, If he wanted a more centralized state and not relying of co-opted local elites to exert power. I guess a nice model would be to tie bureaucratic efficiency to a ratio of bureaucrats per/pop but it would be nice to have some sort of corruption mechanic, I mean if you want Qing dynasty bureaucrats to be as efficient as their western counterparts go ahead but then it will be difficult to model the fall of the Qing dinasty as their cashflow would be massive.

Efficient compared to what though? While it's very trendy (and very, very human) to take a dig at bureaucracy, the more complex societies get, the greater the need for coordination for them to run effectively. Even the most extreme (non-anarchist) advocates of 'laissez faire' assume a 'free market' within a framework of laws/law enforcement system, and usually an education system as well - I suspect (but could be wrong) the legal system in Vicky 3 is part of 'the bureaucracy', for example. It may 'feel' inefficient, but that's usually due to the limited viewpoint of any particular individual. States with ineffective legal systems tend to have very low levels of bureaucracy, but generally have even lower (proportionally as well as absolute) outcomes in terms of economic (and often but not always social) wellbeing.

Also, keep in mind that the local elites have bureaucrats of their own - I suspect if it's all in the same state, there's no distinguishing between a national government, for example, and sub-state governments (provincial, for example) - although I could be wrong.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
A single state region (e.g. Piedmont) has access to a number of resources (arable land, mining potential, etc) that represents how much it can be exploited and in what ways. A subsection of that state region (e.g. French Piedmont) only gets access to some of those resources, limiting how many jobs can be created there and thereby how large and wealthy the state can get.
The distribution of the population is then also simulated accordingly? For example, I have wood in one sub-sector and build a lot of furniture factories. So is that sub-sector then the city, the population and the furniture factories? If France then takes this sub-sector, will Paris get the factories?
 
The distribution of the population is then also simulated accordingly? For example, I have wood in one sub-sector and build a lot of furniture factories. So is that sub-sector then the city, the population and the furniture factories? If France then takes this sub-sector, will Paris get the factories?
Depending on the resources transferred in the split different types of buildings would also be transferred, along with the Pops attached to that building.

It's worth noting here that state regions split only under relatively rare circumstances. Most of the time when territory changes hands it's entire states (which could be a sub-state) from one country to another.
 
  • 23
  • 5Like
Reactions:
That's because we have more people, compare the world population in the 19th century (1 billion) to today's population, the best way to simulate bureaucrats efficiency would be through a power law with the number of bureaucrats and the ratio of bureaucrats to pop as variables, there is obviously a point where you need bureaucrats and they bring a massive advantage but the efficiency would deteriorate slightly over time the bigger you empire is, even if you respect the bureaucrat/pop ratio. However democracies, when a transfer of power occurs between certain parties during an election especially when said political parties are very far on the spectrum to simulate a change in the administration and a rejuvenation of the administrative corps. It can also occur in autocratic countries when a ruler is replaced but it would depends on how the ruler gets replaced and the ruler traits for example.
First of all, centralization and thus inevitably bureaucratization made the market as we know it possible. The same rules, which are more or less enforced everywhere, meant predictability.

As for larger areas, it is not a question of bureaucracy, but a question of the distribution of bureaucracy and control. If all decisions are made in the capital, it can become a problem. But that is not a question of the sheer size of the apparatus. The large apparatus with decision-making powers on site can be more effective than a small, top-heavy one. And it depends on what the bureaucracy is doing in the first place.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Regarding Economy of Scale and the realistic benefits of centralization v. decentralization: generally we want to encourage centralization through the mechanics because decentralization is already indirectly incentivized through the Infrastructure mechanics (which we haven't talked about in detail yet) and EoS makes for a good strategic counterbalance to that. Since we have no hard caps on the number of different building types you can have in each state you're free to decide if you want to build 1 level 10 Textile Mill in one state or 10 level 1 Textile Mills in 10 states. Without a solid reason to centralize, states don't tend to develop the same kinds of distinct identities which also causes the political gameplay to suffer. So we assume that many (not all) buildings benefit from building tall.
Frankly, this answer is a bit confusing (edit - As in I understand the potential mechanics, I don't understand how they are a good simulation) to me. Of course you have yet to talk about your infrastructure mechanics, but infrastructure seems like exactly the sort of thing that would incentivize centralization, because it is hard and expensive to develop good infrastructure everywhere, so industry and population will tend to gather where it is already available, making it even more effective to improve the infrastructure where people already are. So how infrastructure would be a incentive to decentralize seems puzzling to me.

This is not to say that economies of scale should not also be a factor. I think for a lot of reason they make total sense. I think it was mainly in the context of bureaucracy that it felt wrong that it was the sort of thing that was good to centralize. To me that feels exactly like the sort of thing that it should be "easiest" to centralize, because that is where you have people with the right qualifications etc. but to be efficient you have to make the effort to spread the administration to the developing parts of your nation. Of course that struggle can be modelled in many ways, and hopefully producing Bureaucracy Capacity is just one component of a well functioning administation, but it was one of the things I felt was done fairly well in Vic2, with each state needing to supports its own administrative class etc.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Depending on the resources transferred in the split different types of buildings would also be transferred, along with the Pops attached to that building.

It's worth noting here that state regions split only under relatively rare circumstances. Most of the time when territory changes hands it's entire states (which could be a sub-state) from one country to another.
If buildings that are not connected to a resource located in the province then tend to be erected where other building buildings are already standing. I don't have any wood in the state, but I build furniture factories.

My main concern is the visualization and creation of cities. In theory, there are several cities in countries like the Ruhr area.

If so, what about provinces where I farm and then build additional factories. Is the city then where my farmers work?
 
Frankly, this answer is a bit confusing to me. Of course you have yet to talk about your infrastructure mechanics, but infrastructure seems like exactly the sort of thing that would incentivize centralization, because it is hard and expensive to develop good infrastructure everywhere, so industry and population will tend to gather where it is already available, making it even more effective to improve the infrastructure where people already are. So how infrastructure would be a incentive to decentralize seems puzzling to me.

This is not to say that economies of scale should not also be a factor. I think for a lot of reason they make total sense. I think it was mainly in the context of bureaucracy that it felt wrong that it was the sort of thing that was good to centralize. To me that feels exactly like the sort of thing that it should be "easiest" to centralize, because that is where you have people with the right qualifications etc. but to be efficient you have to make the effort to spread the administration to the developing parts of your nation. Of course that struggle can be modelled in many ways, and hopefully producing Bureaucracy Capacity is just one component of a well functioning administation, but it was one of the things I felt was done fairly well in Vic2, with each state needing to supports its own administrative class etc.
But the raw materials are not unlimited. Grain mining cannot be concentrated in a single province. You can't just get wood out of a single forest. In this respect, distributing the factories can be worthwhile. The developers speak of buildings that process resources.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions: