• 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 #71 - Autonomous Investment in 1.2

16_9.jpg

Hello and welcome to another Victoria 3 dev diary! Today’s diary marks the start of dev diaries about Patch 1.2, which is the next major upcoming patch for Victoria 3 (release date to be announced). As with 1.1, 1.2 will contain a slate of bug fixes, UX improvements, AI improvements and so on, but also some more significant changes to game mechanics, which we’re going to go over in these dev diaries.

The particular changes we’ll be talking about today, as alluded to by the title, is Autonomous Investment, which is something we said we were going to look into for our post-release plans back in Dev Diary #64. What we said back then is that while we are never going to take construction out of the hands of the player entirely, we were open to the idea of non-government entities constructing buildings in a way not directly controlled by the country, and what we came up with is a system where the Investment Pool will be used by private entities to construct different types of buildings depending on your economic laws.

Before going over how all this works, I first want to mention that we recognize that the community is somewhat split on the issue of autonomous construction, and as such, we’ve opted to create a new Game Rule for Autonomous Investment. By default, Autonomous Investment is enabled, which puts the Investment Pool out of the hands of the player, but you can choose to disable it, which puts the Investment Pool back in the player’s hands and makes it work exactly as it does in the current 1.1.2 version of the game.

The Investment Pool Game Rule allows you to enable or disable autonomous construction with Investment Pool funds, depending on your personal preference
DD71_1.png


DD71_2.png

Regardless of whether Autonomous Investment is enabled, the Investment Pool works pretty much the same as it did before: Certain Pop Types with ownership shares in buildings pay part of their dividends into the Investment Pool, the funds in which can then be drawn on for construction. There are, however, a few key differences in 1.2 compared to 1.1.

Firstly, the types of Pops that invest have been expanded from just Aristocrats and Capitalists to also include Farmers and Shopkeepers. Capitalists invest the highest percentage of their dividends (20%), followed by Aristocrats at 10%, with Farmers and Shopkeepers investing only 5% each. The rationale here is that it wasn’t only the wealthiest in society who invested in new businesses, and this also allows a small degree of investment under laws which strip ownership away from the Capitalists and Aristocrats (but more on that next week).

Secondly, the proportion of dividends that are paid into the Investment Pool varies in 1.1 based on your laws, which can have some pretty bizarre effects, such as switching to Laissez-Faire suddenly creating a bunch of Capitalist Radicals because they are now investing more money and thus end with a drop in their Wealth. The proportion of funds that are invested is now a fixed percentage based on pop type, which is then subjected to an efficiency bonus: Capitalists always invest 20% of their dividends, for example, but under Laissez-Faire, this investment is more efficient and ends up contributing more money to the Investment Pool.

There is also a general investment efficiency bonus for payments into the Investment Pool in small and mid-sized economies, and a penalty in very large ones, to ensure the Investment Pool is also relevant for mid-sized countries while not growing to such absurd proportions that it cannot possibly be spent in a 10 billion GDP country. These efficiency bonuses are meant to abstract a system of foreign investment, which is something we’ve also mentioned is on our radar in Dev Diary #64 but is a bigger rework that we are not tackling yet in patch 1.2.

Agrarianism gives a hefty bonus to the investments of your Farmers and Aristocrats, but reduces investments from Capitalists and greatly limits the types of buildings they can put their money into.
DD71_3.png

So how then, does the Investment Pool funds get turned into buildings when Autonomous Investment is enabled? Well, autonomously, of course! With Autonomous Investment, the Construction Queue is split into Private and Government Constructions, with Government Constructions being anything (regardless of whether it’s a Government building or not) ordered to be built or auto-expanded by the player or country-level AI, while a Private Construction is anything the Pops themselves are building. The Construction capacity of the country will be split between the Private and Government queues in a proportion based on your economic law, though if there isn’t enough constructions queued of one type to use its full allocation, the excess can be used by the other queue instead.

In the construction screen, you’ll be able to see what the next planned Private Construction will be, along with its current funding level. The funding level is a calculated value based on both the total funds available in the Investment Pool as well as the weekly funds coming into it, and can fluctuate based on the Market price of Goods used in construction. Once a project is funded and ready, it’ll be added to the private Construction Queue the next tick. Private Constructions, unlike Government ones, cannot be reprioritized or canceled - they will always be built in the order they are queued up by the Pops.

Though the Government is currently building nothing in France, there are several private constructions in progress, and plans for the expansion of the Alsace-Lorraine iron mines. Note that this UI is highly WIP!
DD71_4.png

Pop-ordered constructions use a variant of the standard construction AI which doesn’t take into account the country-level AI’s strategic objectives and prioritizes the creation of profitable buildings which will create lucrative jobs for the investing Pop types, but they will also take some more ‘strategic’ factors into account, such as building railroads in low-infrastructure states. Just as with the country-level AI, they also have access to the system of Spending Variables described in Dev Diary #59, which means that they do not operate on a snapshot of the current Market but understand factors such as the impact that already queued buildings (private and government-ordered both) will have on prices once completed and staffed.

Since Autonomous Investment does not only affect player countries, you might be wondering how well this system works together with the AI? The answer is that it actually works quite well! Together with a bunch of AI improvements and fixes in 1.2, this has resulted in more stable economic growth for AI countries and especially seems to have given Great Britain a boost, as the private sector doing its own thing means that the economy is usually growing even if the country’s treasury is having issues, at least as long as the Pops investing into private-sector growth are making healthy profits. There’s still some issues, particularly when AI runs out of available workforce late game, that we are hoping to tackle before 1.2 releases to further improve the AI’s economic growth.

Screenshot from a hands-off game taken in 1908. While there’s certainly still room for improvement and some countries like France and Prussia have underperformed due to wars and turmoil (and Austria continues to overperform compared to history), it’s definitely looking better than in 1.1.2.
DD71_5.png

That’s it for today! Join us again next week as we go over more changes to the economy in 1.2, with a particular focus on Economic Laws and the introduction of Government Shares in buildings.
 
  • 182Like
  • 75Love
  • 15
  • 10
  • 1
Reactions:
Though the Government is currently building nothing in France, there are several private constructions in progress, and plans for the expansion of the Alsace-Lorraine iron mines. Note that this UI is highly WIP!
View attachment 939445
If the investment pool has partially funded a building, will the cost be reduced if the state decides to build it? That is, if in the quoted example the player decided to build an iron mine in Alsace-Lorraine, would they have to pay the full price or just 86%?
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Any plan on being able to use authority to influence the autonomous construction queue?

One way I see of doing this would be by using decrees. The state production ones should already affect this by increasing the profitability of buildings in a state but this link isn't obvious at first and might not be enough to make a noticeable difference. It would be nice if those decree would increase the chances of certain buildings being built in a provinces kinda like the industries NF were working in Vicky 2. This would provide some slight control to the player over the private investment and help less experience players see some of the indirect effects of this decree.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Yeah, I could see this being a bit of an issue. I guess the rules outlined here are basically:
  • Aristocrats will build "aristocrat" buildings, increasing the political weight of aristocrats and agricultural workers
  • Capitalists will build "capitalist" buildings, increasing the weight of capitalists and industrial workers
But aren't some buildings "aristocratic" or "capitalistic" only by virtue of which PMs they use? And the player can just boot the old "owners" out immediately?
Manufacturing , mines, logging, fishing, and whaling goes from Merchant to Capitalist. Some don't have the merchant step
Farms, plantations go from 100 Aristocrat to 100 Aristocrat plus 50 Capitalist with public trading.
Some are odd balls like Arts Academy and Government Administration

This is excluding Government Run and Worker Cooperative.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This is also the case if efficiency is low.
Yeah but you could use that method for high efficiency too.

For example, with Agrarianism:

Currently…
+50% Aristocrats contribution efficiency
-25% Capitalists contribution efficiency
+50% Farmers contribution efficiency

Other option is…
-0% Aristocrats contribution efficiency
-50% Capitalists contribution efficiency
-0% Farmers contribution efficiency

This way no new money would be created out of magic, but rather lost.

Although I have to remember the huge problem Vic2’s economic system had in relation to “money dissapearing”. There is a bug in the economic coding of Vic2: when sphere leaders buy goods from their sphere members, the money is paid by the sphere leader and the good is received, but the money dissapears and is never received by the sphere member that produced and sold the good. This caused deflation, and an economic liquidity crisis.

Please read this deep analysis about this issue:
1) 2) 3)
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
i assume the private sector cannot run into deficit like the state, what happens if they have building on queue but run out of money? will the building stop - and the construction "mana" is given to the public sector?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
It is a step to the right direction. I hope that eventually other areas of the game like trade and the construction sector will get a similar treatment. Usage of the word "autonomous" instead of "automated" is very pleasing because it means that your goal is not just automation. Will follow next diaries with a great interest, because Victoria 3 immediately jumped to a quite high position in my mental "games to buy" ranking.
Also it's very interesting that most of reactions are positive, I was expecting a much more visible divide because some people were saying very confidently that the idea of autonomous agents is universally hated and is not salvageable.
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 2
Reactions:
That sounds awfully similar to the AI constructing buildings that are not in my broader national interest but in their limited interest. In other words, the removal of national considerations make their actions worse for me. Again, making me wonder why I would turn on such a feature.

A lot of people seem to hope that there will be less micro in the game with this feature but I only foresee more. Because of everything else I need to monitor I now also need to pay attention to whatever the capitalist AI is trying to do and immediately respond so it doesn't fall flat on its face.
Yes, obviously. They are not meant to be an automation on construction, that matches your interests as the player. It's supposed to be a pop type investing their own money into increasing their own clout with new buildings to be owners of. That's what some people wanted them to do, not to be automated construction.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
i assume the private sector cannot run into deficit like the state, what happens if they have building on queue but run out of money? will the building stop - and the construction "mana" is given to the public sector?
It sounds like something is proposed and then doesn't start until it gets funded, then it goes into the autonomous queue. Since it waits until it is funded I do not see how it would 'run out of money'.

It sounds like the construction points are split between the queue based on the laws but if either side doesn't have enough things in the queue to consume all of their allotment the other side can use the remaining balance. Costs go to the side that is actually using the construction points. It is not clear if that is just the cost of the goods or does it include wages. If they split the wages then they have to implement an internal rule as to what happens when both queues are too short who pays the wages for the portion neither is using and I would say that would fall onto the player queue and not the autonomous queue. (or probably it just means the player side pays the wages all the time as it is the simplest implementation).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It is a step to the right direction. I hope that eventually other areas of the game like trade and the construction sector will get a similar treatment. Usage of the word "autonomous" instead of "automated" is very pleasing because it means that your goal is not just automation. Will follow next diaries with a great interest, because Victoria 3 immediately jumped to a quite high position in my mental "games to buy" ranking.
Also it's very interesting that most of reactions are positive, I was expecting a much more visible divide because some people were saying very confidently that the idea of autonomous agents is universally hated and is not salvageable.

Speaking as someone who was opposed to automation before, this manages to not tick most of the boxes that would've put me off. What many people proposed beforehand was automation simply as a way to either get it out of the way as, supposedly, pointless micromanagent or on the basis that this was somehow needed to model capitalism. Both of these are silly in my opinion and I had and still have zero interest in Vic 2:Remake

What the devs system seems to do, when it comes, if it works, is that it means economic classes will indirectly try to secure and perpetuate their interests by expanding the economic base that gives them power. I'm sure there will be plenty of issues with it. Aren't there always? But it seems like a step in the right direction.
 
  • 7Like
  • 4
Reactions:
Speaking as someone who was opposed to automation before, this manages to not tick most of the boxes that would've put me off. What many people proposed beforehand was automation simply as a way to either get it out of the way as, supposedly, pointless micromanagent or on the basis that this was somehow needed to model capitalism. Both of these are silly in my opinion and I had and still have zero interest in Vic 2:Remake

What the devs system seems to do, when it comes, if it works, is that it means economic classes will indirectly try to secure and perpetuate their interests by expanding the economic base that gives them power. I'm sure there will be plenty of issues with it. Aren't there always? But it seems like a step in the right direction.
Agreed. I'm glad that they're adding stuff like this in a way that plays to the game's strengths and integrates with its existing systems instead of just randomly ripping stuff out and awkwardly surgically re-attaching stuff from previous games.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Could you take those restrictions about which buildings each law can use the investment fund to build out of those laws now? Already with the capitalists putting less $ into the investment fund and aristocrats putting more in you should get more agricultural buildings. That feels like a very natural way to have different laws with different emphasis on what buildings are made.

They could stay part of the law effects when you have manual controlled investment funds in the game rules. That would make the manual control game rule have both pros and cons, rather than just pros.

No for two reasons
A) A major point of distributionism(agraganarism) was to limit industrialization "Focus on local communities" isn't just words, the people advocating the system basically wanted to ban capitalist PoPs from existing(but they also weren't socialists), there might be a few other industries you could add but....
B) The law also has to work with the rule off, options breed compromises. You shouldn't be able to take that investment pool and plow it into steel factories if you control it.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
You're right actually, though that's such an edge case I'm not sure it's worth throwing an investment modifier on them just for art academies.

From what understood, the investment come exclusively from dividends - which without ownership shares, you have 0 so it's a no-op.

Isn't worth, for consistency sake, keep the 5% investment for all middle/lower strata professions? Laws could still ignore this, and with hinted upcoming changes to Worker Cooperatives that may be irrelevant... but may help mods that introduce new laws. My 2cc!
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
From what understood, the investment come exclusively from dividends - which without ownership shares, you have 0 so it's a no-op.

Isn't worth, for consistency sake, keep the 5% investment for all middle/lower strata professions? Laws could still ignore this, and with hinted upcoming changes to Worker Cooperatives that may be irrelevant... but may help mods that introduce new laws. My 2cc!
If you follow the link you quoted, academics can be the owners of art buildings.

Your suggestion of 5% for everyone seems like a better way to avoid edge cases.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
It sounds like something is proposed and then doesn't start until it gets funded, then it goes into the autonomous queue. Since it waits until it is funded I do not see how it would 'run out of money'.

It sounds like the construction points are split between the queue based on the laws but if either side doesn't have enough things in the queue to consume all of their allotment the other side can use the remaining balance. Costs go to the side that is actually using the construction points. It is not clear if that is just the cost of the goods or does it include wages. If they split the wages then they have to implement an internal rule as to what happens when both queues are too short who pays the wages for the portion neither is using and I would say that would fall onto the player queue and not the autonomous queue. (or probably it just means the player side pays the wages all the time as it is the simplest implementation).
Without stockpiles you are limited to paying the weekly spot price. What if the price of materials (or wages if they pay them) changes?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
What made you reverse course given players warned about the problem of a large player driven construction queue pre launch?
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Is there any possibility that something could be added to militarize/demilitarize factories, a la HOI4 where you can turn civilian factories into military factories? Obviously not all factories would be options for this, but I could see something where you could turn tooling factories or motor industries into arms or munition factories, and the reverse as well. It would obviously cost some construction, but not as much as building a factory from scratch and since they would employ a lot of the same workers you wouldn’t have to build a new factory or they type you want and then destroy the old factory just so the workers end up unemployed, semi-radicalized, poorer, just for them to join the new factory.
 
  • 5
Reactions: