• 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:
Ach!

During development I mentioned this so, so many times. That we wouldn't have real laissez-faire or anything even close to it, if the player made the capitalists of whomever build the businesses.

Now it appears it is coming. Oh lawd. I would have hoped that this could have been flagged back then as something on the 'perhaps to-do list'. It would have saved hundreds of posts, on the likes of "pls no, that would ruin the game and that is not what the spielgeizt is", or "that was the weak spot of Vic1/2 because of the endless glass factories", or "having everything on-hands is ObViOuSlY better", or "that's not part of the elegant solution for this or that", or "it is still capitalists doing it because of the pool, only, you do it and pretend that it was freely though of by the capitalists" ... or so many other arguments.

I can't agree on the statement made in the announcement, viz, this is a 'disputed topic' and thus it is going to be optional. I agree with leaving it optional, of course, what I don't agree is that this was disputed. Some like me voiced that laissez-faire could only be it's own thing but, the MAJORITY of voices just bashed that down. It was one of those majority "shut up, the game is gonna be AWESOME!" generalized opinions. Disputed, eh? RIght.

Well... at least I should be glad that it is coming, in a format that may perhaps be good. Come to think of it, what other controversial mechanics (wink-wink) may possibly do a one-eighty and revert to the way it was in Vic1/2? The world wonders.
 
  • 7
  • 5Like
Reactions:
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.
I think the in-game agrarianism is much more moderate than what you propose. For example my industrialist IG thinks its the 3rd best option out of 5 (they are neutral towards it), and if you wanted to ban capitalist pops then the industrialist IG would put it next to a command economy. I feel its much better represented by a 50% subsidy to farm investments and 50% penalty to industrial ones.

Game rules can change how laws work. One obvious effect of having the rule set to autonomous investment is that you don't control what building is built, the AI does. My proposal builds on the law would having different effects with the rule on and off like that. I propose an effect of the rule set to manual investment could be that you are limited in how you spend it (as currently manual investment is). In the game files the simple solution is 10 laws, of which only 5 are visible (depending on the game rule). That kind of thing is what the HOI expansion man the guns did in lots of the files pertaining to navies.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Hello and welcome to another Victoria 3 dev diary! Today’s diary marks the start of dev diaries about Patch 1.2...
This looks like a neat change, and I'm looking forward to 1.2!

I feel like Vic3 has yet to really decide what it's about, as a game. CK2 is about playing a person/family, EU4 is about playing a nation, and Vic3... seems torn between whether it's about playing a country or playing a market?

Vic3 feels like a game that wants to be about playing a market, only the interface and map and pre-existing ideas about how games work shoehorns it into playing as a country.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I think the in-game agrarianism is much more moderate than what you propose.
It was an actual proposed economic system by the agragarian classes at the time, they wanted to break traditionalism too but had a different desire from the capitalists and socialists.
For example my industrialist IG thinks its the 3rd best option out of 5 (they are neutral towards it), and if you wanted to ban capitalist pops then the industrialist IG would put it next to a command economy. I feel its much better represented by a 50% subsidy to farm investments and 50% penalty to industrial ones.

The other two being "non-market feudal economy" and "command economy".
Yeah I think "non-feudal but community/rural focused market economy" is going to be an improvement to them.

I think it would best be represented by the investment pool having different logics based on different laws.
Interventionism= Highest demand vs. Supply
Laissez Faire= Highest profit
Agraganarism= Meet pop needs
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
This looks like a neat change, and I'm looking forward to 1.2!

I feel like Vic3 has yet to really decide what it's about, as a game. CK2 is about playing a person/family, EU4 is about playing a nation, and Vic3... seems torn between whether it's about playing a country or playing a market?

Vic3 feels like a game that wants to be about playing a market, only the interface and map and pre-existing ideas about how games work shoehorns it into playing as a country.
I think it might be best to think of Vic 3 and the Victoria games in general as a hybrid. Crusader Kings is a hybrid of an RPG and a strategy game, Victoria is a hybrid of an economics simulator, a politics game (like the Democracy series) and a traditional strategy game. The tricky part is going to be balancing all of the different parts.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Not to be difficult, but shouldn't this have already been in the base game? This concept was first introduced to the Vicky series by Victoria: Revolutions like 20 years ago. I know because I was there. LOL
 
  • 4
Reactions:
this is a good step in integrating mechanics what some of the community pointed out. I would like to see that say after certain amount of upgrades say 5x times a mine somekind of change on map in terms of building icon happens and you get somekind of economy of scale or can see you are the only one with a eg. a large mining complex (however you want to call it), i link this also to wished production and trading measurement in tonnage (metric).
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
seems torn between whether it's about playing a country or playing a market?

I would say, harldy a market, since it pretty much plays itself and the human player is, more often than not, just watching it at a distance and wondering what the heck is going on.

Funny enough since automated industry building by the AI as capitalists was frowned upon during development, only to face a glorious comeback now at 1.2.
 
Austria continues to overperform compared to history
Of course. You need to significantly buff the United States provinces, and restore the "natural migration" from the Old World to the New World that you had in V2.

Also, the Austria-Hungary is actually a prank, as they were, in reality, a Personal Union, that shared nothing, except the military institution. Not even a common market between the two.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Not even a common market between the two.
Wikipedia tells me there was a customs union (with a citation to the 2007 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica), which is generally a sufficient condition to qualify as being in a shared market in Vicky 3.
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
Reactions:
This is what I have been waiting for. Well done. I know the community is divided on the issue but for me the lack of private investment was a real game-breaker that prevented me from playing more than a few hours after launch.

Making it a game-setting seems to be a fair way to please everyone.

Including the petty bourgoise of the farmers and shopkeepers for the investment pool is also nice. I saw a post suggesting it is expanded further but I would advise agaist it. The division of pops based on economic class characteristics is a hallmark of the victoria series. Sure some workers would invest their savings, but this really only became common at the end of the time-period with easier access to stock markets that allowed the lower middle class to invest their savings in company stock.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 1
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Weird flex but OK.

you can argue that 'lower social levels of that time' can't invest etc. but definitely a small percentage rose because of innovation, building a family business.
You could make a kind of innovation value where it depends on.. chance of innovation, that's why vic2 percentage chance of minor innovations happen was so good.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
@Wizzington Might it be possible to bias AI calculations on where to invest to expand the logic from capitalist/aristocratic industries to do some version of prioritising investments in incorporated states/national-culture homeland states/national-culture majority states/states which have cultures represented in the cultures of the investment pool to help create more disparity between primary and non-primary ethnic/cultural groups and stop colonies becoming as rich as the metropole?
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
a small percentage rose because of innovation, building a family business.
In Vicky 3 POP role terms, at the point where you have a family business, you're a Shopkeeper or Farmer, not a Machinist, Clerk, or Labourer.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
In Vicky 3 POP role terms, at the point where you have a family business, you're a Shopkeeper or Farmer, not a Machinist, Clerk, or Labourer.
Victorian Engineer link is just an example how a large industrial organisation rises from a single person with education engineer.
I think you will be baffled when digging deeper what kind of remarkable people lived in the victorian age even having been in there life just a labourer.
What i tried to convey with previous post is a pyramid approach which the tip represents very few people of lower classes who could rise quickly be it due to a lottery win :) or
having bringing forward a business idea.
Than the lower part, larger part of the imaginable pyramid are people who have an easier time wandering around in investment world because they are already
rich.

My posts also always contribute to steer away from linear game mechanics approach, a healthy small factor of randomness is important to keep the keep a not al too predicable experience. To prevent this more cpu heavy calculations can be attached to already formulas like who or what contributes to the investment pool.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I think you will be baffled when digging deeper what kind of remarkable people lived in the victorian age even having been in there life just a labourer.
The nature of the game's abstractions mean those people vanish into the general noise of Labourers promoting into Shopkeeper jobs through the Qualifications mechanic.
 
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
When we have automated investment, what are we supposed to do? I means it's bascially 90 % of the things i do in a playthrough. Warfare etc. is also mostly automated, so i sit and let the clock tick up. I see less an less the point in the game. Biggest fail in my long Paradox Game history. Played it about 2 weeks and got bored. That never happened before.
 
  • 7
Reactions: