• 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:
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.

kindly check the dev diary again, the devs incredibly neat integrated an option to switch it on or off in games rules settings see screenshot
 
The question is, what about overinvestment in factories/infrastructure/plantations? Let's assume that we play as Turkey, a civil war breaks out in neighboring Austria, so the AI builds weapons factories to sell to Austria because the war causes the Austrian market to absorb large amounts of weapons. The civil war ends, factories start to lay off workers because there is no market for weapons. Will AI automatically remove overbuilt factory levels? I ask because in Victoria II there was a similar mechanic and it usually ended up in problems for the player because the AI would build factories that produced for a while, the market would fill up, the factories would empty and then they would be left empty and the game would actually become annoying deleting hundreds of empty factories and the AI would build in that more factories.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The question is, what about overinvestment in factories/infrastructure/plantations? Let's assume that we play as Turkey, a civil war breaks out in neighboring Austria, so the AI builds weapons factories to sell to Austria because the war causes the Austrian market to absorb large amounts of weapons. The civil war ends, factories start to lay off workers because there is no market for weapons. Will AI automatically remove overbuilt factory levels? I ask because in Victoria II there was a similar mechanic and it usually ended up in problems for the player because the AI would build factories that produced for a while, the market would fill up, the factories would empty and then they would be left empty and the game would actually become annoying deleting hundreds of empty factories and the AI would build in that more factories.
With no limit on factory slots per state, unlike in V2, this doesn't seem to be much of a problem.
Yeah, constantly half-full industry won't get super profitable or pay dividends, but frankly, not all businesses would anyway (unless you're building very conservatively, which is not optimal). Having an oversized arms sector on stand by ready for the next war sounds like a boon.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
With no limit on factory slots per state, unlike in V2, this doesn't seem to be much of a problem.
Yeah, constantly half-full industry won't get super profitable or pay dividends, but frankly, not all businesses would anyway (unless you're building very conservatively, which is not optimal). Having an oversized arms sector on stand by ready for the next war sounds like a boon.
I think someone else has suggested this already, but maybe allow temporary Hearts of Iron-style factory conversion? Sort of like "economic conscription".
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I think someone else has suggested this already, but maybe allow temporary Hearts of Iron-style factory conversion? Sort of like "economic conscription".
I like that. The same way you can conscript extra pops, you should be able to select factories for switch into war economy - have tool factories switch to produce weapons and motor industries to churn out tanks instead of cars, for example. It doesn't have to be by type, but undersized weapons factories waiting for reactivation is not too far fetched either.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I like that. The same way you can conscript extra pops, you should be able to select factories for switch into war economy - have tool factories switch to produce weapons and motor industries to churn out tanks instead of cars, for example. It doesn't have to be by type, but undersized weapons factories waiting for reactivation is not too far fetched either.
I believe a much more elegant solution could be "military" production PMs for certain factories (yes, like the tool ones), that would give less product than regular PMs of specialized factories, but still would be profitable if there's a deficit of their products.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I believe a much more elegant solution could be "military" production PMs for certain factories (yes, like the tool ones), that would give less product than regular PMs of specialized factories, but still would be profitable if there's a deficit of their products.
While that is indeed more elegant, I think it presents little to no cost of opportunity to the player making that decision, besides the reduced output in civilian goods. Maybe a PM that requires a significant upfront investment by the state could be an alternative, but I think a factory conversion like HoI4 would work better. There's also the matter of anachronism; personally I'm not aware of factory conversions ocurring before WW1, but I could certainly be wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
While that is indeed more elegant, I think it has little to no cost of opportunity to the player making that decision, besides the reduced output in civilian goods. Maybe a PM that requires a significant upfront investment by the state could be an alternative, but I think a factory conversion like HoI4 would work better. There's also the matter of anachronism; personally I'm not aware of factory conversions ocurring before WW1, but I could certainly be wrong.
I think you're right.
However, I'll try to salvage this.
1) these are not factories, they're industries. And within industries this sounds not entirely unlikely that factories can be cheaply rebuilt after older factories have been demolished, even if no single particular factory just gets turrned into one of another type
2) a mid-term production malus (much aloke with barracks decaying reequipment penalty could provide this opportunity cost
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Tbh, I'm pretty worried about this. Splitting one of the main core-loop actions of the game (building things) between the player and the AI feels like it's going to be pretty janky.

The dev diary doesn't really explain what the gameplay reason for the change is - which makes me more worried that it's a change brought on by pressure from some sections of the community rather than a change designed to improve gameplay.

Hopefully it's about reducing the time spent building stuff - creating space to be filled by other systems that are in development. Fingers crossed.
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The dev diary doesn't really explain what the gameplay reason for the change is
Some people who aren't me and probably aren't you find that the dissonance between "my laws say I have a laissez-faire capitalist economy" and "I, the ineffable landgeist of my nation, tell my capitalists exactly what industries to invest in" creates a negative gameplay experience for them.
 
  • 6Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Even today mist african economies as well as many asian and latin american economies depend on mostly a single sector such as oil extraction or cobalt, diamonds, etc. But in Vic3 it feels like every AI economy is very well diverse and self sufficient. And it breaks immersion so I stopped playing.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Some people who aren't me and probably aren't you find that the dissonance between "my laws say I have a laissez-faire capitalist economy" and "I, the ineffable landgeist of my nation, tell my capitalists exactly what industries to invest in" creates a negative gameplay experience for them.

Yep. I think that perception of thematic dissonance is what some people have a problem with. I'm just worried that making changes to mechanics solely to reduce subjective thematic dissonance isn't a good idea.

Hopefully there are more substantial reasons for the change than are mentioned in the dev diary. Otherwise this feels like handing over design decisions to the loudest sections of the community at the expense of mechanical/gameplay coherence.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Yep. I think that perception of thematic dissonance is what some people have a problem with. I'm just worried that making changes to mechanics solely to reduce subjective thematic dissonance isn't a good idea.
Fortunately, this is a game rule, so people who like the existing arrangements can keep them :)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Fortunately, this is a game rule, so people who like the existing arrangements can keep them :)

I think that may be true in the short term - but, as other mechanics are changed/added, they'll be balanced around the default and that'll impact across everything else.

EDIT additional context on what i mean:

Ultimately, this is a massive change in design direction for Victoria 3. Going forward, the game can't help but be designed and balanced around this new direction - regardless of whether it's currently set up as an optional rule.

The central pillar of the game as it stands - how the player interacts with their economy - is changing from the player designing their economy to the player affecting their economy by building certain parts of it. That's not only a complete change to something that's central to the game - it's also a massive reduction of what V3 players spend time doing in-game.

My point is that I hope that such a massive change in direction is due to serious thinking about the mechanics of Victoria 3 going forward - rather than a reaction to a gripe about thematic dissonance.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Agree. But that's my point. If this is a change the devs are making to radically change the economic challenges the players face - making the economic part of the game less about designing your economy and more about managing interest groups - that may well be fine or even a big improvement. My concern is that the dev diary doesn't mention that being the reason for the change - it only mentions the community disagreements around this, which are mainly about thematic dissonance.
I think the devs themselves read the laissez faire forum fights through and through and assume that everyone did the same and is familiar with all arguments.

This is a brief summary for those who're not as familiar. Most of the arguments are gameplay-related, some not:
1) reduce micro
2) add additional challenge by
  • empowering the ruling classes with means to preserve their power
  • making economy much more chaotic and less efficient, due to no longer being controlled by a single omniscient actor with a good knowledge of inventions that would appear decades later
3) add realism with both points above
4) shift the gameplay focus to more strategic (say, tax and subsidy policies, gradual and hard-to-shift tariffs etc)
5) make difference between economic laws more apparent
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
I think the devs themselves read the laissez faire forum fights through and through and assume that everyone did the same and is familiar with all arguments.

This is a brief summary for those who're not as familiar. Most of the arguments are gameplay-related, some not:
1) reduce micro
2) add additional challenge by
  • empowering the ruling classes with means to preserve their power
  • making economy much more chaotic and less efficient, due to no longer being controlled by a single omniscient actor with a good knowledge of inventions that would appear decades later
3) add realism with both points above
4) shift the gameplay focus to more strategic (say, tax and subsidy policies, gradual and hard-to-shift tariffs etc)
5) make difference between economic laws more apparent
Yep. Hoping this change is a step towards 1, 2, 4 & 5 - and not simply a response to the widespread complaints about the thematic dissonance which I assume is what's being alluded to in 3. My albeit anecdotal impression is that complaints about (3) have dominated discussion about this on the forums and yet would be the worst reason for this change.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Going forward, the game can't help but be designed and balanced around this new direction
Then at least it will be balanced around something :)
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Yep. Hoping this change is a step towards 1, 2, 4 & 5 - and not simply a response to the widespread complaints about the thematic dissonance which I assume is what's being alluded to in 3. My albeit anecdotal impression is that complaints about (3) have dominated discussion about this on the forums and yet would be the worst reason for this change.
Fortunately it seems that the devs have thoroughly considered how to fit these mechanics into the broader framework of the game.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions: