• 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 #110 - Building Ownership & Foreign Investment

16_9.png

Hello and welcome to another Victoria 3 Dev Diary!

After last week’s look at Power Blocs, we are going to take a look at another major set of changes that are going to arrive with Sphere of Influence and the free 1.7 update.

Namely, a revision of the Building Ownership system and what it allows us to do: Foreign Investment, a much requested feature which makes its debut in 1.7.

You will see that the changes we are making impact your visibility of ownership and the affected Pops throughout the game.

To understand all the mechanics we will be looking at an example country in the heart of Europe.

Ownership types​

It’s 1836. In Bavaria, a proud member of the Zollverein Power Bloc, all buildings are owned by the state or the workers themselves.

Capitalists, Aristocrats, and Clergymen no longer work in these buildings, and most of the Shopkeepers no longer work in production buildings directly. In addition, the Ownership Production Methods have been removed. Instead, ownership works on a per level basis, allowing a mixed ownership structure in the same building.

A popular Logging Camp it seems. Workers, a Financial District and a Manor House own a part.
DD110_01.png

In worker-owned buildings employees work for themselves basically. So any dividends they may accumulate, they split amongst themselves. This is the default at game start for many countries (not all) and is a state which you can more or less return to at a later stage of the game with the enactment of Cooperative Ownership, which will expropriate your privately owned buildings over time.

One major exception from the ownership situation at game start are subsistence farms which are owned by a new building we are introducing: Manor Houses.

Now they lounge around in luxury, instead of slumming it with the common folks in less refined taste buildings, we wouldn't want their shoes to be dirtied on a subsistence farm!
Manor Houses are able to own levels of other buildings, in our case at game start all the levels of Subsistence Farms in their own states. They pay their wages and dividends by collecting dividends from the buildings they own and distributing them among their employees.
What type and how many employees they have is determined by a limited set of PMs.

Clergymen or Aristocrats? You can’t get rid of both of them!
DD110_02.png

So you can see there are still jobs for Clergymen. What about the Shopkeepers and Capitalists?
Well, they work in the new Financial District buildings, which behave pretty much like the Manor Houses. They too have different employment PMs, can own levels of other buildings and pay their employees by collecting dividends from owned building levels.

Both new buildings expand automatically, depending on how many levels they own. For example if a new level of a privately owned factory is created, a corresponding new level of a Financial District is also generated.

All building levels that you construct are country-owned. Under certain laws, this status can change soon after they are finished constructing. Country-owned buildings come with reduced Economy of Scale bonuses and a bureaucracy cost for each level you own. But in return they can provide additional income based on the building’s dividends which partially get transferred to your treasury.

Not all buildings can be of any ownership type of course, for example barracks or government administrations will always be country-owned.

Summing up, there are now three types of ownership for any building level:
  • Worker owned
  • Privately owned (Financial Districts and Manor Houses)
  • Country owned

If all buildings in Bavaria are owned by the workers or the country itself, how do the first Financial Districts appear, you may wonder!

The main way to get that to happen is the next point on our agenda.

Privatization​

Enter Privatization, whereby you allow country-owned buildings to be sold to Pops.

If you are short on cash, Privatization might help you
DD110_03.png

This makes it possible for your Pops to acquire them. Depending on the type of building you are privatizing, they usually get bought either by Aristocrats or Capitalists, using the investment pool’s funds.
If you don’t have any capitalists in your country yet, other Pops may step up though, using the investment pool’s funds to buy a building you put up for sale and become Capitalists in the process, which in turn leads to the first Financial District appearing.

The money will be transferred from the investment pool to your country’s treasury once that happens. The cost of buying a level is determined by its construction cost and is modified by most of the Economic System laws. These laws also affect the efficiency of these transactions, meaning how much money is lost as overhead and how much is being reinvested into the investment pool or the treasury.
One particularly interesting law is Laissez-Faire which upon enactment forces all your country-owned buildings to be put up for sale and will automatically do so for every new building level you construct. Similarly, enactment of other laws like Cooperative Ownership and Command Economy doesn’t immediately change the ownership of all buildings, but rather can start a process that can convert your economy over time.

Insert witty joke about the free market here
DD110_04.png

Now let’s take a look at how the different ownership model affects investments from your Pops.

Investment​

The existing logic for how the private investment pool works remains similar to before. So, different Pop types still have different priorities and they will look at factors like estimated productivity, available workforce etc.
When a building is about to be constructed by private investment, we randomly determine who is building it, favoring already existing Financial Districts and Manor Houses over creating new ones.

In a worker-owned economy, the private investment pool will continue to function, but they will only expand their own buildings, not create new ones.

An important fact with this system is that investments do not need to be local. A Financial District or Manor House can invest in any of your country’s states, including your colonies overseas.
This system will create a flow of money from the colonies to your homelands, a stronger centralization of wealth and power and it will end the status of colonies’ Pops making more money than your Pops at home.

Of course the non-local investments also come with some challenges with regards to other countries.

It looks like Prussia has heard about that option and has started investing in your country!

“First they took our chairs, then the tables we used to eat at. What’s next? Our beds?!”
DD110_05.png

Foreign Investment​

There are a few ways to acquire Foreign Investment Rights.

First of all, overlords can always invest in their subjects. This is part of the free 1.7 update and will allow you to do Foreign Investment where it matters the most, even if you do not own Sphere of Influence.

Then there are three diplomatic pacts which you can use if you have bought the expansion:
  1. Mutual Investment Rights which allows both countries to invest in each other
  2. One-directional Investment Rights in either direction, so you either demand to be allowed to invest in their country or offer another country to invest in yours

The [redacted] has been [redacted]. We shall see its effects on the 11. of April.
DD110_06.png

There is also a Power Bloc Principle group that deals with Foreign Investment which on Tier 3 has the consequence of being able to invest in any member country.

No matter how you got the Investment Rights, you and also your Pops will be able to invest in the target country. Private investment does consider foreign states as potential targets for their expansions, allowing them to build profitable buildings more easily.

As nice as it is that Prussia has invested in new buildings in Bavaria, I don’t think we can let them get away with diverting the profits to Berlin instead of our own population!

Nationalization​

Nationalization allows you to take control of foreign assets in your country. You cannot nationalize other countries’ assets as long as they possess Foreign Investment rights in your country.

Once that is no longer the case, e.g. if Bavaria left the Zollverein Power Bloc, you can peacefully nationalize their building levels in your country. For that you need to pay a sum of money from your treasury. Similarly to Privatization, the sum is determined by the construction cost + modifiers from laws.

You will also be able to nationalize your own Pops’ building levels, both worker-owned and privately owned, if you’d like to take ownership. Nationalization is not seen positively by the affected Pops of course and will radicalize them.

“We should compensate them to reduce the quarrels.”
DD110_07.png

But what if the Bavarian coffers are empty yet you still want to take over that juicy productive Furniture Manufacturies that is owned by Prussia?

Well, there is always an alternative.

“Pay them? I don’t think so!”
DD110_08.png

You can demand nationalization of a country’s assets in your country. If they accept, their building levels’ ownership changes to your country. If they don’t, you can try and enforce it as a wargoal. If you are successful, you will also remove their Foreign Investment Rights for your country in addition to taking control of their buildings in your country.

Building Registry​

To visualize all these new mechanics, we are introducing the Building Registry, which allows you a customizable look at your country’s situation.

All the building data one could wish for
DD110_09.png

This is a major new UI, that similar to the Census Data window, comes with a lot of functionality to filter the available data. Only show buildings outside your country? Sure. See all buildings that are owned by Pops and which are currently not hiring but not fully employed? No problem.

Lots of filter groups to browse through
DD110_10.png

We hope you find this as useful as we do. You can access it via the button on the bottom of the Buildings panel.

Really recommend pressing that button
DD110_11.png

Implications for the Directly Controlled Investment Pool Game Rule​

As you can imagine, this new system of ownership, geographic wealth extraction, and privatization/nationalization has far-reaching implications on the economic foundations of Victoria 3. It enables a lot of interesting dynamics we haven't been able to model until this time and adds a whole new dimension to your economic laws.

It also comes with the consequence of making the Directly Controlled Investment Pool game rule that we introduced with 1.2 (as a legacy alternative to the new Autonomous Investment system) impossible to maintain. In 1.6 and prior, if this game rule was turned on, the player would be directing all construction efforts. As long as there was money in the investment pool and the construction queue was building a privately-owned building, the cost of construction goods would be coming out of the investment pool first before being carried by the state budget. With the new rules for building ownership, investment rights, and so on in 1.7 this no longer makes sense - there's now a very clear distinction between a building project initiated by a private investor and the state, a potential source of conflict innate to both foreign ownership and the privatization/nationalization mechanics, and even differences between owners in different regions that cannot be represented if all construction projects were player-initiated.

Because of this it no longer makes sense for players to be in charge of both public and private investments simultaneously, and as such the Directly Controlled Investment Pool rule has had to be removed for 1.7 and beyond. While we can't support non-default game rules to the same degree as the standard options, removing a game rule completely is not something we'd ever do without good cause. We know that a smaller fraction of you favored this setting so we want to be clear with why its removal was a necessity to move forward with these improvements to ownership and foreign expansion.

Outlook​

I would like to end today’s Dev Diary by providing a short outlook for what these changes also enable us to do in the future.

The main thing here is affecting Companies.

The way we have reworked ownership allows us to create Company headquarter buildings which can then own specific building levels of industries they care about, determining its profitability from and providing their throughput bonuses only to these. While we cannot provide a concrete timeline for that change at this point, it is something we would like to tackle for one of our next free updates.

That’s it for today. Check back next week when Mikael is going to walk you through what changes 1.7 and Sphere of Influence brings to relations and interactions between Overlords and Subjects, including how these foreign investment mechanics relate to your grip over your extended empire.

Overview for all upcoming Dev Diaries:
Date Topic
4th AprilSubject Interactions
11th AprilLobbies and More on Power Blocs
18th AprilThe Great Game
25th AprilThe Art of Sphere of Influence
2nd MayChangelog 1.7
 
  • 194Love
  • 128Like
  • 9
  • 8
  • 4
Reactions:
Without in game monopoly effects capitalism is artificially buffed. I have no issue with artificially buffing state control as well until that's addressed.

Yes, state control tends towards inefficiency. But the unrestrained free market tends towards monopoly, which can be just as bad. At the end of the day if you only have one option does it matter whether that's the government or a corporation?

Maybe Paradox will figure out a way to implement anti-trust laws through late-game technologies, which would allow a Power to forcibly break up such monopolies?
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
The only thing they messed up regarding Autonomous Investment was to have the community split by allowing the rule change in the first place. Everyone said: "don't make it a rule, it'll just cause problems for balancing and game design" and here we are. Good to see we're back to reason.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
Lets say I'm China with 500M pops, 5B economy and 50 000 construction capacity with command economy.
What stops me from spamming buildings for full year in tiny country?
Country owned investment doesn't have to care for profitability - I just want to hire 90% of other country population in one sector.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Lets say I'm China with 500M pops, 5B economy and 50 000 construction capacity with command economy.
What stops me from spamming buildings for full year in tiny country?
Country owned investment doesn't have to care for profitability - I just want to hire 90% of other country population in one sector.
Supply and demand, I'd assume. If you can somehow make one sector productive enough that 90% of workers will move there, then sure! But if you can't, you just have empty buildings.

Granted, I could see this interacting strangely with one mechanic in particular- arable land and subsistence farming. Enclosure of subsistence farming is something that needs careful management- but if you're actively trying to screw with another nation by buying very last inch of their arable land with your mega-economy, releasing hordes of displaced peasants into the economy... Well. I think that's enough of a niche scenario that you'd have to actively try to break the system with it, but it's something that could be very funny to see in a youtube video.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Supply and demand, I'd assume. If you can somehow make one sector productive enough that 90% of workers will move there, then sure! But if you can't, you just have empty buildings.

Granted, I could see this interacting strangely with one mechanic in particular- arable land and subsistence farming. Enclosure of subsistence farming is something that needs careful management- but if you're actively trying to screw with another nation by buying very last inch of their arable land with your mega-economy, releasing hordes of displaced peasants into the economy... Well. I think that's enough of a niche scenario that you'd have to actively try to break the system with it, but it's something that could be very funny to see in a youtube video.
Feels like that country might want to rethink its agreement to allow you to invest.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Can pops downsized privatized buildings ?
There should be something that allows financial districts/manor houses to convert unprofitable builds depending on how related they are. Like converting steel to engines using some investment pool that is slightly less than what it takes to just build it by default. Or if you wanted to convert furniture to ammunition it should be impossible or more costly.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This is really cool. I love this.

It will live or die on the strength of its AI though, so please make sure that AI is smart! I don't want to be able to cheese the game by selling 100,000 art academies to ravenous investors. :p
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Granted, I could see this interacting strangely with one mechanic in particular- arable land and subsistence farming. Enclosure of subsistence farming is something that needs careful management- but if you're actively trying to screw with another nation by buying very last inch of their arable land with your mega-economy, releasing hordes of displaced peasants into the economy... Well. I think that's enough of a niche scenario that you'd have to actively try to break the system with it, but it's something that could be very funny to see in a youtube video.
ah, yes, just spam livestock ranches to consume a nation's entire supply of grain and drive their pops into poverty from food shortages and unemployment
 
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
Until one party starts getting big enough (economy of scale) to start buying up their rivals or driving them out of business (see Amazon for a modern example). Standard Oil certainly never had a government mandate. Modern competition amongst corporations is due to antitrust laws passed as a direct result of corporate monopolies during the Victorian period (the gilded age specifically in the US). And even then I think you'd be surprised at how concentrated many industries are. They may not be monopolies in a strict sense but a cartel (OPEC) or "gentleman's agreement" can be just as bad.

I cannot help but note that OPEC specifically is a series of government monopolies.

Standard Oil may not have ever had a government mandate, but it existed in a regulatory framework that favored economies of scale. For example, the government subsidized national rail networks (among other infrastructure), which advantaged any business interests better able to to take advantage of the scales that produced, enabling ever larger firms to purchase for an ever larger market and sell to an ever larger market.

Now, it is, of course, trivial to make the case for national rail networks. That does not mean that they’re not a gigantic market-distorting variable. One of many. And that means that, even in a period of low regulation, you did not have a really free market.

And for the record, I’m not opposed to antitrust legislation.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Are you really going to remove directly controlled investment completely? I remember before the game was released they're was a lot of explaining by the devs of how you're playing the 'spirit of the nation' and this how it made sense that you choose what was built and where. How the core gameplay would revolve around 'national gardening' and you could craft your nation how you wanted. Now it seems you've done an about face? And now we will just be effectively playing as the government of the nation? With a lot of decisions taken out of the players control and given to the AI?

Cue fans of Vicky 2 doing our victory laps
 
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
So an unintended consequence of LF is you use government fund to build buildings they are then sold which helps pay back the government for the building costs allowing the government to build more you are effectively diverting fund from the investment fund to government coffers which would make the government have a much greater share of economic expansion under LF it’s just the industries are immediately sold
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
This looks amazing. I am also really looking forward to seeing Company Headquarters own levels too. That will transform that feature onto a much higher level.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
So an unintended consequence of LF is you use government fund to build buildings they are then sold which helps pay back the government for the building costs allowing the government to build more you are effectively diverting fund from the investment fund to government coffers which would make the government have a much greater share of economic expansion under LF it’s just the industries are immediately sold
Yeah in general even though technically this is the end of player controlled investment funds it does seem like it moves the game somewhat back in that direction. Maybe that’s ok though. To get it to work it seems like you need to build profitable enough industries for investors to prefer them to doing their own thing, and if you’re doing that you’re kinda following the market anyway. Plus anyone who doesn’t want to play the construct and sell game can easily just build less and let the private market go crazy.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
If possible can you show us a screenshot of what it looks like when a manor house or financial district owns a building in a different state? As far as I can tell we haven't seen that, and if we have how do we tell? Can we tell from the building itself or just the owner's side? There are going to be a lot of moving pieces here and a clear UI will be essential.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
A very important question I haven't, seen answered so far. Who determines the available PMs? It is logical that foreign investors would do everything to build actually with their tech level, not the tribal level
 
  • 2
Reactions:

Outlook​


The way we have reworked ownership allows us to create Company headquarter buildings which can then own specific building levels of industries they care about, determining its profitability from and providing their throughput bonuses only to these. While we cannot provide a concrete timeline for that change at this point, it is something we would like to tackle for one of our next free updates.
I would love to see this. And to see them represented on the map (when above a certain level?). And! And for the type of company they are to affect where that HQ is likely to pop up (maybe have events for Company HQ relocations? A Swedish lumber company moving the HQ from Norrland to Stockholm? drag capitalists along with that?) and for certain types of companies to employ aristocrats in their HQ? representing a single aristocratic family/clan having a very large chunk of e.g the vineyards in Germany.
 
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
GDP per capita grew by 132% in Russia/Soviet Union between 1900 and 1950. Basically all of this growth was after the revolution, and followed centuries of stagnation in Russia with a private sector economy.
This is both wrong and misleading.

The claim that the absolute majority of the H1 20th century growth was post-revolutionary has no factual basis. It's really hard to compare periods given two enormous wars fought on the Russian territory, but still, post-1870 tsarist Russia experienced tremendous growth, on par in speed with the western countries (although of course starting from a lower base), and roughly on par with the post-revolutionary one.

The centuries of stagnation claim is not factually wrong, but is irrelevant and misleading. Stagnation is typical for countries before the industrial revolution, which changed the economy trends from horisontal flat to exponential. These centuries have ended long before the Russian Revolution. It can be easily argued that the lack of capitalism is what delayed Russia for so long in adopting more efficient ways. Saying "look, in 1920 to 1950 there was significant growth, and in 1500 to 1800 there wasn't, that means that the social system of 1930 is more effective than that of 1890" is just unfair to readers.

Counterfactual models suggest that with all tsarist deficiencies, without a revolution under no reforms the economy levels would improve not as fast as they did under the Soviets (which is in significant share thanks to NEP, which is not really a government-controlled economy, but anyway). However, the difference in speed wouldn't be that huge, and given the huge setback of the revolution itself, up until 1940s people would be better off under tsar. This is under the worst case scenario of no evolution of tsarist institutions.

I'm not a L-F shill, and I agree that this is unfair that capitalistic monopolization is absent in the game, giving capitalistic systems an additional unfair advantage. However, the inefficiencies of government-controlled economy are well known in theory and practice, and your examples (at least about Russia) do not hold up to scrutiny.

UPD: I know almost nothing about Cuba, but Chinese example also looks misleading, as the huge upward trajectory only started under Deng Xiaoping, who essentially stopped collectivization and put the economy on market rails. That happened significantly after the communist takeover, several decades passed
 
Last edited:
  • 5
Reactions:
Maybe Paradox will figure out a way to implement anti-trust laws through late-game technologies, which would allow a Power to forcibly break up such monopolies?
We don't have monopolies yet, so speaking of ways of modeling breaking them sounds premature.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
In regards to the discussion on the efficiencies of government-owned resources- I think the book 'Seeing Like A State' is very useful. The things that command economies (and other similar institutions such as colonial plantation economies) are really bad at is in adapting to local conditions; they present plans that are orderly and easy to manage, but which don't take advantage of, or react to, local knowledge and problems.

For example, the (economic) problem with the Great Leap Forwards in China was twofold- that it disempowered the peasantry enough so that they couldn't point out if something made no sense at the ground level (e.g 'consolidating land' and monocrops meaning that you can't grow the best food for the best microclimate, and create crops that are easily destroyed by pests), and which made sweeping changes based on numerous false and irreversible assumptions (e.g attempting Western-style plowed-field and fertiliser agriculture with rice paddies and destroying the nitrogen-enriching soil system that makes them productive, and identifying sparrows as a higher risk to crops than rapid-breeding insects they controlled). Similar things happened in Russia and Tanzania in their own attempts to reform their agricultural economies, while many pre-designed cities designed to be efficient tend to accumulate an external unplanned city region (e.g slums) that are needed to have a functional service economy, for similar reasons of overvaluing order and undervaluing local conditions and reasoning.

On the other hand, some systems benefit a lot from that sort of overhead management. Transport (both of people and services like water) is a lot more efficient coordinated from the top-down, education establishes a baseline of knowledge for your entire economy and politics to respond to and plan around, and medicine provides the resources to solve most problems for most hospitals so that the medical staff working there can react to any problem that comes up in a human body. Governments are extremely good at standardisation, but aren't very good at reacting, so services that benefit little from standardisation and a lot from reacting- such as agriculture or supply-and-demand- are the things that command economies fail at, rather than management in general.
 
Last edited: