Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #110 - Building Ownership & Foreign Investment

[S4pphireSage]

How about make some barracks owned by interests groups? This could make revolution better instead of divide barracks by just where it were built.

 

[KopiG]

I am concerned with automatic downsizing. What if I havent been in a war for a long time but I am prepared for it so I have lets say a lvl 30 ammo factory (or insert ANY war material producing factory here) sitting at 20% occupancy ready to hire workers in case of a war. Wouldnt this automatic downsizing basically kill it and my preparedness for war?

 

[MatthewP]

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

Listen, you may be right, but if you are you can’t just say it. What evidence do you have that the data I linked to is wrong? What evidence do you have for your claims about China, which also conflict with data I found but didn’t link to?

Edit: it’s a bit much to respond to someone who links to data that explicitly demonstrates their conclusion and then say they’ve got no factual basis without presenting any facts yourself.

Edit 2: by the way, it is true that chinas growth increased after implementing some capitalist reforms. And you can probably make some case for mixed government-market having better results than a more pure version of either, though it’s a bit tricky to define. But it was quite robust before, with real per capita GDP growing about 80% between 1950 and 1980. And if it would be disingenuous to use modern China as an example of a state controlled economy (which I didn’t, again see the pre-1980 data), it’s equally so to use it as an example of a pure free market approach. Which I think you also may not have intended, to be fair.

 

[DominusNovus]

You can’t really attribute China’s market reforms to Deng, either. In the wake of the cultural revolution, the CCP had exhausted its ability to enforce its will on the outlying regions that had basically decided “we’re going to ignore the communists and do our own thing.” Low and behold… it worked. And as Deng came into power, he decided his best move was to slap his seal of approval on what was a fait accompli.

Frank Dikotter gives a very thorough analysis in The Cultural Revolution, based on party archives and in-person interviews.

 

[yurcick]

Listen, you may be right, but if you are you can’t just say it. What evidence do you have that the data I linked to is wrong? What evidence do you have for your claims about China, which also conflict with data I found but didn’t link to?

Edit: it’s a bit much to respond to someone who links to data that explicitly demonstrates their conclusion and then say they’ve got no factual basis without presenting any facts yourself.

Edit 2: by the way, it is true that chinas growth increased after implementing some capitalist reforms. And you can probably make some case for mixed government-market having better results than a more pure version of either, though it’s a bit tricky to define. But it was quite robust before, with real per capita GDP growing about 80% between 1950 and 1980. And if it would be disingenuous to use modern China as an example of a state controlled economy (which I didn’t, again see the pre-1980 data), it’s equally so to use it as an example of a pure free market approach. Which I think you also may not have intended, to be fair.

My apologies for lack of links in my post. I left my PC in office for the weekend, and it's really hard getting some from the phone. However, the Chinese example is common knowledge, and the Russian one is mostly problematic not because of the data you show, but because of the data you don't.
While I do doubt the Statista data on the 1900-1913 difference in "Soviet GDP" (that's what the page says), even if it's true, 22% growth over 13 years is not stagnation. Same growth rate over 100 years would give a 370% growth. And it's for a country that lost a major, prolonged war with Japan and underwent a 1905-1907 revolution as a result. The Soviets had their own external problems, of course, that's why I'm saying that comparisons are inherently unfair, but anyway, the statement that pre-1917 Russian economy stagnated could not be farther from truth, even by your own data.

More than that, 1900-1913 might be a too short period to be indicative.
The post-1870 growth might be less of a public knowledge than the China example, and clean GDP data is harder to obtain for 19th century. However, the consequences of Alexander II's reforms are covered in schools (or at least they were in my time, I graduated in Moscow in 2009). The growth was massive, and in fact was bigger in 1870-1900 than afterwards (after all, Alexander II was killed in 1881). For example, over the course of 1890s alone, Russian industrial output, having been not great but not marginal, doubled.
Anyway, the centuries-long stagnation was obviously true as a fact, but was not really capitalist, it was feudal, and ended long before the transition from capitalism to military communism to be relevant in discussion on effeciency of government control over the economy.

 

[Prob32]

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?

Yes and no, on the one hand both are bad for the consumer. On the flipside mega profits on the capitalists side driving out inefficiencies through vertical integration fuels capital markets which expands growth. So the bad is concentrated on the consumer side not on the profitability or efficiency of the industry and the surplus goes through dividends so it wouldn't make sense to make these buildings suffer from profit loss, EOS loss or otherwise. As a player you would want to interact with this through pop unrest and movements based on inequality.

Victorian era economics were absolutely fascinating and a period of immense capital innovation. JD Rockafeller was a very interesting guy historically who viewed his mission to bring oil to everyone as a stable product and price as a mission from god and was very much not greed driven.

Government inefficiency are much worse on a whole as they are simply less efficient operating firms so economy of scale loss makes sense, they require additional bureaucratic control as well to manage and generally corrupt political systems- there isn't really an upside for anyone beyond criminals and politicians.

 

[DominusNovus]

The Soviets had their own external problems, of course, that's why I'm saying that comparisons are inherently unfair, but anyway, the statement that pre-1917 Russian economy stagnated could not be farther from truth, even by your own data.

They did have their own problems, but lets not forget that, despite the ideological differences, American businesses invested heavily in the Soviet Union until 1945.

How America Helped Build The Soviet Machine

To bring their nation to the leading edge of technology, Soviet leaders are turning to the United States. Their grandfathers did the same thing.

www.americanheritage.com

 

[MatthewP]

My apologies for lack of links in my post. I left my PC in office for the weekend, and it's really hard getting some from the phone. However, the Chinese example is common knowledge, and the Russian one is mostly problematic not because of the data you show, but because of the data you don't.
While I do doubt the Statista data on the 1900-1913 difference in "Soviet GDP" (that's what the page says), even if it's true, 22% growth over 13 years is not stagnation. Same growth rate over 100 years would give a 370% growth. And it's for a country that lost a major, prolonged war with Japan and underwent a 1905-1907 revolution as a result. The Soviets had their own external problems, of course, that's why I'm saying that comparisons are inherently unfair, but anyway, the statement that pre-1917 Russian economy stagnated could not be farther from truth, even by your own data.

Yeah that’s actually a good point. 22% growth is not nothing and I did minimize that. That said, the 1913-1950 growth is still higher on an annual basis. So again, it seems like evidence that a capitalist economy and a communist one produce broadly similar growth rates over time. And both of course far better than a feudal economy.

More than that, 1900-1913 might be a too short period to be indicative.
The post-1870 growth might be less of a public knowledge than the China example, and clean GDP data is harder to obtain for 19th century. However, the consequences of Alexander II's reforms are covered in schools (or at least they were in my time, I graduated in Moscow in 2009). The growth was massive, and in fact was bigger in 1870-1900 than afterwards (after all, Alexander II was killed in 1881). For example, over the course of 1890s alone, Russian industrial output, having been not great but not marginal, doubled.
Anyway, the centuries-long stagnation was obviously true as a fact, but was not really capitalist, it was feudal, and ended long before the transition from capitalism to military communism to be relevant in discussion on effeciency of government control over the economy.

The other source I linked suggested low growth in per capita gdp prior to 1890. But as you say, data may be difficult to get accurately. Regardless, I’m curious: with the correction that I glossed over the growth prior to WWI too much, do you feel that this disproves the statement that capitalist and government run economies have similar performance on a macro level? It seems like still Soviet growth is comparable to slightly better. And I think the other examples still stand; China doing really well in the 80s and 90s with a hybrid model doesn’t change that it still had very strong growth in the decades prior.

Edit: by the way, I again don’t contest at all that government run economies have had enormous problems and inefficiencies and I wouldn’t want to live in one. Only that people tend to compare them to air instead of comparing them to comparable capitalist-inspired disasters like the Great Depression. And the reality of state-run economies achieving strong gdp growth is ignored as not fitting the narrative.

 

[Nerevatar]

Thanks

On your question, as Martin wrote:
"They use somewhat different score calculations, with a very heavy emphasis on potential profit for privatization. Generally speaking privatization of profitable buildings has the highest return on investment, so is what they'll often do first if possible, but it's not guaranteed or anything."

I don't believe there's a change with regards to investments specifically in resources, but you should probably see it being a bit more developed inherently since you generally have more possible actors that could invest in it.

I have a strong feeling this will not actually help develop other nations. If they invest based on profitability in that nation's market. For example oil will not look attractive, despite being lacked world wide, since it is not used in whatever backwards nation you would want to invest in. The end result will be that those nations might be developed better with basic goods, but stuff like oil will not be developed more then the current version. As a smart player I might be able to preemptively start a trade route for oil, which generates demand, and then investors will come. If the AI did the same then it would actually fix this issue quite elegantly. I don't expect the AI to be this forward thinking, but it would be great if that is doable. But please consider ways to help with this issue since I cant see foreign investment fixing for example oil being developed slowly.

But otherwise great features! Looking forward to SoI!

 

[Superdark33]

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.

Thats a very interesting justification for why oeasents shouldnt be fully Useless, i wonder how the game can model that.

 

[Unclellama]

Why do you need to go to war to forcibly nationalise foreign owned buildings? Shouldn't it be the other way around? You can do it but there's a high chance the other country will declare war on you and potentially take even more from you? I mean, what magical force field is there preventing a government from just seizing those buildings if they really want to?

that 'magical force field' is called the rules based international order, baby!

(but nah, i agree - a very high chance of a war declaration, but taking relative power and alliances into account, would make more sense)

 

[moonswimmer]

I'm so excited for this release. Just a question on how manor houses and financial districts will affect gameplay: since pops cannot contain both loyalists and radicals, does that mean all aristocrats and capitalists in a given state will strictly be either loyalists or radicals?

 

[Notme1]

Autonomous investment can put one building per tick or 28 per week no matter how many states you have.
Auto-expand can put much more per week - equal to amount of buildings on autoexpand in all states per week.

Both of those can only increase level of building in state by one level at once.
Are those limitations fixed?
That is both autonomous investment and auto-expand should be able to expand level of building by some percentage of it.
For example if you have 100 levels of building in state, then auto-expand or autonomous investment would be able to add up to 5% of its levels in queue, so if adding 5 levels to this building would be profitable, then 5 levels get queued.
Autonomous investment also should be able to add buildings in >28 states within one week too - for example going state by state, and then putting to queue all at once each week as to not lag once you have hundreds buildings if not few thousand in queue.

By the way arable land use also should be reworked - so its treated like mines instead of getting stuck as you used up all land and you have to demolish buildings to make more room for opium and wine plantations

----
In my ultraperfomance citybuilder mod I split rural buildings from arable land, so it works like mines.
I also have potential of 1000 000 levels for all limited buildings because one state gameplay requires some sacrifices.
I wonder how it will handle mass PM changes or constant expansion of one type of building.

 

[Dongerino]

that 'magical force field' is called the rules based international order, baby!

(but nah, i agree - a very high chance of a war declaration, but taking relative power and alliances into account, would make more sense)

Somebody needs to enforce those rules. The same way countries break the rules of war all the time and don't need to start a diplomatic play against The Hague to do so, it's the other way around - their action would have a reaction. I kinda get what they're going for but it's just so insanely immersion-breaking.

 

[LeSingeAffame]

I am concerned with automatic downsizing. What if I havent been in a war for a long time but I am prepared for it so I have lets say a lvl 30 ammo factory (or insert ANY war material producing factory here) sitting at 20% occupancy ready to hire workers in case of a war. Wouldnt this automatic downsizing basically kill it and my preparedness for war?

Nationalize them if you don't want private actors to downsize them when they aren't profitable and can't hire people

 

[Ethereld]

I am concerned with automatic downsizing. What if I havent been in a war for a long time but I am prepared for it so I have lets say a lvl 30 ammo factory (or insert ANY war material producing factory here) sitting at 20% occupancy ready to hire workers in case of a war. Wouldnt this automatic downsizing basically kill it and my preparedness for war?

It is not like any modern country keeps their military industry at 50% capacity waiting for a war to happen. They do work at full capacity while exporting weapons to other countries or replacing old but perfectly functional equipment with new shiny versions.

In gameplay terms you could perfectly export ammunition, small weapons, cannons, etc to other countries and that would make your military industry more profitable. Then should war come you can simply end the trade route.

 

[GUIIIP]

A major change really. I understand that it Is not impossible for pops or the state to buy already-existing buildings owned by others. Is this can be possibly modded by new effects? And will such purchase be within future plans?

 

[GrandEurypterid]

Thats a very interesting justification for why oeasents shouldnt be fully Useless, i wonder how the game can model that.

I think that for the most part, it's simply that peasant economies- while there's very little to suggest that agriculture is a field where economies of scale increase productivity- are not very useful for extracting a surplus. A peasant farm might have more fruit, but they'll be choosing crops and maintaining habitats that provide a variety of uses depending on circumstances (e.g growing maize that has cobs which are useful as sponges as well as for carrying grain, which commercial maize lacks), and which generally lack a structure that lets taxes in money or food be identified from a central point. Take Russian 'farming in strips'- each peasant has a little strip through a lot of plots. It looks like an inefficient load of nonsense on a map, but interspersing crops makes them less vulnerable to bugs, increases the diversity of diet from one plot, and ensures that a total crop failure only happens in the most extreme conditions (since what kills one plant won't kill all of them). A similar style of agriculture is vital in traditional tropical farming, except with 'layers' of crops (such as farming under fruit trees and in interlocking rows), which helps muffle rainfall to keep loose sandy soil from being eroded in a way that's basically alien to farming in western Europe.

I could see it being modelled by having 'disaster' events that affect particular plantations- a banana plague or a poor wheat season, for example- and letting subsistence farms take new input goods in an inefficient manner, or have the efficiency of peasant extraction and/or lifestyle depend on the agricultural laws. Peasants aren't very productive, but they certainly are resilient; they don't contribute much to your economy or taxes, but if you replace all your peasants with wheat fields and something goes wrong, well, you better have a means of reacting to it.

Granted, this is getting a bit off-topic from foreign investment- my main point in the prior comment was that there's good reasons to have your economy be neither libertarian nor command, and that if government ownership affects bureaucracy costs and/or efficiency then some (e.g fruit plantations, factories) should be less efficient than others (e.g railways, ports)- but ramble go brrr.

 

[po8crg]

Can I build a building that I have invented in another country when that country hasn't invented it? For instance, if I'm playing GB, can I negotiate an investment agreement with Persia and then build oil wells there?

If I can, what happens to PMs? Persia has control over the PMs on those buildings, not GB, right? But if they haven't invented oil wells, do they have access to even the base PM for those buildings?

Even if they do have the base PM, it would be nice if the buildings I have built can access the PMs I have invented, as otherwise it means that the US is the only country that get advanced oil wells.

 

[DominusNovus]

Somebody needs to enforce those rules. The same way countries break the rules of war all the time and don't need to start a diplomatic play against The Hague to do so, it's the other way around - their action would have a reaction. I kinda get what they're going for but it's just so insanely immersion-breaking.

Which is why the order as such is much more tangible today than it was in the game’s time frame - for all its might, the UK could not possibly impose a global order the way the US has.