Curious to how the 1.9 Trade re-work will... work?

[Citizen Caen]

I think smaller countries should have some ability to scale in a very niche way. So an ideal system is that there is sufficient technology and innovation system such that small countries can choose to scale one companies technology type far down a PM tree & pair it with sufficient capital to make it competitive. Especially if it can pair that with a good export trade route.

Well let’s look at Latin America as an example. Say you are playing as Gran Columbia. You don’t have the population or the technological head start to compete with the western great powers. So you have two options: option A- go all in on a single good that northern countries can’t produce (plantations). Dedicate the majority of your workforce to said good + select plantations companies so as to achieve the throughput necessary to compete against European competition. Export all of your surplus provide most of the world with luxury plantation goods. Get rich, but have extreme inequality and be extremely vulnerable to price shocks

Option B- high import tarrifs to keep European competition out. Be overall poorer but allow at least a portion of domestic industry to develop.

Both of these options have a historical basis and it’s this kind of macro economic choice that I want to see in Victoria 3 (instead of pure autarchy every time)

 

[Prob32]

RIP

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ry-54-trade-revisions.1538297/?prdxDevPosts=1

 

[Timewalker102]

We already have a fair amount of these, and they don't work. Take Perm for example, a great wood state because of its logging throughput bonus but located in the center of the country.

What do you mean they don't work? Players still build things in states where there are throughput bonuses. It's very muted because the current throughput bonuses are minor, but that's exactly why I think it should be magnified.

There needs to be a decent logistics system for sure, but that's a separate issue from the geographical advantages of some places. South China, for example, is an excellent place to cultivate tea because of its climate, it should have a significantly stronger modifier than the tiny +20% or whatever it currently gets.

Forcing AI to understand throughput will just make the AI build more wood>iron>coal>tools>steel. Even if they don't build these resources, the player will because it's always the most efficient thing to do

If you have a. significant sources of comparative advantage, b. a solid trade system where the player can exploit it, and c. a relatively well balanced AI that also tries to specialise, I don't think players will play the same autarkic game. It would give an incentive for players to build efficiently in the industries they have comparative advantages in and to then run high trade volumes with other AIs that they can trust.

I'm unsure about multiplayer since this probably opens you up to too much risk (imagine running a high balance with another player and suddenly getting attacked by them), but I have enough faith in Vic3 AI to not fuck me over so I would do this in singleplayer.

 

[IsaacCAT]

RIP

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ry-54-trade-revisions.1538297/?prdxDevPosts=1
View attachment 1242176

That’s a post from 2022! Worry not. That vision is the current implementation.

 

[shoebird]

MAPI isn't supposed to simulate transport costs at all, which is why it varies based on market information technology such as stock exchange. It represents how local pricing information is more accurate and there is pricing misinformation that happens through middle men during this time leading to market inefficiencies. Remember at game start the fastest way to get information around the world were things like the Pony express. If you're Abe Lincoln and chop wood in IL to sell in NY because you heard there was a good price for wood- by the time you got there the price would be different.

About MAPI and infrastructure confusion on what represents transport costs in the game, devs have been pretty clear but I understand the confusion.

Market Access Price Impact does not represent physical access cost to get your goods to the market but access to knowledge of national market prices and instead use of influenced local supply prices. This is also the reason why MAPI changes with information technologies and not with the use of transport technologies. Also MAPI changes for all buildings and states at the same time.

I don’t remember the devs being clear about it, just saying that it was a way to encourage state specialization and supply chains. My fuzzy recollection is that something like MAPI was suggested in a thread as a way to model transport costs before the devs decided to add it to the game. In any case the thing of the technologies is very weird, IMO. If it was, let’s say telephones the technology increasing MAPI, I would understand, but stock exchanges? That’s a market for bonds and shares, what does it has to do with the price of products? And macroeconomics? Also, you can never get 100% MAPI, so what is left can represent transport cost. Don’t get me wrong, but it feels and ad how explanation.

In any case it doesn’t matter, because limited information about prices is also present on international trade, so it makes sense that market prices are used for it.

Beyond that, the wiki definition of infrastructure is pretty clear:

That’s not what is stated in game. There, in the description about infrastructure cost of transportation is not mentioned. It is only mentioned that influences how well a state is connected with the rest of the market. Which makes sense with how the mechanic works.

Thats just an accurate modeling of reality lol
Just ask Latin America

No, because in reality if you don’t have an economy you can’t buy anything from the rest of the world, because you have no money. But in Vic3 importing generates money, so you can import everything until the price is too low and everyone in your country has super high SoL despite having no national economy at all. That’s why I said that it is a problem not having trade balances.

 

[Timewalker102]

No, because in reality if you don’t have an economy you can’t buy anything from the rest of the world, because you have no money. But in Vic3 importing generates money, so you can import everything until the price is too low and everyone in your country has super high SoL despite having no national economy at all. That’s why I said that it is a problem not having trade balances.

I don't really think this is a big issue. Trade centers don't really employ too many people, and if you decide to just not build an economy at all and just import everything you would have mass unemployment issues. Raising wages is ultimately how you build SoL over time, and neglecting domestic industry will essentially just put a soft cap on SoL.

 

[Prob32]

That’s a post from 2022! Worry not. That vision is the current implementation.

They subtract land capacity from sea nodes but there's not infrastructure checks along land routes to increase trade. All internal infrastructure capacity checks back to Market capital were dropped before launch.

Land capacity is just straight line distance from capital to capital

 

[shoebird]

I don't really think this is a big issue. Trade centers don't really employ too many people, and if you decide to just not build an economy at all and just import everything you would have mass unemployment issues. Raising wages is ultimately how you build SoL over time, and neglecting domestic industry will essentially just put a soft cap on SoL.

Idk, you also employ people in ports, and you still have the military, universities…

 

[Prob32]

What do you mean they don't work? Players still build things in states where there are throughput bonuses. It's very muted because the current throughput bonuses are minor, but that's exactly why I think it should be magnified.

I struggle with throughput bonuses, especially with how they're being implemented currently. If you have an early founded company, a trait bonus, a decree and max EoS (Economy of scale) you're already looking at somewhere between 110- 120% to 140% throughput bonuses already. I'm not sure if the solution is to make the state trait bonuses another 50% or 100% even and then have these states sitting around 200% throughput bonuses. Also most European countries have at least one state with a coal trait.

There needs to be a decent logistics system for sure, but that's a separate issue from the geographical advantages of some places. South China, for example, is an excellent place to cultivate tea because of its climate, it should have a significantly stronger modifier than the tiny +20% or whatever it currently gets.

Yes agree, but I guess what separates one location from another its distance from the sea as there's actually a few places have the tea plantation bonuses as well.

If you have a. significant sources of comparative advantage, b. a solid trade system where the player can exploit it, and c. a relatively well balanced AI that also tries to specialise, I don't think players will play the same autarkic game. It would give an incentive for players to build efficiently in the industries they have comparative advantages in and to then run high trade volumes with other AIs that they can trust.

I'm unsure about multiplayer since this probably opens you up to too much risk (imagine running a high balance with another player and suddenly getting attacked by them), but I have enough faith in Vic3 AI to not fuck me over so I would do this in singleplayer.

I agree but we're so far off from this at the moment - It's going to take some fundamental mechanical groundwork to move players off building wood, iron, coal every play through because those baseline production efficiencies are so strong.

 

[Prob32]

Here's some screenshots from a recent MP game to highlight some of the sameness and my fears regarding throughput and trade:

TLDR: Everyone is making a ton of coal and even states without coal traits are over 100% throughput. Year: Feb 1870

UK:

Ger:

Rus:

Can:

 

[Prob32]

Here's the top 5 Market goods from the top economies in the same play through:

Which underlies my chief concern with the trade work- if you just jump trade volumes you'll still have all the world economies producing the same goods wanting to trade it with each other.

 

[Timewalker102]

Here's the top 5 Market goods from the top economies in the same play through:

Which underlies my chief concern with the trade work- if you just jump trade volumes you'll still have all the world economies producing the same goods wanting to trade it with each other.

Even in this screenshot I think there are sources of comparative advantage that aren't being utilised because of the current trade system.

Britain, for example, has super cheap fabric (probably because of the Raj). It clearly has some sort of throughput bonus or similar comparative advantage for fabric, so that should be an opportunity of trade. Without profit maximising trade centers the UK would be trading a lot of its fabric until it reached equilibrium world price (or close to it given tariffs), which is an opportunity for it to expand its cotton plantations even more, and so on and so forth.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Here's the top 5 Market goods from the top economies in the same play through:

Which underlies my chief concern with the trade work- if you just jump trade volumes you'll still have all the world economies producing the same goods wanting to trade it with each other.


View attachment 1242217
View attachment 1242218
View attachment 1242219
View attachment 1242220
View attachment 1242221

The issue with the current meta game (I assume your MP is following the meta) is that construction is paramount.

You will not see any player not having all of these goods at top. Capital investment has an infinite return while you have access to POPs by conquest or migration.

This is the origin of the conflicts in the Victorian age, a world where the control of resources was seen as mandatory and the economy was a zero sum game.

Ricardo wrote his theory of competitive advantage in that era but for the most part tariffs were all in and free trade was an euphemism to open up other markets to great powers influence.

The relative size of demand from certain goods to construction goods could be tweaked to allow more trade volume of raw resources from non industrialized to industrialized nations. However, that will need to reduce the output of subsistence buildings in the later nations compared to the former.

The initial setup is deliberately barebones for all players to enjoy the construction loop. If the game reflected trade as it was in 1836, there would be many nations that would not have any development.

I wouldn’t mind to have a more realistic setup but would be that fun to play?

What is the objective of a game?

Ps: anyway, I am also playing a MP game and tomorrow I will post some evidence of comparative advantage in the game. That construction goods are in top demand does not mean that all nations can produce them at the same cost

 

[Prob32]

Even in this screenshot I think there are sources of comparative advantage that aren't being utilised because of the current trade system.

Britain, for example, has super cheap fabric (probably because of the Raj). It clearly has some sort of throughput bonus or similar comparative advantage for fabric, so that should be an opportunity of trade. Without profit maximising trade centers the UK would be trading a lot of its fabric until it reached equilibrium world price (or close to it given tariffs), which is an opportunity for it to expand its cotton plantations even more, and so on and so forth.

I see what you’re saying- and automated trade here would definitely help somewhat as well trying to push out the fabric. But the issue is that the player will always opt for coal in this scenario because it’s better to push it out with that +115% throughput efficiency on top of the base production pms being better.

Also consider in this situation the British still didn’t opt to stack textiles despite their immense fabric average

 

[Prob32]

The issue with the current meta game (I assume your MP is following the meta) is that construction is paramount.

Yes but I would like to see some different play patterns become more viable with trade which incorporates internal trade, eventually I think technology and companies DLC's will allow for a deep dive into production methods, innovation and capital investment mechanics as well that make it more viable to have trade.

For example currently you cannot do something like an uber continental system between france and germany where france makes consumer goods and germany the industrial goods even if you want to because you cannot scale your land trade capacity.

 

[Timewalker102]

Also consider in this situation the British still didn’t opt to stack textiles despite their immense fabric average

But that's what I'm saying, it's because the trade system tries to maximise profit rather than set profit to zero. Players respond to incentives, and if there's a global market that the player can sell to, they will do so. The issue with the current system is that you can only lightly access it and that volumes are way too muted.

I think there's always going to be a little bit of a meta with the construction loop. But even the real world has a little bit of a metagame - the East Asian Tiger model of development of easy ISI -> export-oriented industrialisation is somewhat similar to what you're meant to do in the game (the only difference being that instead of consumer goods, you're building the construction loop). The purpose of a trade rework wouldn't be to get rid of the construction loop, but to make export-oriented industrialisation more potent, to make the goods traded different for different countries, and to make secondary ISI and autarkic systems less viable.

 

[Prob32]

The purpose of a trade rework wouldn't be to get rid of the construction loop, but to make export-oriented industrialisation more potent, to make the goods traded different for different countries, and to make secondary ISI and autarkic systems less viable.

Fair point. Though I think if correctly implemented it could help it. For example trade centers in every state, even if most of them just trade with the market capital could help immensely with crafting what you really want to export at volume. It also might help the ridiculousness of one state building that has developed as well (Screenshot below).

If you did local market to local market trading with reduced MAPI as well as specific local to international (local) trading you would give a trade a natural advantage as it would get to skip the MAPI penalty of local > national > local. Also MAPI shouldn't really apply to established trade routes, especially ones that have been in place for awhile and this goes for both domestic and international trade.


(Bottom to top, for whatever reason my list didn't want to sort)

(I understand economic zones but the MAPI penalties effectively make it so that its better to insanely over build in one state rather even if it spikes the local wages)

 

[IsaacCAT]

From my MP game, the year is 1876.

The price of each player nation of Coal and the trade share of supply and demand :

Burgundy and Germany are allied so the trade route between them is established.

One would think that the German would be much better off by trading with the French, however, the game will not allow a big trade route due to the small trade revenue after tariffs.

For an increase of trade revenues, the Germans should decrease more the price of coal or the French increase their price. Competitive advantage should allow the German to decrease their coal prices while still make a profit.

There is room for more mines in the German Market, but would those mines be profitable at a coal price of -20%?

Yes, but the problem is that the player is using its available POPs to work everywhere and it is not specializing. The coal mines in Schlesien are understaffed even if they are above profit margins because there is not enough POPs available to work in them.

CONCLUSION: It is the player that does not specialize and uses correctly the competitive advantage for trade.

Do not tell me that under laissez-faire you cannot control what the AI builds in every state because the player is in charge of all PM and should be able to decrease productivity for all buildings in one state that are not deem interesting for the nation to be populated with workers.

There is hope for a player that has developed everything in every state, as MAPI increases and market prices are less local, it makes sense to specialize. It is not something you do at the start of the game. But as I have mentioned many times, it takes courage to downsize your pretty buildings because in all players mindset we only have one thing: build build build build... and never go back.

Time for a rethinking of your industrial policies and specialize your states my friend. Be water.

 

[IsaacCAT]

For those wondering about margins at coal -20%, that will never happen because trade routes will increase the demand, increasing prices. But first you have to decrease the price to increase trade.

Anyway, at coal 24 (-20%) x 8.180 units sold = 196.320 GBP

Expenses = 191.000 GBP

The coal mine will still be profitable although below margins to increase employment (15%). But you would be increasing trade volume as you decrease the price, so worry not.

Go now, specialize your states, play Vic3 in a completely different manner. Increasing trade and not being an autarky.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Remember, in Vic3, decreasing prices is always best. Now, it also helps you trade.

This game is a race to lower prices