• 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 #143 - Trade Rework: The World Market

16_9.png

Happy Thursday and welcome back! After an extended hiatus, we are now returning to regularly scheduled development diaries, the first of which you are reading right at this moment. Today’s development diary is going to be a pretty hefty one, focusing on the complete overhaul of trade that is coming in the 1.9 free update. Before we start, I want to remind you of the usual caveat that this is a feature in development, so expect some rough-looking interfaces and for all implementation details and balancing to not yet be fully figured out.

We have mentioned on a number of occasions that we are not happy with the way trade works in Victoria 3. It is unreliable, overly fiddly, and inherently inefficient since the introduction of Local Prices and Market Access Price Impact in 1.5. Establishing any kind of long-term trade relationship with another country is almost impossible due to the constantly shifting market conditions, and on top of all this the system exists in a confusing limbo where all trade routes are established and paid for by the government (via convoys) while the profits usually go into the pockets of private owners. Many of these issues are inherent to the way trade routes work, and as such aren’t easily fixable within the confines of the current system - there really isn’t a way to create a reliably profitable trade route with another market when you have no control of the price of the traded good in the other market.

For this reason, we have decided to start over from scratch. The old system is completely gone, and in its place we will have not one but two new systems - one which simulates private, autonomous, profit-driven trade, and another which handles strategic trade deals between nations. Today we’re going to talk only about the former, so while reading all of this, bear in mind that you’re only seeing one half of the coin. Direct trade deals between governments will very much still exist in 1.9, they just won’t be tied into Trade Centers and private profits. But enough with the caveats, let’s get to the point.

World Market & Trade Centers​

Enter The World Market. Those of you familiar with Victoria 2 will immediately recognize the name, and might even have assumed from the title of this dev diary that we’re replacing the national market system in Victoria 3 with the global one in its predecessor. This is not so. The World Market in Victoria 3 is not where pops and buildings buy and sell goods, but rather where autonomous trade takes place, and every good traded in the World Market has a World Market Price based on its amount of exports versus imports. You can think of it as existing at a ‘top layer’ above the national markets, though this is not a completely accurate picture as you should soon understand.

The World Market in 1836 in the current build - remember that everything is very much WIP!
DD143_01.png

So then, how does trade with the World Market work? As with the old trade route system, Trade Centers are still the principal drivers of trade, but the way you interact with them has been turned on its head. Instead of being a building that appears after a trade is created, you now build Trade Centers to create Trade Capacity in States, which allows those States to trade with the World Market. Each Trade Capacity allows for a certain quantity of a good to be imported or exported (the amount varies per good). Imported goods are purchased from the World Market and sold in the State, and so they are profitable when the goods are cheaper in the World Market than the State, with the opposite being true for exports.

There’s a bit more to this, which we’ll get into when we talk about Trade Advantage, but the key thing to remember is that trade uses local state prices, which means it no longer suffers from the inherent inefficiencies of the old system, which was always penalized by Market Access Price Impact. It also means that the location of Trade Centers matters - it’s more profitable to import Luxury Clothes into a state with a large number of wealthy Pops, as an example.

This Trade Center in Brandenburg is making a decent profit importing cheap dyes and liquor while exporting some overproduced goods in the Prussian Market, but still has plenty of free Trade Capacity with which to expand its operation
DD143_02.png

Trading in Trade Centers happens autonomously, with a number of weekly adjustments based on the ‘Weekly Trades’ value created by the Trade Center, in which they will increase or decrease trade volumes to create profit for themselves. While this process is automatic and autonomous, it’s not completely out of player hands, as you can heavily influence Trade Centers through Tariffs and Subventions, but more on that in a little bit. Unlike in the old system, Trade Centers are not reliant on Convoys or any other government-produced resource. Instead they purchase Merchant Marine, a new type of goods created by Ports (which are no longer government-only buildings). Right now the amount of Merchant Marine consumed by Trade Centers is static per level, but we are looking into making it dependent on geographic distance to trade partners. As an additional note, both Trade Centers and Ports can now be constructed/privatized/owned by Ownership Buildings.

A detailed look at the Brandenburg Trade Center’s imports and exports. You can see the revenue, price difference, relative trade advantage and principal trade partners for each good.
DD143_03.png

World Market Location​

Switching to talk about the World Market itself, you might well ask, ‘So where is the World Market located?’. Conceptually, what we say to this is ‘The world market exists in the sea’. In other words, once you have access to the sea you also have the ability to trade on the World Market, though of course it’s a bit more complicated than that. To explain more in detail, I first have to tell you about something which already exists in the game, but is presently quite hidden: Market Areas. Market Areas are ‘chunks’ of a market, consisting of a number of states that are all connected by land or by straits. To give you an example, the Spanish Market has several market areas: One for Spain itself, one for Cuba, one for Puerto Rico, another for the Philippines and so on. Prussia, conversely, only has a single Market Area which contains not only Prussia but all of the states of the countries in the Zollverein.

In order to trade with the World Market, a Market Area must have at least one Port, at which point a World Market Hub will be established. When there are multiple ports in a Market Area, the Hub is chosen based on factors such as port level and State GDP. Hubs are not completely static, but do not generally move around unless a much more suitable candidate State emerges to eclipse the old Hub State.

As the largest port in Spain, Western Andalusia is also the World Market Hub for its capital Market Area
DD143_04.png

Landlocked countries, however, are not left out completely in the cold when it comes to the World Market. Asides from being able to utilize national trade deals (which as I said before we’re not covering today) they can also negotiate Transit Rights with a foreign nation in order to be able to trade through their World Market Hubs. For example, Switzerland could negotiate Transit Rights with Austria to be able to trade through Venetia, or with Prussia to be able to trade through one of the German ports. We will return to talk more about World Market Hubs in later development diaries when we cover subjects such as blockades, but for now we should continue. I will add as a final note that one design problem we have currently identified with World Market Hubs and Market Areas is that it doesn’t make too much sense for huge Market Areas (such as Russia) to only have a single Hub, and this is something we are currently exploring solutions for.

While the World Market ‘exists in the sea’, that doesn’t mean that we simply ignore where your exports are going as soon as they get loaded onto a ship. Not all trade partners are equal, and it makes little sense to get the bulk of your Clothes imports from an overseas partner if your demand could be met by a closer source. As such, each Trade Center has a preference weight for every other Trade Center based on factors such as interests, relations, diplomatic agreements and of course geographic distance, and will trade more with higher-weight Trade Centers and less with lower-weight ones.

Placeholder interface for tracking trade going through sea nodes. This will be replaced by a much better interface with better tooltips before 1.9 is released.
DD143_05.png

Trade Advantage​

I have mentioned Trade Advantage at several points during this development diary, so I figure it’s high time I explain it to you. I already explained that there is a World Market Price for each good which is high when imports exceed exports and low when exports exceed imports, and which is compared to the State Price when determining how much profit a Trade Center can extract from its trades. However, this is a bit of a simplification - the World Market Price is the average price for imported/exported goods, while the actual price is modified by a Trade Center’s relative Trade Advantage to its competitors.

Trade Advantage is calculated for each Trade Center, for each good, in each trade direction. As an example, a Trade Center in Lancashire will have a certain amount of Trade Advantage for exporting Fabric, which will be different from its Trade Advantage in exporting Coal, and also different from its Trade Advantage for importing either Fabric or Coal. Trade Advantage is multiplied by the amount of traded units, and then compared to the Trade Advantage of all other Trade Centers trading the same goods in the same direction. The higher a TC’s share of global trade advantage compared to its share of global trade volume, the higher its relative advantage, which in turn translates into a better price. Advantage is a zero-sum game - the average price on imports/exports is always equal to the World Market Price, so any improvement on prices a Trade Center gains always comes at the expense of its competitors.

If that explanation sounds confusing, the key takeaway is that high advantage equals better prices, and in turn, the ability to capture a larger share of global trade. Advantage is gained from a variety of factors, such as Trade Center level, Interests in relevant markets and Trade Agreements. Regional economics also play a role - the higher the Market Area’s share of global production, the higher its export advantage, and vice versa for consumption/import advantage.

This Trade Center in Virginia has high Trade Advantage for exports of Iron, Fabric and Meat, resulting in more favorable prices. Note that the numbers here don’t currently add up due to a bug.
DD143_06.png

Interacting with the World Market​

Changing the focus of the discussion a little bit, something I feel I have not always made clear in the past when we change systems to work in a more autonomous/automatic way is how you are expected to interact with it. Under the old trade route system this was clear enough: you as the player were the sole arbiter of trade for your country, for ill or good. In the new system (and I will remind you again that I am only talking about the World Market here, not country-to-country trade deals which we will cover in a later dev diary) you are expected to make strategic-level decisions to capture global import and export shares.

As an example, playing as Sweden, you have a lot of potential to produce Iron - far more than you could ever use domestically with your limited starting population. A natural course of action then might be to build up your Trade Capacity and try to maximize your Trade Advantage for exporting iron, leading to greater export volumes and in turn creating favorable conditions for expanding your iron production. This maximization of Trade Advantage can be done in a number of ways, for example by signing Trade Agreements with key importers or by squeezing the competition by unequal treaties on them (more on that particular point later, for now it will remain mysteriously unelaborated on).

Another key tool in your strategic trade arsenal is Tariffs and their newly introduced counterpart, Subventions. Tariffs are of course already in the game, but now become much more important as they are the principal way by which you can directly influence the decisions made by your Trade Centers. Where previously, Tariffs for a particular good could only be set to ‘Import Focus’, ‘Export Focus’ or ‘No Focus’, Import and Export Tariff levels are now set separately, meaning that you can throw up tariff barriers in both directions if you’re feeling particularly protectionist about a good.

Your Trade Law now sets your Maximum Tariff/Subvention rate, which each Tariff/Subvention level applies a multiplier to (for example, High Tariffs apply 50% of the maximum rate)
DD143_07.png

Tariffs, just as before, collect a fee from your Trade Centers for each good of the relevant type exported/imported, and so effectively serve to reduce trade volumes of that good by making it less profitable to trade. Subventions function in the exact opposite way, paying the Trade Center a certain amount of money for each unit traded in the directed direction, and can be used in a variety of ways, such as subsidizing a critical import of military goods, or to muscle out the competition for one of your principal exports.

This almost-a-slider interface for Tariffs and Subventions is 100% placeholder and will be replaced with something better before release, but gives you an idea of the expanded options available.
DD143_08.png

Alright, I think that should suffice to give you an overview of the World Market. I do want to emphasize that this feature is still under development and there are some key questions we have not yet figured out, such as the issues with over-large Market Areas. Before I sign off, I will leave you with a couple screenshots from an end-game World Market in the current build:

DD143_09.png


DD143_10.png

That’s all for now! However, we will be back in just a few days, on Monday March 31st, to talk about Expansion Pass 2 and what’s coming next for Victoria 3.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 197Love
  • 105Like
  • 7
  • 5
  • 2Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
This comment is saved for developer responses!

Will the new rework make trade playable for tall playstyles? My main issue with the game is that it's difficult to emulate a city-state-like nation as a trade powerhouse due to how convoys are heavily tied to physical ports. Your trade route capacity is extremely limited by the number of convoys available. The only ways to increase your convoys are:

  1. Maximizing your port levels (including all technologies that increase port capacity).
  2. Conquering coastal states to gain more ports.
  3. Companies that gives extra convoys modifier
Option 1 is not really feasible for a small nation because you will quickly run out of available ports. On the other hand, Option 2 essentially defeats the point of playing tall, as you end up playing wide instead (which means more unnecessary map painting to get more ports). Custom Union market is another option, but that makes trade almost irrelevant, since you already have access to market goods. Option 3 is essentially just a bonus modifier that only applies if you have high prosperity, which on its own isn’t enough if you're playing as a small nation. Unfortunately, this game heavily encourages wide play when it comes to trade, as playing tall is simply suboptimal.

In my opinion, this is the core issue with the trade system. I feel like Victoria 3 trade mechanics are fundamentally flawed when it comes to convoys. You don’t simply run out of convoys just because you've exhausted all port levels. This is a rather poor gameplay mechanic and not reflective of real-world trade. If you look at modern-day Singapore, historical Venice, or the Hanseatic League, they were successful trading powers not because they had a large number of coastal states or ports, but because they possessed a strong maritime navy and highly efficient shipping, supported by robust port infrastructure. It makes no sense that the quantity of ports indirectly determines the volume of trade. This setup is neither realistic nor enjoyable for players who want to play tall.

Take EU4 as an example—while the trade system in that game is highly simplistic and unrealistic, it at least allows you to play tall by building a strong navy with many light ships. You can easily generate a lot of wealth as Malacca, for example, by funneling trade power into a specific trade node like the Malacca Straits to generate ducats. I’m not a fan of EU4's static trade system or the magic trade node money, but at least that game allows for tall play, which Victoria 3 sorely lacks.

Another problem is convoys have zero impact on the canal's revenue. Yes, you get +50000 tax income as a source of income if you have 100 prosperity, but it's in no way related to the convoys passing through the canal. It's literally just a flat income modifier. Even in a world where no-one actually uses the canals, they'd still conjure up a magic, fixed amount of money. It will be better if the canal has a toll fee feature that simply charges any convoys passing through the canal. So all that would happen is for them to say revenue = (value of trade goods passing through) * (player set rate).

Another strange aspect of the trade system is that trade centers don’t pay for convoys. They seemingly get them for free from government-owned ports. Transportation costs do exist but only indirectly (more sea nodes to pass through, the higher the convoy usage). However, your port doesn't receive any revenue from providing all the convoys to the trade centers. To me, this is just a weird mechanic. It doesn’t help that convoys are treated as a modifier rather than an actual trade good, meaning you can’t really make a profitable port, because the game itself doesn’t recognize convoys as a product that can be sold.

This is my feedback for trade. Hope that helps!
Click to expand...
Part of the design intent of the new trade system is that trade should be way more feasible for small nations. So far internal feedback bears this out. Also, port level cap is something that will be removed with 1.9. Convoys are decoupled from trade as mentioned in the DD.

Very interesting dev diary.

How do embargos work with the new trade system? It was one of the limitation of the Vic 2 world market that you could not embargo anyone if i remember correctly.
Embargos penalize the target relative to how much of global trade volumes you control. So if you are a major exporter of coal, anyone reliant on importing it will suffer if you embargo them. Things like this is why we spent a lot of time ensuring that we still track who precisely is importing from who.

Something that I feel is missing is how trade starts in the first place, who decides what goods should be exported/imported, when and how

Will it be covered in more details in a future DD, or can you give use some more details now?
Each week, every Trade Center can increase or decrease trade volumes up to X times where X is their Weeky Trades value. They will generally aim to trade more of profitable goods and less of unprofitable goods, with additional factors for things like tariffs, subventions and shortages.

Will railways have an impact on trade volume? I feel like the invention of trains is what made large bulk of goods possible.
No. I do have ambitions of a logistics rework built in a similar vein to the trade rework but there isn't time to do it for 1.9, and no promises right now about when it'd come.

Very interesting changes so far. I. Looking forward to seeing it in action.

For overly large market areas, why not use strategic regions as a divider? Russia would start with its 8 or so regions rather than one this way. The Zollverein would be four regions, etc.

There would be occasionally small regions this way, though I don't know if that would be an issue itself. Actually, it would be similar to the Dutch East Indies starting situation.

Also, in terms of market areas, how does something like East India Malaysia and British Singapore or Ceylon and British Ceylon work? As geographically separated, but part of the same state region.
Yeah I've thought about this, though it might be weird when a market area contains one whole strategic region and then one state from another region and you get one huge and one tiny market area. But I do think splitting up large market areas along some method makes sense.

I'm probably misunderstanding, but it seems to me like this is for existing trades, while I'm curious about completely new trades

I suppose that if there is a sufficient deficit/surplus of a good in the local market it a new trade route to the global market will be created, importing or exporting the good in the process

I guess what I'd like to understand is how the AI decides how it should handle a good imbalance in a region, between trading for it on the world market, manipulating the local demand (downsizing/upsizing buildings using the good), and manipulating the local supply (downsizing/upsizing buildings producing the good), and which AI decides (is it tied to who's working in the trade center? Who owns it? Something else?)
I suspect you're thinking of this in terms of the old trade routes, 'completely new trades' is just a Trade Center increasing trade volume on something it hasn't traded before. There is also some logic to ensure that 'new goods' like Automobiles get traded on the World Market. The rest is a bit too nitty-gritty to get into in a DD.

Just one recommendation: import tariffs should be based on government authority/capacity.

Many modernizing states made great efforts to control the flow of goods and achieve an export-maximizing economy, but many failed due to insufficient authority.
I've been thinking about adding an Authority cost to high/max tariffs/subventions. Not sure how well it plays though so I'd have to test it.

Very intriging DD... I can't wait for the monday reveal

How does this new system compare in performance from the older system ?
At the moment, according to our internal tools, it is slightly more performant (faster) than the old system. Can't promise it'll stay that way on release (or be equal for everyone) but so far so good.

Amazing dev diary, thanks for this.

Is trade capacity a hard cap on the amount of goods that can be traded, or do you get penalties if a state is trying to trade above that trade capacity, such as less profitability?
Hard cap.

I feel that the term "subvention" is a bit esoteric. In normal English parlance, you'd simply call them "subsidies". Obviously, this has no impact on gameplay, but I feel it would help with approachability using a more common term.
We already use subsidies for a different mechanic.

The updates here are super exciting and look like they're going to make the game much more exciting to play! Really can't wait for the release. This looks like a really great system that seems pretty intuitive.

A few other questions:
  • Can you purchase merchant marine from other countries? Eg Britain owned most of the major fleets during the Victorian era. As France, can I purchase British shipping?
  • How does this balance affect tariff revenue so far? Tariffs were a major source of government revenue in the first half of the 19th century. Is there any rebalancing there?
  • This should allow much more economic specialization: is there accompanying balance creating 'taller' more specialized states? So instead of one state with ten different buildings at level 1, do we end up with one state with one building at level 10? That seems like a good balance and should allow major performance improvements.
Click to expand...
You can import merchant marine, which basically is an abstraction of using another country's merchant fleet to move your stuff around. I'm going to hold off on answering the 'how is the balance playing out' questions as it's a bit too early for that.

Does anything in the new implementation help fix the superiority of land trade? Historically, maritime trade was more efficient due to the speed and simplicity of moving goods via boat, compared with the difficulties moving goods by land (roads, railway routes, geography, infrastructure, etc.), but in Vic 3 it is currently the opposite - due to the convoy system, land routes are cheaper and better.

I know you've said convoys are no longer used the same way, but does that fix this core issue?
All trade with the World Market is naval trade.
After re-reading the dev diary, i'm confused regarding the interaction between national market, market areas, and world market.

Let's say i play Great Britain. I build a trade hub in London that does its thing about imports and exports to the world market.

How does it impact the price in (i) London, (ii) the "England island area" and (iii) the rest of the English market?

Are the imported good from the world market added only to the local offer and demand of the London local market? Or are they added to the entire British market?
Or is there a new layer of price calculated on regional markets?
The trade hub in Home Counties adds imports to Home Counties just as if they were produced there - so they will have a greater impact on price in Home Counties than in the rest of the British Market to a degree based on MAPI.

Basically, a Trade Center importing 100 wood has the same effect on prices as a Lumber Mill producing 100 wood.

how will treaty ports function?
Treaty Ports will be part of the market they're targeting (so Macau will be part of the Chinese Market) and can import and export directly in that market, bypassing tariffs etc.

I agree with his push though - maybe renaming them as "industrial subsidies" and "export subsidies" can make both clearer? Because I could see a new player getting confused by the two types of subsidies next to one another.


Thank you! That's great to hear. Understood on balance – but I hope that AI investor propensity to invest strongly favors 'taller' building, as that's much more feasible now.

Overall: really exciting DD! Absolutely cannot wait to play with this in practice.
I think using the same word for two different mechanics is more confusing than having to learn a new word, tbh.

How will the canal operate under the new world market mechanism?
Naval distances still matter for things like Trade Advantage (and probably also for Merchant Marine costs) so more or less as before.

Do any techs have a direct effect on this system? I can imagine it might integrate well with some society techs.
Right now no but that's the plan, probably by unlocking new Trade Center PMs etc.

I assume merchant marine can be raided by hostile navies?
We actually haven't decided whether convoy raiding should target merchant marine or not, but blockades certainly will. Given we're talking about individual trade ships that might be flying lots of different flags, the level of unrestricted piracy this would involve isn't really something that happened in the period.

Great DD! With the new system, will it be possible, as a Nation, to prohibit the trade of one or more categories of goods, for religious, ethical, political, or expediency reasons? A sort of universal embargo linked to that single product. I am thinking of the theme of prohibitionism, for example.
At the moment no, though you can throw up massive tariff barriers in both directions and make it very unprofitable.

How does infrastructure affect things? I am thinking of building up railroads for the most part, and maybe by the end of the game airports.
Infrastructure isn't really tied into this system much honestly. Trade Centers use infra and if Market Access is low then it also lowers World Market Access but a full logistics rework isn't in scope for 1.9.

I think it should be based on having coasts on separate bodies of water (taking into account the distance between them), with each one getting a single world market hub. So lets take the example of Russia. The Russian market area would have coasts on three bodies of water: the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and the Pacific Ocean. Each one of these should have its own world market hub. Russia would technically also have a coast on the Arctic Ocean but since the nearest sea node to those ports is off the coast of Norway and that's only a few nodes away from the Baltic Sea node it wouldn't get it's own world market hub. This would lead to sensible divisions like the US having two world market hubs, one for the East Coast and one for the West Coast, if it ends up pursuing Manifest Destiny. And then a country like France would only end up with a single world market hub rather than two since there's only a few nodes between the one in the English Channel and the one in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of southern France so it'd only be allowed to have one.
This is an interesting idea that I hadn't considered. I'd have to see how it works out in practice but at first glance I like it!

Is running an export-focused economy profitable now? Would be nice to be able to actually complete the Brazil content.
I'm going to avoid commenting on 'how is the balance working out right now' but the goal is definitely that running an export-oriented economy should be way more feasible, at least if you're able to stay on top of your competitors.

Can you elaborate more on this?
What does trade "directly" mean mechanically?
Is it using the old system, bypassing the world market to trade directly with China?
Or it creates a hub there, giving you advantage on that market?
Algarve is part of the Portuguese Market, a Trade Center built there imports and exports between the World Market and the Portuguese Market

Macau is part of the Chinese Market, a Trade Center built there imports and exports between the World Market and the Chinese Market

How would Portugal be able to exploit this in this case? Or the British with Hong-Kong?
For example by exporting silk directly from China and bypassing any export tariffs, or importing Opium while ignoring a certain ban...

Do pops build trade centers? If yes what is the considerations they make to invest in them? If not why not?

I love everything else but gatekeeping this system behind government construction seems fairly nonsensical, I think it'd be much better to just tie this trade capacity to something else, like port and railroad levels and have it automatically level up as before, maybe allow trade centers to be owned by government or pops but I am not onboard of this arbitrary bottleneck on trade being construction too. There are already too many things that depend on construction queue.
As the dev diary already said, yes they do. There is a calculation for trade potential in states which autonomous investment uses to determine where to build new TCs.

How fast can trade centers be built? I assume it will be close to the speed of construction center so that you can easily build and remove them.
They have a very low construction cost just like construction sector, yeah.

How would this impact immigration? In the current build of the game, a country is only eligible for a migration target if they have a trade route to the migration's source. Does it now use the new country-by-country trade deals that are going to be explained in a later dev diary?
It's unlocked by a sufficiently large world market trade volume between two countries.

Very interesting system. Overall I think it's an improvement. I have a few questions :

1. Will there be plans for canals and straits to be able to charge fees to trade routes passing through them? I feel like this would work well with the outlined system.

2. Will states with good harbours or locations get any kinds of advantage or bonuses?

3. As described, trade centers can only be built on coastal regions, a major benefit. Has any thought been given to also allowing this for states on major rivers and inland waterways? This would seem to me to make sense and be easy to add. EG for North America the whole Great lakes, St Lawrence River, and Mississipi should allow construction of trade centers. This could replace the MAPI bonus they currently get.

4. Will individual trade centers have any kinds of economies of scale separate from the national advantage described?

5. If treaty ports are now part of the original country's market, can you force the treaty ports trade centre to only trade with you? Can you levy your own tariffs on this treaty ports trade? What ways are there for you to gain revenue from the trade centres in treaty ports?
Click to expand...
Trade Centers are not limited to coastal states, you're mixing them up with hubs. They tend to be more efficient in states with large ports though, since there's a local supply of Merchant Marine.

This will be crucial for land locked countries I guess.

All in all this looks like an amazing overhaul of the trade system. One thing I'm not sure about: Can a trade centre only export and import goods from and to the state it's build in or are those exports and imports from and to the market? In this case MAPI would apply if the goods come from or go to another state of course, so it would be basically treated like a good produced or consumed in the state of the trade centre.
They also go to the market exactly as if they were produced in the state.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
Reactions:
LET’S GOOO
 
  • 10
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Will the new rework make trade playable for tall playstyles? My main issue with the game is that it's difficult to emulate a city-state-like nation as a trade powerhouse due to how convoys are heavily tied to physical ports. Your trade route capacity is extremely limited by the number of convoys available. The only ways to increase your convoys are:

  1. Maximizing your port levels (including all technologies that increase port capacity).
  2. Conquering coastal states to gain more ports.
  3. Companies that gives extra convoys modifier
Option 1 is not really feasible for a small nation because you will quickly run out of available ports. On the other hand, Option 2 essentially defeats the point of playing tall, as you end up playing wide instead (which means more unnecessary map painting to get more ports). Custom Union market is another option, but that makes trade almost irrelevant, since you already have access to market goods. Option 3 is essentially just a bonus modifier that only applies if you have high prosperity, which on its own isn’t enough if you're playing as a small nation. Unfortunately, this game heavily encourages wide play when it comes to trade, as playing tall is simply suboptimal.

In my opinion, this is the core issue with the trade system. I feel like Victoria 3 trade mechanics are fundamentally flawed when it comes to convoys. You don’t simply run out of convoys just because you've exhausted all port levels. This is a rather poor gameplay mechanic and not reflective of real-world trade. If you look at modern-day Singapore, historical Venice, or the Hanseatic League, they were successful trading powers not because they had a large number of coastal states or ports, but because they possessed a strong maritime navy and highly efficient shipping, supported by robust port infrastructure. It makes no sense that the quantity of ports indirectly determines the volume of trade. This setup is neither realistic nor enjoyable for players who want to play tall.

Take EU4 as an example—while the trade system in that game is highly simplistic and unrealistic, it at least allows you to play tall by building a strong navy with many light ships. You can easily generate a lot of wealth as Malacca, for example, by funneling trade power into a specific trade node like the Malacca Straits to generate ducats. I’m not a fan of EU4's static trade system or the magic trade node money, but at least that game allows for tall play, which Victoria 3 sorely lacks.

Another problem is convoys have zero impact on the canal's revenue. Yes, you get +50000 tax income as a source of income if you have 100 prosperity, but it's in no way related to the convoys passing through the canal. It's literally just a flat income modifier. Even in a world where no-one actually uses the canals, they'd still conjure up a magic, fixed amount of money. It will be better if the canal has a toll fee feature that simply charges any convoys passing through the canal. So all that would happen is for them to say revenue = (value of trade goods passing through) * (player set rate).

Another strange aspect of the trade system is that trade centers don’t pay for convoys. They seemingly get them for free from government-owned ports. Transportation costs do exist but only indirectly (more sea nodes to pass through, the higher the convoy usage). However, your port doesn't receive any revenue from providing all the convoys to the trade centers. To me, this is just a weird mechanic. It doesn’t help that convoys are treated as a modifier rather than an actual trade good, meaning you can’t really make a profitable port, because the game itself doesn’t recognize convoys as a product that can be sold.

This is my feedback for trade. Hope that helps!
 
  • 45Like
  • 5
  • 4
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Holy fricking frick finally
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Will the new rework make trade playable for tall playstyles? My main issue with the game is that it's difficult to emulate a city-state-like nation as a trade powerhouse due to how convoys are heavily tied to physical ports. Your trade route capacity is extremely limited by the number of convoys available. The only ways to increase your convoys are:

  1. Maximizing your port levels (including all technologies that increase port capacity).
  2. Conquering coastal states to gain more ports.
  3. Companies that gives extra convoys modifier
Option 1 is not really feasible for a small nation because you will quickly run out of available ports. On the other hand, Option 2 essentially defeats the point of playing tall, as you end up playing wide instead (which means more unnecessary map painting to get more ports). Custom Union market is another option, but that makes trade almost irrelevant, since you already have access to market goods. Option 3 is essentially just a bonus modifier that only applies if you have high prosperity, which on its own isn’t enough if you're playing as a small nation. Unfortunately, this game heavily encourages wide play when it comes to trade, as playing tall is simply suboptimal.

In my opinion, this is the core issue with the trade system. I feel like Victoria 3 trade mechanics are fundamentally flawed when it comes to convoys. You don’t simply run out of convoys just because you've exhausted all port levels. This is a rather poor gameplay mechanic and not reflective of real-world trade. If you look at modern-day Singapore, historical Venice, or the Hanseatic League, they were successful trading powers not because they had a large number of coastal states or ports, but because they possessed a strong maritime navy and highly efficient shipping, supported by robust port infrastructure. It makes no sense that the quantity of ports indirectly determines the volume of trade. This setup is neither realistic nor enjoyable for players who want to play tall.

Take EU4 as an example—while the trade system in that game is highly simplistic and unrealistic, it at least allows you to play tall by building a strong navy with many light ships. You can easily generate a lot of wealth as Malacca, for example, by funneling trade power into a specific trade node like the Malacca Straits to generate ducats. I’m not a fan of EU4's static trade system or the magic trade node money, but at least that game allows for tall play, which Victoria 3 sorely lacks.

Another problem is convoys have zero impact on the canal's revenue. Yes, you get +50000 tax income as a source of income if you have 100 prosperity, but it's in no way related to the convoys passing through the canal. It's literally just a flat income modifier. Even in a world where no-one actually uses the canals, they'd still conjure up a magic, fixed amount of money. It will be better if the canal has a toll fee feature that simply charges any convoys passing through the canal. So all that would happen is for them to say revenue = (value of trade goods passing through) * (player set rate).

Another strange aspect of the trade system is that trade centers don’t pay for convoys. They seemingly get them for free from government-owned ports. Transportation costs do exist but only indirectly (more sea nodes to pass through, the higher the convoy usage). However, your port doesn't receive any revenue from providing all the convoys to the trade centers. To me, this is just a weird mechanic. It doesn’t help that convoys are treated as a modifier rather than an actual trade good, meaning you can’t really make a profitable port, because the game itself doesn’t recognize convoys as a product that can be sold.

This is my feedback for trade. Hope that helps!
Part of the design intent of the new trade system is that trade should be way more feasible for small nations. So far internal feedback bears this out. Also, port level cap is something that will be removed with 1.9. Convoys are decoupled from trade as mentioned in the DD.
 
  • 66Like
  • 21Love
  • 7
  • 7
Reactions:
However, we will be back in just a few days, on Monday March 31st, to talk about Expansion Pass 2 and what’s coming next for Victoria 3.
Nice, an increased tempo of dev diaries is appreciated after the long hiatus.
 
  • 7Like
Reactions:
they can also negotiate Transit Rights with a foreign nation in order to be able to trade through their World Market Hubs.
I wonder if this could be expanded later on like with Czecho-Slovakia's (and current Czechia's) ownership of a lot inside Hamburg's ports that was awarded to them after the First World War to facilitate trade, this could be an interesting 'permanent' transit right a nation could have (subject to embargoes during war of course). There are a few other instances of this in history as well so it would be cool to see it represented.
 
  • 6
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Very interesting dev diary.

How do embargos work with the new trade system? It was one of the limitation of the Vic 2 world market that you could not embargo anyone if i remember correctly.
 
Very interesting dev diary.

How do embargos work with the new trade system? It was one of the limitation of the Vic 2 world market that you could not embargo anyone if i remember correctly.
Embargos penalize the target relative to how much of global trade volumes you control. So if you are a major exporter of coal, anyone reliant on importing it will suffer if you embargo them. Things like this is why we spent a lot of time ensuring that we still track who precisely is importing from who.
 
  • 69Like
  • 15
  • 7Love
Reactions:
Something that I feel is missing is how trade starts in the first place, who decides what goods should be exported/imported, when and how

Will it be covered in more details in a future DD, or can you give use some more details now?
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Where do you teach the PhD to understand this DD? :p

Amazing, this is a complete overhaul of trade, I know someone that will be ecstatic, right @TheFlemishDuck ? I am !
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Something that I feel is missing is how trade starts in the first place, who decides what goods should be exported/imported, when and how

Will it be covered in more details in a future DD, or can you give use some more details now?
Each week, every Trade Center can increase or decrease trade volumes up to X times where X is their Weeky Trades value. They will generally aim to trade more of profitable goods and less of unprofitable goods, with additional factors for things like tariffs, subventions and shortages.
 
  • 35Like
  • 7
Reactions:
I JUST got done complaining to someone about the lack of a world market and transportation costs. This is a very VERY welcome development. Keep up the good work!
 
  • 11Like
Reactions:
With trade transit, can we have rivers make more of an impact there as well? AKA Switzerland probably would be using Rotterdam all the way down the Rhine river, not the ports in Brandenburg. Partially answered in another comment, but if the rhineland area is doing well industrially is that now going to benefit the ports in holland some way? It'd almost make sense for the rhine to be part of the Dutch market area partially in some way. For market area's to depend on rivers/railroads.
 
  • 24Like
Reactions:
Hope we can see the Industrialists become protectionist/mercantilist based on the state of imports/exports, or at least have the ideology weights influenced by such factors
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: