Currently, monopolies don't really exist by themselves. You can grant a monopoly charter to a company, which will make it very easy for it to buy all buildings related to this resource, resulting in two consequences:
-Your overall production will improve, and the company will have the capital to construct many of the associated buildings. Currently, it's not mandatory, but countries without a company will struggle to remain competitive in the global market against those who have one (or have granted investment rights to a company). This is positive in the sense that countries actually need to specialize, but financial sectors are significantly disadvantaged, which may pose a balance issue (though this is not the topic here).
-The price of the good will increase by up to 20%, scaled according to the company's share of building ownership in each state. This somewhat makes sense, but the strange part is that the company requires a charter to be able to raise prices. Standard Oil wasn't the only company legally permitted to build oil rigs, yet this didn't prevent it from establishing a monopoly.
Therefore, I believe the price increase should probably be a natural consequence, with or without an official monopoly charter, whenever a company owns more than 50% of a state's production.
Another consequence of monopolies could be that if, nationwide, a company holds a majority share of the production of a good (clothes, tools, etc.), it should gradually lose its throughput bonus (or economies of scale), becoming less efficient, similar to state owned buildings. The state (if it wishes to counter the company) could attempt to open its market to international competition (foreign products would then compete with the monopoly, forcing the company to remain competitive) or even attempt to break up the company (which should carry real consequences).
Currently, companies have very little political influence (only boosting IG clout), but I hope this will soon be updated, requiring you to actively manage your own (or worse, foreign) companies if they become too powerful within your nation.
-Your overall production will improve, and the company will have the capital to construct many of the associated buildings. Currently, it's not mandatory, but countries without a company will struggle to remain competitive in the global market against those who have one (or have granted investment rights to a company). This is positive in the sense that countries actually need to specialize, but financial sectors are significantly disadvantaged, which may pose a balance issue (though this is not the topic here).
-The price of the good will increase by up to 20%, scaled according to the company's share of building ownership in each state. This somewhat makes sense, but the strange part is that the company requires a charter to be able to raise prices. Standard Oil wasn't the only company legally permitted to build oil rigs, yet this didn't prevent it from establishing a monopoly.
Therefore, I believe the price increase should probably be a natural consequence, with or without an official monopoly charter, whenever a company owns more than 50% of a state's production.
Another consequence of monopolies could be that if, nationwide, a company holds a majority share of the production of a good (clothes, tools, etc.), it should gradually lose its throughput bonus (or economies of scale), becoming less efficient, similar to state owned buildings. The state (if it wishes to counter the company) could attempt to open its market to international competition (foreign products would then compete with the monopoly, forcing the company to remain competitive) or even attempt to break up the company (which should carry real consequences).
Currently, companies have very little political influence (only boosting IG clout), but I hope this will soon be updated, requiring you to actively manage your own (or worse, foreign) companies if they become too powerful within your nation.
- 6
- 2
