Since the 1.9 update, the biggest pain point for players has been Regional Companies.

[WTH666444]

Well, I think the computer currently looks at where to build based on what seems profitable — but as soon as the building is there, it doesn’t work out, because the game is far too dynamic. Maybe the predictions aren't as firmly and safely based on the full picture as we assume.

I have far too many of these empty industries in my country to believe in some kind of economic black magic the AI might understand.

Also, I want to put this forward — true or not — to push for a more engaging and authentic building system, with more control over industry, regional specialization, and production scaling.
It really pains me to have 10 provinces, and each of them has its own fertilizer plant, wasting the potential of having one level 10 fertilizer plant in a single province.
It’s just not efficient, and the overview of “where are my industries?!” is totally lacking. - No, I don't want to skim my ledger for that! I want to know my big steel mills are in Sachsen and nowhere else — because I said so!

But it is, in a purely maximum profit sort of way.

Say you start on traditionalism, and local price is 25% of the state price.
Suddenly, if you have enough local demand (because you need fertilizer for your farm PMs), even with a market good price of +0%, the 25% local demand at +75% means you have a local price almost 20% greater than the market price.
Fertilizer seems the worst offender because there's a demand for it in every state.
You usually have e.g. enough wood to cover heating, and can plop your furniture or tool factories in the places with the greatest supply surplus and specialize more and the AI won't see greater profit anywhere (other than fertilizer) because demand isn't so great or you've reformed laws or gotten more MAPI through other means in the meantime.

 

[MohawkWolfo98]

While I think there should be more tools in the toolbox to get rid of companies and nationalize them easier, I think a lot of your complaints just boil down to you not liking companies doing things you don't want them to do. Which is the entire point...

That's how free markets work. Taking over territory doesn't magically make businesses disappear. If China took over Taiwan, TSMC still would exist. Companies spread, grow, consume, and appear across the global. That is how it works in real life.

Again, I totally agree that there should be more ways to regulate and control them, maybe even manage capital flight or a new kind of tax, but your complaints seem to extend beyond that with you being more upset that you cannot min-max every little detail of your country. A lot of your frustrations are literally the frustrations many countries have in real life with letting foreign enterprise into them.


#1 is the biggest issue; players need tools to regulate foreign businesses. And maybe #4 to a degree. But the rest? Meh. Seems more like a subtle vent rather than an actual issue

I do get your point and I think it’s valid (I like the idea of regional HQs expanding despite our best attempts to stop it), as long as we had a valid pathway of killing the regional companies. Some players have reported that even after nationalising everything and killing investment rights they still spawn somehow.

 

[Imp0815]

But it is, in a purely maximum profit sort of way.

Say you start on traditionalism, and local price is 25% of the state price.
Suddenly, if you have enough local demand (because you need fertilizer for your farm PMs), even with a market good price of +0%, the 25% local demand at +75% means you have a local price almost 20% greater than the market price.
Fertilizer seems the worst offender because there's a demand for it in every state.
You usually have e.g. enough wood to cover heating, and can plop your furniture or tool factories in the places with the greatest supply surplus and specialize more and the AI won't see greater profit anywhere (other than fertilizer) because demand isn't so great or you've reformed laws or gotten more MAPI through other means in the meantime.

I'm far too dense for these economic terms to make any valid or solid arguments for or against this, but I can tell you from a subjective perspective in this game that:

1. The AI seems to make stupid decisions about industry placement — especially in terms of profitability and logic. Especially when it comes to something like building an artillery factory on a remote island that requires ships to transport input goods there, only to carry the artillery back to the mainland where it's needed.
2. It just feels terrible to look at my industry overview and see scattered industries all over my market with no sense or care. For example, the massive push for manufacturing industries in colonies with a perceived literacy of 5%, or the fact that every single province gets its own small arms manufacturer — while my army suffers from an ammunition shortage for two years.

As I understand it, we don’t want to convey the idea that this game is just about the building queue — and government building and ownership is penalized more and more as the game progresses, while simultaneously the AI runs semi-random and builds nonsense everywhere.

To come back to your MAPI point: as far as I understand it, I would really like to see a logistics system impacting MAPI, creating a more realistic system that isn’t so dependent on local prices and location, but more on how well-connected an industry is via railroad, ship, or air cargo later on.

Big industries in Germany, for example, developed in the Rhineland because of the Rhine River. All the big steel and heavy industries developed there because it was cheap to ferry coal and iron in large quantities by boat — a practice still in use today for the same reason.
Another example is BASF in Mannheim, which has the Neckar running right alongside the massive city plant that still exists today.

 

[maxirage]

My suggestion is for companies to be unable to invest abroad without regional HQs. They are already strong even when limited to just your country, and this will give the player the ability to decide which companies can invest abroad and which cannot. Just entirely remove the investment pool parasite nonsense.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

From the overall discussion, it seems to me there are three main issues with the way that regional HQs are currently implemented (without digging into the GDP share points that were raised):

A: conquering a state with a regional HQ allows the company in that HQ to start investing in your country, even if the 'owner' country never had an investment pact - this is what the bug referenced above seems to be, and is confirmed by the devs as being worked on;

B: regional HQs continuing to build in your country even when their 'owner' country no longer has investment rights, regardless of your economic model - this might make sense under LF, but not in most/any of the other economic systems. It would also be nice to have the tools to allow/forbid this, depending on your situation; my preference would be to use the treaty system, as a separate mechanic from investment/monopoly rights.

C: profits from the regional HQs being sent to the investment pool of the 'owner' country, not the country they're in ('host' country), even though they expand using the construction pool of the 'host' country. This is WAD, as I understand it, but it's a less-than-ideal situation (especially when coupled with the other two issues). It would be nice if - assuming this mechanic is kept, and not replaced with companies having an overall investment pool - having different economic models affected the percentage of profits that get sent to the different investment pools (host/owner country), and/or there were treaty provisions granting the host country a proportion of the profits, as compensation for tolerating the company's continued expansion.


In addition (and separately to the issues around the way regional HQs are implemented), prestige goods are doing weird things, and it would be great to have some kind of option to be notified when new companies are established, at least in countries with which you have a trading partnership/investment rights (though being told about all new companies wouldn't probably be that spammy either, at least after the initial establishment phase in early game).

My input came as a remark on how restrictive LF should be when adressing a player that in part complained about lack of control to this in LF, and not nessecarily covered the issue C which i think is really the most problematic issue, i think i mostly covered A and B from a perspective of comparing the drawbacks LF should have versus other systems. On the principal notion that in LF the state has very few control over what companies do within its market, A and B might seem fine lest there are other unreasonable issues associated with it. Which brings us to C in that LF would imply less control but that doesnt mean that any company owners could just tax evade the earnings from that industry to their "mother nation still" if investment rights are rescinded, which makes C the real issue that makes A and B possibly problematic where it shouldnt be. No, the distinction of the few control LF has should mean that as long as it allows foreign investment rights it has no control over who expands in the economy no'r to what country the profits go to, if he rescinds the foreign investment rights then the industry that has been build up under the agreement can still send its profits home but the part it builds as a company subject to national authority at this point must pay taxes on its profits in your own country, that would be rather logical. C is the crux of it all from a LF perspective right?From a LF perspective A and B woud be an isue if problem C didnt exist and you basically conquered a company HQ that wil actually contribute to your economy "from now on".

 

[WTH666444]

I'm far too dense for these economic terms to make any valid or solid arguments for or against this, but I can tell you from a subjective perspective in this game that:

1. The AI seems to make stupid decisions about industry placement — especially in terms of profitability and logic. Especially when it comes to something like building an artillery factory on a remote island that requires ships to transport input goods there, only to carry the artillery back to the mainland where it's needed.
2. It just feels terrible to look at my industry overview and see scattered industries all over my market with no sense or care. For example, the massive push for manufacturing industries in colonies with a perceived literacy of 5%, or the fact that every single province gets its own small arms manufacturer — while my army suffers from an ammunition shortage for two years.

As I understand it, we don’t want to convey the idea that this game is just about the building queue — and government building and ownership is penalized more and more as the game progresses, while simultaneously the AI runs semi-random and builds nonsense everywhere.

To come back to your MAPI point: as far as I understand it, I would really like to see a logistics system impacting MAPI, creating a more realistic system that isn’t so dependent on local prices and location, but more on how well-connected an industry is via railroad, ship, or air cargo later on.

Big industries in Germany, for example, developed in the Rhineland because of the Rhine River. All the big steel and heavy industries developed there because it was cheap to ferry coal and iron in large quantities by boat — a practice still in use today for the same reason.
Another example is BASF in Mannheim, which has the Neckar running right alongside the massive city plant that still exists today.

Sure (I'm German, too), but you'd actually need to model logistics and riverine trade more comprehensively (rather than giving a flat +[less than one fully staffed railway] infrastructure modifier for that to work. And PDX doesn't seem the systemic change types, even if EU5's proximity and market calculations already make use of a very similar logic.

I'm just not sure if they had it affect trade logistics, too. I faintly remember them talking about the directional flow of the river also being a factor, though.

There's a really good EU5 post I'll try to find that tried to quantify the value of river trade in pre-industrial times.

Edit: Can't find the original post, maybe Ispil himself can help out (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/land-trade-is-too-good.1743574/post-30343449). It is a small world on the forums, after all

 

[keko6161]

Its 100% makes sense that granting foreign investment rights allows companies to exploit your resources and local industries can't compete. Devs really need to add an actual easy mode that stops the AI from using half the mechanics players use, or these kinds of posts will never stop

 

[OxfordNik]

Its 100% makes sense that granting foreign investment rights allows companies to exploit your resources and local industries can't compete. Devs really need to add an actual easy mode that stops the AI from using half the mechanics players use, or these kinds of posts will never stop

The issue isn't just that the AI exploits the resources. It's that they continue to do so even after you've taken away their rights to do so (or when you didn't intend for them to do so, e.g. because you conquered a state where you didn't realise the AI had built up a regional HQ) - and there doesn't seem to be a logical reason for that to be the case, making the mechanic unfun and un-immersive.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

Sure (I'm German, too), but you'd actually need to model logistics and riverine trade more comprehensively (rather than giving a flat +[less than one fully staffed railway] infrastructure modifier for that to work. And PDX doesn't seem the systemic change types, even if EU5's proximity and market calculations already make use of a very similar logic.

I'm just not sure if they had it affect trade logistics, too. I faintly remember them talking about the directional flow of the river also being a factor, though.

There's a really good EU5 post I'll try to find that tried to quantify the value of river trade in pre-industrial times.

From a perspective of what could be creativly achieved with mods, i think "size to capacity cost consideration" can be done.

What does it mean? Well with mapi it doesnt matter if you send something from Saint Petersburg to the province bordering it compared to sending it to Vladivostok, its all the same Mapi penalty. Mapi is decided by tech, not by distance but notably also not by capacity and neither country size. The game technically cannot be moded to take account for distance i presume, mod elements can be brought in to calculate the size of the country and make it more Mapi affected if said country has few transport infrastructure present so to make "average transport costs" far higher than if it were a particularly small country that has railroads everywhere. So to speak, the point here would be that a small 2 province country only needs to build 2 railroads to have a far lower mapi penalty and this mapi penalty is further lowered by the fact that the country is only 2 provinces, whereas a country with 100 provinces would also need to plaster its country with railroads to get the same effect albeit it takes 50x more railroads and even then the transport costs are still somewhat more expensive simply because of the size of the country.

So how?

You introduce some national mapi penalty on the provincial level that has a small effect, something that afaik can technically be done. Each province you have for example makes MAPi in the whole country by default 0.25 lower/worse, so if you have a 100 provinces you have 25 more MAPI penalty across the board. Then you have railways that "almost nullify" this, aka the railways put Mapi 0.2 higher. the end result would be that a 100 province country would start with 24.5 less mapi than a 2 province country who only receives a total 0.5 Mapi penalty, it would take the 2 province country to build 2 railways to reduce this 0.5 deficit to 0.1, it would take the country with 100 provinces a railroad level in all those 100 provinces to reduce its 25 deficit to 5 deficit.

This would work better if i could put in a larger penalty per province but then that might open the possibility that someone gets to 0 Mapi. Eitherway the bigger consideration in regards to Mapi is that on average a larger country needs far more capacity to still transport at cheaper rates and given that distances are on average longer it amplifies transport costs and capacity need. Its something that argues that if your a small country you wont have to lay all that much rail and have all that much trains to move a fair bit of produce over short distances and so it will be inherently easier and cheaper for you, kinda also gives a penalty to more expansion lest appropriate investments are made.

It should be combine able with local MAPI trough buildings, that would give some advantage to the existence of local logistical assets like say canals but afaik you have to be able to limit the total effect they can have. if there is at most so to speak "10% more mapi to grab locally trough special infrastructure like canals, tunnels and bridges" and said infrastructure gives 2.5% local Mapi each then you must restrict it that it can be at max 4 levels. This is doable as like you can limit to how much of a specific building can be build in a province trough mod. i would think that such infrastructure should topically be terrain specific too and possibly alleviate certain provincial Mapi penalty's. For example you might make a mountain province more Mapi affected from the onset, but able to alleviate that particular defici by building enough tunnels, its just that said tunnels dont come cheap. In a province where you have a river you might be required to build big bridges,and in flat provinces you would perhaps build canals for the same effect. This makes Mapi more depending on your abbilety to alleviate its penalty trough expensive infrastructure where a small country in flat lands will perhaps build a few canals early at a cheap rate and be done with that issue for a large part. It would also mean altering the game starting map/condition to a far degree so you could model certain country's to be more infrastructure poor than others as they might have been in real life.

 

[dmdelor]

My suggestion is for companies to be unable to invest abroad without regional HQs. They are already strong even when limited to just your country, and this will give the player the ability to decide which companies can invest abroad and which cannot. Just entirely remove the investment pool parasite nonsense.

Yeah, I suggested exactly this in the Suggestions forums a while back, with the additional idea of adding a limited investment rights treaty article that said "allow foreign companies only" to create a potential new strategy of allowing in foreign companies to make their goods abundant in your market at the cost of losing the dividends without needing to give full investment access. Possibly, thinking about it now, an "allow company X" treaty article would be even better.

Companies are already incredibly powerful as-is and the investment pool leeching it makes foreign investment rights way too one-sided and narrowly situational. Nerf them to be local only, then have the company charter lets them make use of your investment rights too.

Regardless, their expansion should definitely be stopped once the investment rights are removed.

 

[exi123]

It would already help when regional HQs would not be able to buy up absolutely everything and wreck the local investment pool. They basically get a monopoly without having a monopoly.

 

[Delterius]

Its 100% makes sense that granting foreign investment rights allows companies to exploit your resources and local industries can't compete.

That's an interesting statement because it doesn't tie into how the game actually works. The regional Dollfus HQ might come to own all iron mines in your country and most of the textile industry. Doesn't mean your industry can't compete - Dollfus' industries are your industries. It just means that all the dividend shares from what Dollfus owns goes abroad. Even if you make your own Iron Mine corporation, those mines it owns besides Dollfus' are as just competitive as Dollfus'.

Furthermore, whatever discussions we may have on that front the point is that Regional HQs are bugged. They can't be nationalized or blocked from investing. Nationalize everything the Regional Dollfus HQ owns and remove France's investment rights. Dollfus France will still be able to buy buildings in your country.

 

[Dman1791]

Hard disagree. War and conquest doesn't magically make company and corporate entities disappear. I find it funny that people are re-discovering why so many nationalists support things like tariffs and disallowing foreign businesses. lol There is a cost to foreign investment and business and the stuff in this thread is it. It has the potential to devour local capital and send it overseas.

Japanese car companies devastated local American car companies. That devastation is still felt today.

I think it is totally valid in a game heavily focused on imperialism and the shift to capitalism, that capitalism can lead to nasty effects. That said, there does need to be a way to nationalize/regulate easier.

Yeah, but conquering a place with a branch office of a foreign company in real life doesn't automatically result in said branch office completely outcompeting everything except the largest domestic companies, which are themselves severely hampered as well.

 

[Voidian]

Yeah, but conquering a place with a branch office of a foreign company in real life doesn't automatically result in said branch office completely outcompeting everything except the largest domestic companies, which are themselves severely hampered as well.

Yeah, if they acted like One of many "companies" it would be fine-ish.


IE: If you have 20 financial districts and one car company in your country the chance of that car company taking ownership of the next factory should be 1/21, not the nearly 100% we're seeing right now.

At least not with foreign investment rights, if they are supposed to blend in with the rest of your companies they should play by their same rules, just make them act like regular financial districts, and then make them act like actual companies again if investment rights from their owners is restored or something.

 

[Imp0815]

Sure (I'm German, too), but you'd actually need to model logistics and riverine trade more comprehensively (rather than giving a flat +[less than one fully staffed railway] infrastructure modifier for that to work. And PDX doesn't seem the systemic change types, even if EU5's proximity and market calculations already make use of a very similar logic.

I'm just not sure if they had it affect trade logistics, too. I faintly remember them talking about the directional flow of the river also being a factor, though.

There's a really good EU5 post I'll try to find that tried to quantify the value of river trade in pre-industrial times.

Edit: Can't find the original post, maybe Ispil himself can help out (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/land-trade-is-too-good.1743574/post-30343449). It is a small world on the forums, after all

I truly hope that the teased logistics changes we saw in the "what’s next" post factor in trade logistics — not just military ones.

I fully agree that we need a more transparent system showing which industry is connected to which, and in addition, create engaging interactions around planning your state infrastructure and the placement of buildings. This should include a factor for AI building decisions that considers where and how an industry can be connected, and whether it's feasible.

And I’m not talking about another line in the modifiers tab — I’m talking about actual rail connections, rivers, and ports. It doesn't need to go into minute detail like river flow or similar things, but just having a true network of feasible connections instead of boring building modifiers would, in my view, be really fun and engaging.