Ports now only give 1 infra instead of 5. That means that you are stuck with the infra that you got until you get railroads. Is this intended?
- 12
- 2
-
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.
Coastal states received a flat 25% bonus (iirc) to infrastructure to compensate
So you can't just spam ports to pump up the infrastructure on coastal states, but you can still use the other ways (decree, tech, companies) to improve it, and they'll be better due to the 25% bonus
So you can't just spam ports to pump up the infrastructure on coastal states, but you can still use the other ways (decree, tech, companies) to improve it, and they'll be better due to the 25% bonus
- 10
- 1
It's certainly hastily implemented. Imo it should be tied to transportation directly somehow.
- 20
- 7
Its weird in its concept and name. Are we talking about some sort of "pop sustaining infrastructure" which would be mainly sewers and water supply and local roads? The things factory's would need too to opperate. Or are we talking about "transport infrastructure", where however said transport infrastructure does not affect map or transport prices in the market at all but for example the labor intensivity of certain processes? Albeit that the picture of infrastructure clearly looks like railroads and that you buy engines to sell transport. Its both? Well your certainly producing infrastructure for the purpose of having more factories AND transport for the purpose of havong "less labor intensive transport", granted you might need more of one than the other, its like this sgme conceptualizes this as roads, sewers, water supply, railroads and potentially even things like canals and rivers but then trough modifiers to infrastructure buildings. One would think that railroads should reduce transport costs and in a way by reducing labor cost "somewhere" they kinda do in a extremely roundabout way but then nothing here is distance related and its such a confusing abstraction that it could also be just mistaken for automation.
Last edited:
- 17
Imo infrastructure should probably be removed and transportation should be an input good that basically everything relies on. Depending on state potentials a few different buildings like roads, canals, ports could produce it, but railroads would be way more efficient and thus be actually hugely profitable by providing a good absolutely everything needs
- 20
- 7
- 2
My personal opinion: The current implementation of infrastructure is bad and should be reworked somehow.
Ideally, the current MAPI system (which is what infrastructure influences) should be replaced with a market-internal variant of trade centers that consumes transportation. This way, moving goods to different states in your market still costs something, but it isn't tied to this abstract "infrastructure"-value that does not really make sense. The question is if such a system could be made without hurting performance.
Ideally, the current MAPI system (which is what infrastructure influences) should be replaced with a market-internal variant of trade centers that consumes transportation. This way, moving goods to different states in your market still costs something, but it isn't tied to this abstract "infrastructure"-value that does not really make sense. The question is if such a system could be made without hurting performance.
- 15
- 5
- 1
On a cost perspective sense its a pitty imho they reduced the infrastructure ports provide because it was something particulary coastal country's could use to their advantage if they went very trade focussed and make the volume of trade capacity it gave pay of, as gains from trade would then be able to pay off for the infrastructure it provided. This opposed atleast to the often occuring issue that infrastruture provided by railroads will be generated at a unprofitable level and require potentially heavy subsidization.
There is this issue that if you have 2 goods produced by the same building that one might be far more profitable or in demand than the other and the other might drag down profitabillety making the producing building only able to provide the first at an expensive price due to the cheapness of the secondary product. Often happens with other buildings too like synthetic dyes or ranches. With railroads this is just a matter of how labor intensive your economy is reasonably going to be. If your a very pop heavy country like China you might not even want the automation and prefer employing more people but you still need the infrastructure and your not going to have a lot of rich people necessarily to have a high transport demand trough pops perhaps so then its kinda an issue, it's easier to make railroads self sufficient in a smaller country that has a lot of rich people and pop and infrastructure boni too providing even if you have a railroad company because yes while its possible it takes a lot of hoops and effort to have profitable unsubsidized railroads, maybe 5 to 10% of country's will achieve it.
So its kinda easy to see why ports that give a lot of infrastructure are a far more attractive option to provide infrastructure than railroads are, and then after a change i'm sure it doesn't feel fun to be pushed to a solution for this issue that ever so often is a drain on the economy and governments budget. Especially because it doesnt feel like it makes sense from an economic perspective that the government would bear such costs. It was the isue afcourse with ports that the government had to pay them, this had to change. Railroads in principle can work privately, but in most practical cases the government pays for it and thats felt as an issue. Sure its logical government pays for administration, logical it pays its armies and fleets and things like education and healtcare, logical even that it pays for some infrastructure but not for railroads or transport which actually should be an economic contributor rather than a drain and give a country with lots of railroads more an advantage over one too backward to have them. As it is building infrastructure which feels like building railroads is only intended to "cover a gap" than actually make money and that feels wrong for what railroads should do.
There is this issue that if you have 2 goods produced by the same building that one might be far more profitable or in demand than the other and the other might drag down profitabillety making the producing building only able to provide the first at an expensive price due to the cheapness of the secondary product. Often happens with other buildings too like synthetic dyes or ranches. With railroads this is just a matter of how labor intensive your economy is reasonably going to be. If your a very pop heavy country like China you might not even want the automation and prefer employing more people but you still need the infrastructure and your not going to have a lot of rich people necessarily to have a high transport demand trough pops perhaps so then its kinda an issue, it's easier to make railroads self sufficient in a smaller country that has a lot of rich people and pop and infrastructure boni too providing even if you have a railroad company because yes while its possible it takes a lot of hoops and effort to have profitable unsubsidized railroads, maybe 5 to 10% of country's will achieve it.
So its kinda easy to see why ports that give a lot of infrastructure are a far more attractive option to provide infrastructure than railroads are, and then after a change i'm sure it doesn't feel fun to be pushed to a solution for this issue that ever so often is a drain on the economy and governments budget. Especially because it doesnt feel like it makes sense from an economic perspective that the government would bear such costs. It was the isue afcourse with ports that the government had to pay them, this had to change. Railroads in principle can work privately, but in most practical cases the government pays for it and thats felt as an issue. Sure its logical government pays for administration, logical it pays its armies and fleets and things like education and healtcare, logical even that it pays for some infrastructure but not for railroads or transport which actually should be an economic contributor rather than a drain and give a country with lots of railroads more an advantage over one too backward to have them. As it is building infrastructure which feels like building railroads is only intended to "cover a gap" than actually make money and that feels wrong for what railroads should do.
Last edited:
- 4
Several ideas floating around involving a logistics rework, including discussions around trade leagues, as well as here, in a thread talking about electricity/transportation (and how those could be better represented if they were regional rather than totally local); there have been various suggestion threads around construction/housing being goods/needs, too (including from before we had 1.9's changes, at least a lot of which still applies, and at least one since we've had 1.9's changes).
My personal preference would be to make more use of strategic regions by tying transportation costs (and electricity, for that matter) at that level, with more localised goods (services, housing) staying at state level; logistics - including infrastructure, by which I would envisage transport/communication infrastructure - would then affect the costs of moving goods (and fleets/armies) between strategic regions, using convoys (for government-based movement of goods, troops and army/fleet supplies over sea connections), merchant marine (for trade centre-based trade) and a new metric intended to represent "land transportation" for land-based movement.
I'm excited to see what comes of a logistics re-work but I think the earliest it would come would be late 2026 more likely 2027 given the most recent comments about working on boats next.
From a implementation perspective I feel like we can gleam quite about what Wiz has in mind from his stream comments and the re-work that was done for trade (World Market.)
My best guess would be something like this for a National Market re-work:
Based on what was done with the World Market I'm guessing something like this could be implemented since it's just a lot of inference math once setup, just multiply and divide. Obviously this would be more performance intensive but I think it could be a bit offset but splitting market areas across multiple threads so india and GB could be separate which might help.
Some cool inspiration here would be that having two adjacent coal states in a river system next to an iron state could end up with the iron state having a cheaper coal price than than coal states individually if that iron state demanded coal. Especially if there's also a rail link between the states. This would in effect function a bit like Civ 6's district adjacency system, though completely different in implementation. Also Germany would finally have the Ruhr region be the industrial powerhouse of the country instead of Silesia.
From a implementation perspective I feel like we can gleam quite about what Wiz has in mind from his stream comments and the re-work that was done for trade (World Market.)
My best guess would be something like this for a National Market re-work:
- Market advantage game concept, essentially trade advantage but only varies between states in a market area and is the same for all goods
- Matrix of Market Advantage between states in a market area
- All states with higher than average sell orders for a good in a market area export, all states lower import (A national market price is an average, here we decompose it across all states)
- States capped at exporting 95%(MAPI) of sell orders
- Market advantage is probably distance, rivers, costal states and railroads
- Share the same river system - largest market advantage boost
- Connected rail systems - medium market advantage boost
- Same coastline, market advantage boost
- All buildings consume transport in exchange for less pops
- Electricity and Transport become market area goods instead of local goods
- Sum of goods transferring between states added up (each good multiplied by its transport factor) and requires 1 transport per 10 (balance tbd).
- Required transport diminished between states sharing river systems
- Required transport diminished between states sharing rail systems
- Ports provide transport
- Rails provide transport
- Each state is a travel or land node
- Rails built between states
- Railyards provide scaling transport
- Trade centers handle trade between same market, market areas - no tariffs, massive trade advantage, no same direction negative modifiers
Based on what was done with the World Market I'm guessing something like this could be implemented since it's just a lot of inference math once setup, just multiply and divide. Obviously this would be more performance intensive but I think it could be a bit offset but splitting market areas across multiple threads so india and GB could be separate which might help.
Some cool inspiration here would be that having two adjacent coal states in a river system next to an iron state could end up with the iron state having a cheaper coal price than than coal states individually if that iron state demanded coal. Especially if there's also a rail link between the states. This would in effect function a bit like Civ 6's district adjacency system, though completely different in implementation. Also Germany would finally have the Ruhr region be the industrial powerhouse of the country instead of Silesia.
Last edited:
- 3
- 3
Conceptually, this isn’t a bad idea, but until local goods are no longer an annoyance (the UI isn’t great), I don’t support adding any usage of them.
- 2
- 1
Anyone interested in this should read the thread about housing late last year. I still think introducing housing would be unhelpful if it's just going to be another local good to heat up the CPU. It ought to interact with the rest of the game (beyond the market and consumption) in some way. The best suggestion so far is that it could replace Arable Land in the migration algorithm for urbanized professions like Engineers and Shopkeepers. I don't see how you replace Infrastructure with Housing; they are very different.
I am not keen on this at all. Electricity was not moved long distances until the mid-1930s, right at the very end of the V3 time period. That was a real constraint on economic growth. Even in the early 2000s, I remember provincial brownouts being a regular problem in China; the country had enormous electricity resources but couldn't always get it to the right place at the right time. It's still inefficient to power London from Scotland, never mind Madras from the Himalayas. And similar considerations apply to Transport. In the 1860s, there were plenty of railways in New England and only one in the likes of Arizona. Russia is an even more extreme example. I know the devs are hoping to split the largest countries into smaller Market Areas, but I still don't see why you'd even want to do this. Transport is (paradoxically) a fundamentally local and immobile service; when did you last see an airport or railway station moved to another location where the price was higher? It should be a local good.
- 7
- 4
- 2
- 1
It is an in period technology, Great Britain did have a modernish grid by the end of the period. Electricity might need a different model, though it is often a player complaint that building power stations everywhere is more of a chore than something to look forward to.
Transport (freight rates) are absolutely not a local good on a rail system. They are very very much interrelated to the overall market area demand of freight (transport). Having cheap freight was a huuuge advantage for the US during the period because of the Mississippi and Ohio river systems. Similarly the Volga river and Rhine river reduced German and Russia freight costs substantially. These goods are most definitely market area based - having a large yard in Pennsylvania certainly helps supply transport far beyond the borders of Pennsylvania.
It's not the airport or railway station but the price you pay to ship or move yourself. The more trains, planes and buses the run on a system the more supply there is of the good.
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
The thing that makes it difficult is that the cost of transportation or electricity in a given area is affected by both the amount of thing you have to utilize (amount of electricity generated or amount of engines, rolling stock, etc) which is non local, and local capacity (transmission lines, railroads themselves). For a more realistic simulation you would have two sets of buildings for each good reflecting both these components so that increasing local capacity allows that area to make better use of the national supply. I suspect such a system would be unintuitive and difficult to calculate, unless you abstracted it entirely to transportation and electricity just being regular goods and railroads and power lines just adding infrastructure capacity, which wouldn't be very satisfying I think
- 3
- 2
Looking at electricity I think they need to actually scale down the generation, bear with me. Early electrical generation was often colocated with consumption - factories would have their own power plants in the period before demand picked up enough to require dedicated utilities. This is the period in game that is most painful for players, when you want to start enabling PMs for electricity usage but there isn’t any available, but for the plant to start hiring there needs to be demand.
The simplest and frankly most realistic way to solve this would be to add another line of PMs to factories that produces electricity in the factory inefficiently. Players would start by turning both on, getting a small boost to overall productivity at first before generating enough demand to build dedicated power plants and turning off the generator PMs, unlocking the full productivity gain from switching to electric PMs. Once plants are built, set auto expand and forget.
The simplest and frankly most realistic way to solve this would be to add another line of PMs to factories that produces electricity in the factory inefficiently. Players would start by turning both on, getting a small boost to overall productivity at first before generating enough demand to build dedicated power plants and turning off the generator PMs, unlocking the full productivity gain from switching to electric PMs. Once plants are built, set auto expand and forget.
- 7
- 2
Or early electrical PMs could be represented as not actually having an electricity cost but an increased cost in probably coal to represent onsite generation, and be less efficient than later PMs which use external electricity
- 3
- 1
The reason to have the building both produce electricity and consume it is to inject buy orders into the market so that new power plants can properly calculate demand. That always seems to be the biggest pain point for me, and the reason they made power plants smaller.
- 6
- 2
The problem is that local goods aren’t fun. They UI is opaque and the micro is obnoxious when you have a substantial mid to late game economy.
Conceptually, this sounds correct.
Separating the local infrastructure from the more global assets (electricity/trains) makes sense, but I don’t see how you could make it fun in the scope of V3.
I’ve played city builders where you plan the power infrastructure and then generate the electric. It can be fun on that scale. On the scale of a nation (or even moreso a combined market) it seems daunting to make it fun.
- 4
- 2
- 2
- 1
The UI isn't that opaque. You can still select local goods in the goods view, and the standard views (production, potential etc.) also list price. You can tell at a glance which place is painfully short or oversupplied.The problem is that local goods aren’t fun. They UI is opaque and the micro is obnoxious when you have a substantial mid to late game economy.
Conceptually, this sounds correct.
Separating the local infrastructure from the more global assets (electricity/trains) makes sense, but I don’t see how you could make it fun in the scope of V3.
I’ve played city builders where you plan the power infrastructure and then generate the electric. It can be fun on that scale. On the scale of a nation (or even moreso a combined market) it seems daunting to make it fun.
- 2
- 1
- 1