• 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 #110 - Building Ownership & Foreign Investment

16_9.png

Hello and welcome to another Victoria 3 Dev Diary!

After last week’s look at Power Blocs, we are going to take a look at another major set of changes that are going to arrive with Sphere of Influence and the free 1.7 update.

Namely, a revision of the Building Ownership system and what it allows us to do: Foreign Investment, a much requested feature which makes its debut in 1.7.

You will see that the changes we are making impact your visibility of ownership and the affected Pops throughout the game.

To understand all the mechanics we will be looking at an example country in the heart of Europe.

Ownership types​

It’s 1836. In Bavaria, a proud member of the Zollverein Power Bloc, all buildings are owned by the state or the workers themselves.

Capitalists, Aristocrats, and Clergymen no longer work in these buildings, and most of the Shopkeepers no longer work in production buildings directly. In addition, the Ownership Production Methods have been removed. Instead, ownership works on a per level basis, allowing a mixed ownership structure in the same building.

A popular Logging Camp it seems. Workers, a Financial District and a Manor House own a part.
DD110_01.png

In worker-owned buildings employees work for themselves basically. So any dividends they may accumulate, they split amongst themselves. This is the default at game start for many countries (not all) and is a state which you can more or less return to at a later stage of the game with the enactment of Cooperative Ownership, which will expropriate your privately owned buildings over time.

One major exception from the ownership situation at game start are subsistence farms which are owned by a new building we are introducing: Manor Houses.

Now they lounge around in luxury, instead of slumming it with the common folks in less refined taste buildings, we wouldn't want their shoes to be dirtied on a subsistence farm!
Manor Houses are able to own levels of other buildings, in our case at game start all the levels of Subsistence Farms in their own states. They pay their wages and dividends by collecting dividends from the buildings they own and distributing them among their employees.
What type and how many employees they have is determined by a limited set of PMs.

Clergymen or Aristocrats? You can’t get rid of both of them!
DD110_02.png

So you can see there are still jobs for Clergymen. What about the Shopkeepers and Capitalists?
Well, they work in the new Financial District buildings, which behave pretty much like the Manor Houses. They too have different employment PMs, can own levels of other buildings and pay their employees by collecting dividends from owned building levels.

Both new buildings expand automatically, depending on how many levels they own. For example if a new level of a privately owned factory is created, a corresponding new level of a Financial District is also generated.

All building levels that you construct are country-owned. Under certain laws, this status can change soon after they are finished constructing. Country-owned buildings come with reduced Economy of Scale bonuses and a bureaucracy cost for each level you own. But in return they can provide additional income based on the building’s dividends which partially get transferred to your treasury.

Not all buildings can be of any ownership type of course, for example barracks or government administrations will always be country-owned.

Summing up, there are now three types of ownership for any building level:
  • Worker owned
  • Privately owned (Financial Districts and Manor Houses)
  • Country owned

If all buildings in Bavaria are owned by the workers or the country itself, how do the first Financial Districts appear, you may wonder!

The main way to get that to happen is the next point on our agenda.

Privatization​

Enter Privatization, whereby you allow country-owned buildings to be sold to Pops.

If you are short on cash, Privatization might help you
DD110_03.png

This makes it possible for your Pops to acquire them. Depending on the type of building you are privatizing, they usually get bought either by Aristocrats or Capitalists, using the investment pool’s funds.
If you don’t have any capitalists in your country yet, other Pops may step up though, using the investment pool’s funds to buy a building you put up for sale and become Capitalists in the process, which in turn leads to the first Financial District appearing.

The money will be transferred from the investment pool to your country’s treasury once that happens. The cost of buying a level is determined by its construction cost and is modified by most of the Economic System laws. These laws also affect the efficiency of these transactions, meaning how much money is lost as overhead and how much is being reinvested into the investment pool or the treasury.
One particularly interesting law is Laissez-Faire which upon enactment forces all your country-owned buildings to be put up for sale and will automatically do so for every new building level you construct. Similarly, enactment of other laws like Cooperative Ownership and Command Economy doesn’t immediately change the ownership of all buildings, but rather can start a process that can convert your economy over time.

Insert witty joke about the free market here
DD110_04.png

Now let’s take a look at how the different ownership model affects investments from your Pops.

Investment​

The existing logic for how the private investment pool works remains similar to before. So, different Pop types still have different priorities and they will look at factors like estimated productivity, available workforce etc.
When a building is about to be constructed by private investment, we randomly determine who is building it, favoring already existing Financial Districts and Manor Houses over creating new ones.

In a worker-owned economy, the private investment pool will continue to function, but they will only expand their own buildings, not create new ones.

An important fact with this system is that investments do not need to be local. A Financial District or Manor House can invest in any of your country’s states, including your colonies overseas.
This system will create a flow of money from the colonies to your homelands, a stronger centralization of wealth and power and it will end the status of colonies’ Pops making more money than your Pops at home.

Of course the non-local investments also come with some challenges with regards to other countries.

It looks like Prussia has heard about that option and has started investing in your country!

“First they took our chairs, then the tables we used to eat at. What’s next? Our beds?!”
DD110_05.png

Foreign Investment​

There are a few ways to acquire Foreign Investment Rights.

First of all, overlords can always invest in their subjects. This is part of the free 1.7 update and will allow you to do Foreign Investment where it matters the most, even if you do not own Sphere of Influence.

Then there are three diplomatic pacts which you can use if you have bought the expansion:
  1. Mutual Investment Rights which allows both countries to invest in each other
  2. One-directional Investment Rights in either direction, so you either demand to be allowed to invest in their country or offer another country to invest in yours

The [redacted] has been [redacted]. We shall see its effects on the 11. of April.
DD110_06.png

There is also a Power Bloc Principle group that deals with Foreign Investment which on Tier 3 has the consequence of being able to invest in any member country.

No matter how you got the Investment Rights, you and also your Pops will be able to invest in the target country. Private investment does consider foreign states as potential targets for their expansions, allowing them to build profitable buildings more easily.

As nice as it is that Prussia has invested in new buildings in Bavaria, I don’t think we can let them get away with diverting the profits to Berlin instead of our own population!

Nationalization​

Nationalization allows you to take control of foreign assets in your country. You cannot nationalize other countries’ assets as long as they possess Foreign Investment rights in your country.

Once that is no longer the case, e.g. if Bavaria left the Zollverein Power Bloc, you can peacefully nationalize their building levels in your country. For that you need to pay a sum of money from your treasury. Similarly to Privatization, the sum is determined by the construction cost + modifiers from laws.

You will also be able to nationalize your own Pops’ building levels, both worker-owned and privately owned, if you’d like to take ownership. Nationalization is not seen positively by the affected Pops of course and will radicalize them.

“We should compensate them to reduce the quarrels.”
DD110_07.png

But what if the Bavarian coffers are empty yet you still want to take over that juicy productive Furniture Manufacturies that is owned by Prussia?

Well, there is always an alternative.

“Pay them? I don’t think so!”
DD110_08.png

You can demand nationalization of a country’s assets in your country. If they accept, their building levels’ ownership changes to your country. If they don’t, you can try and enforce it as a wargoal. If you are successful, you will also remove their Foreign Investment Rights for your country in addition to taking control of their buildings in your country.

Building Registry​

To visualize all these new mechanics, we are introducing the Building Registry, which allows you a customizable look at your country’s situation.

All the building data one could wish for
DD110_09.png

This is a major new UI, that similar to the Census Data window, comes with a lot of functionality to filter the available data. Only show buildings outside your country? Sure. See all buildings that are owned by Pops and which are currently not hiring but not fully employed? No problem.

Lots of filter groups to browse through
DD110_10.png

We hope you find this as useful as we do. You can access it via the button on the bottom of the Buildings panel.

Really recommend pressing that button
DD110_11.png

Implications for the Directly Controlled Investment Pool Game Rule​

As you can imagine, this new system of ownership, geographic wealth extraction, and privatization/nationalization has far-reaching implications on the economic foundations of Victoria 3. It enables a lot of interesting dynamics we haven't been able to model until this time and adds a whole new dimension to your economic laws.

It also comes with the consequence of making the Directly Controlled Investment Pool game rule that we introduced with 1.2 (as a legacy alternative to the new Autonomous Investment system) impossible to maintain. In 1.6 and prior, if this game rule was turned on, the player would be directing all construction efforts. As long as there was money in the investment pool and the construction queue was building a privately-owned building, the cost of construction goods would be coming out of the investment pool first before being carried by the state budget. With the new rules for building ownership, investment rights, and so on in 1.7 this no longer makes sense - there's now a very clear distinction between a building project initiated by a private investor and the state, a potential source of conflict innate to both foreign ownership and the privatization/nationalization mechanics, and even differences between owners in different regions that cannot be represented if all construction projects were player-initiated.

Because of this it no longer makes sense for players to be in charge of both public and private investments simultaneously, and as such the Directly Controlled Investment Pool rule has had to be removed for 1.7 and beyond. While we can't support non-default game rules to the same degree as the standard options, removing a game rule completely is not something we'd ever do without good cause. We know that a smaller fraction of you favored this setting so we want to be clear with why its removal was a necessity to move forward with these improvements to ownership and foreign expansion.

Outlook​

I would like to end today’s Dev Diary by providing a short outlook for what these changes also enable us to do in the future.

The main thing here is affecting Companies.

The way we have reworked ownership allows us to create Company headquarter buildings which can then own specific building levels of industries they care about, determining its profitability from and providing their throughput bonuses only to these. While we cannot provide a concrete timeline for that change at this point, it is something we would like to tackle for one of our next free updates.

That’s it for today. Check back next week when Mikael is going to walk you through what changes 1.7 and Sphere of Influence brings to relations and interactions between Overlords and Subjects, including how these foreign investment mechanics relate to your grip over your extended empire.

Overview for all upcoming Dev Diaries:
Date Topic
4th AprilSubject Interactions
11th AprilLobbies and More on Power Blocs
18th AprilThe Great Game
25th AprilThe Art of Sphere of Influence
2nd MayChangelog 1.7
 
  • 189Love
  • 123Like
  • 9
  • 8
  • 3
Reactions:
These are excellent changes Team V3, love your work :)

from fleets being able to go anywhere in the globe (they should be limited to a range from their HQ)

Agreed, although important to bear in mind it was possible to base fleets from friendly ports in some situations - but certainly agree they shouldn't be popping up everywhere with geography only impacting time-to-arrival.

Personally, I think it does make sense that government-run buildings work less efficiently. If the private sector were in charge of a government's bureaucratic system for example, it would very likely see efficiency improvements. But maybe that's just a faulty perception being a German ;)
In any case, we will keep an eye on this feedback when SoI releases of course and are happy to adjust it if it really doesn't work well.

Strongly support this. There is a huge body of evidence pointing to the difficulties of avoiding graft and inefficiency in the public sector. It can be done, but even in the present-day it's really only possible in well-run democratic states with robust and culturally-supported values and very strong rule of law. In the 19th century, state-owned enterprises often involved nepotism and "favours for mates" leading to inefficiency and lower levels of profits, notwithstanding the potential reduction in effective incentivisation of efficient work practices. And, of course, without very careful incentivisation of public-sector assets (and this is again something we don't do terribly well in the 21st century, and were certainly worse in the 19th - there are some successful contemporary examples, but plenty of contemporary failures as well) then state-owner businesses can lack the incentivisation from price signals to encourage efficient work practices and allocation of resources.

The other big thing is that there's a strong disincentive for governments to close down state enterprises to redirect capital to more efficient areas, due to the political cost of directly creating unemployment, which adds some "long-cycle" inefficiencies as well.
 
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Yeah, we have actually investigated splitting PM ownership but it's really complex.
Maybe one day :crossed_fingers:

Could at least it be determined by who has the majority share? Like, if GB Aristocrats have 60% of Rubber Plantations in Amazonas, then GB decides the PM instead of Brazil.

During initial testing we discovered that nationalization felt like an auto-click button basically that you would always want to press. So we added more consequences on all ends pretty much.
Personally, I think it does make sense that government-run buildings work less efficiently. If the private sector were in charge of a government's bureaucratic system for example, it would very likely see efficiency improvements. But maybe that's just a faulty perception being a German
In any case, we will keep an eye on this feedback when SoI releases of course and are happy to adjust it if it really doesn't work well.

(lmao at the disagrees here)

I think the issue is that, while nationalization cannot be an obvious option, forcing a Bureaucracy cost means some really stupid construction queues where you keep having to build Government Administrstion levels only to downsize them after privatizing. Would it be possible to, say, increase the bureaucrats' upkeep, such as by increasing their wages?
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Will agricultural buildings still have clergymen with state atheism?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The new system looks really nice! It seems like it will increase the depth of the economic simulation by a lot, looking forward to it!

I am a bit concerned about how this will affect the investment pool. Currently, it gets contributions from (nearly) all the dividends in your country, and is only used to pay for private construction. But now, the state can get dividends from owned building levels, AND can sell those buildings to private owners for cash from the investment pool. So in effect, it sounds like the government will be taking money from the pool from both ends, the input and the output. In the extreme case of the government immediately selling all buildings they build (like in Laissez-Faire economies), the investment pool would effectively be paying for 100% of the construction in the country, on the same budget they had before. I suppose this could be somewhat compensated for by private ownership of more profitable foreign buildings. At least in my experience, the investment pool often has trouble keeping up with the private construction share already, and the government usually has to take on some extra load. Do the devs have any inkling of how the investment pool is performing with these changes in place?
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The new system looks really nice! It seems like it will increase the depth of the economic simulation by a lot, looking forward to it!

I am a bit concerned about how this will affect the investment pool. Currently, it gets contributions from (nearly) all the dividends in your country, and is only used to pay for private construction. But now, the state can get dividends from owned building levels, AND can sell those buildings to private owners for cash from the investment pool. So in effect, it sounds like the government will be taking money from the pool from both ends, the input and the output. In the extreme case of the government immediately selling all buildings they build (like in Laissez-Faire economies), the investment pool would effectively be paying for 100% of the construction in the country, on the same budget they had before. I suppose this could be somewhat compensated for by private ownership of more profitable foreign buildings. At least in my experience, the investment pool often has trouble keeping up with the private construction share already, and the government usually has to take on some extra load. Do the devs have any inkling of how the investment pool is performing with these changes in place?
Yeah, at first glance it looks like this is pretty big a nerf to private construction and pushes more of the construction decisions back to the player. Which may be good or bad depending on preference. Hopefully it will be balanced to not be too far that direction.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Command Economy does not actually make this instant on enactment anymore, you have to actively nationalize non-state owned buildings after enacting it and either compensate the owners or seize them by force. It's also possible to simply leave some vestiges of a private economy in place (though it won't grow).
If my capitalists own some buildings in some foreign countries, can I try to nationalize these oversea buildings? Will my capitalists refuse and raise a rebellion?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Could at least it be determined by who has the majority share? Like, if GB Aristocrats have 60% of Rubber Plantations in Amazonas, then GB decides the PM instead of Brazil.
Yeah this could be a solution, even if only a temporary one. Just seems like it's too easy to exploit if we control the PMs for the foreign owned buildings in our country. This would ensure that we wouldn't control the PMs if the majority of the buildings in that state are foreign owned.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Are all PMs for privately owned buildings still in the hands of the player? It seems a bit odd to me that with something like laizzes faire that the player/government is unable to own any buildings except for government infrastructure, but can apparently still mandate that all furniture manufacturers in the country still use crude tools instead of electric lathes with the press of a button.

Would be nice to see some automation of PMs based on availability of inputs for privately owned buildings I think.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
During initial testing we discovered that nationalization felt like an auto-click button basically that you would always want to press. So we added more consequences on all ends pretty much.
Personally, I think it does make sense that government-run buildings work less efficiently. If the private sector were in charge of a government's bureaucratic system for example, it would very likely see efficiency improvements. But maybe that's just a faulty perception being a German ;)
In any case, we will keep an eye on this feedback when SoI releases of course and are happy to adjust it if it really doesn't work well.
If its a matter of balance perhaps nationalizing buildings should make people VERY mad and not only the people affected but also people who could be affected. Also maybe industrialist and landowners should get an approval malaise based on the percent of buildings (that they would own(so farms and plantations for land owners and industrial buildings for industrialists)) is government owned as merchants and the like trying to abolish crown monopolies or crown corporations was a thing historically around this time period and makes perfect sense.

There is no reason it would be less efficient, in the real world looking at government run and private firms that do the same thing under very similar conditions such as utilities what u see is the exact opposite government utilities are consistently more reliable/offer better service while also being cheaper if thats not more efficient idk what is.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Today: Please open the door, we are here to alleviate poverty!
Ha. Leaving subsistence farms should result in a SoL drop. Then recover a bit. Then stagnate. Then star to decline, and the wealth gap grows larger and larger. Because the biggest source GDP "growth", inflation and impoverishment hasn't been implemented yet - rent.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
There is no reason it would be less efficient, in the real world looking at government run and private firms that do the same thing under very similar conditions such as utilities what u see is the exact opposite government utilities are consistently more reliable/offer better service while also being cheaper if thats not more efficient idk what is.
Corruption in state owned enterprise is and was very real- according to the literature I've read only the most modern governance methods in the least corrupt countries manage to mitigate exposure to the increased corruption risk that state ownership poses. The victorian era was much laxer about corruption and didn't have those methods, so it makes perfect sense that they would be less efficient. Why government utilities specifically can manage to provide better services than private ones nowadays is more complicated and is also OT.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
I dont think it makes sense to have a bureaucracy cost state buildings surely thats covered in the operational cost of the building itself, and it sounds unbelievably annoying in the late to mid game when u are building atleast a building a week and ur going to have to sprinkle in government admins constantly which combined with the fact that up to 80% of the money u get from dividends can just magically disappear this may just death spiral u on the late game.

Also u should not have to go to war to nationalize assets the other nation should have to go to war to keep their assets.
Tbh, the disappearing dividends must go.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Because of this it no longer makes sense for players to be in charge of both public and private investments simultaneously, and as such the Directly Controlled Investment Pool rule has had to be removed for 1.7 and beyond.
After reading the dev I was not very clear, and taking into account this, will the player still be able to build factories and other buildings as in the current version, even regardless of what economic law has? or all that will be left to AI control?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
After reading the dev I was not very clear, and taking into account this, will the player still be able to build factories and other buildings as in the current version, even regardless of what economic law has? or all that will be left to AI control?
Yes, the player will still control a significant share of construction. It's not immediately clear whether the actual player share in construction will go up or down, subject to balancing.
It's what happens after construction that changed a lot.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The more I look at all this, the more I find fully automated PMs inevitable for all industries except 100% government-owned.
Manual PM control never made sense from a simulation/RP point of view, it was never a fun mechanics to interact with either. And now it also adds exploits to mess with foreign investment.

Please fix substitution calculations and let industries decide for themselves how they want to operate to maximise profits.
 
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I like how this changes the topology of the world economy, but will there be any changes to qualifications/employment? At the moment any country can join a large customs market and produce lots of advanced industry, which makes every country feel like it plays broadly the same in terms of constructing buildings and setting PMs.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I have a question though. Let's take a random country, say... Russia.

If they become Communist, what happens to the accumulated wealth both from their domestic manor houses and capitalists....? What happens also to those lands and industries that belong to them, and to foreign capitalists? Would such a communist regime keep recognizing those, or would such a regime automatically nationalize them at the foreign capitalist's expense? Would an event simulating something akind to the repudiation of all sovereign debts by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution trigger?
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Will we be able to propose to another country (where we, as the state, have stakes at enterprises/factories) to sell these enterprises? Or maybe even use it to sway this country in diplomatic plays ("if you support me in this war, you can have those profitable iron mines I'd built!")?
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Very cool. I am very pleased that a step has finally been taken to add companies as economic entities that own buildings. Perhaps for the first time since the game was released, I am pleased with the direction the game is developing. I will very carefully consider purchasing the game now.
 
  • 1
Reactions: