• 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:
Will the penalties for government owned buildings be removed/reduced for command economies? If your economic system is entirely geared towards state ownership, it would make sense that the penalties aren’t as bad as under a different system (e.g. interventionism)
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I notice that no changes about construction queue and construction sector are mentioned, but I wonder why I must build these construction sectors myself and give a part of them for pops to use? Besides I have to pay the wages of these construction sectors······ I hope you have had plans for this, but I think maybe you could replace "construction sectors" with "construction companies". These companies can be possessed by Financial Districts and Manor Houses, or by the nations, workers etc. They produce goods "constructions" and need stuff and staff to produce, and they earn or suffer from losses like other profitable buildings. When building, these constructions are needed to keep building, and when the building is finished they are no longer needed.
And about investment pool, I don't think you need a nation-wide, unified investment pool. Now that we have ownership, maybe these Financial Districts and Manor Houses could have their own, individual investment pools for them to invest. And they buy constructions to build for themselves! Workers use money in the investment pool which mostly come from capitalists and aristocrats, weird. Of course this would lead to serious performance disaster so I guess it's hard to make it works?
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Thanks for your suggestion.
I'll see if that'd be a feasible alternative to employ bureaucrats. I do see some problems with it though which I'll need to investigate first.
Wouldn't it be a cleaner solution to create a third ownership type for government owned buildings? Like a Ministry of Economics Affairs (name could be different in every country), situated in the capital state. It would employ bureaucrats (or a different pop, maybe depending on PM) and/or costs bureaucracy based on amount of building levels owned, which profits would go straight to the treasury. That sticks better to the design philosophy I think.
 
Last edited:
  • 8Like
Reactions:
Thanks for the info, and of course your work. :)

Regarding the construction itself: Will there be maluses / bonuses regarding the necessary construction costs (and points and time) for building something in a foreign country with different (inferior) tech levels?

I consider this one as an important immersion issue (for me): Building a plantation in the middle of Nowhere Central Africa - especially on foreign ground with lower tech and less specialized construction personnel - should definitely be more expensive (more points, more money) and/or take longer than building another steel mill in (construction points + tech-overfilled) US-Pennsylvania.

Btw: This one should go for all building-constructions, the local construction points + country techs + local personnel (+ foreign country laws => corruption costs) could really have a bit more of influence... :)
Very true, the obvious solution is to make construction a local good, like services and transport. Every subsistence building provides a small amount of construction while other buildings consume a bit (think building maintenance) and construction sectors sells their product (construction points) for a profit like almost every other building. The build queue remains and you can have a limited amount of building projects active at any given time, subject to tech and laws.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Apologies for my poor English, but can I build factories for my subject or country within my power bloc to develop their economy, just like what the Soviet Union did in the 20th century for other communist countries?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Apologies for my poor English, but can I build factories for my subject or country within my power bloc to develop their economy, just like what the Soviet Union did in the 20th century for other communist countries?

Yes. Factories, but also mines, farms and plantations. You will be able to develop the economy of your subjects like you said.

If you buy the DLC you will also be able to invest in countries which are not your subjects. But you will need to have a diplomatic pact with them to do so.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes. Factories, but also mines, farms and plantations. You will be able to develop the economy of your subjects like you said.

If you buy the DLC you will also be able to invest in countries which are not your subjects. But you will need to have a diplomatic pact with them to do so.
Thank you, but can i directly control what i want to build, or it will be build automatically?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Two questiones
1. Can player(state) directly invest in other countries
2. As explained foreign investment gives dividents while goods stay in the original market, then how would every other country compete for the produced goods. For example, Germany invest a whole lot in Middle East oil field, what if all the oil is traded and bought by Britain? Would Germany gets somehow advantages in trading these goods
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You can choose what to build, and your pops can choose to invest, I believe.
Invest in buying buildings constructed by you or constructing buildings themselves.

Whatever they decide is more profitable for their limited investment pool.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Can I just confirm:
1) If i invest in oil fields in Persia as Russia - do i get access to that oil in Russian market or does it stay in Persian market and my pop just gets the cash dividents/wealth?

The latter. You'll have to trade for it or be part of the same market to access the resource.

That's a shame. It would be a nice way to get access to very rare resources in late game without wars provided you could invest in those areas. Missed opportunity here i feel. Maybe some sort of split between markets?

I disagree- why would the oil produced locally in a separate market be moved to your market just because you own a piece of it?

I mean fair i might be totally wrong. But wouldn't Russian company owning oil want to sell it to home market? Just to continue the analogy.

@Vesser got quite a few "respectfully disagrees" fot these posts, but I would suggest that this indeed deserves another look in the future.

For example, Article 1 of the D'Arcy Concession, which laid the foundation for British exploitation of Iranian oil resources, says:

The Government of His Imperial Majesty the Shah grants to the concessionnaire by these presents a special and exclusive privilege to search for, obtain, exploit, develop, render suitable for trade, carry away and sell natural gas petroleum, asphalt and ozokerite throughout the whole extent of the Persian Empire for a term of sixty years as from the date of these presents.

The same can be said for rubber concessions, such as the (failed) attempt by the Ford Motor Company to get rubber from Brazil (Fordlândia) or the Firestone concession in Liberia. These are examples of how concessions by-passed the local market.

So maybe there should be a distinction between "run-of-the-mill" foreign direct investment that works the way outlined by the devs here, and natural resource concessions that put the good into the market of the country that owns the plantations/mines/etc.

Perhaps companies could be the way to model concessions: whenever a company owns a natural resource building, it is treated as a "concession", by-passing the local market. All other foreign investments work the way it is currently implemented.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I
@Vesser got quite a few "respectfully disagrees" fot these posts, but I would suggest that this indeed deserves another look in the future.

For example, Article 1 of the D'Arcy Concession, which laid the foundation for British exploitation of Iranian oil resources, says:



The same can be said for rubber concessions, such as the (failed) attempt by the Ford Motor Company to get rubber from Brazil (Fordlândia) or the Firestone concession in Liberia. These are examples of how concessions by-passed the local market.

So maybe there should be a distinction between "run-of-the-mill" foreign direct investment that works the way outlined by the devs here, and natural resource concessions that put the good into the market of the country that owns the plantations/mines/etc.

Perhaps companies could be the way to model concessions: whenever a company owns a natural resource building, it is treated as a "concession", by-passing the local market. All other foreign investments work the way it is currently implemented.
I agree that FDI made by governments should take another shape by the way of goods contracts that force the nations involved to provide certain goods for a period of time in exchange of money and tech.

Thread 'Government Foreign Investment'
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/government-foreign-investment.1644673/
 
  • 1
Reactions:
@Vesser got quite a few "respectfully disagrees" fot these posts, but I would suggest that this indeed deserves another look in the future.

For example, Article 1 of the D'Arcy Concession, which laid the foundation for British exploitation of Iranian oil resources, says:



The same can be said for rubber concessions, such as the (failed) attempt by the Ford Motor Company to get rubber from Brazil (Fordlândia) or the Firestone concession in Liberia. These are examples of how concessions by-passed the local market.

So maybe there should be a distinction between "run-of-the-mill" foreign direct investment that works the way outlined by the devs here, and natural resource concessions that put the good into the market of the country that owns the plantations/mines/etc.

Perhaps companies could be the way to model concessions: whenever a company owns a natural resource building, it is treated as a "concession", by-passing the local market. All other foreign investments work the way it is currently implemented.
I would argue that this dynamic can be achieved already by simply having the country being invested in part of the investor's custom union (and let's be honest, 95%+ of the time, we'll be investing in our own customs union).

That said, being able to add parts of another country (be it a sector or a province) to our own custom's union would be an interesting dynamic. For example, I think the state where you have a treaty port should be part of your customs union and not the hosting country. In this way China can be colonised while still remaining a "whole" political entity.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
Yeah, possibly.
One thing we wanted to avoid is that people don't get confused with the state that the building is located in. There's no ownership by Normandy, Picardy and Burgundy, only French is what we wanted to make clear. :D
If you want to call it state-owned you're welcome to do so and we will understand.
"Government-owned" would be my second choice then.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So maybe there should be a distinction between "run-of-the-mill" foreign direct investment that works the way outlined by the devs here, and natural resource concessions that put the good into the market of the country that owns the plantations/mines/etc.
To be honest, I really hope that this will be expanded later in a way of creating another types of "treaty" "ports" that are not treaty and not ports (and maybe even not holy): provinces sold / rented for industrial development, for plantations, for naval bases or barracks, etc. I am doing this kind of thing in a mod now, but with the exception of treaty port all provinces should be referenced by ID, so it is impossible to dynamically get a "farm hub" province or "neighbouring to the forestry hub" province.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If you ever rework the "market shares" and "publicly traded": this is a great base for that. Seeing capitalists trade levels between each other or buying from workers/state on some sort of "Stock Exchange UI" would be amazing.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I am very curious about the performance with this update. I guess that the game is going to be faster is unlikely?

I am not sure. I guess the changes to ownership will increase performance. A major cause of slowdown is pop proliferation and this update should reduce this by splitting ownership from the building.

Currently in game every building has its own set of owners, so every building will have 5, 10, 20, 30 capitalist and shopkeeper pops (multiplied by number of cultures and religions). With the update ownership is concentrated in 1 or 2 buildings (financial centres and manor houses), which means you'll have 1 set of arisocrats, 1 set of capitalist and 1 set of shopkeepers per state (multiplied by number of cultures and religions).

That should improve performance, but I do not know what impact the new dividend calculations will have.
 
  • 1
Reactions: