• 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
 
  • 190Love
  • 123Like
  • 9
  • 8
  • 3
Reactions:
Very interesting, however , while it's probably a balance thing, It feels weird that we have to wage a war to confiscate assets in our territory, it would make more sence if after trying to nationalise, the other country would be able to attack the nationalising one, to enforce its reparation+keep its factories.

Imagine a communist revolution in Russia, I don't feel like they would need to take London in order to get ownership of some british canned pork factory
On the one hand, I understand that the Nationalisation is a literal Diplomatic Play. There is still the issue about how Diplomatic Plays can't always be resolved amicably, which should be high next on the list of features we need in (in an ideal world, the Trade States interaction would be a Diplomatic Play itself).

However, I agree that being the nationalisator the one that would be setting up a war feels weird and wrong, and would make more sense that Nationalisation would accrew infamy with other players and worsen relations, and agree on offering the opponent a special Casus Belli for restoring the statu quo (maybe via an event for the affected country: Choose between letting it go, worsening relations between each other or going to war to maintain the enforcement + forcing open investment on the target).

Although, it might be a way to simplify the process and make it less simulated and more functional.
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Regarding foreign investment, whose technology level determines if it's possible to build a building or it's production methods?

For example, can you build a railroad in a country that doesn't have the technology or use advanced methods like dynamite if the country it is built in doesn't have the technology?
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Will some IGs oppose nationalization or privatization on principle? I mean in addition to some of their members getting slightly pissed off (which will unlikely scale well and matter for large countries).
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
How does this interact with technology? If the UK buys buildings in Iran, can those buildings use British PMs or are they stuck with Iranian PMs? Is there a mechanism to build buildings that Iran hasn't unlocked yet, like oil fields?
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Thanks for using shortcuts like PM without explaining them ever. Much appreciated!
This already a huge infrastructure change and they've clearly thoughtfully built out the system such that they can add Company HQ's in the (near?) future? I don't think that it's too much of a leap to assume they didn't add company ownership for this patch because they would also like to include automated PM's by level under company control and un editable by the player under LF. It will come probably at the end of this year or next year.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Very nice, can't wait! Love the the new impacts and implications that the different economic laws will now have!

Let's say I build an iron mine in my subjects state. It is now controlled by me, the state. If I have Laissez-Faire it will then go on the market to become privatized. Can capitalist of my subject by them from me? It probably depends on whether they have Invistiment Rights, right?

If I build in foreign country A, who is able to buy the building once it's privatized? Can pops from another country B which also has Investment Rights for country A buy them? Or do they also need Investment Rights in my country?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Some thougts:
  1. Will consolidation of upper strata pops in manor houses and financial districts significantly impact total pop counts, and can this help performance?
  2. Are revolt tags able to nationalize/alter building ownership? Seems like this could get annoying in cases where the revolution is unsuccessful.
I didn't even consider that. It totally should consolidate upper class pops to only a few per state, wouldnt it? Lategame you often have every building in some states so you'd cut upper class pops by a lot. Although it might be compensated by having every investment pool consider building in every corner of the world permitting foreign investment instead of only your own in those calculations.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Very interesting, however , while it's probably a balance thing, It feels weird that we have to wage a war to confiscate assets in our territory, it would make more sence if after trying to nationalise, the other country would be able to attack the nationalising one, to enforce its reparation+keep its factories.

Imagine a communist revolution in Russia, I don't feel like they would need to take London in order to get ownership of some british canned pork factory
Few things I'd like to point out. The wargoal's use is likely ending up as the separate war goal more often than being used as a primary one. So you'd throw it onto other diplomatic pacts I'd imagine.
The war goal is also not going to be the primary way of nationalizing another country's assets. The most used for this will likely be cancelling their investment rights, then using the nationalize button and paying them (or not, suffering consequences to relations and radicals and such).
The "casus belli" idea you're pitching does sound cool though. Not quite how we thought about this and would require some work, but maybe something like that could work in the future.
 
  • 22Like
  • 16
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Few things I'd like to point out. The wargoal's use is likely ending up as the separate war goal more often than being used as a primary one. So you'd throw it onto other diplomatic pacts I'd imagine.
The war goal is also not going to be the primary way of nationalizing another country's assets. The most used for this will likely be cancelling their investment rights, then using the nationalize button and paying them (or not, suffering consequences to relations and radicals and such).
The "casus belli" idea you're pitching does sound cool though. Not quite how we thought about this and would require some work, but maybe something like that could work in the future.
I didn't understand one thing - if I invest in a coal mine in another country, will I receive only money or money and coal? sorry for repeating the question
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
terrible. What's the point of all this then?
What do you mean? If you own a coal mine in someone else's market you get the dividends? If you own a coal mine in your own market you get the coal and the dividends. The coal is still physically produced at the mine and goes to market at the local level, then to the market level. The coal isn't just magically transported onto your market because you own it, you'd still need to setup a trade agreement and import it from the host nation.

FWIW in reality if you live in the US and own an Australian coal mine, the coal still goes to market in Australia
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Lots of cool stuff to see.

While I was contemplating how a foreign investment system would work, I thought of buildings with the right PMs dumping part of their profits into a market-wide "Dividend Pool" which was then divided amongst Capitalists in Financial Center/Stock Exchange buildings (which would generally pop up in the market capital). I didn't think of each individual level of a building being owned separately because I worried it would rap[idly become too complex to deal with or keep track off. I hope it works out though.

Sad to hear of the loss of the directly controlled rule. I don't always play with it, but for countries that don't have access to railroads for a while and thus have a fairly limited infrastructure budget it is all but necessary to have space to build the right things. I'll miss it.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I didn't understand one thing - if I invest in a coal mine in another country, will I receive only money or money and coal? sorry for repeating the question
terrible. What's the point of all this then?
lol

The building sells its product in the market it resides in geographically, and the profits from dividends from levels sponsored by your state are being sent to your country's treasury.
It can give you directly access to the goods, but not necessarily.
 
  • 2
Reactions: