Whether or not goods would be best condensed, increased in number, or left in the status quo has emerged as a matter of some debate already. Here's my two cents:
Regarding Generalization and Simplification of Manufactured Products in Victoria and its Relation to Historical Reality and the Player's Economic Advantages Within the Game: an Argument Based upon Historical Trends in International Relations, Domestic Micro-and Macroeconomic Policy, Commercial Demographics of Colonization, and the Experiment of Simplification of VIP:R 0.3
I would have to say I'm opposed to this development in general but not without exception. Although it may seem like an advantage to the player not to have to deal with multiple factories and inputs for the sake of simplicity, the disadvantageous aspects of this simplification make it into a greater setback as well as presenting a historical inaccuracy. The most rational solution to this question of Generalization/Simplification is that gameplay will allow for greater economic options while satisfying the criteria of historical accuracy and economic reality is that raw materials and manufactured products alike should remain separate unless the relevant circumstances of production including environment/geography, historical point of widespread production(if relevant to technology), and raw materials of input of multiple goods belonging to a single category are either identical or extremely similar.
To illustrate this I'd like to draw on the latest release of the Victoria Improvement Project, where consumer goods were lumped together. Don't get me wrong, I think VIP is a fantastic improvement upon the vanilla model, but this particular feature has come to represent my sole criticism of it.
For those of you not yet familiar with it, here's the breakdown:
How Consumer Goods Were Changed in VIP:R 0.3
1)Luxury furniture and luxury clothing were merged into a single product called Luxury Goods. The luxury goods factory requires silk, tropical wood, and a small amount of gold as inputs.
2)Regular furniture and regular clothes were just renamed furniture and clothing
3)Telephones and Radios were merged into the new product of technological goods.
The third item doesn't really bother me as the original products had essentially the same inputs, but the first item makes it more difficult and less profitable to produce luxuries. How? Well, if the player takes on the role of a major power then with the exception of Austria the historical path includes overseas expansion and the establishment of a colonial empire to a larger or smaller degree, and the primary economic benefit of doing so is raw materials which aren't available domestically (silk, rubber, and tropical wood).
In more detail, let's look at...
Economic Theory, International Relations, and Colonial Expansion Relating to Important Rare or Monopolized Goods
Total free trade was not a feature of national policy for any colonial power and so protectionist measures were a permanent feature of the global market in this regard (the UK notably favored a free-trade argument much of the time but never removed tariff barriers entirely) and so totally open markets weren't a reality even though the Mercantilist system of market control that Adam Smith strove to prove was counterproductive and harmful (did you know that Smith actually invented that word to characterize the policy he was trying to undermine? I learned this just a few days ago from reading an intellectual history on capitalism in western thought- apparently Mercantilism wasn't really referred to as anything in particular by its advocates when it was widespread earlier) was long absent. As such there was greater development force behind the manufacturing of consumer goods within a single European colonial power for those goods for which the inputs could be obtained domestically or from colonial imports and no further expense would be incurred. This was primarily intended to discourage foreign competition in the sale of identical goods but extended to goods which were unavailable except through trade as well.
In corporate strategy and understanding of business on microeconomic level there is also an inherit advantage in control of the entire process of manufacturing called vertical expansion or vertical integration. In the present outsourcing, the logical opposite has become popular in western firms but this reversal is the result of the decline of manufacturing sector's importance and profitability relative to that of the service sector, a purely contemporary phenomenon.
In both the 19th as well as the early 20th century the genuine economic benefit received by nations engaged in colonialism was overplayed but should not be underplayed in the present.
By 1914 after the rush was over and only a few independent non-Western states remained on the globe there was an argument (one that became far more popular from 1916 onwards) put forth by socialist thinkers that claimed European colonial imperialism was driven strongly by the search for new markets by European capitalists who were reluctant to invest domestically because the rate of return was too low and overproduction of manufactured consumer goods had made competition in domestic sales less enviable. Capitalist greed, it went on, was causing a massive problem in trade relations and the domestic social realm because rather than compete further to drive down prices for the urban working poor or lose a competitive edge by increasing their salaries to allow them to purchase more consumer goods capitalists were instead focusing on new consumer markets within colonies until the same situation happened there and newer frontiers were needed. Lenin put forth this exact argument in 1916 after disillusionment with the results and perplexity at the causes of the Great War had replaced much of the initial nationalist ferver in all participating powers and explained the Great War as the inevitable result of imperialism.
At the time this rhetoric helped bring about a resurgence in popularity of socialist and communist ideas, but the statistical evidence of the decade immediately prior actually refutes the argument entirely. From 1900-1910 there was no absence or any significant decline of domestic investment in Europe compared to the five preceding decades and although investment geared towards exploiting untapped markets abroad was a reality, European powers didn't invest very much in their own colonies for the same reason that European territorial expansion had been so rapid and relatively easy: these areas of the world were undeveloped and poor. Most foreign investment from countries like France and the UK went into already partially developed economies which gave a concrete indication of further improvement such as the Balkan nations, and Turkey and Iraq in the Ottoman empire.
Also, a it's well-known that a great many colonies produced net expense not because of any mismanagement or economic exhaustion but because the purpose of acquiring it in the first place was strategic and not economic and the cost of maintaining a military presence was an accepted reality. British Sudan is a perfect example as is the technically "independent" semi-autonomous administration of Egypt. Since India was an extremely profitable colonial possession there were obvious British interests in maintaining a secure sea route to it and the advent of the Suez Canal made this shorter and potentially much more simple. Of course the Suez Canal itself provided revenue from tolls to a set of European investors and hence represented a direct gain, the economic activity of the rest of Egypt was relatively inconsequential as was any potential for contributing to the European market for luxury goods. Deciding against direct control, British political interests were satisfied with a subservient and friendly regime and neglect for Egypt past that point. Eventually that regime became notoriously neglectful as well and corruption, poverty, and crime reached astonishing levels as society suffered under the burden of these issues.
Interestingly social and economic conditions in India experienced a sharply contrasted history under the rule of both the East India Company and later the British government and both paid close attention to the state of its colony, resulting in an extensive railway network being created relatively early on. This developed in parallel with an extremely effective and cost-efficient network of administrative government. The personnel required to maintain effective administration over an entire province would often be limited to a handful of educated and capable officials and a single company of soldiers (the Brits were famous for this sort of achievement everywhere in their overseas possessions and it was acknowledged universally even by staunch opponents of colonial imperialism- even Gandhi was willing to openly give them recognition for good management in this regard and once stated something along the lines of "good government is still no substitute for self-government".
A variation of this trend existed in the Congo Free State, a colony owned personally by Leopold II and operated entirely independent of the Belgian government, with the marked difference being the absence of long-term economic development. Short-term development in the form of an extensive railway line and the maintainence of the Force Publique were present and significant in size, even if the latter's only purpose was large-scale intimidation and extortion of native populations to force them to procure rubber. Eventually it became the tool by which one of the largest humanitarian disasters in recorded history was carried out in the name of one man's personal gain, but this paramilitary organization represented the same high level of commitment in terms of operating expense as a national army.
So economic investment in colonies was only ever a significant feature of regions posing extremely viable opportunities for contribution to the larger market, with the primary advantage of colonial possession being the establishment of control over all the materials and factors required for vertically integrated production of goods all within the political control of a single national market.
What Exactly Went Wrong the Experiment of Condensation in VIP:R 3 and What we Can Learn From it
In Victoria, the manufacture of luxuries as a high return-generating industry and the exploitation of advantageous resource control was realistic in its separation; if the player's empire included silk RGO's then the obvious path of greatest profit was luxury clothes, which required silk as an input. If tropical wood RGO's, luxury furniture became a viable option.
The interesting thing about Victoria, I believe, is that in this instance its extensive realism in reflecting history is so marvelously designed to account for so many potential variables that the introduction of that isn't right, an inaccurate representation historically and economically in the game mechanics causes a poorly-functioning final result that differs from the desired effect of the change... yes, you could claim historical inaccuracy and gameplay mechanics difficulty in this instance just coincidentally happen to be present at the same time and the same place, but I can't help but feel that the masterful simulation of Vicky is reinforced in its awe-inspiring achievement in this particular instance. Even if its purely a coincidence, I can't see how (proper, not botched out of technical errors) modification of details this intricate could produce these two effects in- well, any other strategy game that's ever been made. As a strategic simulation of so many different aspects of recorded history as Vicky1 is I feel strongly optimistic about what the sequel will bring.
Hurray for Paradox!
Producing luxury goods in VIP:R 0.3 requires either national control of three rare and expensive resources, two of which can be found only in limited geographical areas or importation of foreign goods.
The former is extremely specific in its direction of economy-driven colonial expansion (either get ready to grab land in places potentially very far apart or make war on China) instead of the original model which allowed economic capitalization on key strengths and motivated economic specialization, another important development championed by Adam Smith.
The latter isn't necessarily out of the question but keep in mind that unless the ruling party supports free trade and only free trade, imports are 2x as expensive. Though it varies from nation to nation, the option of adopting a free trade policy is often present only with laissez-faire government regulation policy, in which case you'd better hope that your capitalists maximize the growth of luxury goods manufacturing on their own because the player sacrifices the ability to create the incentive of capitalizing on it in order to make capitalizing on it profitable. Catch 22. Two separate products
Besides which, when you think of individual goods which would involve combining silk, gold, and tropical wood as well as the necessary processes of textile production, metalworking, and woodworking directed by a single firm taking place under one roof in one single factory, isn't it a bit of a stretch to assume the existence of more than one possible finished good resulting from all three of these? Even if you want to go ahead and assume that multiple products are emerging as the final result, how frequently is anything made of silk, anything made of gold, and anything made of tropical wood going to be marketed together? The circumstances of jewelers, department store operators, and furniture/other wood items providers seem very far removed from each other. What retail store sells all three of those things at one place? (I know what the obvious answer that comes to mind is, but of course Wal-Mart had a long time to go before becoming a reality)
What does this entail in practice?
Well, thankfully the author of this post (me) has a total inability to stop thinking intently about everything all the time so here's what I came up with:
Proposal for Systematized and Methodological Determining Appropriateness of Simplification- A Template to allow Any Good to be Addressed
As outlined at the start, condensing goods should require an affirmative answer to all or at least almost all of the following criteria:
Non-Specific Criteria of goods
-Do the goods fall into the same category as either manufactured or non-manufactured products?
-Do the goods fall into the same category as either consumer goods or capital goods?
-Are there similar or at least traditional cultural associations with the goods, or is there an absence of cultural conflict between them? (for example, alcohol doesn't traditionally go well with Islam for obvious reasons)
-Does one of the goods represent a much less significant constituent part in the effort, scale, environmental concern, and organization of the production process of all combined goods needed for one pursuit or complementary in nature(paper, pens, and stationary as mentioned above) which can legitimately be marginalized?
-If the goods are alternative goods of one another, does reasonable speculation suggest that no significant factors would separate their prices and availability nor create strong consumer incentive for one over the other?
-Are the goods typically marketed together or offered at the same type of retail or wholesale sales establishment by a single firm?
-Are the goods typically priced on the same level?
If the goods in question aren't manufactured products
-Do they share the same production requirements of geography and climate, and other environmental factors?
-Do the goods require similar methods of extraction? -or- similar levels of labor and organization to grow and harvest?
If the goods in question are manufactured products
-Are the manufacturing inputs of the goods similar? -or- are the manufacturing inputs a common combination?
-Is there a strong connection in the historical tradition of manufacturing by which the goods in their present state are based upon in their development? (for example, the chemistry behind explosive powder with its origins associated with China may have led to all weapons and tools using it, but artillery became a standard feature of armies in Europe quickly because prior to its proliferation there was a pre-existing manufacturing tradition of heavy metal casting widespread in Europe to produce church bells and so small arms, explosives, and artillery would not be condensed into a single "armament" product-in relations between western and non-western peoples in the 19th century the lower production cost, lower difficulty to operate and maintain, and smaller size of small arms meant that they could find their way via trade to essentially anyone, but the presence or absence of artillery pieces and the resources required to operate and maintain them effectively meant a vast difference in relations if Westerners weren't the sole possessors of this advantage)
-Do the goods represent a fairly short technological difference chronologically in history?(50 years and you're really stretching this one thin)
So ultimately pencil factories as well as the potential over-abundance as a future problem- are out of the question:rofl:
There are other criteria that could be applied but I'll just leave it at that. My goal is to provide a template for differences in products not only for the goods that exist in the current Vicky, but more widely for any items which might be added. If two goods fall short of the requirements, they should remain separate. Hopefully this will help for a balance in which diversity of products can exist but in a manner which prevents needless additional goods