• 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.

Dev Diary #38 – Trade Routes & Tariffs

16_9.jpg

If money is the sinews of war, then trade is the lifeblood of nations and in no period is this truer than the Victorian Era. Victoria 3 takes place in a period of time where the nations of the world pushed this concept further than before, through a period of industrialization and growing interconnectivity of first homelands and colonies and then among nation-states themselves. The trade routes on the map connecting our nations became the fabric that underpins many of the understandings of our modern world today.

But what is trade? It may seem obvious to some but to better understand the systems we need to make sure we understand the foundations they are built upon. Thus, trade is understood to be the movement of goods between two markets as a means of commercial transaction so that the other party is effectively paid for their services. Trade is not conducted between businesses and/or nations but is instead conducted through their national markets and by proxy their trade centers. While this may not seem a meaningful distinction, the market and economy of a nation is not synonymous with its national government; while that government may attempt to influence the economy it does not always have an absolute degree of control over it. Thus the trade that goes on in your market is something that you can influence and encourage (or discourage if you like) but never fully control (unless you are the only nation in existence I guess?).

While trade takes place between national markets at the behest of players and AI, it is conducted in the trade centers of those respective countries. Trade centers function similarly to urban centers, talked about in a previous dev diary. These are not buildings that are constructed manually but develop as a result of their engaging in trade routes as they are representative of the many gray areas of industry that necessitate the collection and movement of goods.

If you were to create an import route of goods for your industries, a resulting level of trade centers would develop within your nation. While urban centers tend to develop where you have placed many industrial buildings, trade centers develop in the market capitals and the ports of your nation. While you cannot paint the placement of trace centers outright, you can influence their development by creating ports in states that are naturally suited to such, where infrastructure and pops are readily available to staff them.

Where there is a port and people, there is likely to be trade, and hopefully profit!
DD38 01.png

Yes, trade centers must be staffed. Goods do not just appear in one nation from the next but require the maintenance of bureaucrats, laborers, clerks, and the like to offload and onload cargo, take account of it, tax it, and move it forward. These are for the most part privately owned enterprises that normally have capitalists in charge, instead of government run services. Without pops staffing your trade centers you will find yourself unable to conduct trade in accordance with your aspirations but that shouldn’t be too hard to manage as trade centers have also been historically known to be centers of migration, the first stop of migrants both domestic and international seeking a better life and sometimes finding it.

All the goods moving to and from New York means it's easier for Pops to hitch a ride.
DD38 02.png

Trade centers collect revenue on both sides of the routes they manage, in relation to how many goods are moved and how much the routes affect the prices in their respective markets. This revenue is allocated to the employees and taxed by the same logic as any industry, so who makes money off your trade is related to your domestic policies in the same way as the rest of your economy.

While trade is something every nation can take a part of, how they affect trade in relation to conducting it efficiently, preventing it when it hurts them, or profiting off of it when they can is dependent upon its trade policies, which also dictate how a nation can utiize embargoes and tariffs to achieve such. Yes that’s right, I said tariffs, cue historical excitement of the fanbase.

Where at first there was one law category, now there are two!
DD38 03.png

We’ve done a little restructuring of the economic laws in Victoria 3 since we wrote the Law dev diary, where originally your economic system affected both your domestic and international situations. It has been broken into economic systems which now cover the domestic economy, and trade policy which covers your international endeavors. As such trade policy governs how you interact with a customs union, your ability to set embargoes and tariffs, as well as the general efficiency of your conducted trade.

The Trade Policy laws are broken down into the four categories of ideology relative to the time period which interact with each of the economic systems you can put into place domestically.
DD38 04.png

Embargos represent the ability of a national government to extend its influence in protecting its national market and subsequent interests. Most, if not all nations can engage in embargoing a good but their effectiveness of doing such is dependent upon the trade policy the national government is centered around. A government centered around the ideas of protectionism has an easier time implementing a more efficient embargo on goods vs those that are committed to a more mercantilism or free trade policy. Notice I said influence, not authority there? While it costs authority to enact taxes domestically it costs influence to place embargos as whether or not they are able to be enforced is dependent upon your ability to influence other nations to respect them. Refusing to make fair trade deals will strain your diplomatic corp.

Protectionism means that not only are embargoes easier to maintain, they are also more efficient.
DD38 05.png

And now for the potentially more controversial statement, embargoes are not absolute. Sure you may embargo trade of a specific good into your country but that’s not going to stop it outright, only hinder the ease of its trade. Another nation might try and continue to push goods into your country but it will certainly require more of an effort to facilitate such, it all depends. In history there’s certainly something we can agree upon, embargoing something, making it illegal, or hindering its trade reduces the flow of the good but does not stop it outright if there is a vested interest by another nation and a profit to be made.

Tariffs are the means where a national government extends its influence as an intermediary in the trade between national markets, if not for the means of protecting its national interests, to at the very least ensure it gets its fair share of the profits that such entails. Tariffs are set on both exports and imports leaving the national economy because yes the government is interested in its fair share and if it cannot get the revenue by means of a consumption tax it will find other means. The ratio of this tariff level is dependent on the trade policy set. A more mercantilist trade policy would seek to ensure exports exceed imports so tariffs on exports will undoubtedly be lower. Protectionism is equal in its ratio as it seeks to shelter the domestic economy from booming or busting on either side of the equation. Free Trade, well free trade cares not for tariffs and seeks to profit through other means.

While the laws set the tariff ratio of import/exports these can be customized further in the budget screen by setting their tax levels. Tax levels don’t just bring in revenues but offer incentives to your economic actors, your pops. Lower tariffs encourage trade while higher tariffs will hinder their efficiency because well if the nation is getting a bigger cut, how motivated can you expect the pop to be in engaging in such trade?

A higher tariff means minimizing the profit to be had by business and disincentivizing trade.
DD38 06.png

So how do treaty ports play into these systems, as they certainly existed during the time period? Treaty ports are a means to ensure that you have access to a national market despite such embargoes and tariffs. They are a wedge in the barriers to trade another nation may put up so the goods may be funneled out of the market. Treaty ports have the special function that they permit the bypassing of embargoes and tariffs set in land adjacent markets through trading. They are a more permanent means of opening the market to your access but in the same vein also require a more permanent investment. Since treaty ports are first and foremost ports they will certainly become trade centers and will require the infrastructure and staffing to function. As you invest in this profitable endeavor, be aware that you will need to protect such from the eyes of other imperialist nations who might seek to take it away from you.

At game start Portugal finds itself holding the Treaty Port of Macao, a very profitable trade endeavor, but will such profits attract the attention of greater powers?
DD38 07.png

How do Customs unions come into play here? If you recall from the previous developer diary, customs unions are an agreement between one or more nations where one nation agrees to subject itself to another's national market. By agreeing to subject your national market to another nation you are agreeing to take on the structure set into place by their economic system and policies. While you are still able to enact trade between that national market and another you lose the ability to set embargoes on specific goods and tariff policies across the market, though you do receive your contributing share of the profit of such tariffs. Sometimes this development can be beneficial, sometimes it can majorly hurt your national sources of income, as the previous dev diary goes to great length to summarize “it depends.”

And that's a bit about trade, tariffs, and more! I may not have succeeded in delivering a concise explanation this time but it's certainly a shorter one. Next week is going to be the Kaiser himself (Johan Jons) to talk about Shipping Lanes. I’ll let the fanbase craft their own conspiracy theories about whether or not we are being literal with that one.
 
Last edited:
  • 182Like
  • 68Love
  • 12
  • 11
  • 8
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
Profitable is a nice phenomenon. However being focused only on profit will get boring and grow dull as gameplay focus as prdx has capped the max. treasury you have and until now chosen the easy way out; avoidance of currencies and assimalating everything into gold BUT capped important note.
Well, the prudent and forward-thinking wannabe businessman gamer would be reinvesting all that profit into more production, more assets, more Capacities, more power, etc, etc.

The game will end well before you can actually max out anything in the game to a point where you are bored.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, the prudent and forward-thinking wannabe businessman gamer would be reinvesting all that profit into more production, more assets, more Capacities, more power, etc, etc.

The game will end well before you can actually max out anything in the game to a point where you are bored.

That could be the case.. But investing requires a time horizont to get money back. If you plan on hoarding enormous amounts of gold for strategic reasons,
say you invest in rejuvenating your agriculture or better clothing industry: 10x factories times say 100K anykind of currency= 1M spend.
Expected profit is 5% say 5K pro factory on average 20 years to pay off your investment
Lets say in short to medium term 3 - 5 years you plan a war..
Short on ca: 750K..
This brings me to new idea where is one national bank, treasury, one strategy could be to invest dispersing its assest also by longstanding alliance.
Making surrender more interesting by sacking the wealth and any other assets, i would go even as far as deassembling intact high value industries (of course u pay money to get it done, partly by engineers and laborers - soldiers?) and copy past them into your own nation.

This could become a more sophisticated strategy by over long term denying the 'enemy' the technological capacity, so basically keep their technological level on a stone age pulse or willingy bad direction to promote competition only say in an industry which their neigbours are effective.
So if game design is well, things emerge you can 'puppeteer' the nation by diplo means and strategic incursions which have an economical character - motive.
 
Last edited:
Could you force other nations to subsidise certain imports/exports in their trade centres? Going beyond a lower tariff/tariff exemption.
Or perhaps to achieve certain import/export quotas?
e.g. If I need more coal for my industry, can I force some country to sell it at a forced lower rate after I win a war against them?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So, didn't see the teaser until now and yes looking at those numbers it seems like that would be a loss/loss trade (assuming that its not a bug that the 53 and 59 are reversed and thats where the profit is in the marginal revenue - Entirely feasible the game is under development after all and bugs are common). Took me awhile to answer this one only because I had to go back and run some marginal revenue calculations to assume I wasn't going crazy because its late here and I am tired.

But lets assume that the trade is unprofitable, well that means there isn't profit to go to the trade centers, which means that they are conducting this trade at a loss. Now this loss may wash out in the many other profitable trades the trade center is conducting. Regardless to some degree this means that less profit is at the trade center, which means salaries are lower because profits are lower - if this was the only trade route well salaries would dry up - pops would look elsewhere for jobs and as a result of not being able to staff your trade center the trade route would not deliver goods.
Does it mean that the railway systems share the same mechanics to earn profit from the price difference between a state and the market center? And if market connection is 100%, there is no price difference, so that pops would look elsewhere for jobs unless you subsidize them.
 
Does it mean that the railway systems share the same mechanics to earn profit from the price difference between a state and the market center?
No, railways make a profit by selling goods (Tickets) to local pops and businesses. This wouldn't work for trade centers, where one side of the trade route is by definition not local.

It is possible for the price of tickets to drop too low for railways to maintain full employment, but generally this should only happen if you've overbuilt them for the needs of the local state. In that case you might need to subsidize the railway to build up a line that's important to the government.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
No, railways make a profit by selling goods (Tickets) to local pops and businesses. This wouldn't work for trade centers, where one side of the trade route is by definition not local.

It is possible for the price of tickets to drop too low for railways to maintain full employment, but generally this should only happen if you've overbuilt them for the needs of the local state. In that case you might need to subsidize the railway to build up a line that's important to the government.
Does the price of tickets is based on the price difference of local & market goods? You see, transporting coal from the source to the market will bring a huge profit from the price difference.
 
No, railways make a profit by selling goods (Tickets) to local pops and businesses. This wouldn't work for trade centers, where one side of the trade route is by definition not local.

It is possible for the price of tickets to drop too low for railways to maintain full employment, but generally this should only happen if you've overbuilt them for the needs of the local state. In that case you might need to subsidize the railway to build up a line that's important to the government.
I have just reviewed the Dev Diary of infrastrure. It seems that Tickets fulfill the need of Passenger Transportation, but how will railways get profits from Goods Transportation?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I have just reviewed the Dev Diary of infrastrure. It seems that Tickets fulfill the need of Passenger Transportation, but how will railways get profits from Goods Transportation?

Some of the later production methods require train tickets to work. The one we saw was linking your factory to the local train network - it required extra train tickets but allowed you to fire hundreds of labourers (since there was now less need to manually move goods around)

And for your other question - as far as I know the price of the train ticket is not based on what the delivery actually is but instead on supply and demand (like every other good in the game).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Some of the later production methods require train tickets to work. The one we saw was linking your factory to the local train network - it required extra train tickets but allowed you to fire hundreds of labourers (since there was now less need to manually move goods around)

And for your other question - as far as I know the price of the train ticket is not based on what the delivery actually is but instead on supply and demand (like every other good in the game).
If the price of the train ticket is not based on supply and demand like other goods, when the market connection is low, the ticket pride in railway state will become lower, due to high local supply..... I am appalled.:oops:
 
If the price of the train ticket is not based on supply and demand like other goods, when the market connection is low, the ticket pride in railway state will become lower, due to high local supply..... I am appalled.:oops:

Remember, one of the things Railways do is provide Infrastructure. Unless you have a high demand for infrastructure far away from your market capital and no connection of sufficient strength the supply and demand of tickets should always be national or close to national.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
when the market connection is low, the ticket pride in railway state will become lower, due to high local supply
If local supply is actually high. But railways are expensive and relatively high-tech buildings that need lots of educated (and well-paid) Engineers and secondary resources such as Engines, which will usually be in short supply in states with low market connection. In that case, cheap Tickets won't pull in enough revenue for the railways to run at full capacity, and they'll lay off workers (reducing their throughput accordingly) until the price of Tickets rises enough to balance their costs.

If your government subsidizes the railway for whatever reason, you might see very cheap ticket prices, but that's the point of subsidies.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't know Paradox, I look at the way tariffs and embargos work and I don't know how I feel about them. Shouldn't tariffs and embargos have a bit more versatility and more options to them? Like flat tariffs for all goods across the boards, rather than being able to customize your economy by setting tariffs per good or something seems like an entire potential mechanic has been reduced to a mere option in the budget window. Embargos I'm a little more unsure about since the Chinese embargo of Opium is a good example for the way it is done in the Dev Diary, but yet maybe setting embargos against single countries could be added as well as a way to control where the flow of your goods go? Also the way that trade is done with total player control over the goods imported into the country is worrying to me. It reminds me of Imperator and Imperator's trade system is the lowest point in that game.

Wouldn't it be a lot more sensible to have imports and exports directed automatically by the industries, mines, and farms in your country, and then have your tariffs, embargos, customs unions, and whatever else affect this flow of trade? It would be a lot more simulation-like and a lot more dynamic, and the results of your own actions as the player can be seen changing the flow of trade in and out of your country, rather than influencing it directly.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
If local supply is actually high. But railways are expensive and relatively high-tech buildings that need lots of educated (and well-paid) Engineers and secondary resources such as Engines, which will usually be in short supply in states with low market connection. In that case, cheap Tickets won't pull in enough revenue for the railways to run at full capacity, and they'll lay off workers (reducing their throughput accordingly) until the price of Tickets rises enough to balance their costs.

If your government subsidizes the railway for whatever reason, you might see very cheap ticket prices, but that's the point of subsidies.
Would the price of Tickets fall lower due to low market connection, and make the balance worse?
 
Would the price of Tickets fall lower due to low market connection, and make the balance worse?
No? The price doesn't inherently drop because of low market connection. Low market connection just means that local factors are a bigger part of the price rather than market-wide factors. (Assuming Tickets can be traded market-wide; Services can't, and I really hope Electricity can't.) If the price of Tickets is higher locally than on the national market, then lower market connection will drive prices higher.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
No? The price doesn't inherently drop because of low market connection. Low market connection just means that local factors are a bigger part of the price rather than market-wide factors. (Assuming Tickets can be traded market-wide; Services can't, and I really hope Electricity can't.) If the price of Tickets is higher locally than on the national market, then lower market connection will drive prices higher.
If there is no local demand of tickets, low market connection will drive prices lower.
 
I really like the immigration boost from trade centers. It creates an organic way for most nations capitals to gain the lions share of the growth without leading to strange situations like Washington DC becoming an ecconomic powerhouse just because the president hangs out there.
Yeah I love how this game is modeling the economy and making it all seem organic. I cant wait to watch those observer time lapses on YT and see the map unfold historically.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: