• 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 #3 - Buildings

ThumbnailTemplate_1920x1080.png

Hello again everyone! It’s Thursday again, and that means that it’s time to talk about Buildings. Buildings are a core mechanic of Victoria 3, as it is where the Pops work to produce resources such as Goods. Buildings represent a wide range of industries, businesses and government functions, from humble subsistence farms to complex motor industries and sprawling financial districts. In this dev diary, we’re going to broadly cover the main types of buildings and their function in Victoria 3.

To talk about buildings though, I first have to mention states! States are a concept that should be generally familiar to anyone who’s played some of our other games such as Victoria II or Hearts of Iron IV - a geographic unit of varying size in which much of Victoria 3’s gameplay takes place. States are where Pops live and (more importantly for our subject matter) where Buildings are located and built.

The State of Götaland in Sweden
dd3_1.png

We will return to states more in later dev diaries, but for now let’s keep talking about Buildings!

Before we start on Buildings, something that’s important to note is that Buildings are just places where Pops can work and generally do not represent a single building - a single level of Government Administration, for example, represents the necessary buildings and infrastructure to support a certain number of Bureaucrats. Buildings always need qualified pops to work in them to yield any benefit, and an empty building is just that - empty and completely useless. This holds true even for buildings like Railroads and Ports that did not need Pops to work in them in Victoria 2.

Most buildings are directly constructed, but some (like the Subsistence Buildings below) will appear automatically based on certain conditions. When Buildings are constructed, the construction uses Pop labor and goods, and the costs involved will be subject to market forces.

But onto the different building types! First out, we have Subsistence Buildings. These are a special type of highly inefficient Buildings that cannot manually be built or destroyed, but rather will appear anywhere in the world where there is Arable Land that isn’t being used for another type of building. The vast majority of the world’s population starts the game ‘working’ in subsistence buildings as Peasants, and much of the game’s industrialization process is about finding more productive employment for your Peasants.


Peasants eke out a meager living in these Subsistence Farms, contributing little to GDP and taxes per capita
dd3_2.png

Another special type of building is Urban Centers. Like Subsistence Buildings, these are automatically created rather than built, with the level of Urban Center in a State being tied to the amount of Urbanization generated by its other buildings. Urban Centers primarily employ Shopkeepers and provide a number of important local functions that we will get into at a later point.


The Urban Center is where you’ll find most of your middle-class Shopkeepers
dd3_3.png

Next up we have Government Buildings. These are buildings that are fully funded by the state (ie, you!) and provide crucial civil services required for the smooth running of a Victorian nation. Examples include Government Administrations where Bureaucrats produce Bureaucracy for the administration of incorporated states and funding of Institutions, and Universities where Academics produce Innovation for technological progression.


Bureaucrats work in Government Administrations to provide Bureaucracy - the lifeblood of the government
dd3_4.png

The counterpart to Government Buildings is Private Industries. The vast majority of Buildings in Victoria 3 fall under this category, which includes a broad range of industries such as (non-subsistence!) farms, plantations, mines and factories. Unlike Government Buildings, Private Industries are not owned by the state but rather by Pops such as Capitalists and Aristocrats, who reap the profits they bring in and pay wages to the other Pops working there (usually at least - under certain economic systems the ownership of buildings may be radically different!).

Many of these buildings are limited by locally available resources such as Arable Land for agriculture and simply how much iron is available in the state for Iron Mines. Urban Buildings such as Factories however, are only limited by how many people you can cram into the state, simulating the more densely populated nature of cities. In short, there is no system of building ‘slots’ or anything like that, as we want limitations on buildings to function in a sensible and realistic way.


Several different types of Private Industries are shown below
dd3_5.png

Finally there are Development Buildings. These are often (but not always!) government buildings that distinguish themselves by providing vital state-level functions. A couple examples are Barracks that recruit and train soldiers from the local population and Railways that provide the Infrastructure other buildings need to bring their goods to the Market.


From left to right: Barracks, Port, Naval Bases and Railway
dd3_6.png

To finish up this dev diary I just want to mention that building up your country is meant to be more of a hands-on experience in Victoria 3, as this is absolutely core to the society-building aspect of the game and forms a major part of the game’s core loop. This naturally also means that we need to give the player the necessary tools to manage their buildings in a large empire, which may involve some form of autonomous building construction, though we haven’t yet nailed down exactly what form that would take (and whether it will involve decision making on the part of the investor class). Ultimately though, we want the player, not the AI to be the one primarily in charge of the development of their own country.

Well, there you have it. There is of course a lot in here (such as Production Methods) that will receive further explanation in the many more dev diaries we have planned, so be sure to tune in next week as I talk about Goods. See you then!
 
  • 458Like
  • 204Love
  • 24
  • 17
  • 10
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Better yet:
Los Malvinas son Britanas.
As Britain have a population in the Falklands greater than the population of Argentina.
"Las Malvinas son británicas". Los is a masculine article, and Malvinas are feminine, and Britanos/as is used mostly for the celtic population of Britain, while Británico/Británica is used for the modern country/population
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Then you've completely misunderstood my original argument. My suggestion was to provide the minimum scripting capacity so that those people who want to play laissez-faire can write a mod to automate the handling of the investment pool, which they do not like. Everybody else (including your humble servant) uses the investment pool like the devs intend. Is that diverse enough for you?
What I am saying is that your suggestion is orthogonal to the issue being discussed. You could always says that if the game is lacking certain features it can be solved by implementing them in the mod. If you aren't interested in those features - good for you, but as you can see from this thread many are.

Implementation of the policies on the laissez-faire side of the spectrum existed in Vic2 and it's hopefully not a huge amount of work to do them in Vic3 - the most difficult part (the investment logic) is needed anyway for AI nations to make their decisions in any type of economies.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
"Las Malvinas son británicas". Los is a masculine article, and Malvinas are feminine, and Britanos/as is used mostly for the celtic population of Britain, while Británico/Británica is used for the modern country/population
The extend of my Spanish is basically " Dos cervesaz por favor" and " Donde es la bibliotheca?" so correct grammar is too much to hope for unfortunately
 
@Wizzington will the historical concept of forced labour of peasants, or "robot" be modelled? This played a huge role in impoverishing the subsistence farms as they had to spend most days of the week working the fields of their aristocratic lords. Several states worked to replaced the robot with money rents or to bring the peasantry into factories which then impoverished the aristocrats and magnates as they couldn't draw from the manpower of their domains, so their fields sat empty. Not sure what the best way to model it would be, but could add some very interesting pop interactions, laws, and unintended side effects to certain actions that would be fun to experience.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
So can i get more priest by building churches, what i want to do sometimes is disneyfy my country making it full of aristocrats, is there a building to get aristocrats?
I doubt it. I think you can encourage a certain type of pop by constructing buildings with job openings. I'm just not sure aristocrats do work in buildings. I think they get their income mostly from owning buildings and getting the dividends. I don't know about priests or capitalists. Maybe people have a need for spiritual guidance? Maybe capitalists actually do some work at factories to improve efficiency like in V2?
 
Exactly, which is why I said: "in one way or another". At the end of the day, the player will feel like they're playing as the government.

EDIT: I think it's the same approach that they went for with Imperator Rome, where we were also supposed to represent the spirit of the nation - and yet it feels like we're playing as the government.
Why should the game feel like we are playing as the government? When I play Victoria 2 I play with the idea of developing my country. If I find that the party/government ruling my country is against my interests I try to get rid of them as soon as possible, so I am not actually playing as the government...unless I am roleplaying.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Why should the game feel like we are playing as the government? When I play Victoria 2 I play with the idea of developing my country. If I find that the party/government ruling my country is against my interests I try to get rid of them as soon as possible, so I am not actually playing as the government...unless I am roleplaying.
You are not playing as "the government" in the meaning of a president, a king or a political party.

You are playing as "the government" in the meaning of the State, the Republic, the Kingdom, the public institutions and administrations.

That's the whole point of Victoria games. Your tools are the "goverments" tools. But you don't play as the population or the private sphere. When you move an army from a province to another, you are not playing as the soldiers, you are giving (as "the government") orders to the soldiers.

That's why it doesn't make any sense you get to spend directly the capitalist's money in a laissez-faire system. Your tool for that is collecting taxes. That's exactly the point, and what makes Victoria interesting: you are not a God that controls everything, you have some control and you have to work with what you've got. You want to control all the country's industry? Well, then you need to nationalise the industry and have a State/Government controlled industry.
 
Last edited:
  • 15
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 1
Reactions:
You can improve your agriculture by building farms and plantations (think enclosure systems and industrial agriculture as opposed to tiny subsistence farms).
so the game is done to overcome the old common fields and the rural common model of boors and yeomen and by them other professions, here titled subsistence farms? how is this common model done in game? england had a constitution of great and mid possessors and france of little and mid possessors and france taught that little and mid boors were no obstacle to modern agriculture for they gendered french modern agriculture. the old common model was a beter defense against poverty for the people, the enclosure acts fordid little boors. i will see how the possession of farms is done in game to simulate the many models ―1st, common fields by more equal somehow autarkic towns with variety of professions, 2nd, great possessions in separate farms in a professional dichotomy: the opulent possessor and the poor wage worker― and sizes of land possession (great, mid, little). if the unlikeness of the english and french model is done in game it may be good
 
@Wizzington @KaiserJohan @lachek
It should work similar to Vic2 but adapted to Vic3. Countries with capitalists could have 3 types of policies, here is an idea:

  • Laissez-Faire Capitalism (free market):
    • Government (Player) abilities: Use your government budget to build, modify or destroy public industry. You can't manage private industry.
    • Capitalist POPs (AI) abilities: Use their private money to build, modify or destroy private industry. Private industry is fully autonomous.
  • Interventionist Capitalism (mixed):
    • Government (Player) abilities: Use your government budget to build, modify or destroy public industry. You can subsidize or forbid specific buildings to the capitalists. You can manage private industry in some degree.
    • Capitalist POPs (AI) abilities: Use their private money to build, modify or destroy private industry. Private industry is semi-autonomous.
  • State Capitalism (statism):
    • Government (Player) abilities: Use your government budget to build, modify or destroy public industry. You need to manage private industry.
    • Capitalist POPs (AI) abilities: They cannot build on their own, they put their money at the player disposal in a investment pool, the player manages the private industry with the capitalists money, but the buildings still belong to the capitalists (the profit goes to them, not to you). This is the current Vic3 system. It represents economies like the Nazi Germany, where private industry existed but it followed the orders of the government.
Laissez-faire would represent something like USA, interventionism something like France, and State Capitalism something like Nazi Germany.

As you can see, in all of them the player can participate in the industry of the country. Even in a laissez-faire economy, you cannot interfere with private industry, but if you want to build a factory or mine somewhere, you can build a state owned one. You also get this autonomous capitalists doing their thing. So with a mechanic like this, you get both things, and it is still a faithful mechanic to the real economic ideologies (in some degree).
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
@Wizzington @KaiserJohan @lachek
It should work similar to Vic2 but adapted to Vic3. Countries with capitalists could have 3 types of policies, here is an idea:

  • Laissez-Faire Capitalism (free market):
    • Government (Player) abilities: Use your government budget to build, modify or destroy public industry. You can't manage private industry.
    • Capitalist POPs (AI) abilities: Use their private money to build, modify or destroy private industry. Private industry is fully autonomous.
  • Interventionist Capitalism (mixed):
    • Government (Player) abilities: Use your government budget to build, modify or destroy public industry. You can subsidize or forbid buildings. You can manage private industry in some degree.
    • Capitalist POPs (AI) abilities: Use their private money to build, modify or destroy private industry. Private industry is semi-autonomous.
  • State Capitalism (statism):
    • Government (Player) abilities: Use your government budget to build, modify or destroy public industry. You need to manage private industry.
    • Capitalist POPs (AI) abilities: They cannot build on their own, they put their money at the player disposal in a investment pool, the player manages the private industry with the capitalists money, but the buildings still belong to the capitalists (the profit goes to them, not to you). This is current Vic3 system. It represents economies like the Nazi Germany, where private industry existed but it followed the orders of the government.
As you can see, in any case the player can participate in the industry of the country, even in a laissez-faire economy. They cannot interfere with private industry, but if they want to build a factory or mine somewhere, they can build a state owned one. Laissez-faire would represent something like USA, interventionism something like France, and State Capitalism something like Nazi Germany.
State owned industry does not seem to fit the concept of laissez-faire.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
State owned industry does not seem to fit the concept of laissez-faire.
It does. Laissez-faire is a french expression that means "let do". You (the government) can't interfere with the private industry in any way, but that doesn't mean you as the state cannot play the industry game too by building your own things.

As I said, I think is kind of how the USA works, the government lets the private industry do their thing with freedom but the government can also have their state owned industry (although it is a lot smaller than the private industry because as a laissez-faire country the government has a lot less money than the capitalists).

I mean, every ideology has its nuances: a pure laissez-faire libertarian ideology actually defends that the government shouldn't even exist. Let's not be that strict, but let's try to be a bit more rigorous than the current Vic3 mechanic is about this.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
It does. Laissez-faire is a french expression that means "let do". You (the government) can't interfere with the private industry in any way, but that doesn't mean you as the state cannot play the industry game too by building your own things.

As I said, I think is kind of how the USA works, the government lets the private industry do their thing with freedom but the government can also have their state owned industry (although it is a lot smaller than the private industry because as a laissez-faire country the government has a lot less money than the capitalists).

I mean, every ideology has its nuances: a pure laissez-faire libertarian ideology actually defends that the government shouldn't even exist. Let's not be that strict, but let's try to be a bit more rigorous than the current Vic3 mechanic is about this.
The USA, absent arms manufacturing like at the Springfield Armory, does not really have a tradition of state owned enterprises until the New Deal (TVA, FDIC, etc.) The state opening factories that would compete with private industry seems very unhistorical. The USA couldn’t even get the South to agree to fund infrastructure spending on the federal level, after all.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Babylon 5 is fictional and is not real.

In any case, it's because the individual task is becoming more efficient and less wasteful, therefore more people can do it without being wasteful, which leads to more people doing it all at once instead of a gradual increase to previous capacity so it ends up with more overall use as an aggregate. But the aggregate increasing because more individual tasks are being done does not make the individual task require more resources.

People act like I'm saying it should cut paper use in half or something drastic like that. I'm thinking something more like a 5% decrease. For most countries the effect would be marginal, but if you're a large empire with a lot of incorporated states or looking to incorporate more states, or if you're a country with little to no domestic production of paper, early computerization will be impactful.

In terms of the Babylon Five example, I can tell you from personal experience that in the late 20th century, computers on every desk had not, in any significant way, reduced paper consumption! Note, this is at a net level, and by this stage some of what you describe (less paper per task, but the increased available information enabled by computers and IT more generally created more tasks) was a thing, however, in the Vicky period, as per my original response, I haven't found any evidence to suggest computers were used in the kind of processes they are today to assist in day-to-day administration. Rather, computers were used for new, bespoke tasks (tide estimation, naval fire control, etc.,) that created new data - so they enabled new things, but didn't reduce paperwork.

There's an argument for "early 20th century telecommunications" to have a tiny, tiny impact on paper use (keeping in mind it wasn't until well after WW2 that anything official, including the circulated memo, wasn't entirely paper-based), but are you able to provide concrete examples of early computers that reduced paper consumption? It feels a bit like you're transplanting computer use in the early 20th century to the 1920s/30s, and early computers were a very different beast indeed.
 
  • 1
Reactions: