• 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 #92 - Companies

16_9.jpg
Hello and welcome back to a new round of Victoria 3 dev diaries! Today we’re going to be talking about Companies, a new free feature being added in the 1.5 update, which will be available to test and feedback on in the first version of the 1.5 open beta.

As we have previously mentioned, one of our major focuses for the 1.5 update is to improve the replayability and challenge in the core economic gameplay loop, and the main purpose of the Companies feature is to do just that by encouraging countries to specialize in certain industries and develop competitive advantages against other nations. Companies are also intended to add more flavor and differences in gameplay between different nations, as well as giving players more of a reason to care about prestige and their position in global national rankings.

Before I go into the nitty-gritty, I should mention that this dev diary is going to be focused mainly on the Companies feature in the form that will be available in the first open beta release, with a fairly narrow focus on achieving the above design goals for economic specialization, flavor and prestige. However, Companies is a feature that we consider to have near limitless potential for expanding on and hooking into more parts of the game, so I’ll wrap up the dev diary by mentioning some of the ideas we have for building on this feature in the future. Also, please note that this is very much a feature under development, so expect placeholder/WIP art, names, numbers and interfaces!

But enough preamble, let’s get into the details. Companies are national-level entities that are established by a country, with each country being able to support a certain number of companies based on factors such as technology and laws. The vast majority of countries will not start with the ability to support any companies, but will need to reach a certain level of society tech before their first company becomes available.

Each Company is associated with a certain set of building types, for example a Company specializing in metal mines might be associated with Iron Mines and Lead Mines, while a more agriculturally inclined company might instead be associated with certain types of plantations and/or farms.

To establish a company, you need to have the technology and resource potential to construct at least one of their associated building types - it’s currently possible to establish companies without having any of their associated buildings built, though this is something we will be actively looking for feedback from the open beta on how it feels, as it’s something of an immersion versus gameplay question. Flavored companies (more on those below) have other more specific requirements to be established in addition to these basic requirements.

A selection of potential candidates for Sweden’s first company: Combine of Fisheries and the United Forestry Conglomerate are immediately available, while the buildings of Wine & Fruit Inc are… not so suitable to the Swedish climate and hence will only be available if Sweden acquires some warmer lands with potential for those resources.
DD92_1.png

Once established, a Company will have effects on all buildings of their associated building type in their parent country. These effects are twofold: They increase the throughput of the buildings, as well as the construction efficiency when constructing new levels of the associated building types. The degree by which companies boost their associated buildings is partially scaled based on the Prestige ranking of their parent nation, with the 3rd-ranked nation gaining a larger boost than the 4th-ranked nation and so on. While somewhat abstracted, this is meant to represent competitive benefits the company enjoys from the international status of their home country. The purpose of this effect as a game mechanic is to give players a direct economic reason to care about their overall prestige ranking versus other nations.

It’s also worth noting that in conjunction with this change, we have increased the base construction cost of all buildings and, through the change to local pricing, somewhat lowered the base economic efficiency of most buildings. The overall intent is that the baseline economy should be less efficient, with companies allowing countries to make up the difference in select areas, providing the incentive for specialization and competitive advantages mentioned above. However, one exception to this is that base construction production was increased from 5 to 10 to ensure the baseline slowdown of construction did not make small nations entirely unviable to play.

While the majority of the construction efficiency increase from companies does not depend on your prestige ranking, Sweden’s relatively high placement on the global scoreboard does give its companies an additional edge.
DD92_2.png

Established Companies also have Productivity and Prosperity ratings. Productivity is simply the average Productivity (yearly average earnings per employee) of all its associated building levels. This is compared against the global average Productivity of all companies in the world, with companies that are doing better than average gaining Prosperity over time, and companies below a certain threshold (which is lower than the threshold for gaining Prosperity) losing it instead.

If a Company reaches 100 Prosperity, its Prosperity modifier will activate, granting a company-specific bonus to its parent nation. This is intended to add an additional dimension to the selection of companies - do you simply want to focus on whatever resources are going to be most profitable for your nation, or aim to build up a specific industry for the bonuses it can give you? As an example, a player that is planning to play a particularly aggressive campaign may want to focus on building up an arms-industry related Company for the military advantages it can grant.

The Agricultural Development Society is doing well enough compared to other companies that its Prosperity is increasing, which will please the Rural Folk once Prosperity hits 100.
DD92_3.png

As we hinted at earlier in the dev diary, Companies come in two varieties: Standard and Flavored. Standard Companies are ones that are available to all nations unless replaced by a Flavored Company, while Flavored Companies tend to be restricted to a certain culture and/or geographical region. For example, a North German nation that owns certain parts of the Rhineland will have certain historical German companies available to them.

Flavored companies are mostly historical (but not always, as sometimes we have to go a bit alt-history), with a set of building types based around their real-life historical business focuses, and tend to have stronger or more interesting prosperity bonuses than the standard companies. Flavored companies may sometimes replace very similar Standard companies, but this is the exception rather than the rule, most Flavored companies do not replace Standard companies.

Alright, that’s the general gist of what Companies will look like when you first get your hands on it in the 1.5 open beta. As I mentioned at the beginning though, there is a lot of places we envision taking this feature in the future, so here are a few examples of that, though you definitely shouldn’t expect all of this be in scope for the 1.5 update:
  • Having companies ‘level up’ beyond just a single prosperity bonus, possibly in a way that ties into diplomacy/rank and replaces the current company bonuses from prestige
  • Having pops, specific buildings in specific states, Interest Groups, and/or characters more directly associated with Companies instead of them just being a national-level entity
  • Companies having political and/or geopolitical ambitions (for example, a certain fruit-company might wish to create some, ahem, fruit-focused republics)
  • Multinational companies that aren’t limited to a single country

I’ll sign off by leaving you a bonus screenshot of the first companies added to the game in the earliest iteration of the feature. Sadly, neither Björnmetall nor Martin’s Fish Tank Emporium will be available in the 1.5 version of the game.
DD92_4.png
That’s all for today! Join us again next week as we go over what other additions changes you can expect to be coming in the 1.5 open beta, with a particular focus on the military. See you then!
 
  • 125Like
  • 70Love
  • 51
  • 13
  • 4
Reactions:
This would all be an interesting discussion about whether wine-producing regions of France should have some sort of bonus or whatever to their wine production, but none of the defence justifies France and France alone (hypothetically) getting to establish a super special wine company that gives it an extra nationwide boost that no other nation can ever receive. The French simply don't have an innate cultural ability to run a wine company. If the argument is their product is especially noteworthy already, then that is something to model in a different way. Product is being confused with commerce here.

A more obvious way of demonstrating the issue is to use a more modern industry. Say British Petroleum is a unique company that only the UK can found. What is it that is so innate about the British that only they can extract a certain unique bonus from oil? Why shouldn't a world where Belgium has become the master of the Middle East see Belgian Petroleum become a company with just as good a bonus? Why should only the British get the bonus? What great oil superpowers does the UK possess?

And to return to France and its hypothetical unique wine company - why should the glorious liberating forces of this all-powerful Belgium not also be able to oversee just as efficient a wine company as the French if it occupies the same land, ignoring any unrest? What special aura is it the French radiate to empower their CEOs in the alcohol sector?

It's silly, and like I say, a bit dodgy.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
This is not exclusive to France.
Did I say otherwise ? Maybe was I simply answering with a tiny bit of Consistency to the Statement "french vine culture doesn't exist, it's only a matter of Industry and flavor companies shouldn't take such thing into account" ? Now, if french wines enjoy a greater renown, maybe there are some good reasons for that or maybe you can just cope harder.
Because the answer to the question "can I make wine here?" in the British Isles and the milder parts of Scandinavia has generally varied from "eh, you can, but the product is a big disappointment" to "lol no".
Of Course.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
The French simply don't have an innate cultural ability to run a wine company. If the argument is their product is especially noteworthy already, then that is something to model in a different way. Product is being confused with commerce here.
Well no, but it is possible for the French to have a business culture about wine production and commercialization already established at game start. This would mean having an already established company at game start representing this.

Ideally, companies could develop this business cultures in any sector and in any country, by some game mechanic, with some already established and working at game start. But, since this needs to develop the mechanic more, having a serie of possible special companies that are plausible in several countries (In the case of wine for instance Spain or Italy could develop such companies, but not England, because well obvious reasons) may be an acceptable way to implement this for the time being and serve the objective of facilitating economic specialization that is why they are adding companies in 1.5, regardless of how the mechanic (hopefully) evolve down the road. The key is not to make any country unfairly disadvantaged at this and to allow still for different strategies with every country.
 
Did I say otherwise ? Maybe was I simply answering with a tiny bit of Consistency to the Statement "french vine culture doesn't exist, it's only a matter of Industry and flavor companies shouldn't take such thing into account" ? Now, if french wines enjoy a greater renown, maybe there are some good reasons for that or maybe you can just cope harder.
Well, I gave the reason that I think, marketing. I’m not sure what is the origin of that renown but I guess it is more recen that most of what you have mentioned and it is not a culture of wine that exist in other countries too. I don’t know the history of the French wine industry, and I asked the question with the hope that you might know something and could explain (but it seems it is not the case given your response about coping).

So what I think, and this is something that I’m assuming from my lack of knowledge is that at some time around the 16th or 17th century France developed a business culture around wine production with different techniques and standards. And this set the standard for modern wine production that was later adopted in Spain and also I guess in Italy. That’s why the French wine is famous. But that’s just one hypothesis which is related with my previous post, sounds reasonable to me, but as happens many times things that sounds reasonable are not necessarily true. If anyone knows more (something) about the French wine industry I would love to hear it.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
They buy cheaper Spanish bulk wine, blend it into their wines (or just bottle it) and sell more expensive French one
I genuinely doubt this is a honest argument in favor of a special marketing Strategy french would have developed to gain renown. And it doesn't look like a Question to me.

The main reason why french wines are renowned come from their Land : le "terroir". Terroirs are soils with unique caracteristics. They are also called "climats". France soils are exceptionally diverse, wich is very rare in temperate zones. For instance, in the sole Region of Bourgogne Where Carolus Magnus made wine, there are 1463 different terroirs for 31 000 Km2. So those terroirs are small. Also Vine is a plant that goes deep in the soils to find hydration (10m / 33 feet). So the nature of the soils affect the plants and gives it its Peculiarity. That allowed french to better their production Methods and experiments for Centuries. Since each Wine is a production of a Village that combine different soils and different vines, this is Jewelry. Weather is also a "component" and a wine will propose a different taste each year. At the end of the day they managed to create vines and wines that people enjoyed.

Standards in wine are very recent and mostly come from US consumers who didn't like the fact that the wine they just bought was not the same like last year. Robert Parker published his first guide in 1975, and progressively set the tone for the american market, praising french wines, especially Bordeaux. For that matter, most people now want wines with a round and short taste, which is something french would simply don't drink.

Now, should this be simulated by V3 ? It's certain that many Nations, many peoples have some unique products they learned to develop in a unique way. It wouldn't be scandalous to see that in the game. But again, it's a game and Balance is an important aspect for the players.

On the other hand, I personnally miss something of that kind. I don't like too much the Abstraction of V3 Economy. If Geography matters, maybe Cultures should too. Nations find different way to push an advantage, and it's not always a "classic industrial approach".
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
I genuinely doubt this is a honest argument in favor of a special marketing Strategy french would have developed to gain renown. And it doesn't look like a Question to me.
The question was in my other post. Here I was partially joking, thus why I mentioned the wine wars. But indeed we take ours wines very seriously :D

But although that is not the strategy used by the French to gain renown, according to some what I said is true. And it is not surprising, Spain is the biggest producer of grapes for wine, but not the biggest producer of wine, Italy and France comes first. The thing is Italian and French wines are so demanded, that they can’t supply all the demand. So they have to recur to Spanish bulk wine and blend it with theirs.

I’m not an expert on wine, but I think that a certain wine is made with several grapes. So they focus on cultivating the grapes that are more distinct or unique to that land, and import the rest. This way they can cover the supply. It is not necessarily a bad business practice, although some producers have just bought Spanish one and bottled it as French or Italian, until caught.

This practice is relatively recent I think, and also relies on the effects the phylloxera plague had in Spanish cultives. Phylloxera devastated the French cultives first. So the Spanish wine sector abandoned traditional practices and becomes an export oriented sector, selling to France. This made the Spanish wine industry more export oriented and more productive and mechanized, so its wines are cheaper. This helps to the dynamic I’ve mentioned before.
The main reason why french wines are renowned come from their Land : le "terroir". Terroirs are soils with unique caracteristics. They are also called "climats". France soils are exceptionally diverse, wich is very rare in temperate zones. For instance, in the sole Region of Bourgogne Where Carolus Magnus made wine, there are 1463 different terroirs for 31 000 Km2. So those terroirs are small. Also Vine is a plant that goes deep in the soils to find hydration (10m / 33 feet). So the nature of the soils affect the plants and gives it its Peculiarity. That allowed french to better their production Methods and experiments for Centuries. Since each Wine is a production of a Village that combine different soils and different vines, this is Jewelry. Weather is also a "component" and a wine will propose a different taste each year. At the end of the day they managed to create vines and wines that people enjoyed.
I’m not saying that the French didn’t mastered this, but it sounds not so different from how wines were made in Spain before the aforementioned phylloxera when all became more industrial. It should be no surprise as Spain is also quite diverse in soils and climate, with many micro-climates. And I guess the same can be said from Italy to some extent. But that’s partially what I was referring with marketing in a more general way. In any case all is quite interesting.
Now, should this be simulated by V3 ? It's certain that many Nations, many peoples have some unique products they learned to develop in a unique way. It wouldn't be scandalous to see that in the game. But again, it's a game and Balance is an important aspect for the players.

On the other hand, I personnally miss something of that kind. I don't like too much the Abstraction of V3 Economy. If Geography matters, maybe Cultures should too. Nations find different way to push an advantage, and it's not always a "classic industrial approach".
Well, flavored companies can help with this. As long as it is not too restrictive or exclusive, and alternative plausible flavored companies are added to different countries there’s no problem. Because other countries can learn the same things or develop their own “learnings”. The difficulty is to represent countries’s fame on certain products, which should include the possibility of creating that fame.
 
So they have to recur to Spanish bulk wine and blend it with theirs.
No they don't. Because of the "A.O.C". Each french Wine must be produced strictly from the given Land to be labeled "Bordeaux" or anything. What you're refering to are simply not wine from an official french "Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée", it's garbage for cheap tourists. If such a beverage is presented as one french wine, it is a counterfeit Felony. The first french wine labeling control was initiated by Napoleon III in 1855. A french wine flavored Company in V3 would not be a faux-pas and I'm sure the devs know all that too.
as Spain is also quite diverse in soils and climate
Yes but no, absolutely not as much as France. And I'm not being dismissive here :

"A terroir is a delimited geographical space defined from a human community which, during its history, has built up a set of distinctive cultural traits, knowledge and practices, based on a system of interactions between the natural environment and the factors humans. The know-how involved reveals an originality, confers a typicality and allows recognition for the products or services originating in this space and therefore for the people who live there. Terroirs are living and innovative spaces that cannot be assimilated to tradition alone”, as defined by UNESCO in 2005. Therefore, french soils are unique and are the reason for, among other things, their wines. Their land is not compared anywhere else. That's why french wines are valorized 35% more than italian wines and three times more than spanish ones.

French wines are not an industrial product like you think. They are made by Family Busineses even if their Enterprises can be owned by shareholders. The Wine is made where the vine are cultivated. The amount of bottles producted is consequently very limited, because of the very small terroirs. French wine producers don't care to satisfy the Demand, they sell expensive a unique Quality. And you can't just start a new production of wine anywhere even in the specific Regions. It's the same with many of other of their agricultural productions. Wich is something other European countries do. Except that only France produce those wines, because they're the only ones who physically can and know how to.

Phyloxera stroke in France in the 1870s, 1880s an 1890s. Producers consequently destroyed their own vine and the number of terroirs diminished. For Instance that's why there is no more wine terroir in the Region of Paris. During those years French delocalized a part of their production in Algeria and two other places in South of France (Languedoc) but it didn't meet the Quality and after the crisis it came to an end. Languedoc still produce Wine though but it is not seen as particularly good, wich is if you ask me, true.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
1692006317380.png

It seems to me that, if the terrain in France was/is such an important factor in the French wine industry, then having access to that terrain would be what provides access to prestigious wine. Whoever controls Champagne can manufacture champagne, and if France doesn't own Champagne, then they can't, regardless of how French they are.
 
Last edited:
  • 7Haha
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:

It seems to me that, if the terrain in France was/is such an important factor in the French wine industry, then having access to that terrain would be what provides access to prestigious wine. Whoever controls Champagne can manufacture champagne, and if France doesn't own Champagne, then they can't, regardless of how French they are.
So state modifiers for France states and more as to make more wine in vineyards ;)
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Companies are a great concept, but a country-based implementation is wrongheaded. I'd much rather see a state-based implementation where companies' influence and bonuses spread based on their geographic presence.

I think company mechanics should be integrated into existing mechanics in ways that seem to depend on a state-level presence:
  • Economies of scale
    • The game assumes that higher level buildings are either large enterprises or collections of smaller ones which have increased productivity from their proximity to one another
    • This could be more explicitly simulated by grouping local buildings into company-owned and locally owned "stacks"
      • Company-owned buildings would get stronger throughput bonuses from economies of scale, and locally owned buildings would get weaker bonuses from proximity to one another
      • If multiple companies are allowed per sector, this could explicitly simulate industrial consolidation as companies buy one another and merge their "stacks" of local buildings
  • Wealth concentration
    • Companies aren't designed to spread knowledge across a society; they're designed to invest their owners' wealth
    • Even without stock trading mechanics, companies should be distinct from purely local enterprises by their centralized ownership and management structures
      • I'd like to see something like skyscrapers or urban centers created in companies' geographic headquarters which employs clerks and capitalists but doesn't provide any services or trade/bureaucracy throughput to its local state
  • Wealth redistribution/extraction
    • Companies should simulate ownership at a distance, both for unincorporated states and for poorer, incorporated states settled later in the game
    • Company ownership of buildings should result in few if any upper strata jobs outside the state containing the company's headquarters
      • This would create a fundamental tradeoff between economies of scale and lower incomes for most pops in most states
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, the French have Cultural Obsession with wine. Perhaps unique companies can be tied in some way to Cultural Obsession, instead of being purely static.

Also, the french wine is just better. Yes, better than italian. And so is the cuisine. You can cope, but it's the truth.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1Love
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Great addition, how do you intend to reflect companies asking for diplomatic goals? This was a huge thing in this era of state and private cooperation. For example how would a mining company request from or even pressure the state to take land in Africa? Will it be tied to IGs? Perhaps IG agendas?
United Fruit Company be making some banana republics
 
I hear this concern, but since the flavored Companies are historical, it'd just be weird to see "Rheinmetall" show up in Lanfang.
The point is not that everyone should have access to Rheinmetall. It’s that there’s nothing inherent in Rheinmetall that made it better than anyone else at making metal, so binding bonuses to it would be unreasonable.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
So... how does this actually change anything the players did before?

As far as the dev diary showns, to establish a company:

You have to have company slots open.
You have to have X buildings of a type (which we already do, because building is the only thing you actually do as a player)
Then, you scroll over a list of possible "companies" (buffs) and... pick the "company"(buff) that you want more.

Then... you wait... for the "company" (buff) to charge and grant you the "company effect" (buff).

And... thats it, thats the whole thing "companies" do.

then if you have "company"(buff) slots open, you do the same, or if not, get more "company"(buff) slots to get more "companies"(buffs)
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
This would be much better if it worked per province and geographic region, and the country-wide bonuses should be small or only at higher levels. It could somehow influence the diversification of employment in factories/enterprises that would be part of a conglomerate/company or consumption or obtaining a given raw material, some bonuses on tech if company or country invest on technology park
 
  • 2
Reactions:
This comment is reserved by the Community Team for gathering Dev Responses in, for ease of reading.

Prosperity bonuses can affect almost anything, by providing country modifiers! Research speed in different categories will definitely be one thing companies can provide.

I asked specially to have it included, I have a soft spot for martins_fish_tank_emporium

We won't have Prosperity modifiers at beta launch, but feel free to request it during the Open Beta and we'll see if we have time to get to it!

Companies themselves will of course be fully moddable. We _will_ actually add historical real-world companies in the game where IP law allows us to do so. We're also looking into custom renaming in-game, so you can name your companies what you like instead of the default name provided.

The modded one :D


Definitely something we want to explore in the future, but not for 1.5. Great idea though!

Yes. Longer-term we intend on making Companies in the same "field" operate differently under different economic systems, so you can only have 1 per field in a Command Economy, there's diminishing returns for "stacking" them under Intervention, and there's less diminishing returns under Laissez-Faire, for example.

1.5 Open Beta will be dropping the same time as Update 1.4, we will be sharing more information on this soon (tm).

Not for 1.5, but this is something we're looking into for the next release after that.

Import and export is always done on market level.

For the time being at least, we're exploring an Aspiration system for this that basically unlocks another ability for the Company if you complete the condition. More of a carrot than stick approach, in a way. More demands-driven mechanics is on our radar but not scheduled for any currently planned update.

We shared most of the new improvements for 1.4 in DD #91 already, if you want to go back and read that. But most of our new features are going into 1.5 where they will be tuned during Open Beta.

Yes, autonomous investment will prioritize constructing buildings you have Companies for.


I hear this concern, but since the flavored Companies are historical, it'd just be weird to see "Rheinmetall" show up in Lanfang.

However, much like we did with Monuments, it's very possible for us to add. game rule that makes all Companies available to everyone, or remove all flavored Companies. I'll put that on the to-do list.


We're looking into exactly this!

We are looking into laws in general and how they affect Companies. For the first release of the open beta, they won't have a huge impact yet (so your companies will persist for now). But over the course of the beta up until release we want to adjust that.

We need to start somewhere and need to assign our resources wisely. As you may well know there's tons of other stuff coming to 1.5 (Military and such). That doesn't mean it's off the table forever, just that it's not going to be in the first version that we work on.
Companies growing over time is definitely an interesting idea which we will think about more in the future.

Yes, if we get around to introduce the Ambition/Aspiration system, AI strategies would surely be influenced by that. But as mentioned, we're not releasing Companies with that for this Open Beta release. We hope to get there at a later stage.

We will have to keep an eye on how it feels. Right now, we feel like it's a good starting point with lots of room for growth for later releases.
Same is true for the balance between the different companies. Some imbalance is fine and really not a big problem. But of course we will strive to keep it within a reasonable range.
Thanks for voicing your concern though! They are valid points.

No, to clarify because I've seen it a couple of times in this thread:
In this release of the open beta (and probably also not with the release of 1.5), Companies do NOT own specific buildings. Rather, they affect whole sectors of buildings, e.g. ALL steel mills in your country.
Of course we had the same thought about making specific buildings attached to Companies but it's a lot more complicated to setup. So for now, they're not but we will investigate in the future what we can and want to do there (if anything).
I've seen the proposal to rename the category from "buildings" to "sectors" and I think that's a good idea to improve the perception of the feature. Thank you!


Not at this point, but it's a thought we had as well. Maybe in the future.
That's the nice thing about companies - there's no shortage of ideas what one can do with them.

There are currently no plans for 1.5 that would go in that direction.

We will investigate this, but it's definitely not coming with the first release of the beta. But I've taken a note to take a closer look.

We've talked about making Companies appear more "naturally" and we're still investigating options there.
For the first release of the open beta it's not going to happen though.


As mentioned before on laws: We will add more differences between laws in their relation to Companies in the future, not for the first release though.
On the ownership methods: Currently there's no impact. We'll see if we want to change that going forward.


Might be possible, but we haven't investigated it very far. Maybe we will take another look at that in the future, not for the open beta though most likely.

Yes, in the first release it is actually way too easy to do so. That is NOT the intention going forward. You should be able to get rid of a company, but only under certain circumstances or with pretty big penalties. How they will look like I cannot tell you right now as we need to invest more time into designing these.


Not at this point. Maybe in the future.




The "Egyptian National Railways" is a historic company which would be culturally restricted. But since it's more of a country-wide administration kind of thing, we're likely not going to add a specific state that you need to own to found that one for example, whereas Rheinmetall will require you to own (well you guessed it) the Rheinland.


We'll need to keep an eye on how that feels. It's a great opportunity for something to adjust during open beta based on player feedback.



A general note on historic/flavored companies:
They won't be in the first release of the Open Beta. That is because we're planning to add quite a large number of them and it will simply take more time to get them in.
We're hoping to get them in for the first update during Open Beta, so probably sometime in September.
We'll keep you up-to-date on it of course.
Thanks for taking the time and answering this many questions!
Looking forward to playing around with the new feature.
 
Companies are a great concept, but a country-based implementation is wrongheaded. I'd much rather see a state-based implementation where companies' influence and bonuses spread based on their geographic presence.

I think company mechanics should be integrated into existing mechanics in ways that seem to depend on a state-level presence:
  • Economies of scale
    • The game assumes that higher level buildings are either large enterprises or collections of smaller ones which have increased productivity from their proximity to one another
    • This could be more explicitly simulated by grouping local buildings into company-owned and locally owned "stacks"
      • Company-owned buildings would get stronger throughput bonuses from economies of scale, and locally owned buildings would get weaker bonuses from proximity to one another
      • If multiple companies are allowed per sector, this could explicitly simulate industrial consolidation as companies buy one another and merge their "stacks" of local buildings
  • Wealth concentration
    • Companies aren't designed to spread knowledge across a society; they're designed to invest their owners' wealth
    • Even without stock trading mechanics, companies should be distinct from purely local enterprises by their centralized ownership and management structures
      • I'd like to see something like skyscrapers or urban centers created in companies' geographic headquarters which employs clerks and capitalists but doesn't provide any services or trade/bureaucracy throughput to its local state
  • Wealth redistribution/extraction
    • Companies should simulate ownership at a distance, both for unincorporated states and for poorer, incorporated states settled later in the game
    • Company ownership of buildings should result in few if any upper strata jobs outside the state containing the company's headquarters
      • This would create a fundamental tradeoff between economies of scale and lower incomes for most pops in most states

I would agree with the suggestion that companies should be state-based. After all, nearly all corporations (unless formed as a spin-off of an existing national corporation) started out small without any sense of being a nation-wide corporation, much less a multinational corporation. It is extremely rare for a corporation to be organized on national scope from the start, with few exceptions (one famous exception being the East India Company, incorporated in 1600). From there, in the game, they would gradually or rapidly expand its operations through opening of new places, acquisitions of existing companies, and acquisitions of non-corporate buildings.

Their rate and pace of expansion could depend on various factors, but a strong and smart leadership personality would potentially give the company a strong potential to become a national corporation, though this is, obviously, not guaranteed due to other factors. Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel are among the classic examples of successful corporations whose successes were often attributed to a single, dominating personality (although, this is somewhat complicated; see Henry Clay Frick for example in connection with Carnegie Steel) like John D. Rockefeller or Andrew Carnegie. Let's not forget J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, or Henry Ford, either. However, the personalist corporations like these seem to be mainly the American phenomenon, although my knowledge about big-name business tycoons in the United Kingdom are limited. I believe Krupp in Prussia (later Germany) might be one of those examples of personalist corporations in Europe, though they seem to be more of a family business.

Furthermore, most of the corporations created in the nineteenth century were regional or state rather than nationwide, with the corporations operating nation-wide being a minority. In fact, many of the corporations that operated nation-wide were often a product created out of an original company and the acquisitions of / mergers with smaller companies. Some of them were even organized as a trust that were actually a parent company owning shares in their subsidiaries, with the Standard Oil being a prime example whose subsidiaries included the names like Standard Oil of New Jersey (now known as ExxonMobil) and such.

In my opinion, having companies start out in a state rather than on a national level, provided that they have real agency rather than being simply a stack of modifiers, would make for more interesting organic and granular evolution of the economy with respect to the corporate sector.

I would also add that, in the case of the United States, most of the corporations were or are incorporated by state charters rather than national charters, furthering the case for the state-based, instead of nation-based, formation of the companies in the game. There may be certain exceptions allowing for nation-based formation of companies, especially with respect to the colonies such as British South Africa Company, but I am not sure how that would work exactly in the game.
 
  • 1
Reactions: