• 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:
Urbans centres employ shopkeepers, a middle class pop right? Will there be late game techs makes shops employ more low income pops as retail bussiness increase?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I get that the player is not the monarch/president/prime minister. But it seems to me that the player can't interact directly with pops. We will only be able to nudge the pops in the desired direction.
According to this logic, at least for me, it is not reasonable to control all of the investment. Because there is a nuanced economic system that generates the investment pool. It is the savings, a part of the wealth of the pops.

I think we shouldn't be able to spend the money of pops directly, whereas we can't interact directly with the pops.
For frew market systems, there should only be incentives to influence how the investment pool is used - as it would be as indirect as the other systems.
What they should do is allow you to offer subsidies or impose taxes on buildings in certain states. For example, if you want to build a mine in Chicago but you have a government that can't build buildings itself, perhaps you could offer subsidies on iron mines in Chicago to influence your capitalists to build them. Of course, if your government was anarcho-liberal they wouldn't allow even that intervention in the economy, and if you were communist there wouldn't be capitalists in the first place, but this would work well for moderate governments.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
There may be sort of a 'practical limit' in the sense that you can't cram 5 million people onto St. Helena but it should certainly be possible to have huge cities anywhere there's enough land, infrastructure and jobs.
I like that there won’t be arbitrary “slots,” and you’re going for a more organic model of what we can and can’t build. Will there be some attempt to represent natural limits on the local population, such as the water supply?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Can we get any more info on Political parties in the game? I am really worried about the fact initially you didn't want to add them as it would make countries like the UK unplayable for me.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
And if we're talking about splitting states, wouldn't this just mean a fixed percentage of pops would be transfered to the new state? So taking part of the Mojave would create a desert metropolis with a portion of the pops from San Francisco?
It depends on the splitting function. It's perfectly possible for the game to model in which provinces the buildings are located without making that player-controllable. Similarly, if you know which pops work in which buildings, when it comes time to split the state, you can distribute it somewhat logically.
 
Interesting dev diary, almost everything looks promising so far. Like some previous posters, I'm also a bit worried about pops being located in states rather than provinces though. Hope (and think) you have some idea about how to represent ethnic and/or religious variation within states like Silesia, Bohemia, Galicia etc (if the states are roughly the same as in Vic2). Would be strange if the geographic distribution is identical across the territory.

Also, a previous dev comment said that "different industries and workplaces are visually grouped on the map such that you can see the urbanization and growth of some parts of your state compared to others". Is this a visual thing only or are the buildings actually going to have locations within the states (if a state gets split up for example)?
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I can answer this for you.

Unfortunately it has been confirmed by devs that POPs and buildings are only grouped within states, not provinces (like in Vic2). And as far as we know Vic3 has more or less the same amount of states (regions) as Vic2.
Do you have any quotes for the fact that Pops themselves are grouped by state and not province? Factories are are built by state in Vicky 2 as well, but pops were separated by pronvince, which is smaller than a state, so it would be odd if they removed this for Vicky 3.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
I really hope we can have it both ways. I.e. you can relegate the decisions to the investor-class in everything except for administration and some development decisions with an ability to take control away from them, such as let's say, automatic trade route button in I;R (except working better, ofc)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Looks good so far! I really like that there is a focus on marrying the "gameyness" of a strategy game to sensible, grounded ideas of what actually happens if you plop down a "building". I mean we'll see how it all shapes out in the end but it gives me confidence in the game to see that there is thought behind the concepts.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Do you have any quotes for the fact that Pops themselves are grouped by state and not province? Factories are are built by state in Vicky 2 as well, but pops were separated by pronvince, which is smaller than a state, so it would be odd if they removed this for Vicky 3.
You can find it in the POP dev diary (dev responses in the thread). It's 100% confirmed.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
What they should do is allow you to offer subsidies or impose taxes on buildings in certain states. For example, if you want to build a mine in Chicago but you have a government that can't build buildings itself, perhaps you could offer subsidies on iron mines in Chicago to influence your capitalists to build them. Of course, if your government was anarcho-liberal they wouldn't allow even that intervention in the economy, and if you were communist there wouldn't be capitalists in the first place, but this would work well for moderate governments.
You are right. As far as I can imagine, it might be interesting to empower the player with different means of intervention attached to the economic systems.

Like:
-free market/laissez faire: 0 options to intervene, maybe excepting the strategic industries
-state capitalism: subsidize what you would like to, build some of the buildings
-planned economy: everything is done by you

Of course, the more nuanced the system is, the more enjoyable to play. So in-between, modular options, like the varying extent of the buildings you can build or the different scale of state subsidies would be cool.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
You are right. As far as I can imagine, it might be interesting to empower the player with different means of intervention attached to the economic systems.

Like:
-free market/laissez faire: 0 options to intervene, maybe excepting the strategic industries
-state capitalism: subsidize what you would like to, build some of the buildings
-planned economy: everything is done by you

Of course, the more nuanced the system is, the more enjoyable to play. So in-between, modular options, like the varying extent of the buildings you can build or the different scale of state subsidies would be cool.
So no automation for planned economies? I strongly disagree if that’s what you mean.
 
  • 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 that would be a no then? Because land enclosures and industrialized factory farms are pretty much the opposite of "modernizing but still maintaining the peasant way of life."
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Have I missed something? What about state owned industries?
And yes, I noticed "under certain economic systems the ownership of buildings may be radically different", but you don't need to be communist to have e.g. state owned oil industry or mines.
Maybe state owned industries are owned by the bureaucrats instead of the capitalists or aristocrats.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Have I missed something? What about state owned industries?
And yes, I noticed "under certain economic systems the ownership of buildings may be radically different", but you don't need to be communist to have e.g. state owned oil industry or mines.

I read at one point that companies can also be owned by workers.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So that would be a no then? Because land enclosures and industrialized factory farms are pretty much the opposite of "modernizing but still maintaining the peasant way of life."
“Modernizing but still maintaining the peasant way of life” seems like a contradiction in terms. What I’d be interested in is if land ownership is modeled, ie you can have peasants modernize their productive techniques while still maintaining their communal ownership of the land.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
More gray on gray text. :(

EDIT: Oh, come on. People are disagreeing that there's gray on gray text? WTF?
I don't see any gray on gray. I see gray on a coppery-green background.
 
  • 1
Reactions: