Will there be local production chains?

[Darkrenown]

Back when I worked on Vic2 expansions, one of the features I was most pleased with adding was the concept of local production chains:

Let’s look at Industry first, the main change here is factories now get a Throughput bonus when built in a state that produces their input goods, which encourages clusters of related industry. So, for example, a state that produces Iron and Coal is an ideal place for a Steel mill, which is then a good spot for Artillery and Car factories, and eventually Tanks can be built there. This bonus can be up to 25% if all the factory’s inputs are produced locally. For basic factories the bonus is evenly split between input types, but for the more advanced factories which use both manufactured goods and raw materials the bonus is weighted towards the manufactured goods.

Recently I've been reading Vic3 DDs and I wondered if there's anything similar? I have seen that there can be State Traits, but those seem limited to one resource type and are static. And it seems like having the goods locally would help if you have low Market Access in a state, but that's only a factor when you're having problems. Are there other things which I might have missed which would make for related industries to cluster in an area? I thought it was nice to have some logical bonuses which could lead to regional and national production specializations. @Wizzington or anyone who knows.

 

[DukeLeto42]

If I understand the systems correctly, the logistics of moving goods detailed in Dev Diary #38 suggests transportation is a fairly significant employment cost, so having each stage of production nearby will (in a vacuum) result in greater efficiency.

 

[Xaelyn]

There is not, infrastructure requirements are static for a given level and type of building, so whether your steel mill is in the same province as your iron and coal mines, or on the other side of the planet it will require the same amount of infrastructure. Worse, because there a few base sources of infrastructure, building the steel mill in the province with the mines might require you construct railroads there to raise the infrastructure cap, whilst building it in an otherwise fairly empty province 3000km away would not.

 

[Morrowind3]

On aug 12, 2021, CharlieFox asked:
"Will industries using goods produced in the same state have less infrastructure usage?"
Wizz replied:
"There is currently no such effect as we don't track exactly where individual units of goods go (see Market dev diary on that topic), though we could potentially apply some sort of a discount based on how much of a building's needed goods can be locally sourced. I'll give it some thought."

So it sounds like a no, but it's 2022 now so maybe he has given it that thought by now

 

[za3tarani]

transport cost and transport time would solve your problem. instead of getting arbitrary positive modifiers, your production cost and time will be lower when you are closer.

but that would require to predefine cost and time between states, each state would need cost + time with all states around them etc... and with technology etc you could improve time+cost etc

 

[Oglesby]

There is not, infrastructure requirements are static for a given level and type of building, so whether your steel mill is in the same province as your iron and coal mines, or on the other side of the planet it will require the same amount of infrastructure. Worse, because there a few base sources of infrastructure, building the steel mill in the province with the mines might require you construct railroads there to raise the infrastructure cap, whilst building it in an otherwise fairly empty province 3000km away would not.

This is incorrect as you are ignoring the need of the infrastructure between the mine-state and the 'fairly empty province 300km away' (via the market center).

We also know there is a concept of a local price versus a market price and that the value a building uses is a blend of the two depending on the Market access of the state. So that could have an effect on the cost of the input goods if you have the demand in the same state as the supply provided you do not have 100% perfect market access coverage through out your market.

 

[Xaelyn]

This is incorrect as you are ignoring the need of the infrastructure between the mine-state and the 'fairly empty province 300km away' (via the market center).

I don't believe there is any requirement for infrastructure along the 'path' from any given state to the market capital, nor is the capital itself required to have infrastructure proportional to the goods incoming, though overseas states must have sufficient convoys to fully connect with the market.

We also know there is a concept of a local price versus a market price and that the value a building uses is a blend of the two depending on the Market access of the state. So that could have an effect on the cost of the input goods if you have the demand in the same state as the supply provided you do not have 100% perfect market access coverage through out your market.

The problem here is that the market access penalty will affect the finished products price just the same, so having cheap iron and coal in a state because it can't get to the market will not make the steel more profitable as it will be reduced in value by the same percentage, and not reduce the price in the country market as much as it otherwise would. AFAICT there simply isn't a scenario in which having less than perfect market access would actually be beneficial.

 

[Terixis]

Back when I worked on Vic2 expansions, one of the features I was most pleased with adding was the concept of local production chains:


Recently I've been reading Vic3 DDs and I wondered if there's anything similar? I have seen that there can be State Traits, but those seem limited to one resource type and are static. And it seems like having the goods locally would help if you have low Market Access in a state, but that's only a factor when you're having problems. Are there other things which I might have missed which would make for related industries to cluster in an area? I thought it was nice to have some logical bonuses which could lead to regional and national production specializations. @Wizzington or anyone who knows.

I would just like to say that my favorite part of Vicky 2 was creating different factory production chains in states with different RGOs in them. Seeing all those green numbers on the factory page was immensely satisfying.

 

[wilcoxchar]

transport cost and transport time would solve your problem. instead of getting arbitrary positive modifiers, your production cost and time will be lower when you are closer.

but that would require to predefine cost and time between states, each state would need cost + time with all states around them etc... and with technology etc you could improve time+cost etc

That doesn't really work since there isn't really a physical good being transported between places. What's being measured for purposes of creating supply and demand and therefore price are buy and sell orders, not the physical commodity, so you'd have to heavily rework the fundamental of how the economic and production systems work to do what you're suggesting.

 

[Oglesby]

I don't believe there is any requirement for infrastructure along the 'path' from any given state to the market capital, nor is the capital itself required to have infrastructure proportional to the goods incoming, though overseas states must have sufficient convoys to fully connect with the market.

"However, over the course of the game, the most crucial aspect of your Infrastructure is the size of your Railway network. " - DD#10

"Our intention for railways is that they must be able to find their way back to the market capital, or an exit port destined for the market capital, in order to be useful. In effect this means that any railway can only provide infrastructure up to the amount of infrastructure provided by the best adjacent railway that connects it to the market capital." - DD#10

The implication here is that the infrastructure between you are the market capital does restrict or limit the available infrastructure at your consumer or producer.

The problem here is that the market access penalty will affect the finished products price just the same, so having cheap iron and coal in a state because it can't get to the market will not make the steel more profitable as it will be reduced in value by the same percentage, and not reduce the price in the country market as much as it otherwise would. AFAICT there simply isn't a scenario in which having less than perfect market access would actually be beneficial.

What I have gleaned from DD#9 about prices

So this is what I understand of the current system and what I do not think my objection does not apply.

1. 'Market' price is determined from all the 'Market' buy/sell orders
2. 'Market' buy/sell orders are 'Local' buy/sell orders adjusted by market access
3. 'Local' price is determined from 'Local' buy/sell orders
4. 'Actual' state price = 'Market' price * market access + 'Local' price * (1-market access)

If we keep everything else static and only change market access of a producer, what do we see.

• The 'local' buy/sell orders does not change
• The 'local' price does not change as it is based on the 'local' buy/sell orders
• The 'Market' buy/sell orders are changed since they are based on the access adjusted local buy/sell orders.
• Since we are talking about a net producer (selling off steel in the market) meaning locally we have a 'net' sell order, we would be seeing less of that sell order make it to the market which would adjust the market price up.
• So to be beneficial the increase in the new market price would have to offset the shift of adding more local price to the 'Actual' building price used.

As I reread your statement I should have compared a state with coal/iron with a steel mill at the market capital (for simplicity) vs a state with coal/iron and steel mill with the demand at the market capital and see how that varies with market accesses less that 1.

 

[Xaelyn]

"However, over the course of the game, the most crucial aspect of your Infrastructure is the size of your Railway network. " - DD#10

"Our intention for railways is that they must be able to find their way back to the market capital, or an exit port destined for the market capital, in order to be useful. In effect this means that any railway can only provide infrastructure up to the amount of infrastructure provided by the best adjacent railway that connects it to the market capital." - DD#10

The implication here is that the infrastructure between you are the market capital does restrict or limit the available infrastructure at your consumer or producer.

I stand corrected. But with out accounting for local consumption it's just going to make the problem worse, as now you will need the railway capacity along the whole route to ship all the coal, iron and steel to the market capital, even though the coal and iron are being consumed locally or mostly being consumed locally by the steel mill. The end result being that the best place for the steel mill is either somewhere that still has spare base infrastructure, or the market capital itself (since in this case you will only need the railways in one single state), rather than next to the coal fields which is where steel mills were typically constructed precisely because coal accounted for the lions share of tonnage.

 

[Baneslave]

Having some percent of Buildings' Infrastructure need to be lowered by State's Supply and Demand could perhaps work...?

My idea:

Most of Buildings' Infrastructure cost would come from importing inputs and exporting outputs. (Some Buildings such Barracks' would have extra Infrastructure costs to represent soldiers being moved around and such.) This Infrastructure cost would be lowered if the State Building exists in supplies the inputs and demands the outputs. So if 30% of inputs are provided from the State, the Infrastructure needed for imports is lowered by 30%.

But: I am not sure if this system would be stable from tick to tick.

 

[Eddie121]

Having some percent of Buildings' Infrastructure need to be lowered by State's Supply and Demand could perhaps work...?

My idea:

Most of Buildings' Infrastructure cost would come from importing inputs and exporting outputs. (Some Buildings such Barracks' would have extra Infrastructure costs to represent soldiers being moved around and such.) This Infrastructure cost would be lowered if the State Building exists in supplies the inputs and demands the outputs. So if 30% of inputs are provided from the State, the Infrastructure needed for imports is lowered by 30%.

Right now each state has a baseline of 'free' Infrastructure Access Points (IAP) depending on state features and techs
+ some railway IAP that are paid for by the state and provided for free to the state buildings.

Your proposal would require a different IAP system:

• IAP are a local service, whose price only depends on in-state offer and demand
• There is no free IAP. Each state starts with a 'horse cart' building that has no tech requirements and is quick to expand but only produces a low amount of IAP
• Ports and railways can produce more and cheaper IAP
• Each building has an IAP requirement that depends on buildign level, type, and the percentage of input (/output?) goods that can be satisfied locally, and they actually have to pay for it
• Troops also require IAP in the state where they are deployed, especially when they are mobilized/fighting

Shortage

• 'Market access' is replaced by IAP shortage maluses, such as reduced throughput.
• And by increasing the price of IAP, such as shortage is shifting profits and employment from the general economy to the transportation sector until a new balance is achieved

Effects

• Vertical integration reduces IAP demand and makes buildings more profitable
• By reducing IAP cost, railways make all kinds of buildings more profitable and reduce the incentives for vertical integration

But: I am not sure if this system would be stable from tick to tick.

Just balance IAP demand each month, like for other goods and services.

 

[za3tarani]

That doesn't really work since there isn't really a physical good being transported between places. What's being measured for purposes of creating supply and demand and therefore price are buy and sell orders, not the physical commodity, so you'd have to heavily rework the fundamental of how the economic and production systems work to do what you're suggesting.

its a shame...

one other thing, the market is extremely volatile. like, if supply of a good changes, the price is adjusted almost instantly...

 

[Vohen]

I believe this could be modeled in a fairly simple way, that is, have the building producing an input good give throughput bonus to buildings that use that good.
For example, iron and coal mines could give a 1% bonus to steel Mills per building level, and lumber camps to furniture factories, etc etc.
So in practice, even if the actual price for the good wouldn't change, the efficiency gain of production with local resources would represent that and have a similar effect.
Should even be easy to mod it in, I think.

 

[uleslaw]

Wait, @Darkrenown no longer works for Paradox?

 

[thedarkendstar]

So one thing I’m worried about is states have limited infrastructure that is free without railroads I feel like this encourages something I don’t think is intended.

If my nation is small and compact with very few states I will run out of the free infrastructure quickly say I’m Belgium and will have to keep building railroads meet the cost but if I’m the US as long as I spread my buildings out I can keep growing the economy without having to build any railroads for a long time.
This doesn’t seem to be the gameplay intention nor should be how it works not only do you have to build those railroads but workers have to fill it goods produced for it and the state pays for it seems.
But why would Belgium need so many railroads it’s tiny everything in the country should be available around it with just a couple while the US doesn’t need any from cali to New York unless they use up all there free infrastructure.

 

[BeauNiddle]

So one thing I’m worried about is states have limited infrastructure that is free without railroads I feel like this encourages something I don’t think is intended.

If my nation is small and compact with very few states I will run out of the free infrastructure quickly say I’m Belgium and will have to keep building railroads meet the cost but if I’m the US as long as I spread my buildings out I can keep growing the economy without having to build any railroads for a long time.
This doesn’t seem to be the gameplay intention nor should be how it works not only do you have to build those railroads but workers have to fill it goods produced for it and the state pays for it seems.
But why would Belgium need so many railroads it’s tiny everything in the country should be available around it with just a couple while the US doesn’t need any from cali to New York unless they use up all there free infrastructure.

Only states with very good rivers get free infrastructure. The majority of states will probably get infrastructure construction penalties (mountains, forests, jungles, etc.)

America DID manage to build more cities than Belgium before railroads existed so the free infrastructure makes sense. The disadvantage USA has is that everything needs to be connected to the market center and thus they will need a LOT of railroads to expand their industry past the original point, whereas Belgium will only need to build a few railroads in a few states.

I think the flow rate nature of the simulation Paradox is using will slightly benefit USA in the long run but it's not by much. (a state with 30 capacity will support 10+ states all with capacity 30 passing through it - they limit by flow rate not volume of traffic)

 

[Nitan17]

Only states with very good rivers get free infrastructure. The majority of states will probably get infrastructure construction penalties (mountains, forests, jungles, etc.)

State traits aside, every state gets free base Infrastructure and there are techs that boost this value. Spreading industry over many states will benefit greatly from this.

America DID manage to build more cities than Belgium before railroads existed so the free infrastructure makes sense. The disadvantage USA has is that everything needs to be connected to the market center and thus they will need a LOT of railroads to expand their industry past the original point, whereas Belgium will only need to build a few railroads in a few states.

Not really, USA won't have to focus more on Infrastructure than any other country; unless they want to make huge industrial centers in far-away central and eastern states, which in V3 will be a plain bad idea and very wasteful. Both USA and Belgium will have similar required Infrastructure:Industry ratio overall, but USA's will be a fair bit lower early on because of all the free base Infrastructure it gets from its many states.

 

[5iberys]

As I understand it, the problem is that every industries use infrastructures while it might be more realist, in some case, if only the ones who exports most of their production did. The effect of being over the infrastructre limit applies indiscriminately to every building in a province. I think it could be tweaked so that infrastructure is first "consummed" by local pops importing stuff, than by the buildings you prioritises, and the remaining buildings would use the rest. However, it would be hard for the AI to make good choices about that and it would probably consumme a significant amount of processing power since it would need to be computed at least weekly; and since the "local market" effect would need to apply by goods except of by state with one modifier to every prices, that would also involve a lot more operations. Also, it would involve more micro from the player, unless the priorisation applies automatically and evenly to every 2nd tier economy industries. All in all, I trust the devs to make the best choice between these options, and the modders to take care of the dumped one.