Economy of Scale formula changes

[Fawr]

Currently the economy of scale formula gives each building after the first in a state a 1% throughput bonus to all the buildings of that type. This makes a lot of sense for urban buildings, but could be improved for resource buildings and agriculture.

Many cities had massive expansion based on specialization and production of just a few different goods. This mechanic for urban buildings is a good way to simulate that.

However consider resource buildings like iron mines. Normally if there is potential in a state for lots of iron mines, then when you open the first mine you choose the best location you can. The worst candidate for a mine will be the last one which is built. This isn't how the game currently works though, in-game the latter buildings are effectively more productive, and the earlier ones are less productive.

Similarly the first forest to be logged will be the one which is best for logging (best wood, etc). The first rice field will be on the best land for rice, and the last place that can possibly grow rice will be the last one you plant on.

My proposal would be to change this formula for throughput bonuses for resource and agricultural buildings. Instead of a 1% bonus to throughput per building, I'd say that if half the capacity is used then production is normal. If every slot is used then throughput is 75% of normal levels. In theory if no buildings are built throughput would be 125%. With a sliding scale between these points. That is, if x the number of buildings built and y is the limit then throughput = 1.25-(x/y*0.5). Manufactories and other town buildings can stay as they are.

I'd treat agriculture as one large pool of buildings. The most fertile land might be good for many different types of goods, but the least fertile would be more limited. The same rationale applies to subsistence agriculture, but for gameplay reasons this might be better to treat it as no building.

Consequences:

• This would make the early game richer and the late game poorer. If the game is well balanced now then that might be undesirable effect. Solutions could include increasing the amount of simple goods needed at low SoL levels slightly to compensate. Alternatively reduce production slightly at low tech levels. Remove the effect at medium tech. At high tech levels add a production bonus (either a new tech, or make existing technologies stronger).
• This would make the strategy of getting lots of immigrants into a small country a less of a good strategy. This would still be a good strategy for the USA with its large sparsely populated provinces. I think that would be a good change.
• This makes some huge provinces in the most fertile parts of India and China even better. Is it worth reassessing if 500+ fertile land is realistic in those provinces and potentially dial them back a little? Or are these just very large very fertile parts of the world?
• This provides some additional small incentive to go out and colonize or conquer other lands. Even if you have extra fertile land at home new fertile land might be more productive (and new mines/forests too). I think this is a positive change.
• This gives additional incentive to invest in all provinces, rather than just focus on a single one. I think that is a good chance.
• More realism. That would be a positive change

 

[DukeLeto42]

I think this is an excellent idea, particularly for how it impacts agricultural development. A pattern of the slow marginalizing of subsistence farms nationwide is an excellent idea, and should prevent the sort of employment issues where there are no peasants and the unemployed instantly migrate out, making new buildings struggle to hire.

This makes some huge provinces in the most fertile parts of India and China even better. Is it worth reassessing if 500+ fertile land is realistic in those provinces and potentially dial them back a little? Or are these just very large very fertile parts of the world?

I think there's still a real need for reassessing those areas, as the Beijing area having 500 arable land is rather absurd. What subsistence agriculture needs is intensification - a much higher employee cap per open arable land, but slowly declining yields per pop as you approach that cap.

This would have the added benefit of making subsistence farmsteads in places like the USA profitable and attractive to Eurasian peasants in places with high population density.

 

[doubleskulls]

Although the marginal value from each level of agriculture or resource building could be lower for the reasons you state, I think the efficiency bonus from larger farms / mines etc would outweigh this in practice. You also get further efficiency from concentration due to the secondary supporting industries (e.g. tooling workshops for mines) which aren't really represented in game.

 

[Fawr]

Although the marginal value from each level of agriculture or resource building could be lower for the reasons you state, I think the efficiency bonus from larger farms / mines etc would outweigh this in practice. You also get further efficiency from concentration due to the secondary supporting industries (e.g. tooling workshops for mines) which aren't really represented in game.

This effect of concentration is certainly there too (and why I don't want to change urban buildings). However the effect I described is normally much more significant when talking about things like mines, farms and forestry.

Think about fishermen. Some parts of the ocean are much richer than others, and those are the best places to build your first fishing buildings to get fish (in my formula, but not in the current game). As you fish a part of the ocean out more the catch becomes more marginal (in my formula but not in the current game).

It's also why people looked for coal in many different parts of the UK rather than staying in just one province (in-game spreading out would be a poor option). Currently in game the optimal returns are for building up an resource gathering/farming buildings in a province until you hit a barrier (either some other industry is more profitable, the building cap, your province infrastructure cap, running out of people, etc).

 

[Amorenkaire]

I'm pretty certain industry of scale would apply to rural industries too. A prime example of this in the modern day is the American corn fields, which are ridiculously efficient massive sprawls of farms that utilize large economies of scale (and easy access to the Mississippi river) to produce a giant quantity of corn efficiency. Or the Liberian Fireston rubber plantation that skyrocketed to being the largest rubber producer after its creation just due to its massive size.

Even things like mining or oil. Part of what made Standard Oil the monopolistic juggernaut it was was developing a huge industry of scale and transport that allowed it to out compete smaller oil tycoons, even if they had 'better oil' deposits. Californian crude oil was also notably poor in quality that was left untapped for decades until we could refine it to a usable status, and it became tied with Oklahoma for oil production just because of the sheer scale of the industries involved.

I'm not against the idea of there being marginal returns for certain industries, but economies of scale certainly still give an advantage, becoming more of a trade off. Although for agriculture and oil, technological advantages in fertilizers and refining would largely overcome any marginal utility I imagine (just being cheaper to refine). And that becomes more complicated to model.

 

[DukeLeto42]

A prime example of this in the modern day is the American corn fields, which are ridiculously efficient massive sprawls of farms that utilize large economies of scale (and easy access to the Mississippi river) to produce a giant quantity of corn efficiency.

However, an example of this from the time period is the state enforcement of monoculture in one of Ireland's staple crops... and we all know how that turned out.

 

[Amorenkaire]

However, an example of this from the time period is the state enforcement of monoculture in one of Ireland's staple crops... and we all know how that turned out.

Which would be a very flavorful event series to add. Crop blights which only target a specific farm type in a state and cause a massive throughput penalty~?

The game needs more dynamic famines anyway. >:3

 

[Silens]

This would make the early game richer and the late game poorer.

That's exactly the problem many players have now: the early game is fine, but the late game has a severe lack of resources. Why would anyone want to make it worse?

This would make the strategy of getting lots of immigrants into a small country a less of a good strategy.

Isn't that already the case? Pop growth spirals out of control in the lategame, when you reduce mortality, dangerous work conditions etc. Couple that with welfare and minimum wage and you set yourself up for disaster.

Where I would change things is with the difference between law and practice. Even if you don't have discriminatory laws, or make discrimination illegal, haters gonna hate. But in the game everyone suddenly likes everyone and discrimination is no more. Hurrah, hussah, welcome to the 25th century I guess? There's no racial tension, that's what I would do to give Multiculturalism a heavy downside.

This provides some additional small incentive to go out and colonize or conquer other lands.

That creates a system that favors the top 10 powers even more. I'd like to see a world with a bit less conflict and a heavier focus on overcoming problems with internal development, education, trade (foreign investment) and technology.

This gives additional incentive to invest in all provinces, rather than just focus on a single one. I think that is a good chance.

You know what? I agree. Maybe we could steal the idea from Stellaris' planet designation system and specialize provinces towards a few select goods? Decrees have that to a certain degree, but the lack of authority doesn't allow you to boost more than two or three provinces at max. But I see some potential here.

 

[Fawr]

You know what? I agree. Maybe we could steal the idea from Stellaris' planet designation system and specialize provinces towards a few select goods? Decrees have that to a certain degree, but the lack of authority doesn't allow you to boost more than two or three provinces at max. But I see some potential here.

I feel the current boost system is one of those things which encourages you to invest in just one province. Provinces specialising even further (like with province modifiers) won't make the problem any better. Even if Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama all had a +15% bonus to growing cotton the optimal strategy would be to build one up use every last field (getting the 15%+20% throughput rather than just a 15%) while ignoring cotton in the others. Migrants (rightly with the current mechanics) focus on the high SoL province rather than the high excess capacity province.

That creates a system that favors the top 10 powers even more. I'd like to see a world with a bit less conflict and a heavier focus on overcoming problems with internal development, education, trade (foreign investment) and technology.

I tend to see the European AI falling behind their historical gains in Africa and Asia. The Colonisation mechanic is working at close to the right speed (or maybe slightly too easy), but the conquest (or diplo vassalization) side seems to be lagging.