Factories Should get a Throughput Bonus from Input Goods in the State

[Catoscar]

Basically just the title. As of right now, the major issue with goods in Victoria 3 is that they can magically fly everywhere in your market that spans the entire globe instantly, which negates one of the major issues with goods - transportation time and costs. While I think it would better to simulate local economics and the cost of transportation, that'd probably require an entire rework of the market system. Instead, I'd propose giving a throughput bonus to any building that has its input goods produced locally, maybe scaling to the % of the input goods that are produced locally. For example, a paper mill would get a throughput bonus from locally produced wood and then if they switch to a production method that uses sulfur, that would give the bonus as well. This would help simulate the build up of industry around natural resources and create "localized" economies, rather than having all of it sitting in one province back home.

 

[Kikker450]

That would also require a significant market change. Because then we would need to connect local production with throughput, whereas currently all production is added to market and throughput can only be a simple modifier. Also feedback loops are a problem: Tools -> Iron , Iron (+ wood) -> Tools where the increase in tools will possible cause the throughput of iron mine to increase which increases the throughput of tools. Though this converges eventually, it will add more chaos and is hard to calculate. Lastly I think it's not in line with how concepts are represented, the idea is that infrastructure connects up the different states, so if everything is in the same state it should simply cost less infrastructure.

 

[Althar93]

Perhaps prices of locally produced input goods should be lower, so more profit could be made, without breaking the amount of resources being outputted.

I thought that was what the 'Produced and Consumed' modifier was meant to represent, but I've only ever seen it at 0% so not sure about this one anymore.

 

[Catoscar]

That would also require a significant market change. Because then we would need to connect local production with throughput, whereas currently all production is added to market and throughput can only be a simple modifier. Also feedback loops are a problem: Tools -> Iron , Iron (+ wood) -> Tools where the increase in tools will possible cause the throughput of iron mine to increase which increases the throughput of tools. Though this converges eventually, it will add more chaos and is hard to calculate. Lastly I think it's not in line with how concepts are represented, the idea is that infrastructure connects up the different states, so if everything is in the same state it should simply cost less infrastructure.

I was specifically thinking of this applying to natural resources and going down a chain - iron would provide a bonus to tools but tools would not then provide a bonus to iron. However, iron could provide a bonus to steel, which then provides its bonus to a shipyard. Ideally, I'd prefer it to use price of tools, but that'd require a reworking of the system, since there's no "local" markets for any resources - you making something in Australia is just as cheap or easy to utilize in a factory in Scotland than it is next door. It shouldn't matter how much infrastructure your province has, it will always be cheaper the less travel that's required. The game just doesn't model transportation at all for goods, which makes supply chains unrealistic. You should always have an incentive to try and bring together your inputs to your outputs, with other factors like population, wages, and resource availability being the things that force you to expand outward.

Perhaps prices of locally produced input goods should be lower, so more profit could be made, without breaking the amount of resources being outputted.

I thought that was what the 'Produced and Consumed' modifier was meant to represent, but I've only ever seen it at 0% so not sure about this one anymore.

I don't know if there's anything that reduces local prices for a good at the moment. I know you can change the input requirements to be less, but then that actively hurts your original building, as you have less demand for the resource rather than it just being more efficiently used, which is more of the intention.

 

[Amorenkaire]

I've always thought the throughput bonuses for local goods ala Victoria 2 were a bit backwards, personally. This is the era of globalization and interstate trade from canals, railroads, and coal powered shipping, allowing for specialization of industries to an even further extent. Adding a game mechanic specifically to discourage that seems wrong to me.

However, another idea someone brought up that I do like for its flavor is giving an Infrastructure discount for buildings if they're directly in a supply chain. Say Pennsylvania with its coal and steel mill. The -1 Infrastructure from the Coal Mine might be reduced to -0.2 or even negated, so long as the ideal ratio between coal mine to steel mill is reached (or just 1 to 1), because the local coal is largely being shoveled right into the steel mill rather than needing to use any interstate trade infrastructure.

 

[Fawr]

However, another idea someone brought up that I do like for its flavor is giving an Infrastructure discount for buildings if they're directly in a supply chain. Say Pennsylvania with its coal and steel mill. The -1 Infrastructure from the Coal Mine might be reduced to -0.2 or even negated, so long as the ideal ratio between coal mine to steel mill is reached (or just 1 to 1), because the local coal is largely being shoveled right into the steel mill rather than needing to use any interstate trade infrastructure.

That last one is an interesting take. So having everything in the same state would simplify your infrastructure needs (critical before railways come in). But as the game progresses it is easier and easier to have producers and consumers in different states as long as you invest in infrastructure.