Yes, but subsequent factories still get the same throughput bonus. I tend to just continue stacking them because 1 steel mill in a state with 100 already present is in effect 1.5 steel mills, but in another state with none it'd just be back to 1.0.
Optimal industry distribution - which do you people use?
- Thread starter Grim Deadman
- Start date
-
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.
In very early game you will want to spread out manufacturing a little to take advantage of free infrastructure from pops, and in the middle/late game you want to make sure you are mopping up all your peasants into productive occupations.
As a result initially you want to spread your industry out a little bit stack the same type of industry in one state. By the end game of course you just plop down 60 factories and 5 railways in one state whenever you need more of a good…
The edge case is in very high pop countries like India and China where you will have tax inefficiency (and lots of workers). In these cases, as soon as you have railroads, you will want to stack industry in one or two provinces then build the 50-100 government buildings you need to tax those states efficiently and keep on stacking industry and infrastructure till you run out of pop then move on to the next province with 3 million peasants.
As a result initially you want to spread your industry out a little bit stack the same type of industry in one state. By the end game of course you just plop down 60 factories and 5 railways in one state whenever you need more of a good…
The edge case is in very high pop countries like India and China where you will have tax inefficiency (and lots of workers). In these cases, as soon as you have railroads, you will want to stack industry in one or two provinces then build the 50-100 government buildings you need to tax those states efficiently and keep on stacking industry and infrastructure till you run out of pop then move on to the next province with 3 million peasants.
I put all factories in one state and make it the capital. Then I put the factory and immigration bonus decree on that state and leave it for the rest of the game.
In doing this I got New York to 10+ billion GDP and >340 million population.
In doing this I got New York to 10+ billion GDP and >340 million population.
- 2
- 1
- 1
Something I noticed yesterday is that manufacturing throughput isn't really all that important.
When your throughput increases, your inputs also increase. This means that, if you're short on workers, high manufacturing throughput is good. If you have an abundance of workers (I noticed this while playing India), then you're reducing your need for more buildings, which means you'll have higher unemployment.
When your throughput increases, your inputs also increase. This means that, if you're short on workers, high manufacturing throughput is good. If you have an abundance of workers (I noticed this while playing India), then you're reducing your need for more buildings, which means you'll have higher unemployment.
- 2
One thing with this though is by reducing the number of workers, you essentially reduce the cost of producing the goods. This means you can have industries that are profitable when their input goods are more expensive. In this case, its better to leave the peasants on their farms, and have more profitable industries and viable industries.
You can also just build more buildings in other industries, improve wages to increase demand to build more buildings etc.
You are misinterpreting what I mean by abundance of workers. My remaining subsistence farms are full, so to increase average SOL, I can either pay a lot in welfare or have have less-efficient (but still productive) industries. Also, more transportation costs more limited natural resources (and the other worker-efficient methods generally cost more coal or oil, which are also limited).
Increasing my manufacturing throughput just increases worker efficiency, which means I can't employ as many of my unemployed pops, which means that I have to pay more welfare.
Fair enough, in that case it indeed might make more sense to pay subsidies if needed to keep people working in inefficient jobs than to have to pay welfare.
At some point you will face a workforce shortage and the overpopulated penalty, this could drive up wages a lot, reducing efficiency.
I try to make states specialize in certain industries.
I try to make states specialize in certain industries.