Questions about the Autonomous Investment System

[Cots]

Hello,

With the new autonomous investment system (which I think has the potential to be a very good addition to the game), I was wondering how the decision of what to build is made. The dev Diaries said that it was based on expected return on investment (which makes sense), but I think there are a couple of very easy errors to make when estimating that.

1. Only considering how profitable a building will be after being built and not how much it cost to be built (plus the initial material to start production). If a building that only costs 150 construction is expected to make +500, that is a better investment than a building that costs 450 construction and is expected to make +1000, and autonomous investment should favor the most return per investment, not the most return per building.
2. Considering the change in profit from the whole industry rather than just the additional building level being built. The way the game communicates expected returns to the player is by telling the difference in the profits of the whole industry (all building levels in the state). But assuming a (reasonably) competitive market where there are many companies and investors in the industry, new investors would only care about the profit of the new building level they are going to build and own, even if that means that the price goes down and the profits of their competitors go down. Sometimes the game tells you that building a new building level has negative expected returns, and yet the building will still have positive returns, which means the returns are positive for new investors, and they would potentially invest in it.

So my question is if the current implementation of autonomous investment takes these things into consideration.

Also, I would like to know how the ownership production method of buildings affects the calculation. Personally, I can't see why if the expected return on investment on an agricultural building was high, capitalists wouldn't just invest in it and become the owner.

I would appreciate any answers or comments (especially if somehow the developers saw this).

 

[Sotek]

There's already some randomness to it, the autonomous investors do not strictly invest in the single most profitable thing. Also, each pop type only invests in things that their pop type can work in - so for capitalists to invest in an agricultural building it has to employ capitalists, which is a reason to use the Publicly Traded ownership PM.

Also, I think for your #2 you are describing how things used to work pre-1.2, but they changed it with 1.2.

 

[maxk94]

Additional: It seems to me that however which pops are *really* paying to the investment pool, there is always a high chance that after 2 orders of one pop-type there comes with a high chance an order of another one - even if Laws should prevent that like in Agrariansm Capitalists can build Manufactories while the Law should prohibit that.

I guess the lines here impact that:

PRODUCTION_BUILDING_AUTONOMOUS_INVESTMENT_LOW_INVESTMENT_FACTOR = 10     # If investment proportion of the investing pop type is low (see below), multiply building value by this
    PRODUCTION_BUILDING_AUTONOMOUS_INVESTMENT_LOW_INVESTMENT_PROPORTION = 0.66  # If the proportion of expected to previous investments by a pop type is lower or equal to this, apply the above factor
    PRODUCTION_BUILDING_AUTONOMOUS_INVESTMENT_LOW_INVESTMENT_RESET_TIME = 12  # Every this number of months, reset the historical construction values for each pop type to ensure system can handle significant economic changes over time

That might mean, even with just a very small number of Capitalists, about 1/3 of all buildings from the AI comes from them...meaning preventing Industrialists rise as aristocratic country is not possible.

 

[Oglesby]

Additional: It seems to me that however which pops are *really* paying to the investment pool, there is always a high chance that after 2 orders of one pop-type there comes with a high chance an order of another one - even if Laws should prevent that like in Agrariansm Capitalists can build Manufactories while the Law should prohibit that.

The Laws do not prohibit it.

But if we would prefer that the autonomous investment shouldn't allow Capitalist buildings while under Agrarianism then Capitalists shouldn't be investing.

 

[maxk94]

The Laws do not prohibit it.

But if we would prefer that the autonomous investment shouldn't allow Capitalist buildings while under Agrarianism then Capitalists shouldn't be investing.

Capitalists not only own Industries. I want that with Agrarianism Capitalists build their Non-Industry Bildungs like Mines, Oil and Farms with Publicy Traded

 

[Cots]

There's already some randomness to it, the autonomous investors do not strictly invest in the single most profitable thing. Also, each pop type only invests in things that their pop type can work in - so for capitalists to invest in an agricultural building it has to employ capitalists, which is a reason to use the Publicly Traded ownership PM.

Also, I think for your #2 you are describing how things used to work pre-1.2, but they changed it with 1.2.

Playing a game I discovered that a few times capitalists invested on buildings with profits way below the building with the most profits, going as far as to build a coal mine when it wouldn't be profitable at all. I think it could be a bug.

 

[Wizzington]

Playing a game I discovered that a few times capitalists invested on buildings with profits way below the building with the most profits, going as far as to build a coal mine when it wouldn't be profitable at all. I think it could be a bug.

No, sometimes they will invest in things that they expect can turn a profit only if other buildings are built afterwards. Like, 'if we build a coal mine and an iron mine, surely someone will build a steel plant'. Just looking at profit would mean they'd never invest in new types of goods.

 

[The Goldfinch]

No, sometimes they will invest in things that they expect can turn a profit only if other buildings are built afterwards. Like, 'if we build a coal mine and an iron mine, surely someone will build a steel plant'. Just looking at profit would mean they'd never invest in new types of goods.

Sounds perfect! Would you perhaps consider allowing private investors to change Production Methods? It would add so much depth to the system!

 

[Evethor]

Sounds perfect! Would you perhaps consider allowing private investors to change Production Methods? It would add so much depth to the system!

Only if it`s under L.F. / collective ownership a change in PMs would also allow the pops to shift the power balance by changing owner type and pop type.
I don`t want the industrialists / Unions to get too strong.

 

[Cots]

No, sometimes they will invest in things that they expect can turn a profit only if other buildings are built afterwards. Like, 'if we build a coal mine and an iron mine, surely someone will build a steel plant'. Just looking at profit would mean they'd never invest in new types of goods.

That makes sense. So they may buy a coal mine when none exists in the market even if it wouldn't be profitable but they wouldn't if a coal mine already exist but is working at 0% employment because it is not profitable, ¿correct?