Railroads and infrastructure

[byzantium43]

I know the way capitalists build railroads is being reworked so they are not spamming them in the far corners of your empire, but I'd also like to make one request that even the states of Laissez-faire countries can build railroads/highways.
My first reason for this is that railroads and highways were a military investment as well as economic, and were often essential for maintaining and spreading spheres of influence.
Second, capitalists should not be building and hopefully wont be building much in the way of railroads in far flung colonies, especially in Africa, and as such it should be the role of the state to develop infrastructure in the colonies.

 

[Taylor]

Yes and historically, even in countries that were considered to have more or less a "laissez-faire" stance towards the economy, railroads were often heavily subsidised.

But maybe this could be done with a decision? "Subsidise railway in [enter a province here]"?

 

[Bezborg]

Yes and historically, even in countries that were considered to have more or less a "laissez-faire" stance towards the economy, railroads were often heavily subsidised.

But maybe this could be done with a decision? "Subsidise railway in [enter a province here]"?

Or click a "build railroad" button in that province?

 

[byzantium43]

Or click a "build railroad" button in that province?

I was gonna say the same thing.

 

[Emre Yigit]

I agree.

I suppose you could allow any type of government to build railways and other infrastructure, but amend the building times and costs. Eg, a centrally planned state could build a railroad in 12 months for 200 bucks, while a laisser-faire one could do it in 24 months for 100 bucks. Or something.

A general question: has there ever been any country where the government's building of infrastructure faced legal difficulties other than the planning process or where the populace got cross?

 

[Faulty]

A general question: has there ever been any country where the government's building of infrastructure faced legal difficulties other than the planning process or where the populace got cross?

Didn't the American Indians wage a low intensity war over railroad encroachment

 

[Emre Yigit]

Didn't the American Indians wage a low intensity war over railroad encroachment

True, but the question really applies to those countries that have the means to build railroads and whatnot.

The native Americans did not have the technology to build railways. I am guessing that if they had had the means, they would have adopted iron horses as readily as they adopted the flesh-and-blood ones or rifles. And I would also say they were resisting because of the long term low-level warfare / political encroachment of the US, of which they did not feel a part, rather than because they were ideologically opposed to actions being taken by "their" government.

 

[Hemothep]

I agree.

I suppose you could allow any type of government to build railways and other infrastructure, but amend the building times and costs. Eg, a centrally planned state could build a railroad in 12 months for 200 bucks, while a laisser-faire one could do it in 24 months for 100 bucks. Or something.

That makes no sense. Why would a laissez faire gov build railroads cheaper than a centrally planned one. The opposite should be the case, because the later already has a giant administration to plan and realize a public project like that. Laissez faire on the other hand try to minimalize their administration, so it would make more sense to make them cheaper for planned economies.

 

[Emre Yigit]

That makes no sense. Why would a laissez faire gov build railroads cheaper than a centrally planned one. The opposite should be the case, because the later already has a giant administration to plan and realize a public project like that. Laissez faire on the other hand try to minimalize their administration, so it would make more sense to make them cheaper for planned economies.

The idea I was trying to express was that under different government styles, there might be variations in both, rather than specifying an actual cost. (In any event, I assume that more will be involved than cash and time.)

Though I do believe that private railroads take longer to construct due to eminent domain issues, I agree that they might not necessarily cost less. But your argument assumes that a centrally planned series of ventures will necessarily be more efficient than a private one, and I, for myself, don't take that as a given. But then, my ideology is not socialist and issue is not state_capitalism, like yours are.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

A general question: has there ever been any country where the government's building of infrastructure faced legal difficulties other than the planning process or where the populace got cross?

Well, the Swedish government had a hell of a job trying to get local capital interested in investing money into such a "risky" venture, so the state had to step in and pay for the main lines. Private interests were instead allowed to build small side-tracks from the main network.

Not sure if that qualifies as a "legal difficulty", though.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Canals and electrification would be good as infrastructure too.

 

[Taylor]

Or click a "build railroad" button in that province?

Hmm, yes, lol, you're right, of course. I think I let the "decision craze" get to me :rofl:.

 

[Lightning Jack]

Even in America, the most capitalistic society, the Government said "We want a railroad from the east coast to the west coast."

After the government said that, the RR Companies competed for the most mileage they could lay. For every mile they laid, they got free land along the route.

Just because the government is Capitalist and laizze-fair, shouldn't rule out the government's ability to direct RR building.

I would suggest letting the government select a starting province and an ending province then let the capitalist build the actual railroads.

 

[Karri]

The problem is that, as someone already pointed out, Victoria represented a 'planned economy' well. Not so with capitalism/laissez faire. Because really, what is the idea of the capitalist building those railroads or factories? None really. They don't own them, the state does...

 

[OHgamer]

Canals and electrification would be good as infrastructure too.

I'd personally love to see a whole parallel set of infrastructure dedicated to the construction of communications networks. This was the era of the communications revolution, and all nations had to make massive investments (public or privately funded) to constuct the infrastructure, yet in V1 that was hardly recognized.

I'd have it break down into the following levels

Telegraph
Electricity
Telephone
Radio Network

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I'd personally love to see a whole parallel set of infrastructure dedicated to the construction of communications networks. This was the era of the communications revolution, and all nations had to make massive investments (public or privately funded) to constuct the infrastructure, yet in V1 that was hardly recognized.

I'd have it break down into the following levels

Telegraph
Electricity
Telephone
Radio Network

I don't think canals could be ignored given their impact, esp. in England but yeah telegraphs is a big one too. Did radio really have a big practical impact within that time frame? I thought that didnt really happen til the 30s, although I could well be wrong.

TBH I think there's scope for a fair few buildings, cinemas and the like, which would reduce consciousness in poorer pops.

 

[OHgamer]

Also I'd like probably tweak the current infrastructure system, which IMHO is too rail focused.

Early Railway (skip experimental)
Iron Railway
Steel Railway
National Roads (road network pre-autobahn limited/access system needed to handle increase in auto traffic)
Electric Railway
Airports (one could then have a building "military airbase" to convert a commercial airbase into one also usable by military aircraft, similar to how you have ports in all provinces but have to construct naval bases).
Limited-Access Roadways (the Autobahns)

 

[OHgamer]

I don't think canals could be ignored given their impact, esp. in England but yeah telegraphs is a big one too. Did radio really have a big practical impact within that time frame? I thought that didnt really happen til the 30s, although I could well be wrong.

TBH I think there's scope for a fair few buildings, cinemas and the like, which would reduce consciousness in poorer pops.

Canal construction is really pre-Victoria time though - England's canal craze was in the late 18th C up to about 1820, while the US canal craze was winding down by 1835. Once railways begin to take off in England in the 1830s, other nations pretty much drop canal plans in favor of rail. So I think for a game starting in 1836 having a canal infra project is a bit out of time (and of course, would not make much sense having to build canals in desert provinces or really any province that isn't geographically favored - something railways allowed to be overcome since they weren't dependent on water).

I might be wrong about Europe, but in the USA it was the 1920s that saw the explosion of the radio system in terms of the establishment of networks, the construction of radio transmitters and the like. What tends to be remembered more is that in the 1930s radio became the dominant entertainment form because in a time of tight home economies, so long as you had a radio you had free entertainment. But at least in the USA, the system to deliver that entertainment was mostly in place by 1929.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Canal construction is really pre-Victoria time though - England's canal craze was in the late 18th C up to about 1820, while the US canal craze was winding down by 1835. Once railways begin to take off in England in the 1830s, other nations pretty much drop canal plans in favor of rail. So I think for a game starting in 1836 having a canal infra project is a bit out of time (and of course, would not make much sense having to build canals in desert provinces or really any province that isn't geographically favored - something railways allowed to be overcome since they weren't dependent on water).

Fair enough, I hadn't been aware of that.

I might be wrong about Europe, but in the USA it was the 1920s that saw the explosion of the radio system in terms of the establishment of networks, the construction of radio transmitters and the like. What tends to be remembered more is that in the 1930s radio became the dominant entertainment form because in a time of tight home economies, so long as you had a radio you had free entertainment. But at least in the USA, the system to deliver that entertainment was mostly in place by 1929.

Well yeah, but if its really just the infrastructure that existed, what would be the effects of building it in game? Maybe that could be better implemented as a decision? As I said, maybe the entertainment side of thigns could be handled by buildings, like cinemas or vaudeville halls

 

[Taylor]

Also I'd like probably tweak the current infrastructure system, which IMHO is too rail focused.

Early Railway (skip experimental)
Iron Railway
Steel Railway
National Roads (road network pre-autobahn limited/access system needed to handle increase in auto traffic)
Electric Railway
Airports (one could then have a building "military airbase" to convert a commercial airbase into one also usable by military aircraft, similar to how you have ports in all provinces but have to construct naval bases).
Limited-Access Roadways (the Autobahns)

It should be possible though to build some of these without having the previous in the list. I.e. for national roads you don't really need steel railways (you just need automobile tech), and for airports you don't really need electric railways. On the other hand, you do need national roads for limited-access roadways.

So I propose three categories of infrastructure (of which you do need to have the previous before building a new level): Rail, Road and Communications. Maybe airports could be put in the communications category, as air units weren't used to transport troops or goods in this time period; only individuals (sometimes). Furthermore, a good level of communications is needed for airports to function.