Railroads and infrastructure

[MAHak]

I've created an similar thread earlier:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=427768

And i agree that it would be better to have both an communication infrastructure and a railroad/road one.

An early layer of communication could be postal services.

What bonuses should the different infrastructure types provide?

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I've created an similar thread earlier:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=427768

And i agree that it would be better to have both an communication infrastructure and a railroad/road one.

An early layer of communication could be postal services.

What bonuses should the different infrastructure types provided?

Well apart form the obvious production and movement bonuses, I think communications infrastructure should give an organisational bonus to units and decrease revolt risk somewhat, to simulate better government administration of an area.

Also, I have no idea will issues/election events work the same, but maybe if they do and you get the option to 'set [moralism] as an issues for 20% of the population in [Saarbrucken]', this could be more effective in a province with good comms infrastructure?

 

[ashandresash]

(...)
What bonuses should the different infrastructure types provide?

Maybe increase the rate of generation of diplomatic points (needed to improve relations, declare of war, sue of peace, treaties...).

 

[Quarto]

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).

Well now... does that include Africa? Or the totally-uncolonised Wild West? Heck, in Europe river transport continued to be strongly developed all throughout the century, especially where given nations couldn't afford a strong rail network. So, for example, the Vistula was by far the main export route from Russia-controlled Poland. But even in more developed areas, the same thing happened - the Germans built up a very strong river barge fleet on the Oder, because it was just so much cheaper to send coal down the river on a barge than ship it via rail. This wasn't the case in the UK, because it lacks rivers of significant length, so trying to make use of river currents is not in the least economical.

It would be pretty nifty if a basic canal network and/or road network was a buildable option. Yes, virtually every provice in Europe would start off with this in place - but it would give the US and the Uncivs something to do in the early game. Options like this would allow the removal of the blunt "uncivs get 10% of the province income that a civ would get" system - instead, the uncivs' lower income would be justified by the absence of these improvements, and the player could actually have a (shock, horror) fun time leading some obscure uncivilised nation to industrialisation.

I would suggest two things - first up, a river (and coast) infrastructure thingy that has a few levels of infrastructure (eg., 1 - natural rivers/coastlines, 2 - regulated rivers, 3 - canal network, 4 - steam paddleboat network, and 5 - steamboat network), and a buildable stagecoach road network as the first level of the railroad infrastructure.

The fun thing about having a separate river infrastructure is that it would help drive colonisation in Africa and the US along rivers - the Missouri and the Congo, for example. Provinces that lack navigable rivers would not be able to build up this kind of infrastructure, and so would have a lower accessibility/life rating for colonists. Might help with the US Civil War, too - wasn't there a whole lot of fighting in the Mississippi Valley, which would have been entirely pointless in Victoria's riverless context?

 

[SA_Avenger]

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

Well actually I hope we'll have a better tool at our disposal this time than building infrastructure/railroads province by province.
I know we'll have less provinces than in HOI3 but still it's a real chore spamming railroads (or infra in Hoi3 case) in all the provinces you wanted one in. Best would be to be able to draw one (drag and drop or select province to start/province to stop) or even a "build mode" where you don't have to click on province info to build (just click the province where you wanna build). Well anything that reduces the amount of clicking when building is involved

 

[Tormodius]

Another way of working this out could be capitalists having a chance of paying for example half the cost or 2/3 or whatever is the best for balance, and this chance would increase depending on how many capitalists you have and their income. So if you had no capitalists or you taxed them too much so they would have no wealth, then you might have to pay the full cost whenever you build something. I dont know if this is a good idea hmm, what do ya'll think?

 

[byzantium43]

For railroads at least, I like the Idea of state determining a starting an ending point, as well as way points along the way if they have a preference, and the capitalists build branches off the main route for their own penny, possibly subsidized.

 

[unmerged(148774)]

Well now... does that include Africa? Or the totally-uncolonised Wild West? Heck, in Europe river transport continued to be strongly developed all throughout the century, especially where given nations couldn't afford a strong rail network. So, for example, the Vistula was by far the main export route from Russia-controlled Poland. But even in more developed areas, the same thing happened - the Germans built up a very strong river barge fleet on the Oder, because it was just so much cheaper to send coal down the river on a barge than ship it via rail. This wasn't the case in the UK, because it lacks rivers of significant length, so trying to make use of river currents is not in the least economical.

It would be pretty nifty if a basic canal network and/or road network was a buildable option. Yes, virtually every provice in Europe would start off with this in place - but it would give the US and the Uncivs something to do in the early game. Options like this would allow the removal of the blunt "uncivs get 10% of the province income that a civ would get" system - instead, the uncivs' lower income would be justified by the absence of these improvements, and the player could actually have a (shock, horror) fun time leading some obscure uncivilised nation to industrialisation.

I would suggest two things - first up, a river (and coast) infrastructure thingy that has a few levels of infrastructure (eg., 1 - natural rivers/coastlines, 2 - regulated rivers, 3 - canal network, 4 - steam paddleboat network, and 5 - steamboat network), and a buildable stagecoach road network as the first level of the railroad infrastructure.

The fun thing about having a separate river infrastructure is that it would help drive colonisation in Africa and the US along rivers - the Missouri and the Congo, for example. Provinces that lack navigable rivers would not be able to build up this kind of infrastructure, and so would have a lower accessibility/life rating for colonists. Might help with the US Civil War, too - wasn't there a whole lot of fighting in the Mississippi Valley, which would have been entirely pointless in Victoria's riverless context?

There's some very good ideas here. I think this would certainly help the uncivilized nations and would direct colonialism better.

 

[Steel Beagle]

Railroads and Factories

Sorry, but I am one of the more God Wannabe's. I think it makes a great deal of sense to have the ability to build railroads - and a lot of the ideas above are workable ways to do that.

I would also like a way to turn off the indirect capitalist build function (for all types of government) and be able to build factories directly. I enjoyed doing that pre-Ricky (IIRC) - and found the new system less enjoyable. I understand that most people like the newer approach, but I tend to like to be able to mix and match some features. If this creates way too much alternative programming, then I'd rather get a good Vicky 2. I'll be buying it regardless.

 

[unmerged(148774)]

I always wondered why railroads don't have upkeep. It might stop the AI from spamming railways into the most unlikeliest of places like Baffin Island and Northern Siberia.

Either have upkeep or make them much more expensive to build.

 

[Tormodius]

I got another idea. It could be national decisions to let private initiative build different things actually. Rairoads could be one decision. Then everyone would be happy and you could revoke the decision any time, if the capitalists starts building things when you dont want. In which case you have to pay the dough and build for yourself.

 

[Carewolf2]

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).

But canals could be existing infrastructure in some provinces giving them an early boost. I would agree to not make them available to build since railroad is much cheaper and doesn't have the same limitations to geography.

 

[henryjai]

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)

inland canals are unloved...

 

[unmerged(91061)]

Just a quick suggestion, could we please not have to click on wach and every province to build a railway there? Rather, have a "build railway" wand that starts construction in every province you click on.

 

[lizardo]

As far as building infrastructure under a market economy the government usually offered guarantees and rights of way or the use of eminent domain to get things done where it wanted.

So these would be administrative options you could use to get a capitalist to build where you wanted.

Problem with the game though is that capitalists don't behave like capitalists. They are only interested in spending money, not if it will be profitable. There is no mechanism for them to respond to price signals or evaluate profit and risk.

As pointed out by a Russian writer to this forum, Vicky is the perfect model of a socialist economy. It has no meaningful price structure and everyone is paid by the state, including the Capitalists.

What should happen in a Market economy is that the people really do own stuff and profit by its use. The government taxes profit and transactions. It could also tax assets.

The goal of capitalists should be to earn money from low risk investments. Even the Erie Canal the 'capitalist' lobbied the state and federal government for assistance and Rights of Way (RoW). Government is always a player.

Some things:

OH talks about infrastructure, good ideas. Go back earlier though. At the beginning of the game infrastructure is canals, rivers and roads. Things move by muscle.

Rivers provided power and transportation. That's why all the textile and saw mills were located in New England. The Erie Canal linked to the Great Lakes and opened up resources there.

Vicky needs a separate development path for River, Road, Rail and Sea transport, driven by specific incentives. At the last part of the game Air transport becomes available with early airplanes and Zeppelins.

Paved roads only existed in the cities and not until the automobile were inter city roads in demand. The automobile and war drove the incentives for limited access highway. The car makes the cities cleaner too by not being filled with horse shit and dead horses. This was a real problem. I seem to recall that the US didn't get wide spread limited access roads until the 50s.

Shipping and development of large fast steam liners drove the expansion of ports and the Suez/Panama Canal.

Railroads should exist for strategic transport of military units, they're special because it's the first time the military can send units not under its own power which is limited to muscle. Other than that mobile units should move as fast as road conditions permit muscle to move. Movement through some mountainous terrain should be impossible for large military units without roads.

Wind power is rare. Water power is the primary means of factory mechanization until steam. Until Tesla introduces alternating currency electricity is weak, dangerous and very very local. With Tesla the Niagara Falls generating station is build and it is proven electricity can be transmitted long distances.

RGOs should start consuming fuel and machines as soon as farms are mechanized and upgraded. At some point power too.

What would be the effect (game) of telegraph/telephone/radio?

A nice event here would be if Tesla chooses to spend JP Morgans money on the radio tower he was supposed to make instead of the power broadcaster he actually built. No one would know who Marconi is.

Electric power could be generated from water coal or oil, and sold to RGO/FAC/POPs in units. This would have to be locally (state) generated until a 'grid' is available.

Mechanized RGO/FACs need coal/oil for steam and/or heat once mechanized, unless they have water.
----
Roads should exist from 0 (raw terrain) to limited access. Roads have a lot more local effect. Capacity is almost unlimited until you get to autos but very expensive and slow. Attrition is high. You show this by association cost of wagons, horses and people.

Rail should exist separately. Movement on rail is different. It moves at train speed. It's capacity is limited train efficiency is important along with inventions like signals and air breaks.

Importantly, it should never be necessary to build all the obsolete railroad types before building the your current level of technology. That's insane. Only game designers do that. It's not even cost effective to build the old technology because there really isn't a price savings. It would be more expensive to build a steam engine today than the latest engine. No one would do this. Until you get to super fast trains, later in the 20th century you don't even have to change the tracks. Your big investment is the engine and the rolling stock. Signaling makes the tracks more efficient and lowers attrition.

This gives rise to two distinct technology strategies. The first is to invest heavily in innovating and building the tech. You get the early benefits in use and prestige. You set the standards. You also get the beta version and old obsolete infrastructure that you have to invest more money in to upgrade. The longer and more widespread the present technology is the faster easier cheaper it is to install, and the better it is. Until it is obsolete. The guys making the last buggy whip had it down to a science. Every time you build the same thing you learn how to do it better and cheaper and faster.

The second strategy is to wait until early adapters develop the technology and then build. You get the brand spanking new infrastructure at a fraction of the investment.

It should also be possible to deconstruct and sell old infra to the developing world. Or get paid to build it someplace other than your nation, or donate it for 'good will'. This could be state to state, capitalist on their own of put it on the WM.

Market economies could have multiple rail companies. Rail companies could be structured like factories.
-------

Ports and the sea;

About the mid 19th century the first large fast steam liners were being build and promptly dragooned into service in the American civil war. (monitors were also used to blockade and assault river cities). In the later century and early 20th Large Liners were developed driven by passenger and cargo demand. The military also had a hand in the design to be sure that these ships were easily convertible to service. There were as fast or faster than anything in the fleet.

For shipping ports need to be developed. The value of the port should be its capacity in units. That capacity should have a cost in manpower and required material.

All ships should have some intrinsic self repair, especially wood ships. Sailing ships can forage for supply and thus have an infinite range.

Wood/coal/oil driven ships are more limited. Their advantage is speed, small crew and capacity. They should only be fully created/repaired at a port.

There should be a mechanism for passenger usage of transport capacity.
--------

Air:

Mail service come to mind. Air transport is probably the most cost inefficient means but invaluable for small valuable items that need to be there today.

The Zeppelin changes that dynamic but has some problems with porting. Not just fire but it's really subject to weather conditions. Unlike plane disasters, Zeppelin disasters are readily survivable.

I don't know how, for the game, you would distinguish high value cargo for air transport. Maybe passenger service only.

Sorry about the wall o text. Been thinking about this for awhile.

 

[Gwalcmai]

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 would be nice if the progression stretched backwards. The 18th century was the "century of roads", but many places were late to the party and didn't really get started with their road networks until the 19th century. And those early road networks were very important in creating the conditions for industrialisation, as they served to move excess agricultural production from the countryside into the cities and industrialised/industrialising areas. And, later on, the road networks were needed to move stuff to/from the railheads.

 

[unmerged(181770)]

Just a quick suggestion, could we please not have to click on wach and every province to build a railway there? Rather, have a "build railway" wand that starts construction in every province you click on.

Agree with you. I suffered from finger cramp when I play Russia and Qing Dynasty. There're just too many provinces, too many railways to be built.

 

[Orinsul]

will the R & E keys still do the same things in the new one, i like railroading the whole of africa like that and having to go though a build like in EU or its comtempories would be bally annoying.
I say simplification is a virtue in some places, Railways but with a graphic to show that the railway is all over said province not just linking to others, maybe a circut as well or just a fair amount of wriggle, does well enough, but with rather than the benefit be immediate have it slowly grow over time, province production efficincy and maybe to a much lesser extent life rating too slowly rise over time with the railway present to represent the slow growth and adaptation of the provinces economy, infurstructure and society to the railways, with serious and immediate damages should the railway no long be there.
And maybe a law or something for private vs. nationalised railways, some building themselves but with annual profits to capitalists, and the other with profits to the state but maybe that would give all too much benefit to the computer nations. or maybe to the player too. no worries, just rambling at this point.

minor quibbles, zeppelin disasters are terrible, dirigibles are the survival ones. zeppelins blown up, most airships just fall over or sink to the ground and land with a serious but generally not fatal. but the hard framed zeppelins either blow up from needing the more powerful explosive gasses or when they collapse the frame crumbles and either tear the thing apart midflight or drop great hulking girders on people.

 

[Beamed]

Well now... does that include Africa? Or the totally-uncolonised Wild West? Heck, in Europe river transport continued to be strongly developed all throughout the century, especially where given nations couldn't afford a strong rail network. So, for example, the Vistula was by far the main export route from Russia-controlled Poland. But even in more developed areas, the same thing happened - the Germans built up a very strong river barge fleet on the Oder, because it was just so much cheaper to send coal down the river on a barge than ship it via rail. This wasn't the case in the UK, because it lacks rivers of significant length, so trying to make use of river currents is not in the least economical.

It would be pretty nifty if a basic canal network and/or road network was a buildable option. Yes, virtually every provice in Europe would start off with this in place - but it would give the US and the Uncivs something to do in the early game. Options like this would allow the removal of the blunt "uncivs get 10% of the province income that a civ would get" system - instead, the uncivs' lower income would be justified by the absence of these improvements, and the player could actually have a (shock, horror) fun time leading some obscure uncivilised nation to industrialisation.

I would suggest two things - first up, a river (and coast) infrastructure thingy that has a few levels of infrastructure (eg., 1 - natural rivers/coastlines, 2 - regulated rivers, 3 - canal network, 4 - steam paddleboat network, and 5 - steamboat network), and a buildable stagecoach road network as the first level of the railroad infrastructure.

The fun thing about having a separate river infrastructure is that it would help drive colonisation in Africa and the US along rivers - the Missouri and the Congo, for example. Provinces that lack navigable rivers would not be able to build up this kind of infrastructure, and so would have a lower accessibility/life rating for colonists. Might help with the US Civil War, too - wasn't there a whole lot of fighting in the Mississippi Valley, which would have been entirely pointless in Victoria's riverless context?

Paradox needs to read this post.

 

[Tormodius]

Provinces that lack navigable rivers would not be able to build up this kind of infrastructure, and so would have a lower accessibility/life rating for colonists. Might help with the US Civil War, too - wasn't there a whole lot of fighting in the Mississippi Valley, which would have been entirely pointless in Victoria's riverless context?

Yes it was. Not only the Missisippi but other places too. The Missisippi was the most notable one in the US civil war. Supply routes were blockaded and towns were sacked by floating fortresses (monitors) so it was important strategically. Many similar river networks as you say in Europe too, but i dont know if they used gunboats there. These details is not easy to reflect in such a grand scale strategy concept but it could be kept in as a kind of "coastal province" further inside the country perhaps? Technically "coastal" will just be a flag right?