The game needs to make a differentiation between nomadic, settled, and "modernized" populations.

[Pellucid]

It's pretty silly that the only difference between a Zulu pop who has lived their entire lives in a semi-agriculturalized subsistence economy and a Parisian Frenchman is one of cultural traditions that only affect acceptance levels, and that the Zulu build Academies and factories on their own shortly after game start, or that largely nomadic Bedouins are happy to plop down and start working a wheat farm.

Pops should be separated into three groups:
1. Nomadic. These pops will only work pastures and subsistence pastures, and represent regions with no settled cities. They should have substantially lower needs than other pops, and be happier with a much lower standard of living than other pops in the same nation. These would be primarily found in certain Arabian provinces, the steppes, and in some Amerindian provinces. Russia would be the major power with the greatest percentage of these pops. These pops would basically never emigrate except possibly by event.
2. Settled. These pops will only work agriculture and subsistence buildings, and represent regions with little or no familiarity with industrialized society, but which do engage in agriculture and city building. They should have somewhat lower needs than other pops. Almost all pops in decentralized nations who are not nomadic will be settled. Many pops in unrecognized powers will be settled. Some pops in especially rural regions of many of the great powers would fall into this category. These pops might move around within their cultural area but would rarely leave it.
3. Modernized. These are the pops that are already in the game who can work any job provided they have the qualifications and represent people who are familiar with the industrialized world and can integrate with it relatively easily.

Doing this would enable a lot of much more realistic situations, such it no longer being the case that you invade some tiny nation at the edge of the world and find a bunch of modern factories there, because they won't have any modernized pops to work them and, as such, wouldn't have any incentive to build them. It would also reduce the value of many provinces, especially in Africa and the Middle East, which would be a lot more in keeping with the reality of their situation in the timeframe.

Converting Settled to Modernized pops wouldn't be too difficult, but should require that the nation doing so have reached a certain level of social science, giving access to a decree that would cause some amount of conversion. Converting nomads to anything else would be almost impossible during the game's timeframe except by event (for example, many North American native Americans should be forced from nomads to settled due to being forced into reservations). Ideally I'd argue that they should be able to be forcibly converted but that seems to be outside the scope of what the devs are willing to portray as a general mechanic, and so I assume limiting it to event would be the only possibility, such as with Circassia.

I think you solve a lot of the game's major oddities by doing this.

 

[yurcick]

I'm all for a heavy qualification rework and possibly more pop stats to represent their labour skills and professional inclinations than only literacy.

But I don't think we need this explicit distinction. At most, we could have another rural profession.

 

[FranklyJustNess]

There's no point adding more pop types just so it makes a bit more historical sense, if it won't affect the gameplay. It would just increase lag.

 

[Hopciu]

I think, this could be better reoresented, with adding urban equvalent of Subsistence Buildings. Let's call it Artisanal Workshops. Goods such as Clothes, Furniture and Liquour would be decoupled from Substistence building, and moved to Artisanal Workshops instead. These Workshops could also produce Luxury Clothes, Luxury Furniture, Groceries. They would generally be much less productive than industrial-scale production, and would tend to go into ddcline, once industrialization starts. Such Workshops would appear on their own, when food security is assured, and pop literacy is high enough. They would be empoyed and owned by Shopkeepers pops.
Artisanal Workshops would be characteristic for already urbanized, but not yet industrialized societes, like parts od South and East Europe, Middle East, Far East, and help differentiate them from largely rural areas, like Africa, Central Asia.

 

[47pik]

I think there’s something adjacent to this you could do with qualifications to make them more interesting but I don’t think it’s helpful to divide pops into rigid, discrete categories in a game about massive societal transitions such as industrialization.

 

[Delterius]

I'm all for a heavy qualification rework and possibly more pop stats to represent their labour skills and professional inclinations than only literacy.

But I don't think we need this explicit distinction. At most, we could have another rural profession.

There's no point adding more pop types just so it makes a bit more historical sense, if it won't affect the gameplay. It would just increase lag.

I agree, there's no need to implement this as different pop types or general pop conditions. There's some long standing suggestions in this forum and the Discord about implementing subsistence pastoral activities in places like Iraq, Anatolia and Central Asia. This all stems from the implementation of rice farms in Indo-Pacific Asia. A more heavy handed approach to literacy-qualifications combined with improvements to breadbasket demands can, by themselves, shape the fundamental differences between the parisian peasant and the uzbek peasant in better ways.

 

[Pellucid]

I agree, there's no need to implement this as different pop types or general pop conditions. There's some long standing suggestions in this forum and the Discord about implementing subsistence pastoral activities in places like Iraq, Anatolia and Central Asia. This all stems from the implementation of rice farms in Indo-Pacific Asia. A more heavy handed approach to literacy-qualifications combined with improvements to breadbasket demands can, by themselves, shape the fundamental differences between the parisian peasant and the uzbek peasant in better ways.

I disagree with this. You don't have to be literate to work in a factory. The reasons many nations didn't industrialize the moment they were aware of industrialized nations were largely cultural, not due to a lack of "qualification" to hammer parts together. It's hard to convince someone that their traditional way of life isn't the ideal system, and that's what kept Arabia, Africa, and most of Asia from industrializing. It wasn't a lack of literacy or "qualifications" to work in a factory. The system I propose would differentiate between people from a culture who have and have not embraced industrialization without actually tying jobs to culture.

 

[Delterius]

The reasons many nations didn't industrialize the moment they were aware of industrialized nations were largely cultural, not due to a lack of "qualification" to hammer parts together. It's hard to convince someone that their traditional way of life isn't the ideal system, and that's what kept Arabia, Africa, and most of Asia from industrializing. It wasn't a lack of literacy or "qualifications" to work in a factory.

On the face of it I agree that you should have a harder time 'convincing' nomads to move to your cities and become labourers. But not for the reasons you're describing.

The reason most nations did not experience an Industrial Revolution in this time period - or, indeed, experienced it much later than a handful of early players - is not because it is hard to convince peasants to work in factories. Far from it. It's actually pretty easy. You have a number of positive and negative reinforcements that lead to it. From outright enclosures to the cultural pull of growing industrial centers. Peasants and shepherds lose their livelihoods (or find better ones elsewhere) and just move on. There's a reason why so many countries, especially in this time period, felt the need to legally tie Peasants to the land. Because Peasants do be moving.

Instead I want you to think about the reasons why the Industrial Revolution happened in England in the first place. An interplay of factors involving the cost of labor (relatively high in England), the availability of capital (relatively cheap in England), and the ease of energy extraction (you couldn't shake a dead cat in the British Isles without hitting a new, untapped and easily sourced vein of good quality coal).

In so far as those best practices spread unevenly across the world is not because japanese peasants are more easily 'convinced' than bengali peasants. It is the political economy of Japan that is different from that of British Bengal. In the latter, labor was cheap so the incentives are already a problem there. In Japan labor was also cheap, but a proto-developmentist state project to strengthen the armed forces stood in contrast with the way British India existed more or less to be taxed for Britain's convenience.

So in an ideal scenario the availability of financial capital and the ability to exploit mineral resources should be two of the three legs that allows us to enable an Industrial Revolution. The third is Literacy. Not in the sense that you need high Literacy to become a Laborer (you don't in vanilla Vicky3 and you don't in harder qualification mods either). And not just in the sense that you need Literacy to become a manager (Clerk/Bureaucrat/Capitalist, which is where qualifications mods tend to work their magic). But also in the historical sense that Literacy first enables access to best practices (Technological development) and creates higher expectations for SoL which, ideally, should be achieved in an industrial society. Literacy is not 'you can read, therefore you can make nails'. It is more a measurement of the general availability of Human Capital in society as a whole.

So where does nomadism come in? It has a similar role to peasant economies. Peasants punch below their weight when it comes to capital creation for investment, be it through government taxation or landlord profits. Where Nomadic Pastures come in is that they are the reverse of Rice Paddies. Industrializing the rural areas of China create massive unemployment, with which you can just accelerate industry without ever thinking of saving labor. If Nomadic Pastures employ less peasants per building level than normal, then industrializing the rural portions of Iraq, Anatolia and most of Central Asia will not generate unemployment the way it does in most of the world. Because those areas have a lower starting population compared to their arable land potential. While, at the same time, the fewer labourers needed per building level means that Nomadic Pastures can deliver a slightly better SoL than normal Subsistence Type buildings typically do - so they won't rush to become labourers necessarily unless its nearby and substantially better for them. A similar logic can apply to arable land in Subsaharan Africa to simulate the dispersed and expansive nature of agriculture in the continent.

Can these objectives be achieved by straight up creating a new, parallel stratification system of Nomad/Settled/Modern for pops? Probably, but I think the economic simulation can achieve it well enough. Whatever limitations we might see - such as the Russian Empire doing an Industrial Revolution in Central Asia - is either emergent gameplay (any country in the game can do an Industrial Revolution before its 'prescribed' time, even the worst ones), or a limitation of the game's emulation on a political level - the Russian Empire had a rather hands-off approach to Central Asia all the way to the Soviet Era, and nothing in the game is conductive to that scenario at the moment.

In short I think what you want to see achieved is worthwhile and I support it. But I don't think a new system is required to achieve it.

 

[Pellucid]

I think a lot of the principles of what you're saying are correct, but that you are severely underselling how important tradition and culture are in creating luddites and reactionaries. You can look at the disparity in the Ottoman Empire or Russia for clear examples, where despite similar economic pressures existing across the core states of the two Empires, you did not see mass migration of nomads and outskirts populations into the more industrialized regions of the country, whereas in the United States you saw people in the industrialized regions migrating AWAY from them and then creating NEW industrialized regions where none previously existed. There's a clear cultural difference, where the concepts of individual liberty and a "brave new frontier" was emphasized in the American founding and continues even to today, whereas the culture of Russia is more collectivist and sedentary.

I don't think it would be desirable or useful to tie these traits to the actual cultures of pops, though, because that is both historically prescriptivist and limiting to the human player, so that's why I sought to generalize it into broader categories of "groups that are keen to build cities", "groups that are keen to work factory jobs", and "groups that are keen on neither".

 

[Froonk]

I think a lot of the principles of what you're saying are correct, but that you are severely underselling how important tradition and culture are in creating luddites and reactionaries. You can look at the disparity in the Ottoman Empire or Russia for clear examples, where despite similar economic pressures existing across the core states of the two Empires, you did not see mass migration of nomads and outskirts populations into the more industrialized regions of the country, whereas in the United States you saw people in the industrialized regions migrating AWAY from them and then creating NEW industrialized regions where none previously existed. There's a clear cultural difference, where the concepts of individual liberty and a "brave new frontier" was emphasized in the American founding and continues even to today, whereas the culture of Russia is more collectivist and sedentary.

I don't think it would be desirable or useful to tie these traits to the actual cultures of pops, though, because that is both historically prescriptivist and limiting to the human player, so that's why I sought to generalize it into broader categories of "groups that are keen to build cities", "groups that are keen to work factory jobs", and "groups that are keen on neither".

Nomads are stubborn, they don't want to be settled. Ottomans spent centuries trying to settle nomads, there are actually still those which follow nomadic pastoral lifestyle in Turkey though not many. Reclaiming territory from nomadic frontiers was an issue. However I don't think splitting the populations as nomad and settled is going to help here much, for one creating more pop types is difficult. Besides even if we go with the cultural argument than how do we explain the difference of say Americans and Italians in their path to industrialization? Indeed even English, French and Germans differ steeply on this issue and they are about as Modernized Westerners as you can get. Getting into this delves into a lot of big historical, socio-economic, socio-cultural and socio-political issues that even historians have hard time conceptualizing let alone formulating an answer to.

Meanwhile we already have tools in this game, pops and buildings. I don't see why we can't just make it so that nomads and artisans can be employed in buildings according to excellent suggestions above. Now you have particular pop types that don't necessarily migrate and accomplish about the same thing. You can also then make it so qualifications more steep in requirements, so it makes more sense that a Protestant American with high literacy working as a machinist has higher chance to be a capitalist of his own and invest in ventures in Western frontiers. You are now making the game's existing systems more robust and playing into strengths of the system without creating arbitrary blocks that might hinder the existing systems.

I definitely agree with you on the problems, it is too easy to just develop provinces and move populations in the middle of nowhere but I think hard block arbitrary categorizations with iffy labels is not going to help except on the surface level of outcomes. I think in a game like Victoria 3 where there are a lot of fundamental mechanics leading to outcomes, it is better to try to adjust the fundamentals to affect to outcomes because it leads to more emergent resolutions.

 

[Desseabar]

I disagree with this. You don't have to be literate to work in a factory. The reasons many nations didn't industrialize the moment they were aware of industrialized nations were largely cultural, not due to a lack of "qualification" to hammer parts together. It's hard to convince someone that their traditional way of life isn't the ideal system, and that's what kept Arabia, Africa, and most of Asia from industrializing. It wasn't a lack of literacy or "qualifications" to work in a factory. The system I propose would differentiate between people from a culture who have and have not embraced industrialization without actually tying jobs to culture.

Strongly disagree here, culture has quite minor explanatory power.

Egypt and Tunisia invested a lot of money to industrialize: they were reasonably successful, but ended up drowning in pretty significant debt (and Egypt's Sudanese territories proved too much to handle). Egypt built a modern postal system, developed local textile industries, and had a major urbanization.

The Ottomans embarked on an ambitious modernization campaign for political institutions, but rebellions (including Egypt!) and war with Russia made that expensive, and their local manufacturing couldn't compete with European imports. So the Ottoman industries floundered while tremendous war debt prevented them from investing and put them under European leverage.

Persia is a different story, but that's again partly a result of their goal to defend against Russia/Britain and partly due to the lackluster ambitions of the Qajars.

Beyond all that: the ability to read instructions or signs was actually very important! We don't think of literacy as "high skill" today but illiteracy was a massive roadblock.

Anyways, I'd really recommend you read "The Islamic Enlightenment" which is about how Egypt, Turkey and Persia attempted - with mixed success - to modernize their institutions and economies in the 18th/19th centuries. It opened my eyes a lot on the subject.

 

[AlexNereča]

I think, this could be better reoresented, with adding urban equvalent of Subsistence Buildings. Let's call it Artisanal Workshops.

One of the things I've thought about is how this should interact with the national market - I can't say I'm sure artisans' produce end up on the market in the same manner as a company's products.

For instance the question of 'why do textile mills take ~10-60 weeks to construct' is largely based around developing enough in that sector to both have an appreciable output and set up the infrastructure to sell it outside of local markets.

Definitely artisans contribute to their state's market, with the new autonomous trade system representing how they were traditionally traded around the place (although conspicuously absent as a mechanic for intramarket trade), but how analogous to subsistence buildings they should be is a bit unclear.

Of course subsistence buildings do contribute to national markets while both being highly inefficient and its workers not sustaining themselves on returns to labour as informed by current revenue (instead of wages they live on 'subsistence output')

 

[Hopciu]

One of the things I've thought about is how this should interact with the national market - I can't say I'm sure artisans' produce end up on the market in the same manner as a company's products.

For instance the question of 'why do textile mills take ~10-60 weeks to construct' is largely based around developing enough in that sector to both have an appreciable output and set up the infrastructure to sell it outside of local markets.

Definitely artisans contribute to their state's market, with the new autonomous trade system representing how they were traditionally traded around the place (although conspicuously absent as a mechanic for intramarket trade), but how analogous to subsistence buildings they should be is a bit unclear.

Of course subsistence buildings do contribute to national markets while both being highly inefficient and its workers not sustaining themselves on returns to labour as informed by current revenue (instead of wages they live on 'subsistence output')

Disagree. While Peasant produce mostly for their own use (hence are provided with basic SoL with subsistence output), and only sell small portion, Artisans produce with the sole intention of selling their wares. A potter does not eat his vessels, he sells them for money, and then buys food and other commodities with the money he earned. This represents the difference between barter, and money-using trade. That's why Artisans do participate in market, and their goods should interact with it.

Also, the claim, that Building itself represents the means to sell outside local market, and that artisanal production should only affect local market are both untrue. First, the Infrastructure is represented in game separately, and Buildings actually require Infrastructure, to be able to sell withput MAPI malus. Second, pre-industrial artisanal production wasn't local only. Glass from Meissen was valued all over Europe. Kraków was important center of cloth production and trade, that provided all Poland with it. In the game's timeframe, china, one of most important Quing's export goods, was created by artisans, not mass-produced in factories.

 

[AlexNereča]

That's why Artisans do participate in market, and their goods should interact with it.

Artisans do contribute to state markets but shouldn't contribute to national markets 'by default' because they only have the infrastructure to sell in their local area.

In the game's timeframe, china, one of most important Quing's export goods, was created by artisans, not mass-produced in factories.

My argument is that this should happen due to the new trade centre system buying from artisans in each state specifically. However obviously I haven't considered intramarket trade.

 

[Hopciu]

Artisans do contribute to state markets but shouldn't contribute to national markets 'by default' because they only have the infrastructure to sell in their local area.

So do Subsistence Buildings, yet they contribute to National Market. In fact, so do all Buildings. Infrastructure is a separate concept. It's abstracted, that there are means to sell goods outside lical area, as long, as Infrastructure isn't overused, which then results in MAPI malus. The game does not differ, whether it's Grain grown on Subsistence Farm, or Engines produced in Motor Factory. Contrary to what you imply, the Buildings represent the means of production only, not means of transportation - otherwise, they should consume Convoys/Clippers/Transportation/Engines, even on their basic PMs, that would grow proportionally to number of States the Building transports to (none for Tooling Factory in OPM, huge for only Tooling Factory in Russia). This is not the case. Currently, intra-market means of transportation abstracted to Infrastructure, and I don't see, why should Artisan Workshops be treated differently than other Buildings in that matter.

 

[AlexNereča]

represent the means of production only, not means of transportation

Nope, they provide sell orders, which represent both goods production and the ability to sell said goods in places other than the immediate town/city they are located in.
I didn't even mention transportation either, before trade and railways become prominent moving goods within a state and the country are abstracted.

why should Artisan Workshops be treated differently than other Buildings in that matter.

Because artisans on their own don't sell anywhere other than their local market. Subsistence farmers have part of their produce given to aristocrats in manor houses who have the means and connections to transport produce across the country, but independent craftsmen don't. If a trader comes into town and buys some stuff to sell elsewhere then that would represent movement of artisanal goods. If a trade centre buys stuff from artisans and sells it abroad then that would also represent goods transportation. Otherwise artisans do not have the inherent capacity to sell their products outside their town/city like industrial buildings do.

Unless the point is that worker-owned buildings with T1 PMs shouldn't just be stuff that capitalists buy day 1, I don't see how adding a new artisan building that acts exactly the same provides anything to the game that reworking the PM, building buyout system, worker-owned construction set-up wouldn't achieve.

 

[Bisonmask]

Disagree. While Peasant produce mostly for their own use (hence are provided with basic SoL with subsistence output), and only sell small portion, Artisans produce with the sole intention of selling their wares. A potter does not eat his vessels, he sells them for money, and then buys food and other commodities with the money he earned. This represents the difference between barter, and money-using trade. That's why Artisans do participate in market, and their goods should interact with it.

Also, the claim, that Building itself represents the means to sell outside local market, and that artisanal production should only affect local market are both untrue. First, the Infrastructure is represented in game separately, and Buildings actually require Infrastructure, to be able to sell withput MAPI malus. Second, pre-industrial artisanal production wasn't local only. Glass from Meissen was valued all over Europe. Kraków was important center of cloth production and trade, that provided all Poland with it. In the game's timeframe, china, one of most important Quing's export goods, was created by artisans, not mass-produced in factories.

And it means we can do away with so many places having random glassworks when they should really just have artisanal porcelain/glass producers

Allowing factories to compete is fairly easy just have the factories take less labour, that's what put them ahead irl too

 

[AlexNereča]

And it means we can do away with so many places having random glassworks when they should really just have artisanal porcelain/glass producers

Already happens to be represented by the forest glass production method.

I mean the other idea I had was from another suggestion that these T1 PMs should be split off into their own building but to solve the problem of constructing industries twice-over every playthrough it would only be buildable by autonomous investment (although perhaps with the option for the government to pay for the rest of the cost if the investment pool is waiting for funds). Of course if we are ultimately gonna have automatically instantly constructed artisan buildings then this idea is moot.

 

[Hopciu]

Nope, they provide sell orders, which represent both goods production and the ability to sell said goods in places other than the immediate town/city they are located in.
I didn't even mention transportation either, before trade and railways become prominent moving goods within a state and the country are abstracted.

Because artisans on their own don't sell anywhere other than their local market. Subsistence farmers have part of their produce given to aristocrats in manor houses who have the means and connections to transport produce across the country

Do these Aristocrats in Manor Houses buy Convoys/Trasportation/Services, that would represent these means and connections?

Also, not every Subsistence Farm gives their produce to Manor House. How about ones owned by Local Workforce? According to your concept, goods from locally owned Buildings should not reach National Market, too.

, but independent craftsmen don't. If a trader comes into town and buys some stuff to sell elsewhere then that would represent movement of artisanal goods. If a trade centre buys stuff from artisans and sells it abroad then that would also represent goods transportation. Otherwise artisans do not have the inherent capacity to sell their products outside their town/city like industrial buildings do.

So, you just explained, how Artisans can reach the National Martket - through trader. This trader's cut is currently represented with MAPI. That's not an ideal portrayal of trade, but currently it's sufficient.

Unless the point is that worker-owned buildings with T1 PMs shouldn't just be stuff that capitalists buy day 1, I don't see how adding a new artisan building that acts exactly the same provides anything to the game that reworking the PM, building buyout system, worker-owned construction set-up wouldn't achieve.

Oh, my, what to start with...

1. Representing Artisan Workshops (AW), owned and employed by Shopkeepers, would create a prosperous Middle Stratum in Early-modern (before full-on industrialization) countries, which would have the following consequences:
1a. Stronger Petite Burgeoise and Intelligentsia at starting date. Currently, PB rarely matter, while historically, they used to be powerful enough to seize the rule from Aristocrats - see French Revolution. It would make starting political situation in numerous countries more interesting, as PB and Intelligentsia would make some counterweight for Landowners, which currently often completely dominate the scene. Also, as Industrial Buildings outcompete the AWs later on, Shopkeepers SoL would drop, radicalizing them, thus empowering Reactionary and Nationalist movements - as happened historically.
1b. Rich Shopkeepers would increase the demand for Luxuries, like Coffee, Tea etc. Currently, game-start lack of demand of these goods makes cash crop export based economy unviable - contrary to what happened historically.
2. Decoupling Clothes, Liquour, Furniture from Subsistence Buildings, and transferring their production to AWs, would differentiate the early-modern economies from feudal/tribal ones. As countries without AWs economies would suffice only for basic Needs, SoL of, let's say, South Italy, and Sub-Saharn Africa would differ more significantly, than it does now.
3. Economies of small countries would be better balanced. As basic Building level usually employs 5000 Pops, OPM often end up with number of under-employed 1 lvl Buildings, as their buy orders are too low to make it profitable to hire more. With AWs, Shopkeepers would produce the goods at lower scale, just enough to satisfy small country's needs.
4. It could fix the problem with East-Asian Population to Arable Land ratio problem. At game release, East Asian States had huge Arable Land, to accomodate to their historical Populations. As it caused balance problems, Devs changed Substistence Rice Paddies to employ double number of Peasants, thus reducing Arable Land to more sensible values, but it caused problem on its own, with Unemployment rising when Farms are built. Transferring a portion of their Population from Subsistence to AWs would free up some Arable Land, making it more manageable.
5. Differences between various cultures living in the same States could be better simulated. For example, Jews living in Central Europe. In current build, they tend to end up the poorest Pops in their States, due to how Discrimination works. Meanwhile historically, they used to be the richest, and comprised a large part of Capitalists in Central Europe. With AWs, Jewish Pops could be made mostly employed as Shopkeepers (which would be historically correct) and, as such, have easier time promoting to Capitalists, when new Financial Districts appear, yeilding more historical results. Same could be done with Armenians in Ottoman Empire, who were in similar situation.

 

[AlexNereča]

Do these Aristocrats in Manor Houses buy Convoys/Trasportation/Services, that would represent these means and connections?

We've already established that sell orders going from a state-based building to the national market already have transportation abstracted away at start of the game when railways are not dominant. Talking about convoys/transportation/services is immaterial.

Also, not every Subsistence Farm gives their produce to Manor House. How about ones owned by Local Workforce? According to your concept, goods from locally owned Buildings should not reach National Market, too.

Actually yes I would agree with the idea that homesteading should cease goods flow to the national market, but this would still require sell orders to exist at the state level (which is not part of the current implementation - either goods are local-only or will always be in the national market)

This trader's cut is currently represented with MAPI.

MAPI is about buy orders from the national market. I'm talking about artisans' limitations in even providing sell orders to the national market, since selling is principally to those at the town/city level which is reasonably abstracted by keeping sell orders fixed to the state level.
Goods orders outside this local scale have to be traders/visitors directly seeking out goods to purchase rather than the artisans themselves going out of their way to seek out buyers across the country like the corporations running manufacturing industry do.