Love this change. Heavy industry is usually located as close as possible to it's raw material sources IRL.

This a good change, but more needs to be made of the influence of transport and railways on rectifying the inefficiency. Transport Costs between production centres cause local price fluctuations, therefore surely building a railway connection between your coal mines, iron mines and steel mills should reduce the effects of the local prices? There should be a reward for connecting your major population centres and industrial provinces, in that it allows cheaper transportation and more efficiency, as was the case in the real 19th century. Vertical Integration having more of a reward is a great addition, but the game should also reward investing in transport; Steel produced efficiently in a vertically integrated Pennsylvania will still be sold much more expensively in Michigan where it's consumed in motor industries, even if there is an efficient transport link, which should in theory minimise the inefficiency. For large economies like the US with many in-game states, production will always be very inefficient despite investment into railways/transportation.

@gdbalck

9 ай бұрын

My biggest concern is that the surplus goods should be moved forward towards states with greater demand, rather than merely depressing the local market. If local demand is met, then it would follow that the local industries would seek to export their goods to more lucrative markets. It isn't clear how that's going to be achieved. I'm hoping that railways and ports will help in this regard. It would also give way more importance to railways, as historically was the case, rather than just being a means to increase infrastructure. The better the rail network, the easier to move large amounts of goods to distant markets. The reason the rust belt became the hub of steel production was proximity to raw resources but the steel they produced was used from New England to California. Would be nice if there was a correlation between manufactured goods, raw materials and bulk shipment capacity.

Paradox always tries to make their games more complicated,and i love it 😂

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

My brain has to do like 2 extra steps every time I think my way through the cascading effects of this mechanic lol

The reduction in overall economic efficiency makes the game feel way more interesting

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

Agreed

The fact that this is far more realistic despite being more complicated is why i love paradox 😆. I also think about it as the "cost" of moving goods around a market. Its more efficient if its all very close, just like IRL!

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

Some people are mad, but I def like it

Yeah I understood some of these words

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

:(

We need UI upgrades to flag the presence of multiple input resources when selecting a province to build a factory in, etc… Even suggestions on where to build, why not

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

Definitely - too many clicks to check these things

Finally getting use out of my economics degree playing this game

Something I'm curious about revolves around a playstyle i'm hoping becomes viable at some point down the road. To highlight the playstyle i'd like to be able to take a small or perhaps middling country and build extremely tall to create a rich trade-focused nation that monopolizes a specific commodity and spins the nation towards an optimal political situation based on that commodity. For example taking Sikh Empire and focusing on cornering the global opium market and becoming a anarcho-agrarian society or even something like Cuba going all in on shipyards to maximize the tile bonus throughput to create a capitalistic junta. I would imagine this would relate more to how much you can stack throughput via the new company mechanics than anything else unless additional mechanics have been added that i'm not aware of that would benefit building tall in general.

@brandonzzz9924

10 ай бұрын

You can absolutely do it, but it's not a "strong" strategy that will dominate other nations. You can, for the Sihk opiucracy example, abuse the local price inefficiency in other countries to make trade super profitable. To do this, you have to have lots of cheap opium, obviously, then export it cheap until pops start to use it over liquor/tobacco. The opium PM is the most efficient of the three, so you have an advantage there. The local prices will also be in your favor, because even nations like the Qing that have opium can only produce it in a couple states. If the Qing never switch of Traditionalism, they will have a -40% non-local good efficiency modifier (75% base - 15% for Traditionalism), meaning that your opium from trade routes with tariffs will be ahead of their own domestic production with non local prices. Other countries that are running food industries will consume your opium in high quantities in the state without food industries, and you will probably share the market in those productive liquor states. Trade in V3 is all about manipulating the other countries, and local prices makes that harder to do while also increasing maximum potential for exploitation. Anarcho-Luddite Sihk Empire is pretty fun, but it definitely is more of a sim that you watch than other builds. Not much interacting with spam clicking "ctrl + add_building_level" and waiting for 250 plantations to build because the investment pool dies without industry. SoL is also way too finicky to get high construction levels and continuous SoL improvement. GL;HF!

Thank you for this explanation and theory I think it’s helping wrap my head around these changes. Keep up the great work you are becoming my favorite Vicky 3 content creator!

As you're explaining it, it would be good if they made it so market access (especially constraints, but also excess) would influence the Market Access Price Impact modifier. I also considered stuff like different PMs modifying this MAPI modifier (maybe we can get an industrial cargo PM -2nd tab, which seems the actual "how do you want this to actually work" PM- that makes MAPI go up, but cuts down on transportation)

Trade centres importing/exporting goods should really impact the local price, hope they make that change.

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

Idk, that would lead to weird gluts of goods where trade centers are that would warp industry tremendously but would be extremely dependent on the routes continuing as they are

This'll also cause the new trade companies to be even more profitable assuming they get throughput bonuses and a new goods cost modifier from local good cost being lower. Maybe it'll make sense to take a state with ag bonus throughput and a big pop like Kiev or the one in SW China and build massive food factories in it, or build a steel factory complex in the same province as your iron/coal mining location. It'll mean even more concentrated effort into a particular state's construction, which I'm not sure is necessarily good for the game. Maybe buffing up fish/meat is a way for the designers to stop bad adverse effects from players concentrating their buildings so much?

@brandonzzz9924

10 ай бұрын

There's only a couple throughput bonuses for companies, mainly IG approval bonuses. It turns out that hyperspecializing is at about the same place as before, but much more nuanced. Stacking all the steel and tooling workshops in one place seems good to make them profitable, but the logging camps that use tools in every state are more profitable with tooling workshops in their state. So from a standpoint of maximizing efficiency, it's best to have a degree of concentration based on state traits and resource availability, but also to have some of just about every building in every state (especially consumer goods, because stacking them in one state means that you're selling into a depressed market; selling in an inflated market in a less "production efficient" state actually yields higher margins). So Laizzez Faire spreading wide with the government queue focusing on focusing a couple industries in each state is still the most efficient way to play. Past the early game, not much is changed for where to put buildings. Unfortunately, the performance took a significant hit (mainly during wars), so I haven't played ultra late yet.

@brother282

10 ай бұрын

@@brandonzzz9924 Makes sense, thanks. I forgot that having input good cost modifier from a saturated market also means you have a negative modifier to output sale cost too. It'll be interesting to see what a good balance is for pop count vs. optimal consumer good production in a default state will be

Yeah, they should definitely have the trade centers "produce" the goods in the states they are in. This will allow you to avoid the penalty at least a bit and they will additionally add the dynamic where you want to produce stuff using goods you're importing or producing goods you're exporting

Could it work like stock trading does with soreads? Buyer pays higher price. Seller receives lower price. Difference can go either to trade centers importing/exporting goods from states. Or to government as a 'tax'

I hope there will be option or mod that will desable this (or make it always 100%)

So what’s the break even point? At what % MAPI does it make sense to specialize vs wide?

I assume construction sectors use the local price. .. So we should focus our construction sectors i.e. in states with logging camps in the early game?

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

Logging and iron, yeah, I think is the new way of thinking about it

Looking back it feels insane that local prices have only been a thing for 5 months, it really feels like its been here forever and two days

Does government spending draw from market or local price? Thinking mainly with construction, stacking wood iron and tools in one province. Feels rough with the new infrastructure change on mills.

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

I mean both, w/ a weight determined by mapi. Considering construction efficiency was nerfed its probably best to just sort by cost of the construction center as a heuristic for where to place them/emphasize places w/ iron/coal/lead (glass)/sulfur (explosives).

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

Tbf the new infra change is kinda offset by infra given by lighting anyway

@TheSamuel12777

10 ай бұрын

Pretty sure the government pays for the goods bought in that building, meaning it will be affected by the local price where the construction sector is.

I'm curious where that value goes (if anywhere). I'm a bit unsure how I feel about it. I hope though that this is merely the first step to an improved logistics system. Something like transporting goods from one state to another costs cargo instead of using infrastructure to modify market access. Don't know if they can or will do that, but it would be cool if they do.

@ruukinen

10 ай бұрын

I mean, isn't this just an abstraction of the cost of transportation?

@jakman2179

10 ай бұрын

@@ruukinen Maybe, but transportation costs still don't disappear into the aether, they do go somewhere.

@ruukinen

10 ай бұрын

@@jakman2179 But that is just recouping some of the losses indirectly. You could give it to "infrastructure" jobs but those already get paid out of a magic "transportation" good. Some value is lost in the real world to transportation as well and this seems like a decent attempt at abstracting that.

@jakman2179

10 ай бұрын

@@ruukinen I would disagree that value is lost because of transportation. That implies that either transportation is free or that the place you're shipping between would not gain anything from trade. Transportation adds value by transporting goods from where they are plentiful to where they are scarce. Additionally, the problem is that it creates another hole for money to leak out. Which I always think is a problem. "Recouping losses" isn't really the point because individual buyers and sellers are the ones absorbing the costs. Transportation is a grease that reduces friction in moving goods. That grease isn't free. I also wouldn't call it's creation, and maintenance "lost value".

@ruukinen

10 ай бұрын

@@jakman2179 Consider a world were free teleportation exists. Would anyone pay someone to ferry their goods anywhere? Transportation is an inefficiency were value is just lost, just like in the game. Sure someone is getting paid for doing that but if you didn't need to do it in the first place then less resources would be used and more value would be gained overall. It's an objective fact. Dunno how you can even refute that. The reason transportation is worth it is pretty much the same as in the game. There is efficiencies of scale in centralizing production that overcome the inefficiency of transporting goods In addition to other factors.

I don't like this MAPY modifier which based on laws and techs. It feels artificial and gamy. I belive that in perfect victoria railways+port should have profits based on amount of goods they moved between provinces and local price difference should be determined by profit of transportation sector. Transportation 'amount' should be based on how far goods transported. e.g. It will be relatively cheap to produce still in state which in near state where iron is produces, because amount of transporation amount is small, but if still meal is in another part of the country, transportation amount should be bigger and thus, still mill is less efficient For players this system would certainly be more intuitive and interesting, for devs it might be a challeng, probably it is not so easy to implement correctly, but i belive that this where the game should move in futher patches.

oh so this is like in vic 2 how u would build prerequisite goods in the same states as final goods. I like this change

So will railroad levels reduce this penalty? Maybe docks too as transport of goods becomes seamless

@generalistgaming

9 ай бұрын

As of 1.5 they will not. There are difficulties in implementing such a system like that in terms of performance

So my biggest question is "Where does all that devaluation go?" Let's say province A sells over produced iron with a -10% malice and province B buys for +10%. Who is getting that 20%? In the real world traders (middlemen) would get that. Perhaps that should be a new profession?

@hiveman5618

10 ай бұрын

That's why they need to insert traders as new pops... So traders react when one goods is very cheap like coffee in Africa and sold in Europe. And we should have custom tariffs so we can control how much good will be bought from traider

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

It's annihilated. Or, framed another way, it is never created in the first place

Im very curios about trade and would like that broken out some. So trade only affects the overall market price? Which is kind of nuts if I can import idfk coffee and its evenly distibuted across the whole country

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

Suuuper hard to get good routes w/ .85 mapi now

So does this mean that i can have 200 furnature buildings in new york and georgia still has a shoetage simply because they arent local? Causing the SOL in georgia to decrease slightly from expensive furnature even tho I produce an absurd amount? I can understand the idea of having to pay more for items when they arent local, but if its still produced in-country, the extra cost shouldnt be too great. Importing from other countries should be whats more expensive. Not internally.

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

It would be hard to run a shortage because the market price has a much heavier weight, unless NY is barely covering the overall market's buy orders w/ the 200. It will be more expensive than in NY though

@brother282

10 ай бұрын

Only 10% of the price your pops pay is effected by local price, so I think it should cause a difference but nothing extraordinary. My guess is things like food and other manufactured goods besides furniture would be expensive in your NY, so they may actually be worse off SOL-wise than their GA counterparts. Have to try more to see exactly what the balance looks like tho

Release more new tutorials on 1.5!

Great change in terms of realism :)

This is confusing the hell out of me but i cant wait to play it

how do you get corn laws now if you cant use livestock ranches to increase grain price

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

I have a hard time imagining you can on any decent size nation tbh, without a bug at least.

How do you feel about the economic changes of 1.5?

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

I like them. I dislike the decreased viability of backward nations, but I'll probably not mind it as much in a few months

@kaiserping7996

10 ай бұрын

@@generalistgaming It's a sandbox anyway and I see that as a challenge

Don't you mean to say the lower the MAPI, the bigger the impact on local prices? In your example that you point to (grain), the MAPI is at 90% so, it's 90% based on the market price and the impact is therefore less to buy/sell intrastate.

I fear the impact of additional pops from spreading wide in the performance. And as auto investment will take yhis into account it will hit every country so that's a giant number of additional pops.

Zeppelins are no longer a meme, but genuinely viable.

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

Not only viable, but worth rushing lol

Is this part of a second nerf to nations that don’t have rail roads then? I don’t think there are enough infrastructure to concentrate every thing in a country like Qing for example.

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

Yeah, this hurts a lot of those countries (since they also start w/ traditionalism)

The effect is pretty much less profitability and money destruction. The way it currently work, the price difference will make money be destroied, because if iron is sold at 30 on the mine and being boght at 35 on the steel mill in another state, the difference in the price doest go towards the urban centers or the railways as transport cost, it just disapears.

@0926001

10 ай бұрын

In my opinion, the system would work if the difference in the prices went towards transportation cost in the urban centers and railways. Currently the MORE states you have MORE money will be destroied. Rn its broken

@dylanb2990

10 ай бұрын

That seems both intentional and not a problem. Bigger countries have less efficient transportation across their country, so money is lost. Makes sense to me anyway.

@kaiserping7996

10 ай бұрын

The money system is not completely closed anyway. With minting and investment efficiency. But something like that would be nice for immersion.

@0926001

10 ай бұрын

@@dylanb2990 it is a problem, that ineficiency comes as transportation cost, money isnt just destroied when you have to transport something, you spend fuel, use rails and trucks. If Urban centers got that money, it would mean much more profitable and well working urban centers.

I tried doing a slave run as the USA and it was super boring. It's very limited... Within a few decades they just all ended up going to subsistence farms which is silly.

Interesting

@kaiserping7996

10 ай бұрын

Yes

Good stuff

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed!

@abhishekvchaudhari8181

10 ай бұрын

@@generalistgaming I think they should remove state prices and instead use region prices. thoughts?

There should be a transportation industry :/

I only see this will need computing power again, so the game is steadily getting slower with every update. Also, as much I understand, building in a few provinces will be favorable compared to building everywhere like back in 1.2

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

There aren't any new calculations from what I understand because the base game is already calculating local price anyways because of the market access mechanic.

"Rewarded not penalized is the same in terms of game mechanics" pure outcome-wise? yes player experience-wise? no Most prominent example is WoW wanting to soft-limit daily playtime. Their first try was to add a penalty when people were online for longer than x hours, resetting after some time offline. People *really* didn't like being penalized for that. So they flipped it around: the penalized value became the base and after having been offline for some time, players gained a bonus for x hours. But I'm not sure if there'd be a reasonable way to do that for the Victoria case lol

@generalistgaming

10 ай бұрын

The poker player in me makes my being able to reframe this almost a moral issue lol. Tfw you're losing money but have to tell yourself you're winning buy-ins and running below EV in all ins.

I like the changes that the open beta brings, except warfare. Is realy confusing and i keep losing wars.

Your explanation of the local price calculation is totally attrocious. Local price 0.1 - 75 + 0.9*MP, This is absolutely not true. Go into detail and show exactly how the local price of steel is calculated. The local price is formed based on the assumption that the state is isolated. So you will have 0.1* Base Price +(Base Price * (-0.75)) + 0.9*MP.

what a bs fucking change. at least give some way to remedy, is impossible to play like this.

Honestly i didn't like new patches

@generalistgaming

9 ай бұрын

Fair enough - a breath of fresh air in my experience

this game is a joke, it has so many historical inaccuracies it makes me puke. Playing as a small nation, options are from rough to why bother?

@LukeTheTrader

10 ай бұрын

At the beginning it was fun, now its barely possible to take them over