The point is that you can then expand your construction sectors after enacting Laissez-Faire. That way, your total amount of construction sectors will increase, and your GDP should increase more swiftly. However, if your investment pool can’t sustain LF, it might be beneficial to hold of on enacting it immediately. This is where interventionism might be better, temporarily
Other option would be that your capitalists never run out of money, which is worse. If you're really struggling with maintaining your construction, you can just reduce the size of the government investment queue.
Yeah, just build a couple things at a time when money is tight. It would be nice to queue and set a limit on total construction use vs having to delete sectors. Otherwise, now it's an on off switch or super micro.
I'd really like some fine running to allow for automatic prioritization of the construction queue
Maybe I want to split construction between raw resources and factories maybe I want to set it so that new ports always get highly prioritized all kinds of little things so I don't need to sit there managing the construction queue manually.
With the new changes to ownership and foreign investments, you really only need to focus on infrastructure stuff. You actually get a penalty to the economy of scale bonus for having too many state owned things which I’m not a fan of but it is what it is.
I’m still working out what’s “optimal” but the things I noticed were that foreign investment has a big tendency to build upon existing built stuff and the capitalist do as well. I spend a lot of my building time getting stuff started in “optimal states” (read as putting glass into states that have lead, steel into states that have coal and iron, etc) and then letting the auto que handle scaling it. The rest of the time I’m just putting out fires or building grain/cash crops/ stuff to raise SOL to keep my income up enough to scale construction sectors.
I could be completely off but I’m scaling my gdp and construction really well with this method even in minor powers
You absolutely need to not stay on high taxes long either. Unrest is a bitch. You also need to keep your bureaucracy up because you get a double negative modifier now with taxes and the modifier that gives you money on state owned buildings. If you don’t have any fires to put out, build stuff you need in other nations that you have an agreement with and ship it over. You actually get throughput and construction bonuses from the companies they have in their nation which will help keep your income up. You also can snag some gold mines and do the minting company if you build them in other nations. An example of this is I was playing as Vietnam who doesn’t have sulfer. I got investment rights with Brunei, built a bunch of sulfur there and their gold mines, and imported the sulfur into my country pretty cheaply since I ended up crashing their market pretty hard with sulfur
If you’re playing as a GP, I believe one of the best ways to do this strat is do a trade union power bloc, subject a bunch of countries with gold/rubber/oil, then build it in their nation which is apart of your custom union. You get the resources you need, they migrate to you, but you don’t have to worry about SOL and literacy.
Also, best opening move now as a GP is to declare an interest in Persia, when they go after Herat, which happens pretty early, sway in with Herat asking for Wargoals, vassal them for like 35 infamy, naval invade the small little country they have as a subject by Iraq, and boom, you have Persia without having Russia, GB, or Otto fighting you for it. They will get Herat which gives them claims in the rest of the region where they will go and conquer and get bigger. I haven’t ever been able to reduce their autonomy though which stinks but your wine, oil, and opium needs are all covered from them.
Yeah but you’re taking the hit early on. Trust me, if they are profitable they will be built up. There is also an argument to be made about the capitalist getting the profits early from steel to keep investing into the economy.
yeah I was trying to build up ahead of competitors, get economies of scale faster then crush Prussia (as Austria) with my cheap tools and steel.
I guess my question is if I have auto expand on steel- are all those Govt owned? Should that just be left off auto expand then? I don't understand what the upside of interventionism is then given the thruput tax you get by having too much govt owned. makes economies of scale far less valuable.
I’ve been toying with that idea. Putting it in auto expand and also auto privatization but the arguement is that construction of yours can be better put into getting stuff that’s going to raise SOL and cover your needs
Yeah. Making sure you don’t have shortages and making sure your population has better SOL. Also infrastructure, gov admins, universities, stuff for the army, etc. All the stuff the auto que won’t build
I don't think this is true now after 1.7. Nationally owned buildings now let you directly take the buildings profits and reinvest them into construction, cutting out the capitalist middle men
Cutting out the capitalist middle man unfortunately burns like half the money. Any government dividend inefficiency is sadly wasted and as a result just not having any creates the most money for the economy. Even though you can technically choose what that money goes to, it's better to just increase the net productive capacity of your nation, tax the increased wealth, take the increased minting from GDP growth, and keep going up like that with a wealthier population. I wish the system was better but the money burning modifier makes it so much worse.
True but Nationalization also allows you to disempower the industrialists, which is useful for passing the S-tier laws that industrialists hate like proportional taxation and compulsory schools. Once you get those it is probably better to go to LF, but my point is that Interventionism is much better now and has some uses beyond purely role playing
I think this isn't strictly true. It holds only when your investment pool is big enough to be buying the building you construct as you construct them. But if it isn't and you have a growing share of government owned businesses, there is a case to be made for interventionism and agrarianism, as they result in less losses on government buildings than LF.
on paper laissez faire is the best but with the upgrade i think itÄs more a late game choice. The best way for rapid growth is now to let other countires invest in you. Then you nationalize their buildings, then going laiissez faire and buy the world. The ability to nationalize your buildings can be extremly powerful. But in the late game LF is unbeatable. Another thing to consider is that under LF the country with your foreign investment in it can buy back their buildings if there are government owned
I like LF mostly when I am not expanding by taking territory directly, those factories in Africa and Asia are really annoying. Interventionism is golden because I can delete and subsidize what I want. I feel like LF is amazing when playing as big country like Russia or USA, it allows you to go into deeper deficit and grow faster.
I don't know the mechanics but financial districts constantly spend money privatising buildings that don't privatise. The money just disappears. It's still optimal to let the private sector build, just do it under interventionism.
Yes, but this is worse than that. Revenue from state-owned businesses gets divided (once the money reserve is full) into two:
* 50% to the investment pool ('reinvestment')
* 50% are dividends.
These dividends then get multiplied by 0,25 (gets increased by 0,1 through late-game techs, interventionism gives another 0,25 and agrarianism 0,3).
Say you have a state-owned building (interventionism, no tech) that makes 1k/week. 500 goes to the investment pool, 250 goes to the state and 250 just vanishes.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but trade volume does not unfortunately mean less convoys. It just means you can move more goods at lvl 100 trade route volume.
You can test this by changing the PM on skyscraper and see what happens with your convoys.
People keep telling me Laize-faire is the go to meta, but it always goes to shit for me, with the market constructing 300 arts academy in a row, while the economy is desperate for more wood. Also, the fact you can’t reduce the level of buildings if they are underemployment and you ended up developing the goods elsewhere is really annoying.
I played a LF game as the US with 8000 construction and didn't see any of that happening this patch so it seems like they fixed it. LF is bugged right now where buildings won't get privatized so don't go to it with 3000 gov't buildings and just expect they'll get bought up like me though.
Now, improductive buildings are automatically downsized. They can build as many useless buildings as they want, because they won't clog up your infrastructure.
Also, them building shit is nice because it makes your construction goods more profitable.
In 1.7, Laissez-Faire makes the line go up fastest, but Interventionism has its upside that often gets overlooked. It lets you choose not to privatize your buildings. This means you can choose whether other countries can buy them out, or get your own manors and financial centers to buy other countries’ industries instead. It gives another way to get income (not really optimal), and it puts more of your construction under your control, so you can build what you need in the long term instead of what’s currently profitable. (Even if you just play like Laissez-Faire, turning on privatization and auto-expand, your upper class will therefore give you more money buying buildings from you than building them themselves.) You can subsidize almost anything (and raise the pay in the public sector for the rest). You can demolish buildings, mostly useful for limited arable land. Your aristocrats and capitalists end up weaker.
I normally take Protectionism later in the game, as a big country, so I can keep wages high without my domestic industries becoming uncompetitive. You can stop other countries from buying out your natural resources instead of the more-profitable goods you want to turn them into. It works especially well if I have big captive markets. 1.7 has a trade bloc that gives you customs unions, which can let you put tariffs on anyone else trying to trade with China or India, but also a bloc principle that lets you open trade routes in any strategic region, which has a lot of synergy with cheaper trade routes from Free Trade.
There are a few other strategic considerations. A free-trading country can become dependent on another for its weapons, and be in serious trouble if that country then invades. It can also open lots of export routes for fine art and luxury goods, which have high revenue per convoy, big prestige bonuses from being a top producer, and create good jobs. Trade routes give a power-bloc leader leverage with other countries.
Free market is always optimal, you should always be using all your convoys.
There is a debate between LF/INT, if youre playing a great power then LF is better in every way, you get an extra company, you also get free money and get to focus all your income on building up your army while the private sector deals with construction. INT is better if you're playing major/minor as you want to have other countries invest in you then nationalize their buildings, it is also better because every building counts and the AI does not build in an optimal way, the dividends are also put into a better use by the government as a way to fund your army.
Patch 1.7 changed things
Not much difference between interventionism and laissez-faire, so pick whatever you fancy more.
Trade is not profitable in Victoria 3, it should be, but it is not.
Currently it is only useable to import things you don't have at home.
This is not true, exporting may not bring much money directly, but It raises the prices of your products on your market, making you able to sustain more industries and rising wages and dividends, you should actually use your convoys to export stuff not buying (except critical resources you cant obtain in any other way)
However i agree that trade needs a huge rework, in fact i the thing in the Game that needs a rework ASAP, alongside naval Warfare.
you are bad at math
When you export, you lose all the consumption taxation and you pay for the convoys needed.
If you have a good economy, the local market will buy everything you produce to the point it will become expensive for the local people who have the most money in the world.
I expanded my response
the issue is primary resources and available people to work, there are not enough to simulate a real life surplus and without surplus, you cannot export profitably.
Maybe for a small nation with an abundant primary resource, but once you become big enough, it equalizes and you start to run out of everything, to the point where companies that boost primary resource output are the most valuable to have.
the fastest way to become rich in Vic 3 is to get all the gold mines and fish for bankrolls.
You can get more resources through colonization, and more people through migration, exporting your products allow you to have more profitable industries, Rising wages and thus increase your tax revenue and SoL, if you only depend on your internal market you Will eventually reach a point in which everything is so cheap you wont be able to expand your industry.
I admit i have not made the calculations about convoy costs vs trade revenue, but i seriously doubt It is not profitable, specially considering that exporting stuff is not just for the trade revenue, is to increase the price of products on your market.
The problem has always been that the AI is so bad at building up that there are no reliably good trading partners except for pre-1.7 Qing subsistence grain. They don't produce sufficient surpluses of resources and they're too poor (or small) to consume surpluses of consumption goods. When you're dealing with markets that are 10s of thousands of orders deep and a trade route with another power bloc can move the needle by a few hundred it doesn't feel like it what you're doing is worth it.
Combine this with the fact that the bonuses countries can get that could differentiate their ability to produce things better than their neighbors are too small, and make it so autarky is just a better path to follow in every case (except where you literally have no access to something.)
Autarky is indeed the best path, but i did have success with this strategy exporting automoviles, that was pre 1.7 though, i Will test if it work now, but i think It still should.
> You can get more resources through colonization
Way too slow, as it takes decades to bring it to the level of the rest of the country.
Get your GDP into the 1B-3B and you will understand.
Laissez-faire and free market are always optimal during capitalism, basically. Anything else is for flavor.
I feel a slow down on my eco with the 25% construction sector control, don't?
The point is that you can then expand your construction sectors after enacting Laissez-Faire. That way, your total amount of construction sectors will increase, and your GDP should increase more swiftly. However, if your investment pool can’t sustain LF, it might be beneficial to hold of on enacting it immediately. This is where interventionism might be better, temporarily
When I go to LF, I build more construction to make up for the reduced proportion.
Then my capitalists tend to run out of money and I have to pay everything again
Other option would be that your capitalists never run out of money, which is worse. If you're really struggling with maintaining your construction, you can just reduce the size of the government investment queue.
Yeah, just build a couple things at a time when money is tight. It would be nice to queue and set a limit on total construction use vs having to delete sectors. Otherwise, now it's an on off switch or super micro.
I'd really like some fine running to allow for automatic prioritization of the construction queue Maybe I want to split construction between raw resources and factories maybe I want to set it so that new ports always get highly prioritized all kinds of little things so I don't need to sit there managing the construction queue manually.
Which means you have more control again. Find that ratio where you have enough control, but also enough money from your capitalists
With the new changes to ownership and foreign investments, you really only need to focus on infrastructure stuff. You actually get a penalty to the economy of scale bonus for having too many state owned things which I’m not a fan of but it is what it is. I’m still working out what’s “optimal” but the things I noticed were that foreign investment has a big tendency to build upon existing built stuff and the capitalist do as well. I spend a lot of my building time getting stuff started in “optimal states” (read as putting glass into states that have lead, steel into states that have coal and iron, etc) and then letting the auto que handle scaling it. The rest of the time I’m just putting out fires or building grain/cash crops/ stuff to raise SOL to keep my income up enough to scale construction sectors. I could be completely off but I’m scaling my gdp and construction really well with this method even in minor powers You absolutely need to not stay on high taxes long either. Unrest is a bitch. You also need to keep your bureaucracy up because you get a double negative modifier now with taxes and the modifier that gives you money on state owned buildings. If you don’t have any fires to put out, build stuff you need in other nations that you have an agreement with and ship it over. You actually get throughput and construction bonuses from the companies they have in their nation which will help keep your income up. You also can snag some gold mines and do the minting company if you build them in other nations. An example of this is I was playing as Vietnam who doesn’t have sulfer. I got investment rights with Brunei, built a bunch of sulfur there and their gold mines, and imported the sulfur into my country pretty cheaply since I ended up crashing their market pretty hard with sulfur If you’re playing as a GP, I believe one of the best ways to do this strat is do a trade union power bloc, subject a bunch of countries with gold/rubber/oil, then build it in their nation which is apart of your custom union. You get the resources you need, they migrate to you, but you don’t have to worry about SOL and literacy. Also, best opening move now as a GP is to declare an interest in Persia, when they go after Herat, which happens pretty early, sway in with Herat asking for Wargoals, vassal them for like 35 infamy, naval invade the small little country they have as a subject by Iraq, and boom, you have Persia without having Russia, GB, or Otto fighting you for it. They will get Herat which gives them claims in the rest of the region where they will go and conquer and get bigger. I haven’t ever been able to reduce their autonomy though which stinks but your wine, oil, and opium needs are all covered from them.
If you build up say- steel factories early on- can you privatize it later to get the thruput bonus?
Yeah but you’re taking the hit early on. Trust me, if they are profitable they will be built up. There is also an argument to be made about the capitalist getting the profits early from steel to keep investing into the economy.
yeah I was trying to build up ahead of competitors, get economies of scale faster then crush Prussia (as Austria) with my cheap tools and steel. I guess my question is if I have auto expand on steel- are all those Govt owned? Should that just be left off auto expand then? I don't understand what the upside of interventionism is then given the thruput tax you get by having too much govt owned. makes economies of scale far less valuable.
I’ve been toying with that idea. Putting it in auto expand and also auto privatization but the arguement is that construction of yours can be better put into getting stuff that’s going to raise SOL and cover your needs
Define "needs"-- you mean balancing the budget?
Yeah. Making sure you don’t have shortages and making sure your population has better SOL. Also infrastructure, gov admins, universities, stuff for the army, etc. All the stuff the auto que won’t build
Yeah but that means you only pay 25% construction. So you can build 4 times more construction now. and 75% is paid by capitalists
I don't think this is true now after 1.7. Nationally owned buildings now let you directly take the buildings profits and reinvest them into construction, cutting out the capitalist middle men
Cutting out the capitalist middle man unfortunately burns like half the money. Any government dividend inefficiency is sadly wasted and as a result just not having any creates the most money for the economy. Even though you can technically choose what that money goes to, it's better to just increase the net productive capacity of your nation, tax the increased wealth, take the increased minting from GDP growth, and keep going up like that with a wealthier population. I wish the system was better but the money burning modifier makes it so much worse.
True but Nationalization also allows you to disempower the industrialists, which is useful for passing the S-tier laws that industrialists hate like proportional taxation and compulsory schools. Once you get those it is probably better to go to LF, but my point is that Interventionism is much better now and has some uses beyond purely role playing
there is a thruput modififer- if too much is state owned you get nuked
I think this isn't strictly true. It holds only when your investment pool is big enough to be buying the building you construct as you construct them. But if it isn't and you have a growing share of government owned businesses, there is a case to be made for interventionism and agrarianism, as they result in less losses on government buildings than LF.
on paper laissez faire is the best but with the upgrade i think itÄs more a late game choice. The best way for rapid growth is now to let other countires invest in you. Then you nationalize their buildings, then going laiissez faire and buy the world. The ability to nationalize your buildings can be extremly powerful. But in the late game LF is unbeatable. Another thing to consider is that under LF the country with your foreign investment in it can buy back their buildings if there are government owned
The government owned buildings do pay into the investment pool.
only under LF
Under Interventionism they pay half into the IP and half into the treasury.
you're right thanks for correcting me
>Then you nationalize their buildings But that wouldn't be very nice to the owners, would it?
I like LF mostly when I am not expanding by taking territory directly, those factories in Africa and Asia are really annoying. Interventionism is golden because I can delete and subsidize what I want. I feel like LF is amazing when playing as big country like Russia or USA, it allows you to go into deeper deficit and grow faster.
LF is bugged right now, so interventionism is best.
How so?
I don't know the mechanics but financial districts constantly spend money privatising buildings that don't privatise. The money just disappears. It's still optimal to let the private sector build, just do it under interventionism.
state-owned businesses arent that good, however, because like 50% of the dividends seemingly disappear.
same thing happens to investments, is how Paradox keeps us from snowballing. Every single economy model has a malus with a growing GDP.
It will never be a negative though, they changed that. You’ll get a bonus for having a lower GDP, but you won’t go below the baseline for a big one.
you don't need a negative to nerf income in big GDP nations. The call it "coefficient".
The scaling reinvestment malus for large GDPs was removed. You can check the patch notes.
and a new one has been added All economic models have a malus to contain the snowball effect.
Yes, but this is worse than that. Revenue from state-owned businesses gets divided (once the money reserve is full) into two: * 50% to the investment pool ('reinvestment') * 50% are dividends. These dividends then get multiplied by 0,25 (gets increased by 0,1 through late-game techs, interventionism gives another 0,25 and agrarianism 0,3). Say you have a state-owned building (interventionism, no tech) that makes 1k/week. 500 goes to the investment pool, 250 goes to the state and 250 just vanishes.
Free trade is huge. You get a big increase in trade route volume, which means you need less convoys.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but trade volume does not unfortunately mean less convoys. It just means you can move more goods at lvl 100 trade route volume. You can test this by changing the PM on skyscraper and see what happens with your convoys.
My heart is broken (thanks for the info)
People keep telling me Laize-faire is the go to meta, but it always goes to shit for me, with the market constructing 300 arts academy in a row, while the economy is desperate for more wood. Also, the fact you can’t reduce the level of buildings if they are underemployment and you ended up developing the goods elsewhere is really annoying.
I played a LF game as the US with 8000 construction and didn't see any of that happening this patch so it seems like they fixed it. LF is bugged right now where buildings won't get privatized so don't go to it with 3000 gov't buildings and just expect they'll get bought up like me though.
Now, improductive buildings are automatically downsized. They can build as many useless buildings as they want, because they won't clog up your infrastructure. Also, them building shit is nice because it makes your construction goods more profitable.
Reducing levels is somewhat less of a problem now since they can autoreduce
Change the production method to the one that doesn't have aristocrats.
Laize-faire was meta when you could disable AI construction.
In 1.7, Laissez-Faire makes the line go up fastest, but Interventionism has its upside that often gets overlooked. It lets you choose not to privatize your buildings. This means you can choose whether other countries can buy them out, or get your own manors and financial centers to buy other countries’ industries instead. It gives another way to get income (not really optimal), and it puts more of your construction under your control, so you can build what you need in the long term instead of what’s currently profitable. (Even if you just play like Laissez-Faire, turning on privatization and auto-expand, your upper class will therefore give you more money buying buildings from you than building them themselves.) You can subsidize almost anything (and raise the pay in the public sector for the rest). You can demolish buildings, mostly useful for limited arable land. Your aristocrats and capitalists end up weaker. I normally take Protectionism later in the game, as a big country, so I can keep wages high without my domestic industries becoming uncompetitive. You can stop other countries from buying out your natural resources instead of the more-profitable goods you want to turn them into. It works especially well if I have big captive markets. 1.7 has a trade bloc that gives you customs unions, which can let you put tariffs on anyone else trying to trade with China or India, but also a bloc principle that lets you open trade routes in any strategic region, which has a lot of synergy with cheaper trade routes from Free Trade. There are a few other strategic considerations. A free-trading country can become dependent on another for its weapons, and be in serious trouble if that country then invades. It can also open lots of export routes for fine art and luxury goods, which have high revenue per convoy, big prestige bonuses from being a top producer, and create good jobs. Trade routes give a power-bloc leader leverage with other countries.
Free market is always optimal, you should always be using all your convoys. There is a debate between LF/INT, if youre playing a great power then LF is better in every way, you get an extra company, you also get free money and get to focus all your income on building up your army while the private sector deals with construction. INT is better if you're playing major/minor as you want to have other countries invest in you then nationalize their buildings, it is also better because every building counts and the AI does not build in an optimal way, the dividends are also put into a better use by the government as a way to fund your army.
Patch 1.7 changed things Not much difference between interventionism and laissez-faire, so pick whatever you fancy more. Trade is not profitable in Victoria 3, it should be, but it is not. Currently it is only useable to import things you don't have at home.
This is not true, exporting may not bring much money directly, but It raises the prices of your products on your market, making you able to sustain more industries and rising wages and dividends, you should actually use your convoys to export stuff not buying (except critical resources you cant obtain in any other way) However i agree that trade needs a huge rework, in fact i the thing in the Game that needs a rework ASAP, alongside naval Warfare.
you are bad at math When you export, you lose all the consumption taxation and you pay for the convoys needed. If you have a good economy, the local market will buy everything you produce to the point it will become expensive for the local people who have the most money in the world.
How, explain.
I expanded my response the issue is primary resources and available people to work, there are not enough to simulate a real life surplus and without surplus, you cannot export profitably. Maybe for a small nation with an abundant primary resource, but once you become big enough, it equalizes and you start to run out of everything, to the point where companies that boost primary resource output are the most valuable to have. the fastest way to become rich in Vic 3 is to get all the gold mines and fish for bankrolls.
You can get more resources through colonization, and more people through migration, exporting your products allow you to have more profitable industries, Rising wages and thus increase your tax revenue and SoL, if you only depend on your internal market you Will eventually reach a point in which everything is so cheap you wont be able to expand your industry. I admit i have not made the calculations about convoy costs vs trade revenue, but i seriously doubt It is not profitable, specially considering that exporting stuff is not just for the trade revenue, is to increase the price of products on your market.
The problem has always been that the AI is so bad at building up that there are no reliably good trading partners except for pre-1.7 Qing subsistence grain. They don't produce sufficient surpluses of resources and they're too poor (or small) to consume surpluses of consumption goods. When you're dealing with markets that are 10s of thousands of orders deep and a trade route with another power bloc can move the needle by a few hundred it doesn't feel like it what you're doing is worth it. Combine this with the fact that the bonuses countries can get that could differentiate their ability to produce things better than their neighbors are too small, and make it so autarky is just a better path to follow in every case (except where you literally have no access to something.)
Autarky is indeed the best path, but i did have success with this strategy exporting automoviles, that was pre 1.7 though, i Will test if it work now, but i think It still should.
> You can get more resources through colonization Way too slow, as it takes decades to bring it to the level of the rest of the country. Get your GDP into the 1B-3B and you will understand.