When you are on the F11 screen; margins....

[Erostratus]

On the f11 screen when you are looking at a factory, you get to see a factory's inputs, outputs, and margin. My question is if the margin shows a profit, is it the case that (sorry if I don't articulate this well...)

x input resource + x input private capital= y output resource/product and margin profit/loss?

What I'm really trying to ask is, lets say you have a factory that has a margin loss, but the product it produces is quite valuable, something you could sell on the market easily. Would the money in the trade of that product offset the margin loss you incurred by keeping the factory open? Thank you.

[loki100]

yes, is my answer.

the full equation is gains from production (ie the sale price) - cost of production (ie inputs + private capital) but if you sell, either domestic or internationally you gain taxes, so in this sense private capital flows back into state funds via the production/sales routine.

Its feasible you can tax the good as the raw materials are shipped to you (if you own the trading fleet) and when you sell the finished item (again if overseas and using your ships).

The alternative model is to both buy and sell the product (ie don't bother with your own production), this can be surprisingly profitable (again especially if there is an overseas leg in the process) and one reason why you really shouldn't play PoN with a mercantalist mindset.

You might find some posts in my old AAR useful, this will take you to post #119 where I try and set out the economic and fiscal flows in the game, if you then read over the next few posts there is a bit on population and productivity within provinces and so

[Erostratus]

Hi Loki thank you for the videos you have posted on vimeo, specifically the ones on where you re-engineered your first turn versus what you did with your aar re: italy. I was wondering if you noticed that by shutting some of your facilities down, did you get to see the facilities you did kept open increase the man-power supply, where you had less then 100% during the first turn. When I would start a game with prussia I would always try to keep everything open for fear of unemployed persons, but it seems like you did not make that your priority. I also wanted to point out something you said to the extent that you did not want to try to produce everything, that in a way you were saying that it was a better situation globally/economically to have trade occurring between nations. Usually in other strategy games of some similarity you find yourself trying to dominate all production.

[Sir Garnet]

The revised downloadable manual includes a lot of game advice, including on economics. The human players in a game are the motor of trade, which is essential for economic development. A country needs to have someone buying its exports to pay for its imports. Only the major powers can both buy and sell with every country in the world. As a minor, this means I can send ships to buy in a far away country, but to sell to them they need to send merchants to my market.

In the 1850 start, the UK and France each can drive world trade, the other powers struggle both because of their smaller merchant marines that can't cover the whole world and their more limited resources and economies. But even Italy can (in artful hands) manage it over time.

A minor can help the process. In a "massive" multiplayer game I played Brazil and traded aggressively to stock up and also help make a market when I could (i.e., both buying and selling the same item), despite the handicap of trading limitations. I would buy all over, and sell where I could (just Brazil), so La Plata was an attractive destination for trade ships since there was a wide selection of goods available, including Brazilian diamonds and other special items. Countries with one or few merchants would find it advantageous to shop with Brazil. Any player country wants to attract buyers and sellers.

If you want to play a minor, a multiplayer game with someone playing an active major trading power (at least part of the time) is going to work better to get goods out there - goods that may be critical to development.

[seathom]

I thought exactly like you did regarding unemployment. If I am correct, there really is no unemployment! When you shut down a factory, the workers go to work in the countryside producing (at much smaller amounts, but still helpful and not causing any urban unrest) whatever product(s) that region produces. They basically leave the big businesses and work at the mom and pop shops/cottage industries/artisans. You are absolutely correct that other games are very mercantilistic, but in this game, the player really does need to help the worldwide economy to be successful later in the game.

[loki100]

Hi Loki thank you for the videos you have posted on vimeo, specifically the ones on where you re-engineered your first turn versus what you did with your aar re: italy. I was wondering if you noticed that by shutting some of your facilities down, did you get to see the facilities you did kept open increase the man-power supply, where you had less then 100% during the first turn. When I would start a game with prussia I would always try to keep everything open for fear of unemployed persons, but it seems like you did not make that your priority. I also wanted to point out something you said to the extent that you did not want to try to produce everything, that in a way you were saying that it was a better situation globally/economically to have trade occurring between nations. Usually in other strategy games of some similarity you find yourself trying to dominate all production.

Hi

I never worried about unemployment as such, that may be a gap in the game engine. The key aspect with the population is contentment and how you gain the items to sell to them seems to be of little importance ... I sort of think of it as a nineteenth century version of the current debates around the concept of 'citizens wage'.

If you have too little manpower, then yes if you shut down one factory workers will migrate to another. I believe the game engine is meant to allow for such migration over a few provinces but I'd struggle to see this happening. In Europe/ N America its rarely an issue, but I found in places like the Gulf sttaes I grabbed that I the choice of workers digging up gems or extracting oil ... if I really wanted one to be prioritised I had to shut off the other.

Sir Garnet is spot on, as the player you must trade. Its not just a game engine thing, it reflects a key part to the mindset of PoN (and one of many reasons why it is such an awesome creation). Todays mortal enemy is tomorrows trading partner - and vice versa. As Christophe has in his signature states have interests not friends. So take Italy - Austria. In the end, for most of the game Austria was both a market and a source of supply and I was happy to buy their manufacturing goods rather than make my own. Its unintuitive if you come from the Paradox world conquest model but its core to PoN.

The opening gambit of shutting stuff down is really an accounting trick. You want to get some key things working in your favour (accumulation of state and private capital, perhaps some key strategic stocks) and its a tool to that end. In the AAR I bumbled around over a year to achieve the same end, I just think this is an efficient way to create a base line. In the AAR I actually did this later on a couple of times when I wanted to control use of key stocks that were in short supply. Coal becomes this from about 1890 (even if you have traded with the AI and thus enabled it to exploit its own resources). Its tedious, but its a sort once every 30 game years process.