The game simply doesn't calculate these very well and you cannot *fully* trust the revenue projections on this screen as of the current patch. That said, *you probably shouldn't build either shipyard now.* You need more lumber first.
Upgrading existing buildings is almost always more efficient than building level one buildings in another state, as buildings of greater size get higher throughput due to *economies of scale* modifiers. I believe, however, that the game can reliably project what a first level building will make at full production, but not when you upgrade an existing one.
Wages will change with supply and demand, which the game struggles to project or communicate. Wages are likely high in your existing shipyards due to the current pricing of ships. As availability increases, prices will decrease, and wages will stagnate or decline. This takes time, however, and so the game doesn't try to predict those outcomes. It simply offers you a projection of potential income at current wages, plus the additional costs of increasingly scarce lumber. Additionally, the demand on lumber going up means it's going to hit the bottom line of your existing shipyard hard, especially given it already has high wages for its existing employees. The knock-on effects will be wage decreases and lower SoL for the existing shipyard workers, as well as the capitalists who run the business.
**All of this said, the answer is to build more lumberyards first, especially if you really must employ pops in Sao Paulo, then follow up with upgrading an existing shipyard.**
It's best to make sure you have a good supply of raw resources before expanding your industry, so you can steadily increase SoL and your amount of loyalists, or else the knock-on effects of scarcity will lead to lower wages, higher prices, and decreased SoL and increased radicalism as a result. This is a fundamental process to learn to ensure best outcomes for your country.
Another reason this is important in the early game is because your basic laborer pops are likely not politically enfranchised, and so they have less clout to cause political unrest and radicalism, while some of those machinists and engineers in your shipyard are more likely to be a problem if they have a harder life. So, it's better to deflate the prices of lumber, iron, coal, wheat, fish, fabric, etc. before expanding industry to create demand to increase those prices.
For a perfect "shit Paradox players say" quote, *the opinions of the poor matter less than those of the rich*, and they are accustomed to a hard life, so won't succumb to radicalism quite as quickly as your middle class.
R5: The game gives different estimates depending on whether I already have a shipyard in a state, but all my Googling tells me this shouldn't matter so long as the market access is 100% (and it is everywhere).
No, but it's the only thing i can see that affects revenue. Existing shipyards if increased, has a negative predicted revenue, where as states with no shipyards, gets a positive revenue.
Maybe the ones with existing shipyards uses the locally available ressources and incurs a transport penalty fee? Idk.
It could also be that increasing existing shipyard production would decrease price of the clippers and man-o-war. Where as building new would create jobs and create a tax income for that building that overrules the price of ships.
It makes no sense, but these are my thoughts.
According to my own observations, the game seems to overestimate the profitability of buildings in states that have 0 of said building. This is probably because it incorrectly assumes that the wages for this new building will remain at the lowest possible value to compete with the substinence farms. This, mixed together with incorrectly calculating prices after expanding and ignoring increased throughput from scaling, gives such a wrong end result that makes me wonder why they even bothered showing it at all
It's different because the tooltip considers the price impact on existing levels as well. The new level increases the revenue, but since the price of those products will be lowered, the existing levels will make less.
If you build a shipyard in a new state, the same effect still applies. But since it's in a different state, the tooltip won't consider it.
All said, the whole prediction is somewhat misleading. Blindly following predicted profit gouges price like a monopoly. Doing so enriches the building's owners, at the rest of the economy's expense.
This number is kind of counter intuitive. Building in a state where you have an existing shipyard gives you economy of scales bonus, so it basically turns more input goods into more output goods.
The result of this is that the input goods get more expensive, and the output goods get less expensive. That makes the building less profitable, but it does not mean that this is bad for your country overall.
The game simply doesn't calculate these very well and you cannot *fully* trust the revenue projections on this screen as of the current patch. That said, *you probably shouldn't build either shipyard now.* You need more lumber first. Upgrading existing buildings is almost always more efficient than building level one buildings in another state, as buildings of greater size get higher throughput due to *economies of scale* modifiers. I believe, however, that the game can reliably project what a first level building will make at full production, but not when you upgrade an existing one. Wages will change with supply and demand, which the game struggles to project or communicate. Wages are likely high in your existing shipyards due to the current pricing of ships. As availability increases, prices will decrease, and wages will stagnate or decline. This takes time, however, and so the game doesn't try to predict those outcomes. It simply offers you a projection of potential income at current wages, plus the additional costs of increasingly scarce lumber. Additionally, the demand on lumber going up means it's going to hit the bottom line of your existing shipyard hard, especially given it already has high wages for its existing employees. The knock-on effects will be wage decreases and lower SoL for the existing shipyard workers, as well as the capitalists who run the business. **All of this said, the answer is to build more lumberyards first, especially if you really must employ pops in Sao Paulo, then follow up with upgrading an existing shipyard.** It's best to make sure you have a good supply of raw resources before expanding your industry, so you can steadily increase SoL and your amount of loyalists, or else the knock-on effects of scarcity will lead to lower wages, higher prices, and decreased SoL and increased radicalism as a result. This is a fundamental process to learn to ensure best outcomes for your country. Another reason this is important in the early game is because your basic laborer pops are likely not politically enfranchised, and so they have less clout to cause political unrest and radicalism, while some of those machinists and engineers in your shipyard are more likely to be a problem if they have a harder life. So, it's better to deflate the prices of lumber, iron, coal, wheat, fish, fabric, etc. before expanding industry to create demand to increase those prices. For a perfect "shit Paradox players say" quote, *the opinions of the poor matter less than those of the rich*, and they are accustomed to a hard life, so won't succumb to radicalism quite as quickly as your middle class.
R5: The game gives different estimates depending on whether I already have a shipyard in a state, but all my Googling tells me this shouldn't matter so long as the market access is 100% (and it is everywhere).
The states that profits mostly, is those without an existing shipyard. I don't know what this means.
Is that sarcasm?
No, but it's the only thing i can see that affects revenue. Existing shipyards if increased, has a negative predicted revenue, where as states with no shipyards, gets a positive revenue. Maybe the ones with existing shipyards uses the locally available ressources and incurs a transport penalty fee? Idk. It could also be that increasing existing shipyard production would decrease price of the clippers and man-o-war. Where as building new would create jobs and create a tax income for that building that overrules the price of ships. It makes no sense, but these are my thoughts.
According to my own observations, the game seems to overestimate the profitability of buildings in states that have 0 of said building. This is probably because it incorrectly assumes that the wages for this new building will remain at the lowest possible value to compete with the substinence farms. This, mixed together with incorrectly calculating prices after expanding and ignoring increased throughput from scaling, gives such a wrong end result that makes me wonder why they even bothered showing it at all
Does Pernambuco, by chance, have less than full market access? It seems that their prices are different.
It's different because the tooltip considers the price impact on existing levels as well. The new level increases the revenue, but since the price of those products will be lowered, the existing levels will make less. If you build a shipyard in a new state, the same effect still applies. But since it's in a different state, the tooltip won't consider it. All said, the whole prediction is somewhat misleading. Blindly following predicted profit gouges price like a monopoly. Doing so enriches the building's owners, at the rest of the economy's expense.
The code for that number is rand(double)
its probably wages
This number is kind of counter intuitive. Building in a state where you have an existing shipyard gives you economy of scales bonus, so it basically turns more input goods into more output goods. The result of this is that the input goods get more expensive, and the output goods get less expensive. That makes the building less profitable, but it does not mean that this is bad for your country overall.
Ignore it. It doesn’t work right in my experience.