• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
@ Darkrenown


I discovered this today


I played one year as Sardinia Piedmont : (1836)
with the military slider at 0 % , the population raised from 941.22K to 941.29K
that means the population grew by 90 people

Then another year with the military slider at 100 %
The population raised then from 941.22K to 947.59k

Not a single person immigrated or emigrated externely - it's all natural growth
An example : With the military slider at 0 - the natural growth was +6 on the 2nd day -
with the military slider at 100 the growth was + 50


Could it be that i am right when i am sceptical about the game mechanics ?
Or did i oversee something ?!

I mean if i didn't oversee something...this is a joke or ?

Well...

First, I find it odd you had no emigration in either year. I'm not going to say you missed it, but that seems odd given the immigration-happy state of 2.1.
Second, military spending at 100% vs. 0% should increase pop.growth at least a little bit - at 0%, your soldiers/officers are starving, counteracting the natural growth of the rest of your population. At 100%, of course, they're growing along with the rest of your population (and spending money to buy your other POPs goods, which should be helpful for their income and thus growth)
Third, it's possible that a third factor is affecting growth. Maybe in 1836, a lot of your POPs weren't getting full life needs because of shortages on the world market (the lack of substitution effects is kind of the system's Achilles' Heel, isn't it?) and thus growing less, while in 1837, the shortage had cleared up/nations ahead of you lost prestige and you bought first/you got some prestige by invention or random event.
 
Well...

First, I find it odd you had no emigration in either year. I'm not going to say you missed it, but that seems odd given the immigration-happy state of 2.1.
Second, military spending at 100% vs. 0% should increase pop.growth at least a little bit - at 0%, your soldiers/officers are starving, counteracting the natural growth of the rest of your population. At 100%, of course, they're growing along with the rest of your population (and spending money to buy your other POPs goods, which should be helpful for their income and thus growth)
Third, it's possible that a third factor is affecting growth. Maybe in 1836, a lot of your POPs weren't getting full life needs[ because of shortages on the world market (the lack of substitution effects is kind of the system's Achilles' Heel, isn't it?) and thus growing less, while in 1837, the shortage had cleared up/nations ahead of you lost prestige and you bought first/you got some prestige by invention or random event.

On my 2nd thought
I get what you mean (at least i thought it over)... soldiers get the "full money" while they demote and promote much easier than clergies or bureaucrats


hmmm....

looks like i need to test that in a later phase of the game ,
were the tax slider has a bigger effect as well.(tax slider down or up changed as good as nothing
in pop growth same as education/administration)
 
Last edited:
It's all down to the second point. Soldier POPs are quite large, so having them starving will seriously hurt pop growth. Clergy and Crats, however, are tiny, and tax Eff is so weak at game start that it can't really effect growth 90% of the time - only in very specific cases where a RGO pop is earning 80% life needs.

Turn TE up to 100%, and the tax slider will become much more noticeable in it's effect on growth.
 
I usually put 1-3% on the toll to make people choose local products instead of foreign, but of course it can make things less competetive too.
That is a common misunderstanding. Or put it in another word, that is where game mechanic differs from real life. In game, tarrif has no relation with buying preference.
In game, people always choose local products first. When the country is not in a sphere, all national products are of course available for national people. When the country is in a sphere and not as sphere leader, though, a big chuck of national products are "robbed" into sphere common market, leaving only a small portion for local (0% unciv, 25% civ, 50% SP, less if sphere leader has investment in). When people buy products from common market (as no enough goods to satisfy demand in local market) or from world market (as no enough good in both local and common market), there is no priority on origin of the product. Every product sells equally and thus proportionally. People simply pay tarrif or recieve subsidy for foreign product purchase, and make no reaction to it.
 
One thing that could be missing though is that large industries should gain some slight efficiency bonus from being large. Early economies would have companies accumulate capital to eventually grow into heavy industry (maybe to simulate a free market of light industries turning into a set of corporations and market oligopoly). With a planned economy, you would, as in real life, skip the decades of uncoordinated light industry capital acumulation and build heavy industry from the beginning, thus industrializing and catching up more rapidly. In Vic 1 the Free Market option was underdeveloped, the AI was very stupid, now it has caught up and it should be time for the planned economies to improve.

.

I would object to this because if a player could do that then it would ruin the evolution of the game. So the game would be played the same way every time with the same result every time.

I will push for the game to develop and me as a player react to it. With my full fledged emotions being experienced. I want to feel them all during a 100 year game play.
If I want to churn out victory I will play another strat game that doesn't support this scope of depth.
I love these paradox games because of the depth of choices I can make to get within the ball park range of what I wanted. With the slew of surprises along the way.

THUMBS UP!! PARADOX INTERACTIVE AND MODDERS!
 
That is a common misunderstanding. Or put it in another word, that is where game mechanic differs from real life. In game, tarrif has no relation with buying preference.
In game, people always choose local products first. When the country is not in a sphere, all national products are of course available for national people. When the country is in a sphere and not as sphere leader, though, a big chuck of national products are "robbed" into sphere common market, leaving only a small portion for local (0% unciv, 25% civ, 50% SP, less if sphere leader has investment in). When people buy products from common market (as no enough goods to satisfy demand in local market) or from world market (as no enough good in both local and common market), there is no priority on origin of the product. Every product sells equally and thus proportionally. People simply pay tarrif or recieve subsidy for foreign product purchase, and make no reaction to it.

Ok, I didn't know that. Then I should put it at 0% if my budget allows it.


I would object to this because if a player could do that then it would ruin the evolution of the game. So the game would be played the same way every time with the same result every time.

THUMBS UP!! PARADOX INTERACTIVE AND MODDERS!

You can still do it now, but it's just that you don't get a size bonus of maybe 1% (or what's appropriate). To make use of it in a planned economy you would need a lot of people and a lot of capital too so it would probably not be misused that easily. And of course any company would get a size bonus, not just the planned ones. (But for private operators it would take longer to accumulate the necessary capital),
 
PE does need some buffing to compete with other economic policies, tbh; tho I sort of consider it a boobytrap for inefficient government.
 
L-F is great when prestige is high and inputs are available, but terrible when prestige is low and competition for inputs is fierce. The UK thrives on it in the opening 10 years or so, but most other countries will struggle to compete. Later on, as the RGO output bonuses unlock around the world, L-F becomes monsterously powerful.

I just wanted to add that even later in the game, if your prestige even remotely sucks, you have a hard time getting anything consistently off the WM.

Playing as Japan, I became a GP in the 80s. But my prestige was still in 27th place or so, so my industries were cyclically starving for certain resources. You could literally track profitability and availability of inputs on a sine wave. I used subsidies to smooth out the rough edges, (fluctuating from 0 to $500 a day) but despite being #2 in industry, we just weren't making any money.

Then I discovered the North Pole and earned 105 prestige at one time. This moved me to #7 in prestige. Boom, instant awesome economy. No more cyclical shortages, and profits shot way up. No more significant subsidies for industries, either.

100 prestige was literally the difference between a mediocre industrial sector and one that was dominating the planet. Nothing else changed. I was even still sitting at State Capitalism when the prestige fired.

So, the lesson is that it is possible to over industrialize relative to your access to inputs. Prestige can fix that problem, even in the late game.
 
I just wanted to add that even later in the game, if your prestige even remotely sucks, you have a hard time getting anything consistently off the WM.

Playing as Japan, I became a GP in the 80s. But my prestige was still in 27th place or so, so my industries were cyclically starving for certain resources. You could literally track profitability and availability of inputs on a sine wave. I used subsidies to smooth out the rough edges, (fluctuating from 0 to $500 a day) but despite being #2 in industry, we just weren't making any money.

Then I discovered the North Pole and earned 105 prestige at one time. This moved me to #7 in prestige. Boom, instant awesome economy. No more cyclical shortages, and profits shot way up. No more significant subsidies for industries, either.

100 prestige was literally the difference between a mediocre industrial sector and one that was dominating the planet. Nothing else changed. I was even still sitting at State Capitalism when the prestige fired.

So, the lesson is that it is possible to over industrialize relative to your access to inputs. Prestige can fix that problem, even in the late game.

Prestige is a bit of a problem and unrealistic too. Why would an unciv country not sell to its neighbor just because there are some prestigious countries in the world that were never even heard of in that particular region though.
I noticed that at some point my pops didn't get their luxury needs satisfied which instnatly changed when i slid up one rank in prestige. That can be quite problematic when it comes to capi promotion, as artisans need some of their luxury needs satisfied. As a matter of fact I have almost no capis as Russia in 1905, way too many provinces to use capipromotion through NFs and beggarly uncompetitive artisans who wouldnt promote at and I have no idea how to change that.

It would be nice to add another factor to world market trading priorities, say partly prestige, partly relations (we love country X but we rather sell to country Y,that we hate, just because they have 1 more point in prestige).

In my experience, factories are only unprofitable if they don't sell all of their produced goods. Someone stated that workers get laid off when a factory is overproducing until production becomes profitable again. I doubt that because that particular factory represents only a fraction of world production. If it sells only 50% of its goods it will also do so with less workers/porduction thus not changing the profitability.
I wonder what happens to the goods that are not sold. Shouldn't they be stored at the factory and try to be sold the next day? It would smoothen the shocks of an economic system where abrupt changes in supply/demand occur.
 
Goods not sold are dumped in the sea
Your country does not sell it goods to another country, it goes on the world market and is then bought or not bought, after your own market gets dibs
 
Goods not sold are dumped in the sea
Your country does not sell it goods to another country, it goes on the world market and is then bought or not bought, after your own market gets dibs

I know thats the way it works ingame. I am saying that it doesnt make sense though and as some are claiming that AHD is the most complex economic simulation I think these things deserve consideration before we can start claiming its also the best economic simulation.
 
Naselus and I both said AHD has probably the best economic model in a commercial game.

´probably´ means there might be better out there, but i wouldnt know them, or i cant think of any right now, at least.

´model´ means, that the parameters might still need some tweaking, but the basic way things are linked is more complex and realistic than in any other...

´commercial game´ means primarily built for the purpose to sell for entertainment.
 
Naselus and I both said AHD has probably the best economic model in a commercial game.

´probably´ means there might be better out there, but i wouldnt know them, or i cant think of any right now, at least.

´model´ means, that the parameters might still need some tweaking, but the basic way things are linked is more complex and realistic than in any other...

´commercial game´ means primarily built for the purpose to sell for entertainment.

I humbly apologize for my incorrect recollection. Definition picking doesnt improve the game though, so Ill wait and hope for Naselus' statement
 
As I said, it ain't perfect :p But there's not a great deal in the way of competition.

Both the settlers and Anno series make good use of chains, which V2 already has (and in greater numbers). And while they contain storage, the modelling of currency is absolute nonsense for the most part - they do not form closed economic loops, in the manner of V2, and have no fiscal operation at all.

V1, and the majority of MMO economies (even complex ones like Eve and POTBS) use a combination of constant inflow and outflow of cash - currency dumping, effectively - and goods, in order to produce a model of part of an economy. Again, not closed loops, as V2 uses.

Prestige and SOIs are actually a pretty good method of modelling economic exploitation in the period; I would argue that they could be better integrated, however. I'd also argue for all nations to ALWAYS be in an SOI, and the addition of 'continent' SOIs - so if you're in Asia, you start in the Asia SOI and must trade locally on your continent first, rather than simply dumping goods onto the World Market and leaving them to the ravages of the prestige system straight away.

Basically, the underlying mechanics of the V2 economy are sound, and are superior to more or less any other economy game title for modelling a world economic system. There could be improvements - like shipping costs, the localised SOIs above, storage and some kind of credit system. But it actually creates a functional world system, which no other commercial game really attempts, and has far, far, far more variables than the vast majority of other systems - note that I refered to it as a socio-economic model, which means all the POP factors like promo/demo, migration and issues/ideology must be included as well. If you can name another game which models all these things with the complexity of V2, then I for one would love to hear of it, as even the hallowed Dwarf Fortress lacks a system of such complex intermeshing parts.
 
Prestige and SOIs are actually a pretty good method of modelling economic exploitation in the period; I would argue that they could be better integrated, however. I'd also argue for all nations to ALWAYS be in an SOI, and the addition of 'continent' SOIs - so if you're in Asia, you start in the Asia SOI and must trade locally on your continent first, rather than simply dumping goods onto the World Market and leaving them to the ravages of the prestige system straight away.
That sounds like an excellent idea.
 
Is trickle down economics vindicated in this game? As in, if you have low taxes on the rich, they'll create more factories(more "jobs"), which ultimately benefit and enrich all classes, making your tax revenue increase?

yes, if capitalists have more money they can invest more of it in new factories (or expanding existing) so its all part of the system
 
Eventually you get to the point where more factory-building isn't feasible though. Either because there's a limit to how much production the market can absorb, or because you run out of people to put to work in the factories.

In real life you're usually close to that situation, but then there are always improvements to the production (new machinery, R&D, whatever) to invest in. V2 can't really simulate that. But at least you could say that any fluctuations in the market making different production goods profitable achieves a similar effect - by forcing your industry to focus on producing something new, requiring new factories and therefore investments.

Still, with industrially powerful nations I think the capitalists sometimes end up with more money than they can spend on factories (if we assume taxes and tariffs are limited), especially with the long build times. An example is my current game as Japan, I was using 5 NFs for chain-colonizing, with troops speeding each one up. My capitalists were easily keeping up with that in railroad-spamming, while keeping the industry in a good spot (~all craftsmen employed) and buying luxuries like madmen (CON 10 across the board).
 
First of all, let me address Naselus and local SOIs.

Yes, I agree that if you had local markets in addition to SOIs and the WM, countries would not be shafted at the low end of the prestige scale. AHD's tight resource market and slim profit margins more or less doom consistent industrial profitability except when you move in the direction of autarky or are the SOI of a really big GP. Ironically, like the real world, free market economics in AHD really help the big kids, but can cause problems for the smaller powers because they have to play to the tune dictated by the big boys.

However, if I had to vote on an improvement, I would want shipping costs before regional markets. This might smooth out some of the wrinkles in the current system better. But I could be wrong.

As for trickle down economics, they are "vindicated" in the sense that healthy capis spur industrial growth. However, healthy capis and aristocrats also buy lots of luxury goods. A little known facet of the original V2 was the mechanic whereby insanely wealthy POPs would double up or more on their luxury goods purchases sometimes. Thus, you can inflate luxury demand by keeping the rich fat and happy.

But the flip side is that there is a point where even the rich POPs can't buy enough goods to keep up with their income. You end up with a national bank that has 75 million in it because your rich POPs are insanely wealthy. If that happens, you need to rearrange your tax structure. If you can get the poor and middle class to a point where they can afford luxury goods, they can end up generating more demand than rich POPs; and if the rich are just socking away millions of pounds in the bank, you might as well get that money circulating again since they aren't going to buy even more stuff.