• 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.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #13 - Standard of Living

DD13.png


Hello again and welcome to yet another walkthrough of some interrelated systems fundamental to Victoria 3’s economic model: Standard of Living, Wealth, Pop Needs, and Consumption.

All Pops in Victoria 3 have a Standard of Living score between 1 and 99, which represents - by a perfectly scientific and objective metric, don’t @ me - precisely how great their life is. Pops with levels 1-4 are labeled Starving, levels 5-9 are Struggling, and so on through Impoverished, Middling, Secure, Prosperous, Affluent, Wealthy, Lavish, and at levels 60+, Opulent. We don’t really expect a lot of Pops to reach levels 60+ but - knowing you folks - we’ve left plenty of headroom to accommodate your mad economic experiments.

Standard of Living affects two major aspects of the game: birth- and death rate, and Pop loyalty.

Birth rate is simply the percentage of children born to Pops each year, while death rate is the percentage of Pops who die. Both values start out high and decline with increasing Standard of Living, but birth rate declines slower than death rate, leading to a net increase in population growth with increasing Standard of Living. This system models that increasing Standard of Living tends to lead to longer life expectancy but declining natality. Each parameter can be modified independently by a variety of effects.

Scratch your priesthood’s back and they’ll scratch yours. Note that Interest Group Traits can vary between Interest Group variants, so a different religion might provide a different benefit.
fruitful.png


There are side effects to emancipation! But while reduced population growth here initially appears to be a penalty, increasing the proportion of industrial workforce at the same time tends to lead to increasing Standard of Living, which provides a net increase in population growth.
women-workplace.PNG

Pop loyalty is altered whenever their Standard of Living increases or declines from its current value. Martin will get into much more detail on this in next week’s Development Diary on Political Movements.

A Pop’s Wealth attribute forms the foundation for its Standard of Living. Pops can also gain more intangible boosts or penalties to their Standard of Living from any number of sources.

Pops accumulate Wealth over time while their weekly income exceeds their weekly expenses. Conversely, if a Pop’s expenses exceed its income, Wealth will decline. How large their expenses are depends on what and how much they consume, which is also dependent on their Wealth. What this means is that as long as a Pop’s income remains the same, and the cost of the goods and services in their state and market remains the same, that Pop’s Wealth will over time drift towards exactly the level of consumption they can afford to sustain. Of course, as Wealth changes the consumption also changes, which affects the prices of the goods in the market, which might in turn affect their wages, dividends, etcetera.

This weekly shortfall of funds will eventually lead to a reduction in Wealth and thereby consumption, but since the shortfall is only a small fraction of its income it will take several months to have an impact on the Wealth score and thereby the Standard of Living.
peasant-net-income.PNG

Wealth has a number of functions in addition to forming the basis for Standard of Living. A Pop’s raw Political Strength (excluding any such power conferred by the country’s Voting Franchise, which is treated separately) is dependent on their Wealth. Some privately operated Institutions provide benefits to Pops only in relation to their Wealth. Many Professional Qualifications also require Pops to have a certain amount of Wealth.

Each Wealth level is defined by a set of Needs and an amount of “value” that needs to be spent on goods to fulfill that Need. This “value” is defined in goods base prices, such that the Need for Standard Clothing for a Pop of size 10,000 with Wealth level 14 might be fulfilled by buying £87 worth of Clothes, assuming perfectly balanced supply and demand. If the actual price of Clothes where the Pop lives is over-demanded, their cost to fulfill this need will also be higher. As a result, cheaper goods means wealthier, happier Pops.

This Peasant Pop’s Wealth is low (6), so it consumes only the basic necessities.
simple-needs.png

Many Needs can be satisfied by a variety of different goods. For example, the Need for Heating requires Wood, Fabric, Coal, Oil, and/or Electricity. These can be purchased in any combination assuming the total base prices add up to the required value. When given this option Pops will attempt to make a rational purchase decision based on which goods are the most available, satisfying their Need with some mix of these goods or even only one, if that’s the only one available. In this way an inland, isolated state might not consume any Fish at all as long as it has sufficient Grain, Fruit, Meat, or even packaged Groceries to satisfy their Need for food.

A breakdown of how the Peasants in Ceylon spent their heating budget this week.
heating-for-peasants-in-ceylon.png

Goods can also appear in several different Needs categories. Groceries, Meat, and Fruit can fulfil the need for both Basic Food and Luxury Food, but Grain or Fish can only fulfil the need for Basic Food. As a result, maintaining only Millet Farms and Fishing Wharfs to meet your food needs will mostly satisfy your poor Pops, while focusing on Livestock Ranches and Banana Plantations will cause wealthy Pops to inflate the price of the available food supply and further impoverish the poor. Operating productive Food Industries that can turn Grain and Fish into Groceries is good for everyone in your country, and frees up any available supply of Meat and Fruit to be consumed by those with a Need for Luxury Food.

A breakdown of who requires Basic Food and how it can be fulfilled.
basic-food-substitution.png

Lower Wealth levels have only a handful of Needs, such as Simple Clothing, Heating, Basic Food, and Intoxicants. The middle levels introduce more refined Needs like Household Items, Services, Luxury Drinks, and Free Movement. Really wealthy Pops consume increasingly vast quantities of Luxury Goods to impress and outdo their peers. In some cases Needs disappear entirely in favor of more diverse Needs. The Need for Simple Clothing which can be satisfied by both Fabric and Clothes will, as a Pop is raised from abject poverty, be gradually phased out by the Need for Standard Clothing which include only professionally sewn items.

Compared to the Wealth 6 Peasants, these Wealth 17 Bureaucrats are more diverse in their requirements.
middle-needs.png

Introducing new goods into your market will help you diversify your economy and alleviate the demand on crucial industrial goods. Importing Oil - either petroleum from newly discovered deposits or whale oil from the few places in the world that produce it - will cause your Pops to buy some quantity of it for heating instead of Coal or Electricity, which lowers the price of those goods and help make your industries more profitable. Introducing Opium into your market will decrease Pop demand for Liquor and Tobacco... for good or ill.

Some goods are favored over others by default if available. Once Electricity is available to them, due to its convenience Pops will prefer to buy it over Wood or Coal, even if they’re the same price. Some goods can be replaced by other goods entirely, while others will always be required to some bare minimum. Train travel can completely replace the need for having your own Automobile to drive around in, but having an Automobile doesn’t ever completely remove the need for an occasional train ride to see your cousin who lives all the way in Paris.

In addition to these factors cultures can develop Obsessions for certain goods, and some even have Taboos they must abide by. A country can also encourage or discourage the consumption of certain goods using Authority, perhaps in an effort to avoid enriching a hated enemy or entice Pops to buy something that’s heavily taxed over something that is not. This impacts the purchase habits of Pops affected despite this being irrational from a strictly financial perspective.

What if the Bengali were obsessed with the status afforded to them by Luxury Furniture? This could happen due to events, or organically because Luxury Furniture is a really prevalent luxury good in markets where a lot of Bengali Pops live. But even if this habit is developed around their homelands, Bengali Pops that migrate abroad - to the USA or Australia or Japan - will continue preferring Luxury Furniture to other luxury goods, and will suffer financially if the same level of access is not available there.
bengali-obsessions-taboos.png

Let’s close out by considering the difference between this and the consumption model from previous games. In Victoria 2, Pops have different Life, Everyday, and Luxury Needs based on their Type (what we call Profession in Victoria 3), both in types of goods and quantities. Pops in Victoria 2 always strive to get promoted into Types which require more advanced, luxurious goods in larger quantities, but will fail to do so if they cannot afford it. Since certain advanced Types of Pops in Victoria 2 perform their duties objectively better than their less advanced counterparts (e.g. Craftsmen, Clerks) it becomes important to retain access to advanced goods in order to ensure that your workforce is internationally competitive.

In Victoria 3 this formula is turned on its head. An Engineer is not intrinsically better than a Machinist who is not intrinsically better than a Laborer, and there’s no ideal national proportions between them you need to maintain in order to maximize your competitiveness. Different Professions do fulfil different functions, but it’s the Production Methods of the Buildings they work in that determine what function they serve. By choosing what Buildings to construct and which Production Methods to activate, you create the opportunities for these Professions which in turn impose changes to the population. What types of goods you need to ensure access to in order to keep your population satisfied is not driven directly by what professional opportunities you have created, but rather by what Wealth development and Wealth distribution these changes have resulted in.

Professions that are part of the Middle Strata in this state are considerably better off than those in the Lower Strata, and not far off from the Upper Strata. It’s very likely this state hasn’t started industrializing yet, since Shopkeepers - who run the pre-industrial economy - are Middle Strata, and Upper Strata Aristocrats aren’t always particularly wealthy if their income originates from exploiting the Peasantry on Subsistence Farms. Since the Middle Strata is already wealthy enough to demand Transportation, construction of Railways in this state is likely to be both profitable and beneficial for population growth and general happiness.
sol-breakdown.PNG

As a result, Pops in Victoria 3 won’t always strive to ascend to a higher social strata, nor will an Aristocrat always have a higher income or goods consumption Needs compared to a Clerk. All of this is driven by market forces - a qualifying Clerk would gladly become an Aristocrat on available land if that comes with a higher income than remaining a Clerk, and this increased income will gradually result in an increase in their Wealth and consumption demand. Conversely, Aristocrats don’t demote to Laborers because they can't acquire enough goods to sustain their lifestyle - they would only turn to such desperate measures if they become landless (unemployed) and are trying to avoid starvation, or if by some miracle taking on a relatively well-paid Laborer job in a particularly profitable factory would actually yield a greater paycheck than their failing farm provides them with.

In practice this means that it's important in both games to secure your populations’ basic needs to prevent starvation and dissent, followed by appeasing their desire for ever more advanced or exotic goods in larger and larger quantities to increase the size of your economy and power on the world stage. But while reaching this commonly pursued end goal in Victoria 2 often meant pursuing a certain optimal population distribution no matter what else happened throughout the game, the Professions of the Pops you end up with could be vastly different between games in Victoria 3! If you build a colonial plantation economy, your Aristocrats might remain as dominant by endgame as they were at start. If you're a manufacturing powerhouse on the cutting edge of technological progress, your middle strata Pops might come to rival the Capitalist class in wealth and power. If your high taxes are reinvested in vast Institutions your power base might be dominated by Bureaucrats and Academics. If your workers own the means of production, your Laborers might even be wealthier - and consume more luxuries - than your neighbor's Aristocrats.

These possibilities for diverse Pop distributions also result in very different political tendencies in your population, which lead to demand for different kinds of Laws. While in Victoria 2 it’s primarily the rising Consciousness of a greater ratio of more advanced and literate types of Pops that drives a desire for reform in a liberal direction, Victoria 3’s more open-ended consumption model and the diversity of Professions it can create could result in your population having very different political desires by endgame depending on the path you’ve taken. This requires your political machinery to be working in tandem with your economic engine, both to create the right conditions for your Pops and to satisfy their changing desires.

Next week, we will learn more about these desires as Martin introduces us to Political Movements, which themselves are strongly connected to Standard of Living. Until then!
 
  • 242Like
  • 156Love
  • 18
  • 5
Reactions:
Unless construction of buildings costs resources and manpower the construction industry is completely abstracted away.
Construction of new buildings requires both resources and manpower per DD#3:
Most buildings are directly constructed, but some (like the Subsistence Buildings below) will appear automatically based on certain conditions. When Buildings are constructed, the construction uses Pop labor and goods, and the costs involved will be subject to market forces.

It's not clear to me whether "when Buildings are constructed" applies to automatic buildings automatically appearing, or if there is anything to model the idea of renovations and general "churn" in buildings that require construction work without expanding.

Because urban centers are created by urbanization and urbanization is (I think) driven by constructing certain buildings, I suppose you could abstract it to say that the price of a factory or whatever includes the housing, infrastructure, etc. needed to support it. It's not a great model but it's serviceable for release.
 
How are subsistent farmers' reduced needs represented?

They most likely aren't.

I suspect that instead, subsistence farming produces a number of different goods in large enough quantity to put subsistence farmers at a QoL of 5 or so, presuming they're the only production factor, and they pay for those goods by selling those goods on the market (with themselves happening to be the purchasers).

That is not how it'd actually go, of course, but close enough to work for the game.
 
Subsistence farmers dont have a reduced needs. Their workplaces produce enough food for themselves and a little extra, all considering normal prices. That extra would be enough to feed the workers who work in the secondary industries that fulfill their other basic needs. After all, subsistence farming means the community just about produces enough food for itself, but then, not all community members work as farmers. And in game, the subsistence farms only occupy the free arable land, so them providing any of the secondary needs like heating/clothing/intoxicants is highly unlikely.
 
Subsistence farmers dont have a reduced needs. Their workplaces produce enough food for themselves and a little extra, all considering normal prices.
If subsistence farms remove the farmers' need to buy food off the market, then that's a reduced need. If they just produce enough food so that the farmers can buy it, then they don't, but that isn't how they were presented as working in earlier dev diaries. (Granted, that might've changed in the interim.)

The way it was originally presented, subsistence farms produce very little, but in return the farmers (and possibly landowners) don't buy food off the market. Their extremely low income deliberately hinders their ability to participate in the cash economy, encouraging you to find them better jobs that give them more money (that you can tax) and let them buy more products (that you can tax) to put money in the pockets of your industries and owners (which you can tax).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If subsistence farms remove the farmers' need to buy food off the market, then that's a reduced need. If they just produce enough food so that the farmers can buy it, then they don't, but that isn't how they were presented as working in earlier dev diaries. (Granted, that might've changed in the interim.)

The way it was originally presented, subsistence farms produce very little, but in return the farmers (and possibly landowners) don't buy food off the market. Their extremely low income deliberately hinders their ability to participate in the cash economy, encouraging you to find them better jobs that give them more money (that you can tax) and let them buy more products (that you can tax) to put money in the pockets of your industries and owners (which you can tax).
I cant find where, but I have seen subsistence farms providing a small amount of tax money. Its not even a tenth of a regular farm, but there was definitely some tax from it, so it means that it had to sell its produce on the market. The reduced needs stems from the fact that you produce so inefficiently that the farmers dont earn much income, and hence are relegated to the lowest SoLs, about 5-8, I think. Hence, their needs at those levels will not be large enough for them to be useful and you should do everything you can to find them some other place to work at.
 
Last edited:
Was there any response to this? Is housing abstracted by urban centers?
We haven't seen any hint that housing is really modelled at all - meaning it's basically just handwaving around the urbanization stat. Which is a shame. It seems like something that would fit very well into the building-oriented system they have set up. It was a huge deal economically and very flavourful for the period.

One obstacle is that I don't think the game currently has a concept of state-local goods (like housing would be). You can have services, but those are accessible across the whole national market (e.g. California can use services generated in New York). It doesn't seem like it would be hard to do - basically a state-local good would always have effectively zero market access so the local price would be the only price.
 
It's not clear to me whether "when Buildings are constructed" applies to automatic buildings automatically appearing, or if there is anything to model the idea of renovations and general "churn" in buildings that require construction work without expanding.
One worry I have is that they are going to down-play the cost and disruption of changing production methods. In many cases, adopting a new production method would basically be rebuilding the industry - the old factories aren't laid out the right way, don't have the right machinery, etc. If costs are all front-loaded, so you can expand an industry in a low-tech setting and then convert to high-tech production methods with little cost and construction/renovation time required, then something important will be missing.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I cant find where, but I have seen subsistence farms providing a small amount of tax money. Its not even a tenth of a regular farm, but there was definitely some tax from it, so it means that it had to sell its produce on the market. The reduced needs stems from the fact that you produce so inefficiently that the farmers dont earn much income, and hence are relegated to the lowest SoLs, about 5-8, I think. Hence, their needs at those levels will not be large enough for them to be useful and you should do everything you can to find them some other place to work at.

It was in the first monthly update if nothing else.
dd3_2-png.740206
It is possibly cut off before we get to production methods and process so we don't know if there are any outputs. Looking at other buildings I cannot tell if that is a lot or a little tax.
 
It was in the first monthly update if nothing else.
dd3_2-png.740206
It is possibly cut off before we get to production methods and process so we don't know if there are any outputs. Looking at other buildings I cannot tell if that is a lot or a little tax.
Same monthly update also has:
Buildings2.png

Steel Mill is producing 375 Tax / Week / 10k employees.
Subsistence Farm is producing ~93 Tax / Week / 10k employees.

So Steel Mill is about 4x better at producing Tax income. Steel Mill also has 5.3x times the average wages so that is even more money flowing in.
 
Last edited:
Same monthly update also has:

Steel Mill is producing 375 Tax / Week / 10k employees.
Subsistence Farm is producing ~93 Tax / Week / 10k employees.

So Steel Mill is about 4x better at producing Tax income. Steel Mill also has 5.3x times the average wages so that is even more money flowing in.
It also has an
iron2-png.740220
where that taxes are 122 / week / 10k employees and about 1.9x average wage.

But I have issues comparing them since we don't know...
  • what taxes are based upon (I would think it would be tied to revenue for a building)
  • if the laws were the same between them (as that can affect the tax source and rate)
  • if the images are of the same vintage (i.e. did the 'game' change between them)

Edit: if you changed your URL tags to IMG tags I think that would have included the image instead of the link. You could also use the Image button but then click the URL tab in the popup. (Had to clean up so that the tags were not tags)
 
production-methods-png.740224
If we see the normal farm(which should be the correct building to compare a subsistence farm with), then the tax is at 460/week/10k employees. And this is with missing some of the employees which is reducing it's output by about 20%, I think.
So subsistence farming as compared to regular farms gives far too less money. Moreover, you can observe that the subsistence farms don't have a cash reserve, which is what I think they meant by it not being able to function much in the monetary system. Remember that this cash surplus is what you can use to go into debt in order to boost your growth by expanding quicker.
 
production-methods-png.740224
If we see the normal farm(which should be the correct building to compare a subsistence farm with), then the tax is at 460/week/10k employees. And this is with missing some of the employees which is reducing it's output by about 20%, I think.
So subsistence farming as compared to regular farms gives far too less money. Moreover, you can observe that the subsistence farms don't have a cash reserve, which is what I think they meant by it not being able to function much in the monetary system. Remember that this cash surplus is what you can use to go into debt in order to boost your growth by expanding quicker.
I think that is anything but a 'normal' farm. The one you are showing is well advanced using things above the base production methods. (and with all those methods opened I doubt at a comparable year).
 
production-methods-png.740224
If we see the normal farm(which should be the correct building to compare a subsistence farm with), then the tax is at 460/week/10k employees. And this is with missing some of the employees which is reducing it's output by about 20%, I think.
So subsistence farming as compared to regular farms gives far too less money. Moreover, you can observe that the subsistence farms don't have a cash reserve, which is what I think they meant by it not being able to function much in the monetary system. Remember that this cash surplus is what you can use to go into debt in order to boost your growth by expanding quicker.
Don't forget the ability to tax the workers as well, AND any economic benefits you get from more goods being on your market (even if they aren't being directly taxed).
 
production-methods-png.740224
If we see the normal farm(which should be the correct building to compare a subsistence farm with), then the tax is at 460/week/10k employees. And this is with missing some of the employees which is reducing it's output by about 20%, I think.
So subsistence farming as compared to regular farms gives far too less money. Moreover, you can observe that the subsistence farms don't have a cash reserve, which is what I think they meant by it not being able to function much in the monetary system. Remember that this cash surplus is what you can use to go into debt in order to boost your growth by expanding quicker.
That farm might not be the best comparison. If you look at the price of inputs vs outputs, you can see that the building should probably be using a much more basic Production Method than it is.

The lack of a cash reserve on Subsistence Farms is interesting, though. And generally, I think peasants should have as minimal interaction with the market as possible. They still need to pay their taxes, so they will need to generate at least a little surplus, but most of their daily needs should be satisfied outside of the market.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
These possibilities for diverse Pop distributions also result in very different political tendencies in your population, which lead to demand for different kinds of Laws. While in Victoria 2 it’s primarily the rising Consciousness of a greater ratio of more advanced and literate types of Pops that drives a desire for reform in a liberal direction, Victoria 3’s more open-ended consumption model and the diversity of Professions it can create could result in your population having very different political desires by endgame depending on the path you’ve taken. This requires your political machinery to be working in tandem with your economic engine, both to create the right conditions for your Pops and to satisfy their changing desires.

I just wanted to say, this is nothing short of brilliant, you can really see the depth of thinking that is going into developing V3, keep it up!
 
Rather, focusing your food production on Meat means that this one food type will be used to satisfy both Basic and Luxury Food needs, and since rich Pops have higher purchasing power than poor Pops this will drive the price up for the Basic Food Need as well. Whereas if your food production was focused on Grain, it would be easier for Pops of all kinds to satisfy their Basic Food needs while rich Pops would be forced to pay a premium for their Luxury Foods, which doesn't include Grain as a substitution option.
Presumably Meat producing Farm will also produce less units of food than comparable Grain producing Farm? Which would also increase food costs.