• 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 #9 - National Markets

DD9 (1).png


Hello again! Today we will dig into Victoria 3’s National Market system. Markets are what drives the game’s dynamic economy by determining a rational price based on supply and demand for all trade goods in every state throughout the world. Expanding your national market to encompass more territory means more raw resources for your furnaces and more customers for your manufacturing industries. As your industrial base grows, so does your demand for infrastructure to bring goods to market.

The French market is swimming in cheap Luxury Furniture, Porcelain, Fruit, and Meat. Luxury Clothes and Wine are well-balanced. But as far as luxuries go, Sugar in particular has a sizable deficit and securing a reliable source of that would likely result in improved supply of domestic distilled Liquor as well.
image1.png


By default every country is in control of its own market which is typically (but not always) centered on their capital state. Every state connected to this market capital - overland or by sea through ports - is also part of the market. These states all have a variable degree of Market Access representing how well-connected they are to every other state in the market. Market Access is based on Infrastructure, which we will talk more about in next week’s development diary!

All local consumption and production in states contribute to the market’s Buy Orders and Sell Orders. Think of these as orders on a commodity market: higher consumption of Grain will cause traders to submit more Grain Buy Orders while higher production of Silk will result in more Sell Orders for Silk.

Furniture is a popular commodity with the growing urban lower middle-class, and it’s not likely its price in the French Market will drop anytime soon. Assuming the appropriate raw materials remain in good supply, upsizing this market’s Furniture industry is a safe bet.
image2.png

As we discussed in the Goods development diary, all goods have a base price. This is the price it would fetch given ideal market conditions: all demand is fulfilled perfectly with available supply, with zero goods produced in excess of demand. If buildings produce more than is being demanded each unit produced will be sold at a depressed price. This benefits consumers at the detriment of producers. Conversely, if demand is higher than supply, the economy of buildings producing those goods will be booming while Pops and buildings that rely on that goods to continue operating will be overpaying.

When determining prices for goods across a market’s many states we start by determining a market price. This is based on the balance between a market’s Buy and Sell Orders, with the base price as a baseline. The more Buy Orders than Sell Orders the higher the price will be and vice versa. Buy and Sell Orders submitted to the market are scaled by the amount of Market Access the state has. This means a state with underdeveloped infrastructure will trade less with the market and rely more on locally available goods.

States with full Market Access will use the market price for all its goods. Otherwise only part of the market price can be used, with the remainder of the local price made up by the local consumption and production of the goods. All actual transactions are done in local prices, with market prices acting to moderate local imbalances proportional to Market Access.

Glass is overproduced in Orsha. Coupled with a suffering Market Access in Orsha this means the Glassworks there can’t sell at the somewhat high market norm for their goods. This works out fine for local Pops and Urban Centers who consume it as they get to pay less than market price. But continuing to expand the Glassworks in Orsha will only lead to worsening Market Access for all local industries, and won’t lead to a better price of Glass anywhere else since fewer and fewer of Orsha’s Glass Sell Order ends up reaching the market. We can see this development on the market price chart: the market price used to be high due to low supply, we started expanding the Glassworks in Orsha which lowered the market price, until the point Orsha’s expanding industry became a bottleneck and prices started to rise again. The last few expansions have done nothing to lower the market price even as the local price has been steadily dropping.
image3.png


If an oversupply becomes large enough, the selling price will be so low producers will be unable to keep wages and thereby production volume up unless they’re receiving government subsidies. But oversupply is not remotely as bad as when goods are grossly undersupplied, which causes a shortage. Goods being in shortage leads to terrible effects for those in your market who rely on it; for example, drastically decreased production efficiency of buildings that rely on it as an input. Shortages demand immediate action, whether that be fast-tracking expanding your own domestic production, importing it from other markets, or expanding your market to include prominent producers of the goods.

Lacking access to a sufficient quantity of Dyes, this poor Textile Mill can only manufacture 42 units of Clothes this week instead of 126, which is entirely insufficient to make ends meet. Unless something changes, its wages will be cut to compensate and eventually Cash Reserves will run dry, rendering the building inoperable as its workers abandon it.
image4.png

If importing Dyes, growing them on Plantations, or manufacturing them in high-tech Chemical Plants to fix the shortage is not an option, returning the Textile Mills to pre-industrial, low-yield handicraft will remove the need for Dyes and restore the Textile Mills to marginal profitability.
image5.png

Astute observers familiar with previous Victorias will note there are no goods stockpiles involved in this system. In the predecessor game a single unit of a goods would be produced, sold, traded, perhaps refined, stored, and ultimately consumed, with global price development determined by how many units are inserted into or removed from the world’s total supply. In Victoria 3, a single unit of goods is produced and immediately sold at a price determined by how many consumers are willing to buy it at the moment of production. When this happens prices shift right away along with actual supply and demand, and trade between markets is modelled using Buy and Sell Orders. This more open economic model is both more responsive to sudden economic shifts and less prone to mysterious systemic failures where all the world’s cement might end up locked inside a warehouse in Missouri. Any stockpiling in the system is represented as cash (for example through a building’s Cash Reserves or a country’s Treasury) or as Pop Wealth, which forms the basis for Standard of Living and determines their level of consumption.

As the econ nerds (you know who you are) will by now have intuited, this lack of goods stockpiling in turn implies that in Victoria 3 we have moved away from the fixed global money supply introduced in Victoria 2. The main reason for this is simply due to how many limitations such a system places on what we can do with the economy in the game. With Victoria 2’s extremely restrictive and technically challenging closed market and world market buying order, it simply wouldn’t have been possible to do things such as Goods Substitution, Trade Routes, dynamic National Markets, transportation costs for Goods and so on in the ways we have, either due to incompatibilities in the design, or simply because it couldn’t possibly be made performant. We believe that the complexity, responsive simulation, and interesting gameplay added by this approach more than make up for what we lose.

Finally, a small teaser of something we will be talking more about once we get around to presenting the diplomatic gameplay. As you may have gleaned from the top screenshot, it is possible for several countries to participate in a single market. Sometimes this is the result of a Customs Union Pact led by the more powerful nation but more often it’s because of a subject relationship with a puppet or semi-independent colonies. In certain cases countries can even own a small plot of land inside someone else’s market, such as a Treaty Port. The route to expanding your country’s economic power is not only through increasing domestic production and consumption, but also through diplomatic and/or military means.

The Zollverein, or German Customs Union, is a broad unified market of German states controlled by Prussia. Without such a union many smaller German countries would find their economies too inefficient and trade opportunities severely hampered by geography and lack of access to naval trade.
image6.png

That’s the fundamentals of Victoria 3’s pricing and domestic-trade system! As mentioned, next week we’ll take a look at an aspect of the game that’s closely related to markets and pricing: Infrastructure.
 
  • 248Like
  • 114Love
  • 24
  • 8
  • 4
Reactions:
Hi all... i just noticed in the screenshot about the textile factory that, apparently, the factory is buying the full supply of cloth even if production will be bottlenecked by a lack of dyes.

Wouldn't it be more correct to squeeze all buy orders for such factory according to the lowest available supply of input items (i.e. maintaining the proportion of, e.g., 3 cloth every 1 dye)? No real world factory would oversupply something that cannot be used immediately, considering that stockpiles are only modelled with "cash" and in this case we would be paying (stockpile reduction) for something that then is wasted.
The problem is that that leads to recursivity. Now the factory is buying less cloth, so a different factory (let's say a clipper factory) that had clothes as the bottleneck can suddenly buy more, so it suddenly doesn't have to squeeze the amount of wood it buys. This means that there is less wood available which means that the paper factory now suddenly has a wood shortage so it buys less dye etc. etc.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The problem is that that leads to recursivity. Now the factory is buying less cloth, so a different factory (let's say a clipper factory) that had clothes as the bottleneck can suddenly buy more, so it suddenly doesn't have to squeeze the amount of wood it buys. This means that there is less wood available which means that the paper factory now suddenly has a wood shortage so it buys less dye etc. etc.
I would add to it, that normally there are no fixed recipes, and production facilities can to a large extent shift their input requirements reacting to current prices/availability. In this example the factory could switch to producing less colorful clothes
 
The problem is that that leads to recursivity. Now the factory is buying less cloth, so a different factory (let's say a clipper factory) that had clothes as the bottleneck can suddenly buy more, so it suddenly doesn't have to squeeze the amount of wood it buys. This means that there is less wood available which means that the paper factory now suddenly has a wood shortage so it buys less dye etc. etc.
Don't fully agree... even when you open/close a factory, you're introducing a variation in buy/sell orders and potentially start or end shortages, so this recursive situation should probably fix itself in a couple of "market ticks".
I would add to it, that normally there are no fixed recipes, and production facilities can to a large extent shift their input requirements reacting to current prices/availability. In this example the factory could switch to producing less colorful clothes
I'd rather keep the same recipes, otherwise you will have an infinite combination of recipes and output goods which will make the game crawl under heavy calculations
 
If you have zero access to Tools, the shortage mechanic will ensure you cannot industrialize.

If you have some access to Tools but your demand for it is somewhat higher than that, you will be paying a lot more to industrialize than your more capable competitors. The premium you're paying for Tools will go to your Tool-producing industries and the Pops who own them. If your Tool supply come from imports, it means greater profits for Tool-producers in the exporting countries.
But doesn't that mean that, for the given example :
20 tools needed, 10 produced, so an overprice is applied,
if the buyer can afford it (the overprice of the shortage)
10 tools manifest from thin-air just because there is money to say it is so?
Ain't this an oversimplification (and a step back) from Vicky2 where unproduced goods were not used?
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
But doesn't that mean that, for the given example :
20 tools needed, 10 produced, so an overprice is applied,
if the buyer can afford it (the overprice of the shortage)
10 tools manifest from thin-air just because there is money to say it is so?
Ain't this an oversimplification (and a step back) from Vicky2 where unproduced goods were not used?

This has been debated back and forth in various threads since it came out.

The abstraction is the stockpiling. Explicit stockpiles have been removed.

If supply is greater than demand all of the supply is consumed at a lower price. That amount of which the supply was greater than the supply can be thought of being stockpiles somewhere. The factory warehoused the finished good or possibly the raw goods; a third party purchased to resell, etc.

If demand is greater than supply but more than the 'shortage' threshold all demand is met but at a higher cost. This can be seem as some of the items that were warehoused before are being sold (either the goods that were in demand or the goods that would have been produced by said good), or scrapped items being refurbished, etc.

If demand is greater than supply by enough to pass the 'shortage' threshold then only some of the demand is met at a higher price (still possibly more than supply). How the shortage is split between the demand is unknown.

If supply is zero then I am assuming no demand is met.
 
This has been debated back and forth in various threads since it came out.

The abstraction is the stockpiling. Explicit stockpiles have been removed.

If supply is greater than demand all of the supply is consumed at a lower price. That amount of which the supply was greater than the supply can be thought of being stockpiles somewhere. The factory warehoused the finished good or possibly the raw goods; a third party purchased to resell, etc.

If demand is greater than supply but more than the 'shortage' threshold all demand is met but at a higher cost. This can be seem as some of the items that were warehoused before are being sold (either the goods that were in demand or the goods that would have been produced by said good), or scrapped items being refurbished, etc.

If demand is greater than supply by enough to pass the 'shortage' threshold then only some of the demand is met at a higher price (still possibly more than supply). How the shortage is split between the demand is unknown.

If supply is zero then I am assuming no demand is met.
The devs said there’s no priority buying in the game, so even shortage means all the demand is satisfied, but with negative modifiers for consuming buildings and armies (no mention of pops though, the devs didn’t answer on that one). There were vague indications that new construction may be halted in case of severe shortage of input goods, but we need to wait for dev diary on building construction to learn more.
 
The devs said there’s no priority buying in the game, so even shortage means all the demand is satisfied, but with negative modifiers for [...] (no mention of pops though, the devs didn’t answer on that one).
I think that Pops will pay the consequences in the increased prices, which increases their expenses, which will likely cause their Wealth level to drop, which will cause Radicalism.
 
The devs said there’s no priority buying in the game, so even shortage means all the demand is satisfied, but with negative modifiers for consuming buildings and armies (no mention of pops though, the devs didn’t answer on that one). There were vague indications that new construction may be halted in case of severe shortage of input goods, but we need to wait for dev diary on building construction to learn more.
Where they talk about shortages in this DD they state that demand is not satisfied with shortages. Otherwise this building could have made all 126 units of Clothes with the shortage of Dyes.

Lacking access to a sufficient quantity of Dyes, this poor Textile Mill can only manufacture 42 units of Clothes this week instead of 126, which is entirely insufficient to make ends meet. Unless something changes, its wages will be cut to compensate and eventually Cash Reserves will run dry, rendering the building inoperable as its workers abandon it.

image4.png
 
Where they talk about shortages in this DD they state that demand is not satisfied with shortages. Otherwise this building could have made all 126 units of Clothes with the shortage of Dyes.
The question is not how much cloth they make, but how much dye they use. The fact that they make less cloth is because of the negative modifier
 
Where they talk about shortages in this DD they state that demand is not satisfied with shortages. Otherwise this building could have made all 126 units of Clothes with the shortage of Dyes.
I think Lachek is very clear in his answer that they decided against any mechanism for priority buying or partial order fulfillment, so all agents always get everything they order no matter supply, but then have to live with consequences such as high price and shortage malus. Over time it means that the consumers will substitute their demand or go bankrupt, so the situation should normalize over several ticks.
With an open economy where stockpiles are abstracted into the price conditions, we can have all purchases resolve on their own thread and tally up into a total combined price. If the price is too high for some of those purchasers to sustain it in the long run, their own economic conditions will deteriorate and demand will decrease. This means we can approach an equilibrium over time by each economic agent doing their thing, rather than trying to compute an optimal distribution between all agents given a multitude of variables that all influence each other.
 
The devs said there’s no priority buying in the game, so even shortage means all the demand is satisfied, but with negative modifiers for consuming buildings and armies (no mention of pops though, the devs didn’t answer on that one). There were vague indications that new construction may be halted in case of severe shortage of input goods, but we need to wait for dev diary on building construction to learn more.
so in fine things might apear from thin air?
A bit sad, but i guess they don't have the choice, it would need too much thinking to make stockpiles work ...
 
so in fine things might apear from thin air?
A bit sad, but i guess they don't have the choice, it would need too much thinking to make stockpiles work ...
It's a game. There are always going to be abstractions and approximations that don't make literal sense. The important part is if the choices they are making cause a superior gameplay experience then the alternative. We won't really know for sure until the game is in our hands. Still, they have given pretty persuasive pitches for why they are doing it this way. Read the dev responses if you care to know.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
so in fine things might apear from thin air?
A bit sad, but i guess they don't have the choice, it would need too much thinking to make stockpiles work ...
I think it's fine because the game is not trying to model every individual transaction in the game like Vic2 valiently tried to do, but even then it still had edge cases where it didnt work. If the simulation outcome is reasonable then the model doesn't need to represent every aspect of reality.
 
I think it's fine because the game is not trying to model every individual transaction in the game like Vic2 valiently tried to do, but even then it still had edge cases where it didnt work. If the simulation outcome is reasonable then the model doesn't need to represent every aspect of reality.
I personally really liked that aspect of Vicky 2 and hoped Vicky 3 would do an even greater depth of simulation.
Maybe I have a less common point of view on this aspect. :(
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: