• 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:
Add me to the list of those who are not quite sure about the utility of treaty ports if they belong in someone else's market. Can a territory trade goods with any state that is within either its country, market, or both? If not, is the main advantage that you can use your (presumably) higher tech and efficiency to dominate an inefficient market, but only with the goods produced in the treaty port? Maybe treaty ports also give extra import/export capacity between the two markets; I suppose we'll have to wait until that dev diary...

I think the benefits will become clear when we see how trade between markets works. I assume that a country that doesn't have any other nations in it's market can control what imports and exports are allowed. If you have a treaty port though, you can probably set up your own imports and exports with your home markets and use that to say drive the local manufacturers out of business.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
what do you even mean besides being rude for no reason to the devs? having a uniform UI design scheme is common and good, do you want a rainbow of window colors all over the screen?
Hurt their feelings?? If they would've listened to criticism Imperator wouldn't have been a dumbsterfire

I complained about the same issues in Ck3 but i was shouted down. "Oh its pre alpha oh its still in development its gonna change" NOTHING was changed. Ck3 was released the same gray mush it was in development. And what was one of the first mods to be released? Colorful traits and skills. Mods that made important stuff stand out.
If half the devs strut around with pink hair and beards how about ye inject some of that colorful personality into the game? Is that too much to ask?
 
  • 18
  • 6
  • 4Haha
Reactions:
Don't want to hate on the map design but the colors of the map is way better in your other games. CK3, HOI4 and Imperator all have great map graphics. Hope this gets adjusted before release.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Several questions about the pricing system:

1. Is there an inertia in the price setting? Let's say there are 2K buy orders and 1K sell orders on some good. So it is being sold at a fairly high price (let's say 60). The producer brings more production online and now there are 2K sell orders. If that causes the price to immediately revert to base price (let's say 30) what would be an incentive in increasing production? (aside from the point that it doesn't seem very realistic - normally one would expect producer to lower to ask price just a little bit (let's say to 58) at a time allowing producer to benefit from the new production for some period of time until the price would eventually drift down to the equilibrium)

2. Let's say a certain good is expensive to produce at first, but with the technological progress it becomes much cheaper to produce. How single base price can work in this case? Either in the early game base price would mean producing it would be at a loss or in the late game it would become very profitable, leading to the overproduction depressing the price, but if demand is elastic it would still revert to a very profitable base price. And if it's not then overproduction would become a permanent equilibrium point?

3. If there is imbalance in the market (buy orders total doesn't match sell orders total), how it's determined who buys and who sells and who doesn't? Does each pop and industry put their own buy and sell orders with a distinct price?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Hurt their feelings?? If they would've listened to criticism Imperator wouldn't have been a dumbsterfire

I complained about the same issues in Ck3 but i was shouted down. "Oh its pre alpha oh its still in development its gonna change" NOTHING was changed. Ck3 was released the same gray mush it was in development. And what was one of the first mods to be released? Colorful traits and skills. Mods that made important stuff stand out.
If half the devs strut around with pink hair and beards how about ye inject some of that colorful personality into the game? Is that too much to ask?
Imperator-Rome became quite good though ( although yes that's thanks to the community interaction and implementation of community ideas ).

You do have a point, but I am certain that a nicer way of interaction would aid your argument, rather than hinder it. Also I think there's a better UI for every PDox game, and that's okay.


Several questions about the pricing system:

1. Is there an inertia in the price setting? Let's say there are 2K buy orders and 1K sell orders on some good. So it is being sold at a fairly high price (let's say 60). The producer brings more production online and now there are 2K sell orders. If that causes the price to immediately revert to base price (let's say 30) what would be an incentive in increasing production? (aside from the point that it doesn't seem very realistic - normally one would expect producer to lower to ask price just a little bit (let's say to 58) at a time allowing producer to benefit from the new production for some period of time until the price would eventually drift down to the equilibrium)

2. Let's say a certain good is expensive to produce at first, but with the technological progress it becomes much cheaper to produce. How single base price can work in this case? Either in the early game base price would mean producing it would be at a loss or in the late game it would become very profitable, leading to the overproduction depressing the price, but if demand is elastic it would still revert to a very profitable base price. And if it's not then overproduction would become a permanent equilibrium point?

3. If there is imbalance in the market (buy orders total doesn't match sell orders total), how it's determined who buys and who sells and who doesn't? Does each pop and industry put their own buy and sell orders with a distinct price?

That's precisely what I asked, so I am gonna quote you so more people read it.

Are orders market orders limit-orders, what kind of orders are they?
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I wonder how will surface rading and submarine warfare will be handled without convoy stockpiles. Just as a debuf to trade efficiency?

Also I feel that is shame to have such a detailed production system not integrated to a military equipment and stockpiles system like in Hoi IV. Even if the stockpile has cap to prevent abuses.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Imperator-Rome became quite good though ( although yes that's thanks to the community interaction and implementation of community ideas ).

You do have a point, but I am certain that a nicer way of interaction would aid your argument, rather than hinder it. Also I think there's a better UI for every PDox game, and that's okay
A simple please and thank you doesn't work anymore. Me and mine have radicalized and paradox is all out of suppression points
 
  • 13Haha
Reactions:
I assume there is *some* kind of stockpile right? Like, if you declare war, your armies don't instantly go from 100% effectiveness to 0% if your supply of arms was created by the enemy in the war but rather drop based on some rate right?
Like in Victoria 2, you have a daily amount of purchases you need to make to keep the army on 100% effectiveness. There's no reason to think it won't be similar.

If you mobilize your population, suddenly you have to purchase a lot more goods to your army everyday.

If you're concerned about immediately jumping to 100%, usually strength and numbers are only increased incrementally until reaching 100%
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
There is a market price P. How exactly it changes is not really specified outside of very abstract words, let it an algoritm be a BLACK_BOX.
Producers produce S chairs and get S*P money.
Pops buy D chairs, spending D*P money.
The fact that D*P could be not equal to X*P is what you mean with "moving from fixed money supply".
D
could be higher than S, S could be higher than D.

You know, I thought this was a simply misinterpretation when I first read it. Of course producers can only get paid for what people buy, right? Of course people can only pay for the goods that are actually available, right? But reading the DD again, I think you are probably right! Nowhere does it say that producers only get paid for what they can sell, and nowhere does it say that consumers only pay for what they can actually acquire. This matches the comment about creating and destroying money.

If producers are making 100 units and consumers only want 10 units, the producer gets paid (a reduced price) for all 100 units and the consumer only pays (a reduced price) for the 10 units they want. So when production exceeds demand, money is being created (consumers spend 10*price but producers receive 100*price).

It makes it tempting to try to create an economy where everything is oversupplied to take advantage of this effect, somehow. Probably it will be a good idea to have a modest oversupply all the time to help generate money from nothing, but at the end of the day, the over-produced goods still aren't actually helping anyone.

Shortages of goods apply modifiers on your country, but pops, industries and other consumers like armies can't have a shortage of goods for production/functioning, only become unprofitable or expensive to supply. So if there is no steel on market, your state funded artillery factories will still be able to produce artillery and supply armies, given you are ready to pay big money for nonexistent steel.

This part is wrong, I think. When buy orders are higher than sell orders, it seems like money is being destroyed. Producers only get paid (a high price) for what they produce, but consumers pay (a high price) for everything they order. If 100 units are demanded but only 10 units supplied, then consumers pay 100x the unit price, but producers only get 10x the unit price.

If that were it, you'd be right on this part. However, if there is a big enough shortfall in production, then anyone who needs the good gets hit with high penalties - enough in the example to drop output by 2/3rds. So the artillery factories may possibly be able to limp along at some trickle of output if there's no steel on the market, but they won't be able to produce much. Also, they will be setting the money supply on fire by paying a lot to no one in order to secure their inputs.

Overall, if this is the way it works, it seems pretty crazy. But the adaptation mechanisms could keep it in a reasonable range? Like oversupplying industries would tend to shut down unless subsidised. Under-supplied consumers would tend to switch demand to other goods and the AI and player will tend to quickly address industrial shortages by any means necessary one way or another given the absolute havoc they could cause.

I still don't understand how these feedback mechanisms will interact with a fixed base price. I suspect the answer is "strangely".
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Reading this, I have a fear : that markets might be too rigid. Why isn't it possible for a country to be splitted between many markets?
Also, @lachek already answered on the design of "no stockpile", but to some degree this isn't that realistic. Warehouses exist and logistic as well. What happens if your arms producing region is invaded for a month? Do your army collapses because you have no supply whatsoever?
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Cheers for the DD Iachek, and the extra info - that sounds brilliant :)

Having everything - war most definitely included - being inextricably tied to market mechanics is a major design pillar for us. No, you cannot stockpile military goods - which means you better hope you have a good gold reserve and either a solid domestic arms industry or reliable trading partners to ensure you don't experience overpricing or a shortages of the military goods you need to run your army at peak efficiency right as you're marching on the enemy capital.

Military conflict is notoriously heavy on the consumption of things - either wear and tear on non-consumables, or the various consumables (eg., ammunition, fuel, food, medical supplies). Some stockpile may make sense, and it would be very difficult (and look very odd) for a nation to be able to stockpile enough to sustain them for more than a relatively short time (due to the huge consumption of military goods that warfare requires).

In this context, a stockpile wouldn't necessarily take war away from market mechanics. Indeed, it could reinforce it - ie, a nation knows that its stockpile of military goods is only enough to last it for a short war, and anything else will see it in trouble quickly.

This could be particularly important for smaller countries without an arms industry (of which there should be a great many) - otherwise these countries could be relatively easy pushovers for the majors, if they're not able to at least have enough arms on-hand to make it a bit of work for a more militaristic economy to defeat them. Say, for example, a landlocked South American country with limited market access to its neighbours - it sounds like the current mechanics now would mean it has to build up a potentially ahistorically strong arms industry, or potentially suffer a very quick defeat at the hands of its coastal neighbours with better access to global markets?

Like in previous Victorias, the pound symbol is not to be taken as an assertion that all trade happen in British Pounds, but as a universal money symbol. I'd love to make a game with multiple currencies and a currency market but oh my god the implications

I very much like the "lets just have one currency" approach - would get all sorts of complicated otherwise :) My brain's a bit thick right now to do everything it needs to, to work out the potential gameplay implications (ie, it won't be possible for a country with a weak economy to have higher interest rates and a weaker currency, making its exports more competitive but imports more expensive), but I'm sure you've got it well in hand :)

Next week! But as a spoiler, no it's not a national average, and rails are a must for NYC to get access to large quantities of resources from the Great Plains.
What about the great rivers? Prior to the railways (and even after), much trade went down these rivers and onto global markets (and I'm sure to NYC as well). Even by the end of the game's time period, riverine and coastal trade was still very important economically.

Indeed, the rivers of the US were very much contested during the US Civil War, iirc - for a naval pic for this week, here's the US monitor Neosho:

1628218217453.png
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
trade between markets is modelled using Buy and Sell Orders

On the one hand, this seems elegant. On the other hand, it could be weird? Is is possible to export from a higher-priced market to a lower-priced market? If you place a buy order in the high-price market you raise the price further there, and the sell order in the low-price market drops the price further there. But the producer of the exported good gets paid based on the price in the expensive market and the consumer of the imported good pays the price in the cheap market?

Or does the direction and volume of goods flow depend on the relative balance between buy and sell orders in the two markets?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes there is. It's literally "believe in it hard enough and it becomes true" money. That's not a bad thing though, because it's the same magic behind "sound" money. We give it value, therefore it has value just like any other thing designated as currency.
In other words, there is nothing magical about fiat money.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Honestly, I am for this idea. Every single Paradox game had a huge problem: as time goes on, your money supply becomes so huge that it loses its purpose. This new way I hope that it will stay relevant.
Most paradox games do not have the system V2 had, but rather have an open system like Vicky 3 will.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So does this mean the Chinese market will probably be split up into multiple treaty-port country markets? What I mean is: can a single nation be split between markets?
Welcome to Victoria <3

Having everything - war most definitely included - being inextricably tied to market mechanics is a major design pillar for us. No, you cannot stockpile military goods - which means you better hope you have a good gold reserve and either a solid domestic arms industry or reliable trading partners to ensure you don't experience overpricing or a shortages of the military goods you need to run your army at peak efficiency right as you're marching on the enemy capital.
This is a terrible idea that will inevitably lead to exactly the same situation as Hoi4 and fuel.
Stockpiling military goods is a totally normal thing to do that most countrieas did as standard. This is the whole point of having a domestic arms industry. You are clearly angling to introduce an Economy+ DLC that has this mechanic in it and that is disappointing. I will state that for those who say this will implement a good example of the "shell crisis" this is mostly not because the UK didn't stockpile, but because they didn't stockpile enough. With a stockpiling system it would be easy to not stockpile enough because the war escalates.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 9
Reactions: