Developer Diary 23 – Gold

[RELee]

There are money sinks in the system. For example if you pay interest to the shadowy cartel of internation finainciers with hidden goals, that money is lost the system. I don't know what they do with that money, their goals are hidden.

Sometimes, you just tickle the ...
That is to say, sometimes I just want to laugh my ...

You hit my funny bone just right.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

Therefore, I propose to let the administrative elite try to exploit they gold wealth for their own best. For example the bureaucracy could demand and realize higher wages depending on the share of gold income in relation to the budget. As you cannot model inflation given the general economic model this might be the next best thing to do. I think it is easy to implement and balance, makes sense gameplay-wise and is perfectly plausible (just look at the ressource rich countries of the world: oil oligarchies, diamond warlords...). I would appreciate it King if you could consider this!

Why do you keep stating that there is no inflation in the game? It is there, it is simply international rather than local.

 

[Ignudo]

Why do you keep stating that there is no inflation in the game? It is there, it is simply international rather than local.

I agree with you that we could and most likely will observe international inflation in the game. However, what I had in mind was inflation caused by national governments opportunistically deciding to mint money. After all, that's the kind of inflation that makes history and might be an interesting thing to include in a grand strategy game. However, as there won't be national currencies this unfortunately cannot be modelled.

 

[Colon]

There's a difference between "classical" inflation and regular inflation? The minting by the government isn't a requirement for inflation, the mere expansion of money supply is. And such expansion will exist in Vic2.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Personally, if it were up to me and I was to design one right now, I would pick regional markets to replace the world market as my number one addition.

YAY!

Even just having played V1 I agree with that line of reason. I think your missing out alot both strategically and gameplay wise by having the possibility to ship goods across the world instantly for zero cost (that is included in the concept of a single world market).

This is a big par off what the Industrial revolution (and thus Victoria) is all about, the rise of more efficient shipping and railroads that can tie together regional markets and make export/import cheaper.

Ofcourse it still depends alot on how V2 turns out, and suggestions for improvements are always hard to pick out before you got a few hundred hours off playtime under you belt ^^

 

[BlueWarrior]

Sweet

 

[Baro]

No PLANS for an expansion, but like all paradox games it will probably be a barely playable but highly promising disaster on launch, which will then get patched into "playable" and then later an expansion pack will turn "playable with potential..." to "totally awesome". Maybe with the added testing the "paradox cycle" can be broken I love you guys but seriously, EVERY GAME seems to follow this cycle. Regardless, I'm buying this damn this on release. Actually Victoria was my first paradox game I bought. Gave up after a week, then about a year later got revolutions, did some extensive reading, and fell in love.

 

[Lys91]

OT but we actually eat gold

http://www.lenotreboutique.com/html/visuels/000000000000005328_1.jpg

I was looking for better picture but didn't find one.

Edit : find better one : http://www.feuillesdor.com/feuille-or-alimentaire.htm

 

[JoeGiavani]

YAY!

Even just having played V1 I agree with that line of reason. I think your missing out alot both strategically and gameplay wise by having the possibility to ship goods across the world instantly for zero cost (that is included in the concept of a single world market).

If you had to pay more to ship goods around the world, where would that money go? And who'd pay it?

 

[Vox Imperatoris]

Try reading Money, Bank Credit and Economic cycles by Jesus Huerta de Soto. Magnificent book dealing a lot with the history of banking and the role of gold. In fact those good old days for Austrian school existed only in case of some banks like the Bank of Amsterdam

Quoted from the first page, but great recommendation, thanks!

I like the system, Paradox.

 

[unmerged(63310)]

There's a difference between "classical" inflation and regular inflation? The minting by the government isn't a requirement for inflation, the mere expansion of money supply is. And such expansion will exist in Vic2.

Well the debate about inflation relates to the definition of money used which isn't exactly nailed down in economics yet. Rising money supply has been demonstrated to not always lead to inflation for various reasons but in this game it will be mostly due to growing population.

Rising prices absent rising demand is usually more "classical" definition of inflation I suppose and can be more directly linked to increased money supply but exchange rate imbalances can also cause that so... the definition has to be rather broad- considering there is not yet a global currency, 1 currency increasing money supply if it is a reserve currency can lead to deflation in some smaller economies despite having more money their own currency is increasing in value and buying more from outside which causes the prices of their own goods to decrease to compete with cheaper foreign imports.

Which is why the definitions are still being argued since inflation and deflation are supposed to be opposites.

 

[Alex_brunius]

If you had to pay more to ship goods around the world, where would that money go? And who'd pay it?

Pay to the one providing the ships? And the buyer would pay?

 

[Colon]

To build a railway the Capitalist needs to buy the goods as well. They are going to need to acquire machine parts to do so, so that should slow rampant railway growth a bit.

Are all the costs of a railways in the goods required to build it, or is there money-only aspect to it as well? If so, where does that money end up then?

 

[JoeGiavani]

Are all the costs of a railways in the goods required to build it, or is that money-only aspect to it as well? If so, where does that money end up then?

There should be money becaue building railroads requires alot of labour that needs to be paid for.
Who that money would go to, I've no idea.

 

[unmerged(63310)]

There should be money becaue building railroads requires alot of labour that needs to be paid for.
Who that money would go to, I've no idea.

Yes, this question was asked about factories and other constructions as well earlier. Does the Capitalist POP high a labor POP for a certain period to work on the railroad construction? It is easier to envision it with factories as after the factory is built the POP building it probably goes to work in it. For railroads it would mean a POP suddenly out of work...

 

[Alex_brunius]

There should be money becaue building railroads requires alot of labour that needs to be paid for.
Who that money would go to, I've no idea.

Preferably anyone unemployed currently in the province (makes most sense imho) or if there is very low population to unemployed in the area.

 

[Bob Ilyani]

Lookin really goog Paradox. The system seems like it could once again make the Africa Race more interesting, as lesser powers (nations ranked 9-16 who can colonise) can grab up the gold producing provinces to catapult their way to GP status.

Oh, and the map is beautiful!

 

[Snaake]

Lookin really goog Paradox. The system seems like it could once again make the Africa Race more interesting, as lesser powers (nations ranked 9-16 who can colonise) can grab up the gold producing provinces to catapult their way to GP status.

Oh, and the map is beautiful!

I think you mean Colonial Powers (it's Great, Colonial, others, plus the unciv/civ split).


I was a bit nonplussed about this DD at first (like I've been about the last two as well), but this really seems like a good way to add some money to the system so you have reasonably stable purchasing power per capita (globally). Also adds interesting tactical choices regarding warfare.

Railroads are a bit tricky, but if there are money-only aspects to capis (or you for that matter?) building railroads and factories, I'd divide it probably first to unemployed people in the province/state (if there was a big building boom, even the unemployed would find some work occasionally instead of starving, then to all poor people in the province/state (1 unit of a POP is more than 1 person, the others would pool in for the extra labour).

As for founding regiments, you could have any money component going to your soldiers and officers. They're going through more intensive training and work than when they're just reserves (ie. manpower available in the province as soldier POPs, but the province isn't maxed out on brigades). For building ships, just officers could be enough, or just a different ratio for how much officers(aristos in early game?)/soldiers get.

Some sort of money-division script does already exists, since that's how factory POPs get their income (and aristos from RGOs presumeably).


I have less of a problem with no railroad maintenance, since they also don't create a profit. I suppose it could be theoretically possible to have an automatic "railroad company" factory for each state that employed some people like a factory (exactly like a factory), but just boosted efficiency instead of producing any goods. The problem here is that that factory would need to make profits somehow: possibly you'd need to have the factories and RGOs in the province paying the railroad company to represent cargo fees and tickets, etc. etc. One big problem is that for the different tech levels to make sense, you'd need to have flat efficiency boosts, but for the amount of employees in it to matter, it'd have to fluctuate.

It's just a whole new thing to code and balance without really any meaningful (in my opinion) game effect. Basically it's been simplified out on the assumption that railway maintenance (and wages etc) = railway revenues, and Capis will build them to make more money out of their factories. The player will build them (under planned economy at least) for the same reason.

 

[Bob Ilyani]

I think you mean Colonial Powers (it's Great, Colonial, others, plus the unciv/civ split).

Yeah, you got it.

 

[Alsadius]

The first producer of gold in V1 was Mexico. Is Mexico one of the richest countries of the world now? Maybe it could be balanced.

Why are you assuming that a couple gold provinces is enough to make a country incredibly rich? Gold is good, but we're talking about a game that models the Industrial Revolution here. The money is in factories, not mines.

I agree with you that we could and most likely will observe international inflation in the game. However, what I had in mind was inflation caused by national governments opportunistically deciding to mint money. After all, that's the kind of inflation that makes history and might be an interesting thing to include in a grand strategy game. However, as there won't be national currencies this unfortunately cannot be modelled.

Barring a couple cases of paper money being in use(US Civil War, say), this was impossible. If money is gold, then you can't mint more money without mining more gold.

If you had to pay more to ship goods around the world, where would that money go? And who'd pay it?

First thought: Shipping costs are paid in the form of ships, to simulate wear and tear.