Potential Worldeconomy. A test of what the world can produce.

[TheHostName]

; but I'd also like to know what a SoL of 24 corresponds to in real life terms.

I also dont know where to sort this in. I dont think it makes sense to really try to make sense of it. But I think that SoL of 24 is a good life and its still rising in the game. Even the fact that people spend can buy cars could be seen as indicators for a really good life. I would sort SoL of 30 though as definitly wealthy for Victorian times

Edit: Just take a look at this graph, for example: Global steel production 1900-now

Isnt that more infavor of my point? V3 eco and tech is decades ahead to what happend in reallife. My take away from this graph is that there was simply less demand of steel back then. Like i said V3 eco is faaar to fast. We should not get to the point where all the iron mines can be exploited.

 

[TheHostName]

tl;dr ridiculous levels of development don't feel as ridiculous as they should because visually all your pops do is get a new hat

Yep it fits my observation and experiance of other runs aswell.
SoL of 30 isnt just 50% higher then 20. But its actually 2.5 times the demand of SoL 20. Pops of a wealth level of 50 or higher are ridiculously wealthy.

As you grow into abundance goods get cheap -> pop SoL increases -> demand increases -> you make more goods and more complex goods that eat other resources. Demand growth isn't slow, this is fine but permanent runaway economic growth creates permanent runaway demand growth. Every citizen a Robber Baron and quail be going extinct real fast.

Buy packages sadly work in the way that they dont just increase every demand by 10% each. But some good demand can vanish at certain SoL levels. This for example is why you can see the need of furniture and simple cloths vanish from your market. You litereraly destroy some industries by becoming to wealthy?!

 

[Xeiki]

Isnt that more infavor of my point? V3 eco and tech is decades ahead to what happend in reallife. My take away from this graph is that there was simply less demand of steel back then. Like i said V3 eco is faaar to fast. We should not get to the point where all the iron mines can be exploited.

Yes, but even if you jump decades ahead and assume that Vic3 economy & demand in 1900 is ten times what it was historically, you still "only" end up at ~1965 levels, and you can almost quadruple that figure still to end up at 2016 production. And I don't think Vic3 is 7 decades ahead, more like 30-40. So jumping forward from 1936 to 1976, you're still only at less than *half* 2016 production, and we have *not* hit peak iron. Keep in mind that that also tells us about fossil fuels, since you need those to make steel in the first place.

So I agree with the your point: we shouldn't get to a point where all iron mines can be exploited. But I think it's not only a demand issue, but also a supply issue. Yes, economic (and societal) development is too fast in Vic3, but it's not 10 times too fast; it's maybe 1,5 times too fast. The rest of the lacking resources has to be made up with increased supply, imo.

 

[0watcherinthewater0]

Yep it fits my observation and experiance of other runs aswell.
SoL of 30 isnt just 50% higher then 20. But its actually 2.5 times the demand of SoL 20. Pops of a wealth level of 50 or higher are ridiculously wealthy.

Buy packages sadly work in the way that they dont just increase every demand by 10% each. But some good demand can vanish at certain SoL levels. This for example is why you can see the need of furniture and simple cloths vanish from your market. You litereraly destroy some industries by becoming to wealthy?!

This is a good thing. People buy different things IRL the wealthier they get.

I do wish the growth in luxury goods was replaced by services though. They should be the primary good pops consume at mid-high wealth levels, and it would totally solve the resource supply issues.

 

[TheHostName]

This is a good thing. People buy different things IRL the wealthier they get.

I do wish the growth in luxury goods was replaced by services though. They should be the primary good pops consume at mid-high wealth levels, and it would totally solve the resource supply issues.

I cannot agree more.

 

[Secret Master]

-There seems to be a demand spiral for luxery goods. Because of the way SoL increases changes demand, can there be points where nations cannot keep up with luxury demands. Chairs and cloths simply become worthless and make those factories more unprofitable.

While I would have done some things different to optimize production, this is something that really meshes with what I see in large economies even in regular games.

There are a lot of situations where furniture and textile factories are more or less subsidizing their production regular clothes and furniture from production of luxury items. But eventually, the factories start to fail because they can't afford to produce regular items.

The world looks like it has an in-built surplus of services.

This is something some friends and I have concluded. Consumption taxes on services are usually a safe bet because services are in such huge supply.

Hell, I've reached a point in some games where I manipulate urban centers to increase demand for transportation artificially by providing even more services that we don't need in order to indirectly subsidize railroads.

 

[TheHostName]

So i have to apologize for the first post. I was completly wrong in thinking 25B would be the cap.

Ive redone the test with every culture beeing the same culture to increase performence. The game is now running well enough.

I ended at 2B People and 50%! workforce ratio.

Lowest taxation though. Just taxing services balances budget.

Peasants also have an SoL of 18 here.

The oder in which resources are in shortage is: Oil (because you want to use it everywhere but cant) ; Hardwood; Rubber; Lead.

This all speaks for itself. I have nothing further to add.

 

[TheHostName]

There are a lot of situations where furniture and textile factories are more or less subsidizing their production regular clothes and furniture from production of luxury items. But eventually, the factories start to fail because they can't afford to produce regular items.

Yep. Ive used a tip that was shared in your thread for the second test. Reducing the primary production method helped in making them even more profitable. This way one could expand them while compensating for even higher input cost.
Though even on third level am i flooding the market with chairs....

 

[Fawr]

Now about wood: Doubling world population doesnt mean double all resource needs. Out of 500k wood demand 300k is tooling. So if we look at Tools we see that out of 700k demand only 250k comes from industries we would need to double. Stuff like ranches, food industry, furniture ect. The rest of the demand is stuff like iron mines and so on. Those are allready at max. So just going by that we can expand all of that. Only thing that wouldnt work is Hardwood. But ive stated in my post that hardwood will run out first. Then Rubber.

I suspect your wood, iron and coal (and maybe lead) situations would be worse if you had a construction industry running in the background (eating steel and tools). On the other hand construction absorbing some glass production would help with your lack of furniture demand (via substitution).

Also I suspect your peasants are doing so well because you are spending half the world budget on welfare payments. A lower level of subsidies would lower your peasants SoL to closer to 10, meaning you need your workers SoL to increase to keep your average up. That would result in more demand for goods (earlier others were talking about the shape of the SoL curve).

 

[Fawr]

I'd also like to know what a SoL of 24 corresponds to in real life terms.

This almost deserves its own thread.

In theory you could look at where an average family spent its money (50% food, etc), and then try to put that against the SoL demand levels?

wealth_10 = {
    political_strength = 0.75
    goods = {
        popneed_simple_clothing = 50
        popneed_crude_items = 43
        popneed_basic_food = 133
        popneed_heating = 26
        popneed_household_items = 7
        popneed_standard_clothing = 10
        popneed_services = 23
        popneed_intoxicants = 63
    }
}

That implies that SoL 10 pop spends 37% of their money on basic food, 17% on intoxicants. So 54% on food and drink. They spend 17% on heating.

Looking at Sol 20 pops they spend 40% on Food & drink (now comprising basic food, luxury food, luxury drinks and intoxicants). They spend 6% on heating

You would need to compare those numbers to a typical basket of goods like they use in inflation data. I assume someone has done baskets like that going back a long time (anyone looking at how much something 200 years ago is worth in today's currency needs to be using some type of basket of goods to base it on).

However the oldest data I can find is from 1947 in the UK. They used 56% for food, alcohol and tobacco . Suggesting they were around SoL 10 for food. However they used 6% of their budget on "fuel and light", suggesting that if that was approximately eqivalent to in-game heating then they were SoL 20. Makes me wonder where they game got their SoL demand curves from, or if 1947 was still running on a bit of a war economy.

If anyone can find inflation baskets from the interwar years I'd love to see them.

 

[Secret Master]

Also I suspect your peasants are doing so well because you are spending half the world budget on welfare payments.

I'm also thinking that if he got rid of them his economy would change substantially. He could probably sell a lot more liquor from food industries, and the health of his furniture industries would improve without those subsistence farms competing with the factories. Would it also help with textile factories?

But.. he'd be out a ton of regular wood. I'm not sure if the economy could survive without subsistence farming wood.

 

[Opanashc]

Makes me wonder where they game got their SoL demand curves from, or if 1947 was still running on a bit of a war economy.

If my memory serves me right, UK used war-time good distribution by card until 1951. So yeah, life sucked in England back then.

 

[TheHostName]

Also I suspect your peasants are doing so well because you are spending half the world budget on welfare payments. A lower level of subsidies would lower your peasants SoL to closer to 10, meaning you need your workers SoL to increase to keep your average up. That would result in more demand for goods (earlier others were talking about the shape of the SoL curve).

I was curious aswell mid test and looked. There is 0 wellfare payments for peasants. Its entirely for the unemployed. (which is why i spammed wheat farms so that all pops there need to be unemployed). I essentially subsidized my economy by pumping money into unemployed to increase demand. Many factories would probably become unprofitable from the high resource input cost.

 

[TheHostName]

I'm also thinking that if he got rid of them his economy would change substantially. He could probably sell a lot more liquor from food industries, and the health of his furniture industries would improve without those subsistence farms competing with the factories. Would it also help with textile factories?

But.. he'd be out a ton of regular wood. I'm not sure if the economy could survive without subsistence farming wood.

Ive looked it up in the save (btw fixed the save so that everyone can load it up )

My subsistance farmers use up more resources then they produce. They demand 3 times the cloths then they produce and 50% more chairs. heck 2.5Mio peasants demand 10 cars

the total production of my subsistance farmers for stuff like chairs and wood is negligable. Its 10k wood on 660k production. Or 10k chairs on 1.1Mio production. I think the only resource they produce more then they need is wheat. So they are a net demander and therefore benefit to this eco.
I also suspect the SoL is a result of the extremly cheap wheat and other basic goods like clothes.

 

[Fawr]

Ive looked it up in the save (btw fixed the save so that everyone can load it up )

My subsistance farmers use up more resources then they produce. They demand 3 times the cloths then they produce and 50% more chairs. heck 2.5Mio peasants demand 10 cars
View attachment 930863
View attachment 930864

the total production of my subsistance farmers for stuff like chairs and wood is negligable. Its 10k wood on 660k production. Or 10k chairs on 1.1Mio production. I think the only resource they produce more then they need is wheat. So they are a net demander and therefore benefit to this eco.
I also suspect the SoL is a result of the extremly cheap wheat and other basic goods like clothes.

I think those screens are misleading (or incorrect for peasants). If all peasants produced more than they used then the game would be really rich in 1836.

When I look at Japan in 1836 I see the same pattern of them buying more than they produce. In Chubu (the 2nd largest province) the subsistence farms produce 132 furniture, but the same farms demand 380 furniture (4 pops, 208, 109, 37 & 26, meaning 317 of the demand is from peasants). However in the Japanese market the total production is 737 (which adds up) and the demand is 917 (the mouseover says 165 from peasants, so less than the bigger Chubu Peasant pop is demanding).

I assume the problem is that most peasant demand magically fulfills itself, rather than getting added to the market demand. I have 90% in my head (which seems approximately correct), but I'm not sure where from (this is in addition to the subsistence income they earn to pay for goods).

If that 90% is true then you could create a lot more good demand in your game by giving the peasants jobs (or firing them and making them unemployed)

 

[Secret Master]

They demand 3 times the cloths then they produce and 50% more chairs.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying it would be better, only that it would be different.

I also don't believe that 168 million peasants only produce 10,000 wood. A few million were generating 5k or more as China.

Do you have an updated version of your save where those screenshots came from (that you say actually works)?

 

[Fawr]

You misunderstand. I'm not saying it would be better, only that it would be different.

I also don't believe that 168 million peasants only produce 10,000 wood. A few million were generating 5k or more as China.

Do you have an updated version of your save where those screenshots came from (that you say actually works)?

I agree it would be different.

You may have to check your China saved game again. 5000 workers produce 0.75, 0.5 or 0.25 wood depending on the type of subsistence farm.

default_building_subsistence_farms = {
    texture = "gfx/interface/icons/production_method_icons/subsistence_farming.dds"
    
    building_modifiers = {
        workforce_scaled = { # 85
            building_output_grain_add = 2.5 # 50
            building_output_fabric_add = 0.5 # 10
            building_output_wood_add = 0.5 # 10
            building_output_services_add = 0.5 # 15
        }

        level_scaled = {
            building_employment_peasants_add = 4750
        }
        
        unscaled = {
            building_aristocrats_shares_add = 5
            building_clergymen_shares_add = 2
        }
    }
}

That increases if you tell them they can't have home workshops. ~5000 workers producing 0.5 leads to 1M workers producing 100 wood. I've just checked a new Japanese game again and 750k workers are producing 75 wood as confirmation.

A few million workers should be producing a few hundred wood.

 

[TheHostName]

You misunderstand. I'm not saying it would be better, only that it would be different.

I also don't believe that 168 million peasants only produce 10,000 wood. A few million were generating 5k or more as China.

Do you have an updated version of your save where those screenshots came from (that you say actually works)?

Wait you cant download/load the save from the second test? The one i have attached to this comment aswell?

Also the reason they are using more then they produce is their SOL of 18. Their main expenses are soo cheap that they can afford that SoL and at this point it would seem the demand is greater then their own subsistance production.

 

[TheHostName]

If that 90% is true then you could create a lot more good demand in your game by giving the peasants jobs (or firing them and making them unemployed)

I was thinking that aswell. Thats why i overbuild wheat farms to give them the options: A.) Work in an unprofitable farm or B.) be unemployed at a higher level(but still not a peasant).

There is this thread here on the forum though that discusses how subsistance works. And if i understands that one correctly then they do buy 100% of their needs on the market. But iam not following that thread really.

Eitherway. All i can say is that these numbers are correct. Its simply a question of SoL.

Also i dont think it would help at this point to have more demand. It would just make everyone poorer and still not solve the unemployment issue. My world is an utopia where alot of people dont have to work. But if this continues, then the state budget will collabse under the wellfare expenses.

 

[Znikii]

But if you are producing too much regular cloths and chairs you can lower regular PM in atleast some factories.
Also the lack of hardwood is very fitting since it represents the severe deforestation that happend in that time.