So, let's talk about the big four resources

[PedroLuiz]

And consumption ones. For example, the Steel main PMs no.1 and 4 use the same amount of Iron per Steel unit - 2 and 3 far more. One would assume that the vastly higher quality of late-game steel and very important stuff like alloyed steels would result in more use being made of the same steel (in-game more steel per iron).

you are thinking of resources the wrong way, sure they are using less actual steel but the game only tracks the value of steel

 

[Secret Master]

you are thinking of resources the wrong way, sure they are using less actual steel but the game only tracks the value of steel

This is a whole other discussion, but yes, "steel" numbers mean... something nebulous at times. It's a riddle at some points.

It's like with weapons manufacturing. Repeaters is a great tech in theory... but it just changes how your arms manufacturing works. Your troops don't actually get repeating rifles, leading to the weird situation of having first class arms manufacturing, but you could still have crappy musketeers. So, what exactly one unit of a good is can be a bit vague.

Also, this:

 

[Ieldra]

As for the reason for this ahistoric problem, I think the per-capita productivity increases too rapidly. Population growth appears to follow historical data.
Historically, per-capita GDP about doubled between 1830 and 1900 in the first-world countries and stagnated in third-world countries. In Victoria 3, quadrupling it between 1836 and 1890 appears to be the norm rather than the exception, based on my two games, and I am just an average player. Which means, either the effects of automation and new technology are too pronounced or the resources for automation are too easily available or cheap. Some historical examples appear to indicate that while the mechanization of agriculture started in the mid 19th century, across-the-board application of a new technology usually took several decades up to a century. So the pattern of selective application of automation we are applying in that quasi-artificial way may actually be close to what happened historically.

If that's the cause. it's not really that coal is too expensive or people are too cheap. It is whatever makes it possible to apply a new technology across the board rather than selectively, way faster than it was done in history. Maybe resources that enable automation are actually too cheap. Maybe we're so used to a maximizing style of playing these game that we find it hard to adapt to a different one, and complain that the game is unbalanced instead.

 

[BPZ1941]

you are thinking of resources the wrong way, sure they are using less actual steel but the game only tracks the value of steel

Those are the same things.

For example, if a railroad company wants to buy steel for replacing tracks, and they have the choice between steel with expected service lifetimes of 30 and 40 years, at equal price the second is 25% cheaper in lifetime costs. That means the cutoff for increased lifetime profit from using the latter is at 33% higher price than the former.

Of course that doesn't directly mean the second steel is actually purchased for 133% the cost, but all else equal there isn't a reason to purchase the worse product - giving a comparative advantage for the higher-quality steel, even if they raise prices a bit.

The net difference is that the actual steel amount traded is the same, but prices are higher per unit and more demand is met.

I don't see how that in game terms is any different than saying that the new process allows more steel to be produced per input of iron and whatever else the process requires - skilled labor, more time/less throughput (which the Open Hearth Furnace, PM #3, actually does compared to Bessemer), some other input good etc.

There are already some PMs that work like this (Electric & Diesel Engines for example, although they use a lot of fuels) but most of them seem to have increased base inputs in return for a proportionally smaller or equal amount of output.

In game terms, the difference is that a 10% increase in Steel per Iron unit means Iron consumption is reduced by 9%, meaning you need a lot less mines to run the Steel-heavy late-game.

If that's the cause. it's not really that coal is too expensive or people are too cheap. It is whatever makes it possible to apply a new technology across the board rather than selectively, way faster than it was done in history. Maybe resources that enable automation are actually too cheap. Maybe we're so used to a maximizing style of playing these game that we find it hard to adapt to a different one.

Yes. According to Wikipedia, Ruhr coal mines produced on average 120/t/employee in 1850 vs 179/t/employee in 1900. Yet the game increase of Coal productivity is from 8 units per 1000 employees at Prussian base techs (without railroad transport) to 28.3 per 1000 employees with Steam Donkey, Railroad Transport, Condensing Engine Pump and Dynamite.

But obviously there's still capacity left at that point historically, because total output almost doubles by 1913. Yet in V3 I've usually filled out every slot of everything in the mainland by 1870 and 15-20 years later I need to start conquering or the economy fails.

 

[PedroLuiz]

If that's the cause. it's not really that coal is too expensive or people are too cheap. It is whatever makes it possible to apply a new technology across the board rather than selectively, way faster than it was done in history. Maybe resources that enable automation are actually too cheap. Maybe we're so used to a maximizing style of playing these game that we find it hard to adapt to a different one.

also Economy of Scale is a huge thing in the game

 

[TheHostName]

Game has no inflation mechanic. One pound in 1836 is the same as one pound in 1936. Prices for goods might differ, but that's only due to shortages or excesses - if the supply matches demand in same proportions, goods will cost the same in 1836 and 1936.
Pre-ww1, British pound sterling was on the gold standard - for about a century, 1 pound sterling was worth ~7,32238 g of pure gold. UK GDP is estimated at 528 million pounds in 1836, and 2445 pounds in 1914. In game, UK starts with a GDP of just under 60 million - and by extrapolation, we can approximate 268 million in-game by 1914 with real-world standards. Germany and Russia had similar GDP to UK in 1914. USA had a GDP that was over 3 times that of the UK in 1914. In fact, there are studies, that approximate the world GDP right before WW1 to be about 12-13 times that of the UK - or about 3,5 billion in-game currency. GDP of itself means nothing. Its about goods and services produced.
Part of the problem is that switching PM is instantaneous and cost-free. Also, goods delivery is instant and free.

Thanks for some hard numbers. This clearly shows how the world eco shouldnt grow to the size we can achieve. Although this is a game and not supposed to actually recreate the world eco. Which it will never ever actually do anyways.

 

[Sbrubbles]

As for the reason for this ahistoric problem, I think the per-capita productivity increases too rapidly. Population growth appears to follow historical data.
Historically, per-capita GDP about doubled between 1830 and 1900 in the first-world countries and stagnated in third-world countries. In Victoria 3, quadrupling it between 1836 and 1890 appears to be the norm rather than the exception, based on my two games, and I am just an average player. Which means, either the effects of automation and new technology are too pronounced or the resources for automation are too easily available or cheap. Some historical examples appear to indicate that while the mechanization of agriculture started in the mid 19th century, across-the-board application of a new technology usually took several decades up to a century. So the pattern of selective application of automation we are applying in that quasi-artificial way may actually be close to what happened historically.

If that's the cause. it's not really that coal is too expensive or people are too cheap. It is whatever makes it possible to apply a new technology across the board rather than selectively, way faster than it was done in history. Maybe resources that enable automation are actually too cheap. Maybe we're so used to a maximizing style of playing these game that we find it hard to adapt to a different one, and complain that the game is unbalanced instead.

Completely agree, and if you really want to, you can do more than quadruple between 1836 and 1890. How about multiply by almost 10 between 1836 and 1869?

And a lot of this GDP per capita is in conquered african colonies whose GDP per capita started even lower than mainland France.

Edit: Now I'm desperately trying to pass some law to stop the rest of the world from flooding to my country, but there is barely any support for closed borders or ethnostate

 

[Richard Dolder]

As for the reason for this ahistoric problem, I think the per-capita productivity increases too rapidly. Population growth appears to follow historical data.
Historically, per-capita GDP about doubled between 1830 and 1900 in the first-world countries and stagnated in third-world countries. In Victoria 3, quadrupling it between 1836 and 1890 appears to be the norm rather than the exception, based on my two games, and I am just an average player. Which means, either the effects of automation and new technology are too pronounced or the resources for automation are too easily available or cheap. Some historical examples appear to indicate that while the mechanization of agriculture started in the mid 19th century, across-the-board application of a new technology usually took several decades up to a century. So the pattern of selective application of automation we are applying in that quasi-artificial way may actually be close to what happened historically.

This is incorrect, per-capita productivity increases too slowly. Yes a comparison of GDP goes up really fast, but and this is very important, in real life prices were dropping. Actual productivity per capita is actually very very low. But we don't see that as the game is built to encourage us keeping supply/demand and thus price the same.

Where as in real life, by the end of this period the US had to subsidize agriculture because the price of food had dropped so much it was no longer profitable to sell it.
This is an era of increasing abundance, to the point of overproduction crisises.

 

[Sbrubbles]

This is incorrect, per-capita productivity increases too slowly. Yes a comparison of GDP goes up really fast, but and this is very important, in real life prices were dropping. Actual productivity per capita is actually very very low. But we don't see that as the game is built to encourage us keeping supply/demand and thus price the same.

Where as in real life, by the end of this period the US had to subsidize agriculture because the price of food had dropped so much it was no longer profitable to sell it.
This is an era of increasing abundance, to the point of overproduction crisises.

There is no massive deflation in the period. For most of europe and the united states, the 19th century and up to the great war were a mixture of inflationary and deflationary periods, mostly canceling each other out.

 

[Jamey]

Historically, per-capita GDP about doubled between 1830 and 1900 in the first-world countries and stagnated in third-world countries. In Victoria 3, quadrupling it between 1836 and 1890 appears to be the norm rather than the exception, based on my two games, and I am just an average player.

GDP numbers in game double count intermediary goods, so they’re pretty much useless to compare to the real world right now.

 

[Leoreth]

There is no massive deflation in the period. For most of europe and the united states, the 19th century and up to the great war were a mixture of inflationary and deflationary periods, mostly canceling each other out.

What you are saying factors in the money supply, which was affected by gold prices and the gold standard as well as poorly understood monetary theory at the time period of the game. The game (rightly, imo) does not model that. The post you are replying to is talking only about good supply and the price effects it had.

 

[doubleskulls]

Except that this can also represent 4x 2B GDP nations. Thats a very reasonoble GDP for some european nations. The Game should be balanced in a way that the world can sustain a WorldGDP of 10B. Iam fine if it cant sustain 20B but 10 is minimum

From my personal experience I don't think that would ever be an issue in single player. Maybe you've seen differently (without mods)? Maybe for multi-player or with Anbleeds AI mod?

GDP numbers in game double count intermediary goods, so they’re pretty much useless to compare to the real world right now.

Yes. In game "GDP" is very difficult to compare to real GDP. Maybe someone better at the maths than I am could show how to do it? The fundamental counting mechanic is different. As the game progresses longer and more complex supply chains are formed. As the game does not discount inputs it means every step in the chain is adding to the count which real GDP does not. That means that game GDP late game is massively inflated compared to real GDP (as through new tech / PMs you are adding steps in the chain, which inflate the GDP calculation), however game GDP at the beginning much less so (as simple industry / agriculture does not have chains to distort the value). So, unless you actually know for any given country what their supply chain looks like deriving a real GDP would be hard. It would be nice if PDX showed both values to make this easier.

 

[Haresus]

I don't think trying to compare ingame GDP with historical GDP is going to be very fruitful. GDP is not calculated the same, the historical numbers are often estimates, prices and quantities produced are all more or less made up in Vicky3, trade can inflate prices more than expected in Vicky3, the starting industry/agriculture isn't necessarily accurate, I doubt the special subsistence and dependence incomes counts for GDP in Vicky3 and so on and so on.

 

[Amtep]

But obviously there's still capacity left at that point historically, because total output almost doubles by 1913. Yet in V3 I've usually filled out every slot of everything in the mainland by 1870 and 15-20 years later I need to start conquering or the economy fails.

Part of the problem might be that tech goes too fast. In my experience, if I build universities then before 1900 I already have all the most advanced PMs, the ones that should have modeled 20th century productivity increases are being used in the 19th century and then you hit the cap.

I've proposed extending the tech tree, but maybe slowing it down would be better?

 

[Sovieticozasz]

Completely agree, and if you really want to, you can do more than quadruple between 1836 and 1890. How about multiply by almost 10 between 1836 and 1869?

View attachment 927182

View attachment 927185

And a lot of this GDP per capita is in conquered african colonies whose GDP per capita started even lower than mainland France.

Edit: Now I'm desperately trying to pass some law to stop the rest of the world from flooding to my country, but there is barely any support for closed borders or ethnostate

I dont know if comparing increasings in GDP in game with real world is very useful, since the GDP in game is heavily inflated by how it is calculated, since it does not substract imputs from the GDP. The GDP in game is not really GDP its more of a general producion index.

EDIT: ignore this post since this was commented 3 posts up.

 

[Sbrubbles]

From my personal experience I don't think that would ever be an issue in single player. Maybe you've seen differently (without mods)? Maybe for multi-player or with Anbleeds AI mod?



Yes. In game "GDP" is very difficult to compare to real GDP. Maybe someone better at the maths than I am could show how to do it? The fundamental counting mechanic is different. As the game progresses longer and more complex supply chains are formed. As the game does not discount inputs it means every step in the chain is adding to the count which real GDP does not. That means that game GDP late game is massively inflated compared to real GDP (as through new tech / PMs you are adding steps in the chain, which inflate the GDP calculation), however game GDP at the beginning much less so (as simple industry / agriculture does not have chains to distort the value). So, unless you actually know for any given country what their supply chain looks like deriving a real GDP would be hard. It would be nice if PDX showed both values to make this easier.

Did some back-of-the-envelope maths here by adding up buy orders (sell orders would give similar result) from final/export goods vs intermediary goods (playing France game, 1891 with an relatively industrialized mainland), and intermediary goods and final goods are more or less the same ammount, which indicates it might be overcounting by about 100%.

The thing is, even if the GDP number is artificially inflated by 100%, gdp growth is STILL too high by historical standards by a few orders of magnitude. Plus, if we're discussing growth, it's good to remember there is also some (though much less) overcounting at the beggining of the game as well that would also need to be discounted.

 

[0watcherinthewater0]

Did some back-of-the-envelope maths here by adding up buy orders (sell orders would give similar result) from final/export goods vs intermediary goods (playing France game, 1891 with an relatively industrialized mainland), and intermediary goods and final goods are more or less the same ammount, which indicates it might be overcounting by about 100%.

The thing is, even if the GDP number is artificially inflated by 100%, gdp growth is STILL too high by historical standards by a few orders of magnitude. Plus, if we're discussing growth, it's good to remember there is also some (though much less) overcounting at the beggining of the game as well that would also need to be discounted.

Don’t forget that peasants have their contribution to GDP cut to 10%. A country with a starting gdp per capita of .3 that’s 100% peasants has a “real” gdp per capita of 3

combine that with the inflated GDP, and the game’s increase is actually almost exactly historical, at around 2-3x.

 

[Sbrubbles]

Don’t forget that peasants have their contribution to GDP cut to 10%. A country with a starting gdp per capita of .3 that’s 100% peasants has a “real” gdp per capita of 3

combine that with the inflated GDP, and the game’s increase is actually almost exactly historical, at around 2-3x.

How does that work exactly? The goods they generate aren't counted in GDP?

How would you go about estimating how big this undercounts by?

 

[0watcherinthewater0]

How does that work exactly? The goods they generate aren't counted in GDP?

How would you go about estimating how big this undercounts by?

Only 10% of the buy orders they have actually get added to the market. So if a peasant pop consumes 100 grain, the market will have 10 grain buy orders.

It’s not going to exactly by 10x, because buy orders don’t have to equal sell orders, but it’s close to that amount that peasant pops are undervalued in GDP.

 

[Jamey]

If anyone is interested, the V3 Mapper now includes generation of CSVs for resource production capability, which will import nicely into the spreadsheet of your choice for analysis of potential production for theorycrafting upper bounds of supportable populations.

I was thinking about poking around with that idea, but my general lack of interest in playing V3 in its current state has left me unmotivated.