Are buy orders how the GDP number gets calculated? I know I used them to calculate the intermediary vs final good split, but I don't really know how the game actually goes about adding thing up
So, let's talk about the big four resources
- Thread starter Secret Master
- Start date
-
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.
Slowing down the tech tree would make the game less fun, and there are a lot of techs strangely missing. I'd rather have many more technologies with smaller effects.
- 1
The goods they consume aren't counted, and also most of their income. Look at a peasant anytime (outside of corner cases like with Workers' Coops.) Most of their income is this "subsistence income" which isn't taxed and doesn't contribute to the displayed GDP in any way. It's basically impossible to accurately estimate the GDP contribution of peasants in the game as it currently exists.
That's hardly even the biggest issue. Sure, the contribution of peasants is underestimated, but many other things are overestimated. Making a direct comparison of the Green Line Product and any real-world GDP is nonsensical. You could try to estimate GDP via income, if you have both income tax and dividend tax in your laws, but that still misses some things. "Subsistence income," as previously discussed, and dependent wages too, unless I'm mistaken. There's possibly other inconsistencies as well, like wages paid from nowhere. I've been told that businesses can potentially continue to pay wages even after their money pit empties out. I think this is due to the fact they can only lower wages once a week, like 10% at a time, and don't start until the money pit is at least half empty. In perverse circumstances (i.e. the player making very drastic, probably inept, PM transitions) they won't be able to respond in time.
It's not immediately clear what effect the "leaky pockets" of pops has on this, either. Here, I'm referring to the fact that excess income, beyond what pops spend on needs, doesn't go anywhere. It just disappears, effectively. And depending on the relative value of the excess, they may never transition to the next wealth level either, and thus continue to leak this income stream forever.
- 1
- 1
GDP in game is the aggregate of all building revenues, so it’s based off of sell orders.
Why is everyone so concerned about GDP, and how accurately the game represents it? GDP means nothing. It does not matter if your GDP is 80 mil or 800 mil. What matters, is the amount of goods and services produced, and their quality. If country A GDP is 800 mil, but all it produces is oil, while country B GDP is 80, but it produces everything from grain to spaceships, do you consider country A better off than country B?
In 1836, most economies produce enough food to feed themselves, and some have somewhat sizable production of manufactured goods above the sustenance level. In-game and IRL. In 1850, UK produced about 2.3 m tons of cast iron. In 1910, the number was around 7.5 m tones. US production in 1910 was ~25 m tonnes, Germany ~13 m tons, France and Russia around 3-4 m tones each. World production was in vicinity of 60-65 m tons.
In 1836, most economies produce enough food to feed themselves, and some have somewhat sizable production of manufactured goods above the sustenance level. In-game and IRL. In 1850, UK produced about 2.3 m tons of cast iron. In 1910, the number was around 7.5 m tones. US production in 1910 was ~25 m tonnes, Germany ~13 m tons, France and Russia around 3-4 m tones each. World production was in vicinity of 60-65 m tons.
100% feels too low ... I would expect more like x2 to x3 overstatement. For example Sulphur to make Explosives to mine Iron to make Steel to make Engines to grow Dyes to create Clothes. That's one of the longer chains, but gives an example. That's a 7 step chain with V3 counting the output from each, rather than just the final one. Obviously many of the chains are much shorter, even in late game.Coming up with an average could work, but will vary based a lot on your tech / PMs, trading approach and industrial base.
I've not cross checked IG, so this may not be right, but I think everything not on this list is just an input good - although GDP ought to account for net imports/exports, so if you are exporting Sulphur then that ought add to your GDP, and if you are importing Sulphur reduce GDP.
- Mixed input / final i.e. you need to look specifically at the buy orders to see whether it should count or not...
- Ammunition? (is this only consumed by barracks/naval yards?)
- Clippers / Steamers (consumed by Fishing / Whaling don't count, Ports do?).
- Coal
- Electricity
- Fabric
- Fish
- Glass
- Grain
- Oil
- Paper
- Radios
- Sugar
- Telephones
- Transportation
- Wood
- Final goods, only directly consumed. Consumption only by barracks / naval yards, or by POPs.
- Automobiles
- Clothes
- Coffee
- Fine Art
- Fruit
- Furniture
- Groceries
- Ironclad
- Liquor
- Luxury Clothes
- Luxury Furniture
- Man O'War
- Meat
- Opium
- Porcelain
- Services
- Small Arms
- Tea
- Tobacco
- Wine
New plan, think of it as one of those “inspired by a true story” flashed on the screen at the start of a movie things.
It will feel less odd.
It will feel less odd.
- 3
The game is built around economics in a historical time period. GDP isn't important on its own, but serves as an indicator of how close to accuracy we're getting.
I'm not too concerned with whether GDP is "accurate" to the real world definition of GDP as such.
It is useful to know what that number is actually measuring, though. I said this in another thread, but with the way GDP is set up right now, it mostly encourages you to play the game in a competent and fun way. If your GDP drops by 30%, you might need to take action to fix something.
- 1
You do realise that subsistence income represents subsistence farmers supplying their own needs? This isn’t counted in gdp calculations in the real world either as nothing is bought or sold. It is, in fact, one of the main critiques of using gdp in real world measurements of the health and size of economies.
The only reason it’s not included is typically for measurement reasons, it’s difficult to measure the value of something that’s never sold.
The game however has no such limitations. We know the exact value of all unpaid, non-market work. It should be included in game GDP.
as well, someone making a subsistence living can still buy and sell things, subsistence just means they have next to no surplus. A subsistence farmer doesn’t have to singlehandedly produce everything they use.
- 1
- 1
Isn't the point of not including it in the game's version of GDP to incentivize getting those peasants into more productive jobs?
Keep in mind that in Vic3 GDP isn't just a measuring tool. Minting is based on GDP. If you crank up GDP via subsistence farming, it might really make certain countries governments much wealthier than they should be at game start.
Honestly, these issues make me grateful to be a mediocre, suboptimal, average player. I’m grateful that players far better than myself really feel out the system and find the faults, but the less I see behind the curtain the greater my suspension of disbelief. Sometimes naïveté is a blessing.
- 4
- 3
- 1
- 1
You can use their whole expenditure instead of the goods they buy
"GDP" is an entirely made-up concept. A cynic might say that what's included or excluded is based on what narrative one wants to push. And since in the narrative the game subsistence peasants are not part of the economy but an untapped resource for you to exploit as workforce in your buildings, then not including them in the GDP seems reasonable since it means that the GDP going up is an indication that you're playing as intended (industrializing).
That's all GDP is, IRL or in V3: an indicator.
Isn't producing everything you use by yourself pretty much the definition of subsistence farming: "people who grow what they eat, build their own houses, and live without regularly making purchases in the marketplace."?
- 3
- 1
Everytime someone whines that subsistence economies disrupt the market in some way i'm like.
Yeah, that's why the proponents of markets, capitalism, and free trade literally used the state to murder and evict these people.
- 3
- 3
They would still be able to get more productive jobs, there would just be less of a gap. Instead of going from a wage of .6 to 9, for example, they would go from an annual wage of 6 to 9.
non-subsistence buildings are just inherently more productive. There’s still an incentive to industrialize.
GDP is not a made up concept, it’s meant to represent the total net production of a society. It can be argued to what extent it accurately depicts that, but it’s still rooted in a real concept.
And you can still give peasants more productive jobs, the initial jump in wages would just be less massive.
- 1
- 1
Well OK, then you should focus this problem to "The AI is bad". Which, let's be honest, we all knew it would be the case even before the game was released.
However, again - when prioritizing the fixes to the AI, I still don't agree that making it work with economies of that kind of scale (which the whole game clearly wasn't designed for!) should be anywhere near the top of the list of priorities.