So will we ever sell a bond again (or no one's POPs have spare cash)

[unmerged(22442)]

It has been stated elsewhere that those needs are not daily.

Having tested it by stockpiling and then dumping large amounts onto the market, my pops needs, which were 0 before I dumped, were completely filled but only for 2 or 3 days before they were completely back to 0.

So while it may not be per day, it's pretty close. I only tried this during one game so I can't say if pop size or any other factors may chnge this.

Zed

 

[unmerged(11750)]

All POPs will never buy all their goods from the WM at the same time. Rich / high prestige countries will but their share first so it is possible that some countries who are winning the game will satisfy their needs at the expense of the lesser nations.

But the POP demands are too high right now IMHO. As you point out it will take 3-4 factories minor nation furniture factory POPs to meet the POP demands of one UK factory worker POP

No, see ... it's much worse than that. It takes 3 or more UK craftsmen just to satisfy the needs of one UK craftsmen POP of the same size. And that's with max RR. So basically, no nation, rich or poor, could ever satisfy its POPs demands via its own production. So yes, the POP demands are too high. WAY too high.

EDIT:
zedrow: You can confirm that the needs are daily simply by totalling up the monetary value of a POP's purchases. You'll find that it equals their income.

 

[unmerged(15764)]

I decreased all pop demands by about ten times some 5. Result: Pops earn what I think is a good amount of cash they bought subsistence goos and everdays and luxury sometimes, possible to get state bonds but somehow these go up and down even if you dont take loans. IMO you still earn too little cash in early game for it too be fun, Every early game is torture...

 

[unmerged(2238)]

hehehe... so is anybody making headway on a perfect fix yet that I can use in my game, regardless of phantom market, no phantom market, supply vs. demand changes, etc? :rofl:

This game is just about perfect for me now. The only thing wrong is colonization, which doesn't bother me at all, and the knowledge that it's possible that I could have POPs devolve. That's it.

 

[Spruce]

I was thinking about this one, but in the Victorian era it was quite impossible for people to actually stash their income like we are asking for. They sometimes saved money for big exp., but i've seen this sometimes in 1.03.

most often a farmer had his sons working on the same farm, or his sons went to work as a day labourer coming back home each few weeks or months, so those guys never really bought houses etc. And if they would buy houses, their offspring would still live in the same small labourers house,

for clerks there's a different picture, but you can bypass this in the game trough different tax levels, let's face it, the common man is the cash cow,

My feeling is that cash increase should exist - sometimes - not all the time and should be a parameter that determines how appealing your nation is, yes one of the input parameter for migrating pops,

I also see the cash reserve to be there early game, later on it's very difficult to see a pos. cash resere. Perhaps crime has to do with it? The mafia takes the money?

 

[unmerged(8351)]

Well halving POP demand has pretty much no effect on their ability to meet demands or save cash.

 

[EUnderhill]

Well, the POPs are buying them daily. Check out the link to my original discussion ... the POPs buy goods_need * (100k / POP_size) every day, or at least they spend enough money to buy goods_need * (100k / POP_size) every day.

I have validated this behavior with tests.

So have I, and it seems that the matter may simply be that POP demand is linear, POP productivity isnt.
It is funny how it can round to monthly when testing with a 3k POP .

 

[unmerged(24213)]

Just a try to summarize what we know:
1. There is still a "basic income" in the tables. We don't know if it is used now (it was in 1.00).
2. We can calculate the start RGO production. I have begun, but gave up, when I realized that I couldn't calculate needs from pops.
3. We don't know if pops' needs are dayly, or perhaps monthly.
4. We don't know if the "shadow market" is there or not (if it is there, why does some prices skyrocket?).
5. There seems to be something curious with stockpiles, too. Perhaps they disappear fast due to rats and rust?

On the other hand, we wish:
1. Every pop in a civilized country should be able to fulfill his basic need, unless the country is at war or a cathastrophe (Ireland 1840s, e.g.) hit.
2. Rich pops should always be able to fulfill more needs than poor pops.
3. When production goes up (industrialization), every pop should get more needs fulfilled, but richer pops should be still richer.

Obviously, there is some way left to go... But, be happy! Victoria is playable all the same - this is just minor flaws. Maybe caused by the linear need vs. non-linear production, the instant and completely effective world trade, or something we don't know of in the game code.

 

[Darkrenown]

4. We don't know if the "shadow market" is there or not (if it is there, why does some prices skyrocket?).

Because the price is taken from the WM. When the WM is looking at supply and demand to set a price it does not know the phanton market exsists.

 

[EUnderhill]

Despite a POP producing in a ratio greater than its relative need for a given size, a balanced economy at the start will soon fall into deficit as the POP's needs grow in a continuous manner and production will only catch up at specific levels. A POP that starts at 50k will have to double in size (and split) before production increases again. Needless to say, the needs will have doubled in this time and efficiency increases will be hard-pressed to compensate.

 

[unmerged(8351)]

Despite a POP producing in a ratio greater than its relative need for a given size, a balanced economy at the start will soon fall into deficit as the POP's needs grow in a continuous manner and production will only catch up at specific levels. A POP that starts at 50k will have to double in size (and split) before production increases again. Needless to say, the needs will have doubled in this time and efficiency increases will be hard-pressed to compensate.

The retarded stair step system stikes again...

 

[Rithral]

shakes head

The retarded stair step system stikes again...

Man oh Man, I Applaud your concept, your method for plan of attack, and the way your going about this Becephalus.

When you do the same thing over and over again and expect to get a different result, your insane. :wacko:

Trying to fix things from the top down does not work.

You must have supply for a market to work. Thus becephalus MOA way has a chance to make sence of the system.

Read Atlas Shrugged to see what happens when people try to fix things from the top down.

 

[unmerged(8351)]

You completely misinterpreted my post...by stair step I was refering to the incremental increase in POP production which is NONLINEAR. This might b ok if so many other things were not linear...on top of this its the 20st centruy and these are boku fast computers they can do complicated math.

To make that clear that last post had nothing to do with you and I am sorry you took offense. But now that you have needlessly insulted me I'll give you a tip.

No offense but Ayn Rand is simply the worst kind of self serving psuedo intellectualism. Really no better than Ricky Lake or Billy O'Rielly. Seriously its internally inconsistent in about 50 different ways, what a joke.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I must say that I don't understand the "stair step" reference, but the justification for the non-linear production system as I understand it was to deliberately give an advantage to smaller nations with smaller POPs.

Now whether this is a smart thing to do if you want a perfectly smooth economic model I'm not so sure. But the issue is whether the "boosting" of the smaller countries is required (I think it is) and whether the non-linear POP system is the best solution (not so sure - it also gives advantages to heterogenous nations that they didn't have in real life)

However - I think we have to recognise that at some point the development of Vicky will stop. I don't know - but I would guess - that changing the production system is a step too far for a patch

 

[unmerged(15665)]

Why exactly do precious metals and opium have no demand even though they are a requirement for many POPs ? And why do my POPs fill 100% luxuary needs for a short time (modded) and then instantly go back to 0% ?

 

[unmerged(24213)]

Because the price is taken from the WM. When the WM is looking at supply and demand to set a price, it does not know the phanton market exists.

That doesn't quite make sense. Many goods are not at all demanded by industries. So, the price would go to the bottom, even if there is a demand from pops. Example: precious metal. That goes to the bottom in 1.03, but it did not earlier. So, pops' needs seem to influence on the price, too.
On the other hand: price of regular clothes skyrockets. That must depend on too high luxury clothes industry demand. But as noone has demand (money) to buy luxury clothes, and the raw material (in this case regular clothes) is so expensive that the production goes at a big loss, these industries should be closed down fairly soon, and demand of regular clothes go down, and with that, the price should be reasonable again. Thus, the inability of AI to close down unprofitable industries seem to be one reason of the lacking money.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I think you are mixing up the list of demands that POPs have with the actual goods they are demanding. If, for example, the value of the list of goods is >> greater than the POP income the true demand is limited to the first few items on the list.

So, for example, if the demand for clothes and furniture is the last order to be placed due to lack of cash (e.g. for capitalists and aristocrats) then there will be a large order placed fro these items but the order for opium and gold will never be placed. So the game will see a high demand for furniture and clothes and no demand for gold and opium.

 

[EUnderhill]

I think you are mixing up the list of demands that POPs have with the actual goods they are demanding. If, for example, the value of the list of goods is >> greater than the POP income the true demand is limited to the first few items on the list.

So, for example, if the demand for clothes and furniture is the last order to be placed due to lack of cash (e.g. for capitalists and aristocrats) then there will be a large order placed fro these items but the order for opium and gold will never be placed. So the game will see a high demand for furniture and clothes and no demand for gold and opium.

I did some careful observations with my last game:
Brazil 1836
2-26 POP needs
no tariffs
50% poor tax, others 33.3%
monthly savefiles available

Demand for life and everyday goods exists whether or not they are available or affordable. Luxury goods are only demanded when a POP has the willingness to buy them. The key difference is that when a good is not available, it is not considered in the fulfillment %, but if available and unafforadable it does count.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I did some careful observations with my last game:
Brazil 1836
2-26 POP needs
no tariffs
50% poor tax, others 33.3%
monthly savefiles available

Demand for life and everyday goods exists whether or not they are available or affordable. Luxury goods are only demanded when a POP has the willingness to buy them. The key difference is that when a good is not available, it is not considered in the fulfillment %, but if available and unafforadable it does count.

I'm not sure I understand you 100% but this could be right. When I add gold and opium to everyday demands then the price is supported. Which could be because the POPs have cash or it could be because the goods are now everyday goods.

The last sentence I don't understand - could you explain a bit with an example?

 

[EUnderhill]

I'm not sure I understand you 100% but this could be right. When I add gold and opium to everyday demands then the price is supported. Which could be because the POPs have cash or it could be because the goods are now everyday goods.

The last sentence I don't understand - could you explain a bit with an example?

If Brazil is sufficiently low in prestige that no glass is left on the WM, then if all other needs are met, the fulfillment % is still 100%. If liquor is available, but too expensive, the good is considered a need unmet, and thus means a fulfillment % less than 100%. Hope that this clarifies things.