SoL impact on pop growth might not be historically correct?

  • 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.
.
Another thing that impacts ahistorical migration is pops blindly migrating to the country with highest SoL even if they leave country where they are accepted and have decent sol for a country where they will be discriminated.
Yeah... the average SoL of the state you're moving to doesn't mean much if you're going to be a peasant there.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Yeah... the average SoL of the state you're moving to doesn't mean much if you're going to be a peasant there.
Exactly, now it leads to ridiculous outcomes like mass migration of my accepted population on decent SoL to a country with totally different culture and worse laws where they get discriminated and soon lose jobs having their sol decreased. Idk what they do next, write a last will or migrate back, probably.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Isn't pop growth as a function of income IRL a fairly well-documented phenomenon? I remember there being a curve along the lines of infant-mortality falling as income grows from low to middle (in V3 I suspect that would be modelled as higher fertility for middling-SoL pops), and then with birth rates falling at somewhat higher incomes as families adjust to lower mortality rates and it becomes better to "invest" in a few well-educated kids than many who might die young. Naturally, this produces a population bulge in the middle generation. It sounds like V3 is trying to implement that, but not aggressively enough and AI screwups aren't helping?
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Isn't pop growth as a function of income IRL a fairly well-documented phenomenon? I remember there being a curve along the lines of infant-mortality falling as income grows from low to middle (in V3 I suspect that would be modelled as higher fertility for middling-SoL pops), and then with birth rates falling at somewhat higher incomes as families adjust to lower mortality rates and it becomes better to "invest" in a few well-educated kids than many who might die young. Naturally, this produces a population bulge in the middle generation. It sounds like V3 is trying to implement that, but not aggressively enough and AI screwups aren't helping?
Real life its a bit complicated, but wealth does translate to increased life spans and reduced infant and child mortality (in Victoria 3 that's modeled as a decrease to mortality, with population growth being the net difference between birth rates and mortality). When it comes to fertility rates, it looks like pre-industrial/industrializing, rural, and urban life styles are the primary driver. Women entering the work force, birth control, more legal rights, etc, might also correlate or are believed to be.

Fun fact, also in real life its believed we're nearing the tipping point when enough of the developing world has developed that global net fertility is negative, so despite reaching 8 billion current humans we'll slowly taper back to 6 billion before stabilizing there.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I wish I had your optimism
Well, should clarify the estimated range is anywhere from the current 8 billion to 10.3 billion, but afterwards baring a substantial shift in fertility and demographic trends Earth's population will decline sometime this century or shortly into the next. But yeah, bit off topic.
 
Isn't pop growth as a function of income IRL a fairly well-documented phenomenon? I remember there being a curve along the lines of infant-mortality falling as income grows from low to middle (in V3 I suspect that would be modelled as higher fertility for middling-SoL pops), and then with birth rates falling at somewhat higher incomes as families adjust to lower mortality rates and it becomes better to "invest" in a few well-educated kids than many who might die young. Naturally, this produces a population bulge in the middle generation. It sounds like V3 is trying to implement that, but not aggressively enough and AI screwups aren't helping?
Well, I talk about historical examples that show its not correct for victorian era. Take any western europe country that had very big sol and compare it to Egypt or russia which had low sol. Also look at Contemporary era - countries with largest pop growth are not exactly those richest you know.

I think sol affects pop growth but to a point, to certain level. They said it will be like this in vic3 but it seems almost no one (at least no one important) achieves such level.

We should make this increase stop before sol reaches 20, maybe a bit after 15. Some ppl in this thread say that would boost subsaharan Africa. But for that it should just be set so its hard for those countries to develop much above 10 sol and get other stuff such as healthcare.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Well, I talk about historical examples that show its not correct for victorian era. Take any western europe country that had very big sol and compare it to Egypt or russia which had low sol. Also look at Contemporary era - countries with largest pop growth are not exactly those richest you know.
There’re are examples in the time frame of countries that probably had high SoL like Belgium or the Netherlands, that had comparable or higher pop growth than Russia or Egypt. So it seems that just shifting the SoL point where pop growth is maximum to smaller SoL won’t be enough for a good modeling.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
There’re are examples in the time frame of countries that probably had high SoL like Belgium or the Netherlands, that had comparable or higher pop growth than Russia or Egypt. So it seems that just shifting the SoL point where pop growth is maximum to smaller SoL won’t be enough for a good modeling.
It seems neither of those had *higher* growth than for example Egypt, although indeed higher than larger countries. But in their case factors such as healthcare and no disasters (famines, large epidemics) were at work, and these weren't the case for russia or Egypt. So I think the difference in their case in game could be modelled by this.
And even if we assume that not, the conclusion remains (which I think is the most important point i would like to underline in this thread) :

Correlation between SoL and pop growth differed so much among different countries historically that "the higher the sol, the bigger the growth" cannot be the sole most important rule determining pop growth or the world will never have a chance to even remotely resemble the historical. Other factors should be made more meaningful, and this one - less.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
But in their case factors such as healthcare and no disasters (famines, large epidemics) were at work
Well I guess there was not much difference between these two countries and the rest of European countries in that regard. And still pop growth in the Netherlands is closer to that of Egypt than other Western European countries.
Correlation between SoL and pop growth differed so much among different countries historically that "the higher the sol, the bigger the growth" cannot be the sole most important rule determining pop growth or the world will never have a chance to even remotely resemble the historical. Other factors should be made more meaningful, and this one - less.
Agree, but then the question is how they do this? What more complex model they should use? I haven’t read every post thoroughly, so maybe some people has pointed out more precisely how to do that already.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Isn't pop growth as a function of income IRL a fairly well-documented phenomenon? I remember there being a curve along the lines of infant-mortality falling as income grows from low to middle (in V3 I suspect that would be modelled as higher fertility for middling-SoL pops), and then with birth rates falling at somewhat higher incomes as families adjust to lower mortality rates and it becomes better to "invest" in a few well-educated kids than many who might die young. Naturally, this produces a population bulge in the middle generation. It sounds like V3 is trying to implement that, but not aggressively enough and AI screwups aren't helping?
Yes Vicky 3 has this. The graph below is the birth rate vs mortality vs overall trilinear growth curve.

1669917689175.png


Important points to note:
SoL 8 = zero growth
SoL 13 = population doubling over 100 years (which is higher than the historic world growth for the period).
SoL 20 = the point at which growth starts decline due to wealth

This means that population growth is very sensitive to moving population from SoL8 up to SoL13.
If you have a quick look at typical in-game SoL, you'll see that peasants often float around the SoL 6-10 range (zero growth), where-as other Pops quickly move well above 13.

So growth rate (as the game is currently calibrated) is heavily dominated by the ability to move peasants into other roles. Obviously this is further exacerbated by the fact that the majority of pops are peasants at the start of the game.

The curve probably does a pretty good job of reflecting typical player behaviour (I'm assuming the typical players can figure our how to get rids of their peasants). But if you look at any flat-lining AI countries in a late-game save, you'll see heaps of peasants - which leads to zero growth.

At the wealthy end of the spectrum, SoL definitely impacts the birth rate of wealthy Pops (>20), however there just aren't that wealthy many Pops in the game compared to peasants, labourers and farmers... so it doesn't usually have much impact to total growth.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Agree, but then the question is how they do this? What more complex model they should use? I haven’t read every post thoroughly, so maybe some people has pointed out more precisely how to do that already.
Countries like Russia and Egypt had average annual growth rates around 0.9% p.a., whilst those like the UK and Germany had around 0.8% p.a.

You could probably explain the 0.1% difference by higher emigration rates. In game that could be modelled by immigration target countries (USA, Argentina, Australia) having historic discrimination laws that promoted immigrations from western and central Europe.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Well I guess there was not much difference between these two countries and the rest of European countries in that regard. And still pop growth in the Netherlands is closer to that of Egypt than other Western European countries.

Agree, but then the question is how they do this? What more complex model they should use? I haven’t read every post thoroughly, so maybe some people has pointed out more precisely how to do that already.
I'm quite convinced that modelling the impact of respective sol levels on pop growth is one way (reaching food security level of sol should matter more than reaching kind of security that allows you to get more luxury stuff). The other is increasing impact of healthcare.

I'm not interested in what internal systems games use - but what was used in vic2? Things worked quite right there in later stages of development and with mods. If they just copy those solutions I would be happy bcz late game world in vic2 was SOOO much better than it is in vic3 - and it shouldnt be this way.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Countries like Russia and Egypt had average annual growth rates around 0.9% p.a., whilst those like the UK and Germany had around 0.8% p.a.
Such a small difference makes the overall growth over the time period to be that different. I haven’t done the math, so I guess it’s possible but seems surprising.
I'm quite convinced that modelling the impact of respective sol levels on pop growth is one way (reaching food security level of sol should matter more than reaching kind of security that allows you to get more luxury stuff). The other is increasing impact of healthcare.
The thing is that it seems like every country has their own Pop growth VS SoL curve irl. Each country seems to follow the SoL curve as they undergo the demographic transition, but this is not comparable between countries. That’s my hunch.
I'm not interested in what internal systems games use - but what was used in vic2? Things worked quite right there in later stages of development and with mods. If they just copy those solutions I would be happy bcz late game world in vic2 was SOOO much better than it is in vic3 - and it shouldnt be this way.
Vic2 used none. It was mostly scripted as migrations. Which is not very interesting IMO, because you can’t have strategies to focus on pop growth. So for a gameplay perspective is not very good. I would like to have the world evolving more or less historically, but I don’t want it at the expense of gameplay.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Such a small difference makes the overall growth over the time period to be that different. I haven’t done the math, so I guess it’s possible but seems surprising.

The thing is that it seems like every country has their own Pop growth VS SoL curve irl. Each country seems to follow the SoL curve as they undergo the demographic transition, but this is not comparable between countries. That’s my hunch.

Vic2 used none. It was mostly scripted as migrations. Which is not very interesting IMO, because you can’t have strategies to focus on pop growth. So for a gameplay perspective is not very good. I would like to have the world evolving more or less historically, but I don’t want it at the expense of gameplay.
Just migrations? Interesting how it would allow such good historical figures then (russia had usually close to historical population if i remember right, france was not such a monster compared to others.., generally numbers in the world were very plausible and balanced)

As for strategies - currently vic3 is also pretty poor. As mentioned earlier in the thread, I tried ALL available means to increase population but it was giving me lower growth still than another player who had larger SoL (and none of my advantages). It seems that in vic3 basically if you wanna get really good population you just have to build SoL like a madman which is totally not historical.


Doesn't look that interesting imho as well. I think if they make it like if you wanna get a large population you have to maintain SoL at certain lower level (as they promiced during Development that it will be the case) - that would start getting more interesting. Add more interesting factors. Loyal devouts is a great thing but its super stupid that it works just for a while and there is NOTHING you can do to actually keep the devouts happy throughout the game.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Just migrations? Interesting how it would allow such good historical figures then (russia had usually close to historical population if i remember right, france was not such a monster compared to others.., generally numbers in the world were very plausible and balanced)

As for strategies - currently vic3 is also pretty poor. As mentioned earlier in the thread, I tried ALL available means to increase population but it was giving me lower growth still than another player who had larger SoL (and none of my advantages). It seems that in vic3 basically if you wanna get really good population you just have to build SoL like a madman which is totally not historical.


Doesn't look that interesting imho as well. I think if they make it like if you wanna get a large population you have to maintain SoL at certain lower level (as they promiced during Development that it will be the case) - that would start getting more interesting. Add more interesting factors. Loyal devouts is a great thing but its super stupid that it works just for a while and there is NOTHING you can do to actually keep the devouts happy throughout the game.
I agree TBH. It seems like the system is good but needs minor tweaks. I think growth should just level off at around 15 SOL instead of continuing up to 20. The rest of the curve seems fine. Additionally they should slightly increase the effect of health systems compared with SOL.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Yes Vicky 3 has this. The graph below is the birth rate vs mortality vs overall trilinear growth curve.

View attachment 921674

Important points to note:
SoL 8 = zero growth
SoL 13 = population doubling over 100 years (which is higher than the historic world growth for the period).
SoL 20 = the point at which growth starts decline due to wealth

This means that population growth is very sensitive to moving population from SoL8 up to SoL13.
If you have a quick look at typical in-game SoL, you'll see that peasants often float around the SoL 6-10 range (zero growth), where-as other Pops quickly move well above 13.

So growth rate (as the game is currently calibrated) is heavily dominated by the ability to move peasants into other roles. Obviously this is further exacerbated by the fact that the majority of pops are peasants at the start of the game.

The curve probably does a pretty good job of reflecting typical player behaviour (I'm assuming the typical players can figure our how to get rids of their peasants). But if you look at any flat-lining AI countries in a late-game save, you'll see heaps of peasants - which leads to zero growth.

At the wealthy end of the spectrum, SoL definitely impacts the birth rate of wealthy Pops (>20), however there just aren't that wealthy many Pops in the game compared to peasants, labourers and farmers... so it doesn't usually have much impact to total growth.

Thank you for the detailed response!
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I'm not interested in what internal systems games use - but what was used in vic2? Things worked quite right there in later stages of development and with mods. If they just copy those solutions I would be happy bcz late game world in vic2 was SOOO much better than it is in vic3 - and it shouldnt be this way.

Vic2 used the liferating of provinces to influence pop growth in a province. To model French underperformance, French provinces started with high populations but had a liferating worse than some parts of the African interior.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I agree TBH. It seems like the system is good but needs minor tweaks. I think growth should just level off at around 15 SOL instead of continuing up to 20. The rest of the curve seems fine. Additionally they should slightly increase the effect of health systems compared with SOL.
I'm very happy to see we agree! Apparently many players think this way - system is nice but needs these corrections to not be completely detached from historical reality.
Vic2 used the liferating of provinces to influence pop growth in a province. To model French underperformance, French provinces started with high populations but had a liferating worse than some parts of the African interior.
This sounds... Not that cool indeed, but apparently was pretty effective in portraying the victorian world closer to as it looked historically.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Yes Vicky 3 has this. The graph below is the birth rate vs mortality vs overall trilinear growth curve.

View attachment 921674

Important points to note:
SoL 8 = zero growth
SoL 13 = population doubling over 100 years (which is higher than the historic world growth for the period).
SoL 20 = the point at which growth starts decline due to wealth

This means that population growth is very sensitive to moving population from SoL8 up to SoL13.
If you have a quick look at typical in-game SoL, you'll see that peasants often float around the SoL 6-10 range (zero growth), where-as other Pops quickly move well above 13.

So growth rate (as the game is currently calibrated) is heavily dominated by the ability to move peasants into other roles. Obviously this is further exacerbated by the fact that the majority of pops are peasants at the start of the game.

The curve probably does a pretty good job of reflecting typical player behaviour (I'm assuming the typical players can figure our how to get rids of their peasants). But if you look at any flat-lining AI countries in a late-game save, you'll see heaps of peasants - which leads to zero growth.

At the wealthy end of the spectrum, SoL definitely impacts the birth rate of wealthy Pops (>20), however there just aren't that wealthy many Pops in the game compared to peasants, labourers and farmers... so it doesn't usually have much impact to total growth.
do you know where i can find the formula for that graph?