The real problem with Victoria 3's economy is taxes

[Haresus]

Essentially, players who lean into metagaming can "max out" their economy pretty quickly. By this I mean build all the mines and farms and oil wells, and the factories to process them. They will see amazing growth, especially since technology allows for labor saving PMs that let you work all those buildings (because you won't have enough people to do it unless you're Qing or EIC.)

That sounds great. You have a huge lead over everyone. Except... your population keeps growing independently of the economic reality. Especially if you were running the healthcare institution.

It's 1890. There are still forty six years left in the game. And you might be a european country with maximized resource production and maxed GDP/capita. Next year another 1,000,000 pops will be born. You need to find jobs for them, which means more resources to fuel industry (which you are tapped out on) or you swap your productivity PMs, which lowers SoL and produces radicals. Well, you say, I can build 100 barracks in each state and I can maybe use government admin to soak up the surplus.

Guess what? You'll get another million pops the next year. And the one after that. And so on, forever.
So it's important to sort of time things a bit, otherwise you might create a time bomb. The alternative is to go on a conquest spree, just like the empires of history.

Yeah, this was more or less my France game in 1.3. 2% population growth, that's doubling your population every 35 years. 250 million people around 1910ish, 5 million people per year. There are still 26 years left. Trade Unions love me and are powerful, so millions of people are entering the workforce and finding no jobs. I'm doing the egalitarian achievement, so I have to pay welfare to all of them and provide healthcare. While I was expanding my economy aggressively early on, I got way more lazy towards the second half of the game and didn't bother expanding my construction over time (stopped at around 5k, sometimes just letting private investments do all the building). I'm not conquering everything, I'm mostly trying to keep infamy above 0 but below 25. Ended with a 1935 bankruptcy due to me leaving the game unpaused during a war. Bankruptcy wasn't anywhere near as bad as the default throughput penalties that were slowly strangling the economy. Still got the achievement, but it looked risky for a bit.

Lesson learned, the military-construction complex must be fed. I assume population growth around SoL 20 will be reduced a bit eventually, but let's just say that if there was a one-child policy law in Vicky3 I would gladly switch to that to save the people from themselves.

A bit off-topic, but being able to just raise/lower welfare/healthcare without any political reaction from, say, the Social Democrat Trade Union IG that runs the government was a bit strange too. Institutions are an interesting concept, but I think disconnecting them so completely from IG politics might be a mistake.

 

[Buttons12345]

The problem remains the same: construction sectors are the only bottleneck to growth. And they make no sense and are dumby dumb.

This. I like the game as a whole and I say this as a staunch critic of a lot of modern paradox games. However, construction sectors and to a lesser extent administrative offices feel like ruler mana through another slightly more subtle means. Make number go up means good, but the number itself is largely detached from the game so you have little incentive not to just make it go up to your financial limits and thus any meaningful decision-making is removed. Maybe making tools a consumable to build thing and having a job that's essentially construction worke? Meaning that continual (construction) growth requires continual resources as opposed to just money and since jobs would be tied to it you can't afford to build in spurts (yeah we're gonna employ half a million construction workers for six months and then lay 90% off with no direct careers to go to) and will as a society have to maintain a level of growth to avoid mass unemployment.

 

[Secret Master]

As for the private investors... I hate to say this, but all the private investors that built cigar factories in Vicky 2 are alive and well in Vicky 3 and are now building dye plantations. The world coal reserves are barely scratched, there is desperate demand for coal, and... "Let's build another dye plantation!"

I see autonomous investment trying to build stuff to meet demand. It's not great at paying attention to economies of scale, but I don't see it building useless dye plantations.

(Maybe I don't see it because I usually have them built out quickly since I need the dye.)

I currently have 23 million pops, 8.5 mil employed, 300k peasants, 500k unemployed.

Let me put it this way:

Prior to 1.3, I could reach a point in the game where having 24,000 CP fully employed and working through a queue of over a 1000 buildings couldn't build things fast enough to employ POPs that were generated from population growth. And that assumed there were even resources to run those jobs.

So, when you are sitting a a total population of 23 million, you might not see late game economic malaise. But if you had 400+ million, you might reach a point where trying to use water tube boilers as a labor saving device on all factories would not only put 50 million people out of work by killing that many laborer jobs, but the entire world couldn't supply the requisite coal needed to fuel those boilers even if all coal mines were developed properly.

Check out this thread from March: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/what-would-an-economist-call-this-situation.1572153/

The game isn't in the same place as it was then, but the specter of Malthus is still there waiting for large empires in the late game.

 

[shoebird]

Next year another 1,000,000 pops will be born. You need to find jobs for them, which means more resources to fuel industry (which you are tapped out on) or you swap your productivity PMs, which lowers SoL and produces radicals.

2% population growth, that's doubling your population every 35 years. 250 million people around 1910ish, 5 million people per year. There are still 26 years left.

But if you had 400+ million, you might reach a point where trying to use water tube boilers as a labor saving device on all factories would not only put 50 million people out of work by killing that many laborer jobs, but the entire world couldn't supply the requisite coal needed to fuel those boilers even if all coal mines were developed properly.

Population growth is out of whack. Which is a case of be careful what you wish for. It was mostly fine, but they changed it because people complained that it was too low.

Maybe making tools a consumable to build thing and having a job that's essentially construction worke?

Isn’t that how it works in the game? Tools is one of the construction goods needed to build things, and you also need to employ workers in the construction sectors.

 

[Hansatron]

Population growth is out of whack. Which is a case of be careful what you wish for. It was mostly fine, but they changed it because people complained that it was too low.

I suppose it’s just a matter of where you want to fix the data points and scale things to that.

They have the starting pop figures set, but at launch the growth rates in game were very low from a *historical* perspective. (And we are still very off on migration-based shifts for places like USA & Canada.)

It’s not like we can’t just increase natural resources or require more jobs from our buildings to rescale pop numbers to the economy.

The lack of a carrying capacity or some kind of S curve that shuts down growth in places that are overflowing with unemployed is more of the issue.

 

[GrandEurypterid]

Something that might help with putting limits on things is better communication about how and why Qualifications exist or don't exist in a place; currently they're a bit opaque, you just go 'oop not enough qualifications' without really understanding why unless you go on a tooltip hunt. Making them clearer would help with figuring out how difficult it is to make X or Y role, and thus increase the challenge on that front, I think? So you have a Qualifications barrier as well as a building/population/carrying cap/etc barrier, unless you're specifically strategising to remove it.

 

[shoebird]

They have the starting pop figures set, but at launch the growth rates in game were very low from a *historical* perspective. (And we are still very off on migration-based shifts for places like USA & Canada.)

My impression was that they were kind of higher than historically. Maybe the US got less immigration. I don’t think the US should be granted a lot of immigrants because of being the US, but it should be possible also for the AI to get historical numbers with a certain frequency at least. In any case, I think population growth needs more adjustments, and I’m not saying it was perfect when the game was released. But I think it was closer to the right point than now.

The lack of a carrying capacity or some kind of S curve that shuts down growth in places that are overflowing with unemployed is more of the issue.

What do you mean with an S curve? The shape of GDP? I’m not an expert on economics but should high unemployment results in less growth, instead of the other way around, I.e less growth causing unemployment. I’m inclined to think that high unemployment means the possibility of lower wages and thus more profit.

 

[Panagean]

The game isn't in the same place as it was then, but the specter of Malthus is still there waiting for large empires in the late game.

Genuine historical question - did the real world experience any kind of Malthusian limits to growth in the early 1900s? The only example I can think of is potentially in rubber. Obviously there were shortages and high prices of various goods, but I broadly thought that the late 1800s/early 1900s was characterised by pretty steady economic growth, with supply and demand working fairly well together, at least in the West.

 

[Sbrubbles]

Genuine historical question - did the real world experience any kind of Malthusian limits to growth in the early 1900s? The only example I can think of is potentially in rubber. Obviously there were shortages and high prices of various goods, but I broadly thought that the late 1800s/early 1900s was characterised by pretty steady economic growth, with supply and demand working fairly well together, at least in the West.

By and large, no. 1870-1914 was a period of consistent growth in productivity and gdp per capita in western europe and the united states (with some crisis in the middle, though not severe enough to affect the trend). We can't know the future, but it's 2023 and either we haven't hit these limits or we've hit them but will take years to notice their effects.

 

[Buttons12345]

Isn’t that how it works in the game? Tools is one of the construction goods needed to build things, and you also need to employ workers in the construction sectors.

The issue is that construction sectors are too abstract. What the hell is a construction sector? Building rate should be tied to something more intuitive, like just the number of workers and access to tools. That way you can’t just game the system by spamming construction sectors and building everything far faster than the AI.

 

[Panagean]

The issue is that construction sectors are too abstract. What the hell is a construction sector? Building rate should be tied to something more intuitive, like just the number of workers and access to tools. That way you can’t just game the system by spamming construction sectors and building everything far faster than the AI.

It could be quite interesting, if perhaps difficult to interact with, if urban centres (and to a far lesser degree, subsistence buildings) consumed construction-related resources and produced a local construction factor in its own state, with say a third of that construction factor rationed out and "spilling over" into adjacent states. It'd make it important to nucleate towns quickly and hopefully ground the simulation a bit more in reality.

 

[Sbrubbles]

The issue is that construction sectors are too abstract. What the hell is a construction sector? Building rate should be tied to something more intuitive, like just the number of workers and access to tools. That way you can’t just game the system by spamming construction sectors and building everything far faster than the AI.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Construction sectors are companies responsible for construction. The companies that would hire these dudes and tell them to start laying bricks.

They consume the materials that are involved in building. Wood, iron, steel, electricity (concrete is conspicuously missing, sadly). It's not a particularly abstract notion.

Of course, it's weird that in Vic3 these companies are state owned, like ports and the merchant navy, but that's not really an issue of abstraction, it's a matter of dev gameplay choice (I'm not making a judgement on this choice by the way).

 

[shoebird]

Of course, it's weird that in Vic3 these companies are state owned, like ports and the merchant navy, but that's not really an issue of abstraction, it's a matter of dev gameplay choice (I'm not making a judgement on this choice by the way).

I’m not sure it was just a gameplay choice, but not finding a way to implement this as a private sector in a satisfying way. I think that they have or had (maybe they abandoned this idea or went to the bottom of the list) the intention of implementing a private construction sector. And I think they have some similar intention with convoys for trade. Although here they said that harbors were and aren’t usually private irl, I think they would like to have trade centers paying for the convoys somehow.

 

[Secret Master]

Genuine historical question - did the real world experience any kind of Malthusian limits to growth in the early 1900s? The only example I can think of is potentially in rubber. Obviously there were shortages and high prices of various goods, but I broadly thought that the late 1800s/early 1900s was characterised by pretty steady economic growth, with supply and demand working fairly well together, at least in the West.

Not that I am aware of. Even with rubber it was closer to "we ran out of wild rubber to harvest, so we have to actually conduct sedentary agriculture with rubber plants now."

And while I'm sure you know this, let me make something clear to everyone else: when I talk about Malthusian limitations, I am only talking about non-agricultural resources. There's plenty of food in the world of Vic3. If it grows in an agricultural building, we have enough of it by 1880.

(I am saying this because Malthusian limits is often more associated with famine in some circles.)

 

[parkerg12]

The problem with construction is it is one the only resources which you can expand it and have it not be consumed by another nation or your own population. Construction points should be consumed by Pops like other goods.

 

[Buttons12345]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Construction sectors are companies responsible for construction. The companies that would hire these dudes and tell them to start laying bricks.

View attachment 991455

They consume the materials that are involved in building. Wood, iron, steel, electricity (concrete is conspicuously missing, sadly). It's not a particularly abstract notion.

Of course, it's weird that in Vic3 these companies are state owned, like ports and the merchant navy, but that's not really an issue of abstraction, it's a matter of dev gameplay choice (I'm not making a judgement on this choice by the way).

Sure, but what’s physically being constructed? Why does this require active construction to set them up? Also as another anon said it’s weird that they don’t offer your surplus on the market. If a construction company in Paris can help clear land for rubber plantations in Africa it makes no sense that they can’t help Belgians build some railroads.

 

[Secret Master]

Construction points should be consumed by Pops like other goods.

I was going to object, but then I decided to ask a question instead:

We have autonomous investment already. So investor POPs are kind of consuming CP on their own.

But would it make sense for construction sectors to also be "used" by urban centers as they expand due to urbanization. Like a second line of autonomous investment? You don't control this us of CP, and it can vary wildly (like the real life construction industry), but it would "use up" funding from urban centers and none from you.

I'm not sure individual POPs should be using CPs, but would what I describe more or less create a housing/construction market?

 

[Alin144]

I was going to object, but then I decided to ask a question instead:

We have autonomous investment already. So investor POPs are kind of consuming CP on their own.

But would it make sense for construction sectors to also be "used" by urban centers as they expand due to urbanization. Like a second line of autonomous investment? You don't control this us of CP, and it can vary wildly (like the real life construction industry), but it would "use up" funding from urban centers and none from you.

I'm not sure individual POPs should be using CPs, but would what I describe more or less create a housing/construction market?

Why not have existing buildings and infrastructure use construction points as maintenance. I mean it makes sense the larger you grow, the more is needed to maintain your size, and to keep growing at same rate.

 

[parkerg12]

I said like, not the same. Providing enough housing in the inner cities was am huge undertaking and its really not modelled other than the "city center" mechanic. I just feel the city center or "construction sectors" should provide some sort of housing. or there should be some kind of maintenance that every building has that deducts an amount for the available construction points.

 

[Secret Master]

Why not have existing buildings and infrastructure use construction points as maintenance. I mean it makes sense the larger you grow, the more is needed to maintain your size, and to keep growing at same rate.

The only reason I don't endorse this is because CPs aren't a good that buildings can buy.

In Vic2, buildings bought things like cement and machine parts for maintenance goods. This added a cost to their bottom line and impacted profitability.


In Vic3, CPs aren't a something they can buy. So, if you had CPs as a maintenance requirement on buildings, either you or the private investors would pay for it. And while drawing the cost from private investors might seem like a good idea, the reality is that all the money in the investment pool is literally pooled together, so the CP cost would be spread out among the entire economy. You want specific buildings to pay the cost for their own maintenance so that they succeed or fail on their own.