Yeah, you are right. They are definitely a bit hard to read when presented in the context of tooltips.
- 21
- 18
- 9
-
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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
The latter. There is a slight bias to choose the illiterate members of the Pop when deaths are resolved, which could either represent the fact that the older members of your population tends to be more likely to be illiterate, or that they couldn't read the warning labels on the factory floor, take your pick. But if a Pop's education access decreases below their current Literacy level it doesn't matter how large that bias is, net literacy rate will still go down.
- 39
- 11
- 9
- 1
It's related to this, yes. During development we also experimented with having hard requirements for certain Professions, so the culturally discriminated could never turn into Aristocrats, for example. But this led to huge problems in recently conquered colonial territories where the newly discriminated would be robbed of their land holdings with the result that conquered farms and plantations became completely non-operational until accepted pops had the time and will to move in to take over operation. This sounds like a fun little side effect but was actually anything but in practice. What happens under this system is that the cowed and discriminated Aristocrats gradually lose their qualifications to be Aristocrats under these new laws, and will over time be replaced by other Pops deemed to be more suitable for the job.
- 46
- 11
- 6
Reduced wages could result in Pops seeking employment elsewhere, which reduces production. But this actually tends to result in a net gain for the remaining Pops in the building, since it now pays fewer workers to make fewer goods, resulting in lower supply but retained demand, which means each unit produced and sold yields marginally more profit. So chronically unprofitable industries tend to find an equilibrium point where they can retain their current wage rate at the expense of not being able to achieve full employment.
- 39
- 17
- 2
- 1
"Demotion" as such doesn't happen in this system. What happens is that an underpaid Aristocrat will take any job they qualify for as long as it pays better. So it's more likely that an Aristocrat will take a Machinist job at a very profitable factory than become a Farmer on a pretty humdrum Wheat Farm, and vice versa.
- 28
- 12
- 3
Great question! Currently there's no direct impact from the Command Economy Law on Qualifications or how Pops are preferentially sorted when hiring them. Qualifications is best thought of as a mishmash of "could this Pop literally carry out this particular Profession, given their current attributes" and "would other Pops in the country actually hire this Pop for this Profession, given their current attributes". The first part of that equation doesn't really change under Command Economy or cooperative forms of economic organization - you absolutely need a certain level of education to become an Academic or Engineer, and the greater the number of people who know how to read and write the greater the chance one of them will have the talents and tendencies to perform those jobs well. As for the second part... I'm not sure it'd make a difference, either! People tend to be, well, people, regardless of economic system, and people have biases about who they think would be a credible farmboy or clerk or military officer. So it's entirely possible Laws like those will end up making a difference to Qualification calculations before Victoria 3 is released, these numbers and factors aren't final, but even if so it probably won't make a huge impact.
What does change the equations quite a bit is more egalitarian access to the factors that produce Qualifications. In a liberal and non-discriminatory society, with a public school system and low wealth disparity, Pops will accumulate Qualifications a lot more equally on account of having more similar properties than in a discriminatory and stratified society.
- 39
- 18
- 2
- 1
Good catch! Factors and values are very work-in-progress, and the impact from current Profession is indeed inflated at the moment compared to where it should be.
Having said that, it's not necessarily the case that having Wealth 20 means that every point of Wealth provides 0.1 to the algorithm. In the case of Aristocrats, the algorithm currently looks like this:
- requires Wealth > 10 to be positive at all, otherwise reduce by -2
- add ( Wealth - 10 ) / 5
- add literacy rate
- if Officers or Bureaucrats, multiply the current tally by 5 (this is the part that will be nerfed, likely to 2 or 3)
- if not culturally accepted, reduce by 90%
So a well-to-do, culturally accepted Clerk with Wealth 40 and Literacy 80% would gain a base factor of +6.8 to their Aristocrat Qualifications, which is a very respectable figure without already being one of the two preferred types.
And yeah, this algorithm is really hard to parse and we don't really expect players to keep these figures in their head - this breakdown is more for auditing purposes than gameplay purposes. If the player wants to ensure they gain more Qualifications for Aristocrats in their population, they should look at the Aristocrat description which will explain the factors in more comprehensible terms, like "Potential rises with Wealth and to a lesser degree by Literacy".
- 37
- 11
- 1
Buildings have a general "wage rate" and Professions have a wage weight that determines how large of a multiple of that rate they should get. So wages paid out are always proportional based on those weights. A building that needs more Engineers and finds it can't attract them based on their low wage rate will raise the wage rate generally, not only for Engineers. The latter would be cool but there's so many moving parts already - floating wages for each individual Profession in each building is the stuff of designer nightmares. Maybe one day!
With respect to the latter question, buildings will always aim for proportionality between Professions - if a factory loses all its Engineers and can't promote Machinists or other Professions to take over, it will start letting go of other employees until it returns to proportionality and profitability, and can start competing again to get some of those Engineers back.
- 33
- 9
- 1
We'll get more into this in a couple of weeks but real quick:
1, 2) Pops who don't have the Qualifications for a Profession cannot get hired for that Profession. All Profession changes occur at point of hire, driven by market forces.
3) It's all based on the requirements of the Buildings as defined by their active Production Methods.
4) Only if those factories are more profitable (as they tend to be) and therefore capable of paying higher wages, AND the rural population qualify.
5) No. We have Decrees, and there is a decree to promote social mobility which helps build Qualifications in a state generally. But there's no "Encourage Profession X" type national focus, as this is driven by the needs of the Buildings.
Last edited:
- 20
- 10
- 4
Peasants are employed on Subsistence Farms only and satisfy most of their needs off the land, outside of the economy proper.
- 27
- 9
Will ping our UX experts on this, thanks for the feedback! These smaller "text-icons" for Professions are pretty new and not fully polished yet, so hopefully we can address this.
Edit to add: but of course, they're already on the case
Last edited:
- 22
- 10
- 1
Factories will still dynamically shift the wage rate they pay out while subsidized, so it still orients itself properly in the dynamic economy. The government is then required to top up that wage to pay the workers at least a "fair" wage, if needed, and to cover any shortfall if materiel costs exceed revenue from sales of produced goods. In return the building maintains as full employment and throughput as Qualifications allow.
- 21
- 11
- 1
1. Deciding on the degree of inertia is a recurring design problem in the development of Victoria 3! On the one hand we want stability, both the sense of stability so your country feels like a real breathing nation full of willful people, and the impact of stability on a dynamic economic simulation to ensure one part of it doesn't overreact to another and bring the whole thing crashing down. On the other hand too much inertia makes the system feel unresponsive and removes the sense of cause and effect. To answer your specific question, productive buildings have a buffer called a Cash Reserve into which it will deposit any excess profits in fair weather and use as a buffer to avoid drastic crashes when the wind goes the other way. Buildings with an empty Cash Reserve will act much more drastically than ones with a full reserve, but all buildings that lose money will take some cautious steps to try to fix the problem before they lose too much. This means we get both some inertia where the economy doesn't go belly-up overnight because some Machinists decided to relocate, and the cause and effect of seeing buildings start to lose money, wages starting to lower, and Pops starting to change careers.
2. Aristocrats and Capitalists are required and they are required proportionally to the other Professions in the building. While that is arguably unrealistic - how many Aristocrats do you really need to own the land for people to work it productively, after all - but there's unfortunate side effects from not doing things this way, such as Farms full of Laborers but no Aristocrats to siphon off the profits being able to pay astronomic wages, and then when some Aristocrats move in and take over the land the building is suddenly deep in the red because the Aristocrats need to get paid their share. This then leads to metas where the factors that develop Qualifications for Aristocrats are artificially throttled to ensure simple Farms provide amazing wages without having to engage in any form of ownership reform. Disproportionality between Professions tend to throw the whole balance off, so we avoid it like the plague. Regarding Capitalist investments, it helps to think of a building as an industrial sector, not a single factory. Capitalists invest in expanding the manufacturing industry, which creates opportunities for other companies to move in and start businesses, which leads to more Capitalists.
3. In Victoria 3, Pops never change Profession unless a building offers them a job different than what they currently have. In this, Pops are perfectly rational actors and will only take jobs that pay better, regardless of perceived social status. However, with increased pay tends to come more political strength and other benefits, so that dimension isn't completely ignored either.
- 23
- 14
- 2
The Trade Unions is an Interest Group present in every country. It tends to be weak at game start but often become very relevant in industrializing nations.
Regarding Strikes, they're present in the game and you will learn more about them later!
- 30
- 17
- 11
That's not going to be modelled systemically at least, because it's no fun as a player to lay the tracks and build the infrastructure for a new Steel Mill and have the existing Steel Mill owners decide that production won't be increased because that might lead to them becoming individually less wealthy.
- 22
- 11
- 5
- 4
It's not included in the set of factors currently, but it's very easy to add (or mod) in. Will take it into consideration!
- 24
- 11
- 8
1. What they were last employed as, yes. This also gives them precedence for any new jobs created of that type in the state.
2. It's modeled in another way.
3. We used to have them do both actually, but the problem with that was that since wage rate is not set by the player but by the building, yet the building size is controllable by the player in the sense that they can pay to expand it, if the player pays money and time to expand a building which then won't hire because with the current wage rate that'd put it into the red (due to increasing demand of input goods / increasing supply of output goods), that's a very unsatisfying experience and leads to a lot of analysis paralysis. It's a much more satisfying experience to expand a building, see building wage rate decrease somewhat, and see some of those employees move into other jobs to make room for poorer employees. With this approach we also don't get the weird downward spirals in the economy where lower supply of Tools due to layoffs leads to lower profit in other manufacturing industries, which in turn leads to layoffs, etc. It sounds cool but it's very annoying when it happens.
- 26
- 8
- 1
Peasants. Victoria 3's definition of a Slave is a person who is wholly owned by another person and can be bought and sold as property. This excludes serfs, most indentured servants, etc who are instead represented as the Profession they're carrying out.
- 33
- 7
If we wanted to do something like that there's a modifier that can be added to, well, anything: Laws, Institutions, Buildings, via Event options, Decisions, etc that reduces Qualification gain across the board. But typically we assume that the baseline is the lowest possible social mobility, and instead of penalties we apply bonuses to those things that provide better social mobility across the nation. Same effect but has a better feel, especially since Pops having good Qualifications is virtually never a bad thing from the player's perspective - it just gives them more options.
- 15
- 9
There is a much better way to display this information one level up, where it's aggregated.
Our philosophy is to always aggregate so the player can make good decisions on the right level, but also always provide ways to delve deeper into the raw data on demand.
- 24
- 6
- 6
- 1