• 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.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #12 - Treasury

DD12.png


Hello and welcome to another development diary for Victoria 3! Today we’ll be covering a topic that tends to be very much in the mind of governments of all eras: Money! Specifically, we’re going to be talking about income, expenses and debt, and how they function on the national level.

As was mentioned all the way back in Dev Diary #2, Money is one of the principal resources you have to manage in Victoria 3. This in itself is of course nothing new (money of some form playing a role in almost every Grand Strategy game we’ve ever released), but the way money works is a little bit different than what you might be used to.

In most games, money tends to be a resource you accumulate for a specific goal, until you have enough of it to achieve that specific goal. For example, you might want to build a building that costs 100 money, and your monthly income is 10 money. That means in order to build said building, you have to wait for 10 months to accumulate the 100 money needed for the lump sum cost to order the construction of said building.

Now, you might be asking, why am I explaining such a simple and obvious mechanic that undoubtedly every single reader of this dev diary is completely familiar with? The reason for this is because in Victoria 3, there is no such thing as a lump sum cost - instead, it’s all about your weekly balance. At the end of every in-game week, your country’s income and expenses are tallied up and the result is then applied to your Gold Reserve or National Debt. This also means that all forms of expenses, such as construction, also work on a weekly basis - you do not need any cash ‘on hand’ to start construction of a dozen buildings at once, but if you don’t have the revenue to support it you may find yourself quickly going into debt.

America’s lack of an income tax in 1836 sharply limits its potential for government spending
dd12_1.png

The Gold Reserve is your country’s national stockpile of cash. If you are free of debt, any money that is left over in the weekly budget after expenses are subtracted is used to increase the Gold Reserve. Conversely, if your expenses exceed your income, this money is taken out of the Gold Reserve to balance the books.

Though it’s certainly never bad in itself to have a sizable Gold Reserve, it isn’t necessarily the best idea to continually run a large budget surplus - each country has a Gold Reserve Limit, which is a ‘soft-cap’ over which each surplus pound has diminishing returns on the Gold Reserve - if you have an enormous stockpile of gold, a surplus of £10k may only increase your stockpile by as little as £2k, meaning that you’ve simply wasted the rest of your money. Hence, a country that finds its gold reserves filling up may want to consider finding a way to reinvest some of that money to avoid such wastage.

The Spanish Gold Reserve has grown to the point where further stockpiling is becoming very inefficient, and they should really try to find better uses for some of that money
dd12_2.png

So what if you’re running a deficit and your Gold Reserve has all been tapped? Well, this is when debt comes into play. Beyond that point, each pound spent in excess of your income will result in automatically taking on debt. While this may sound like something that you should avoid at all costs, that isn’t necessarily true.

While you do have to pay interest on your loans, interest rates in Victoria 3 are relatively low, and so long as you avoid hitting your Debt Ceiling, growing your economy through deficit spending can actually be a very valid strategy. This is because the increase in revenues from minting and taxation may very well end up exceeding the interest payments, not to mention the benefits constructing new industries can have for your population.

The Debt Ceiling, unlike the Gold Reserve, is not a soft cap - once you hit it, your country will be in default, which is a terrible state to be in and can only be recovered from if you manage to slash your expenses enough to put your weekly expenses back in the black (or if another country steps in and takes on your debt, which can have its own undesirable outcomes for you… but more on that later). It’s also possible to simply declare bankruptcy, but because the money you are borrowing against is actually the cash reserves of your country’s buildings (which is actually what determines the size of your Debt Ceiling), this will have immensely negative consequences for your domestic industry.

Even though Britain has taken on several million pounds of debt, this isn’t too much of an issue - their advanced economy allows them a high debt ceiling, and the interest payments is only a small fraction of their spending
dd12_3.png


To wrap up this Dev Diary, I’m going to briefly touch on the main forms of income and expenditures, though this is by no means an exhaustive list! Some forms of income and expenses (taxes and salaries, specifically) also have a ‘level’ setting, where you can for example squeeze more taxes out of your population at the cost of reduced legitimacy and increased radicalization.

A massive hike of the tax level to the highest level is a sure-fire way to both raise money and create political radicals
dd12_4.png

Main Types of Income (not an exhaustive list):
  • Minting: All countries can generate some cash flow by printing or casting new currency in relation to their GDP. Minting provides all countries with some income - particularly those who have domestic Gold Fields - but is in itself insufficient for funding anything but the most minimalist of governments.
  • Income Taxes: A form of taxation collected on income, where a certain % of the wages paid to workers in buildings is paid to the government.
  • Poll Taxes: A form of per-capita taxation where a fixed sum of money is collected on each member of the workforce. Poll Taxes are very regressive since they collect the same amount regardless of income.
  • Land Taxes: A special type of Poll Taxes that are only collected on certain types of Pops, such as Peasants.
  • Consumption Taxes: A tax that is levied directly on a specific good that is consumed by Pops. Levying Consumption Taxes costs Authority.
  • Dividend Taxes: A tax that is applied to dividends paid to Pops with an ownership stake in a Building. Tends to be a very progressive form of taxation, as usually only well-to-do Pops have ownership of buildings.
  • Tariffs: Tariffs are something that we plan to have in the game as a way to profit from goods being exported from your market, but we’re not ready to talk about exactly how this will work yet.

Main Types of Expenses (not an exhaustive list):
  • Government Wages: The salary cost of employing Pops in your Government Buildings such as Government Administrations and Ports.
  • Government Goods: The material costs for your Government Buildings, for example the Paper needed by Government Administrations.
  • Military Wages: The salary costs of Pops serving in your army and navy.
  • Military Goods: The various goods needed by your army and navy, such as Small Arms for Barracks.
  • Subsidies: The cost of subsidizing specific buildings to ensure they remain competitive.
  • Interest: The cost of making interest payments on your loans, if you have any.
  • Construction: The cost of constructing new buildings, both in goods required for the method of construction and wages paid to Pops working in the construction industry.

Well then, that’s all for today. Next week we’re going to be talking about a topic that touches on both economics and politics - Standard of Living. See you then!
 
  • 229Like
  • 120Love
  • 16
  • 9
  • 7
Reactions:
So if it has to be buttons instead of sliders whatever okay I can accept it.

But I think 5 buttons is an insult. At least put something like 7 or 9 buttons to choose the %… I mean only 5? With only 5 we will always have to choose something much higher or much lower than the % we wanted because there is almost no granularity…
Wiz explicitly says there's more than five options in the quote, because of how the different levels interact with laws and other income streams.

And yes, having to more often make a choice between too much and too little is a good thing. It means you actually have a difficult decision to make with tradeoffs instead of being able to minmax and optimize all the time. Because realistically in terms of governments adopting policy, there is almost always no optimal level and no matter what you do you're going to have someone pissed off. So less granularity ends up much more immersive for the player and forces the player to make meaningful decisions, which creates better gameplay.
 
  • 8Like
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
I don't really feel hype for Vic 3. I don't know what it is, but these dev diaries just kinda bore me with all the numbers and terms. Maybe it's because I want to dive head-first into the game rather than read all these "spoilers".

That said, I just ordered some Smith, Marx and Keynes, so clearly I'm somewhat up for the economics of past ages. A Clausewitz also snuck into that order, in-case the economy needs some "continuation".

(EDIT) I should add that Victoria 2 is my second most played game on Steam, so it's not that I don't like numbers. Quite the contrary. But I think most of the fun lies in seeing the numbers move.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
I am going to assume you only pay construction costs with government money for government buildings. Investment pool money for building investment pool buildings.
I don't think that means the government is building everything. I'm pretty certain the construction costs refers to government buildings rather than every building. You still need to pay to expand Government Administration or build a barracks after all. The Investment Pool likely handles construction costs for production buildings that are privately owned.
The UI screenshots here show the elusive Investment Pool as one of your "asset pools", which presumably can be tapped to build specific buildings from funds that are not in the government budget, but some civilian capital pool.

If that abstraction satisfies you or is still too hands on for the "player" to do is up to your personal taste.

Hopefully. I'm not a huge fan, but I hope that is the case.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Solution for confusing investment pool lines would be removing the line from income, deduct investment pool covered expenses from expenses and just show separate "Investment pool investments: xxx£" line at the bottom.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I’m just going to say here that a slider for taxes isn’t the same as a slider for military spendings. It is obvious you would never want the military to be underfunded during a war, while it’s also clear that you wouldn’t want too huge gaps in your income abilities.
 
How are interest rates on national debt determined
I wish there was some sort of a central Bank Rate, allowing the player (and the AI) to control how much interest a country pays on any new debt taken (so that the interest on loans already taken remains unaffected), and how much money is available to borrow. In other words, the lower the rate the less money is available to borrow but the cheaper the debt is. On the opposite, the higher the rate the more expensive the debt, but the more money is available. The more money is available to borrow, the less money the economy has to spend on other things (because investors spend part of their money on lending to the government) and vice versa.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I wish there was some sort of a central Bank Rate, allowing the player (and the AI) to control how much interest a country pays on any new debt taken (so that the interest on loans already taken remains unaffected), and how much money is available to borrow. In other words, the lower the rate the less money is available to borrow but the cheaper the debt is. On the opposite, the higher the rate the more expensive the debt, but the more money is available. The more money is available to borrow, the less money the economy has to spend on other things (because investors spend part of their money on lending to the government) and vice versa.
That would mean that the player is able to attract finance from other nations.

Because now the debt is ‘financed’ by the cash reserves of buildings of the player nation. If you do not allow other sources of financement, the max debt will be the same with or without central bank rates.

If we allow for other nations wealth to invest in other nations bonds, this will become another source of POPs, buildings and/or nations income.

A new algorithm should track ROI in buildings and bonds. Then, maybe POPs, buildings and/or AI governments will decide where to invest their moneis. Now, the game does not do that, because cash reserves are not invested but are a collateral or guarantee for government debt. Thus, this money is not locked in bonds and can be used for other purposes.

The game should also make room for credit agencies, created in the dawn of the XX century, to rate bonds risk and independently of the player wishes, change the available money to fund your bonds depending on their rating.

However, beyond simulating one part of the financial system, I would like to know if this mechanic will introduce strategic choices for the player.

Competing for money from other nations for your debt financing sounds like a good idea for a game. But this will require tracking where this money has been invested to avoid being used for other nations’ financing or investment funds. This will require the game to have goods that can be traded (financial assets) beyond consumption, unless the game only allows to buy and hold bonds to maturity. This way, bonds will be a trade good bought by other nations that will be stored in financial buildings until maturity when the selling nation will repay the face value of the bond plus interests.

Food for thought for a future DLC perhaps.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't know what it is, but these dev diaries just kinda bore me with all the numbers and terms.
Numbers and terms are exactly why most of us here, and Free Silverites are more interesting than floating piles of iron scrap that are Dreadnoughts ever were, don't @ me. Praise Michał Kalecki.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Numbers and terms are exactly why most of us here, and Free Silverites are more interesting than floating piles of iron scrap that are Dreadnoughts ever were, don't @ me. Praise Michał Kalecki.

Wash your mouth out with bunker oil! (I'm just being silly - I think both economics and logistics/trade/navies are interesting - and, of course, one should never actually ingest bunker oil :) )
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I mean, you’re right that payroll taxes can be either progressive or regressive when it comes to just payroll income depending on whether there is a cap or a floor, but taxing just payroll leaves out sources of income that skew towards the upper classes (interest on savings, investments, etc.) I think that is what the name of tax is supposed to reflect.
You can make the rates progressive, but inherently, a payroll tax will fall on income from labor, not income from capital.
Looking at the screenshots it would appear that the tax rate of the "payroll tax" itself is not flat (at least that's an interpretation many offered) and that doesn't resemble payroll taxes in real world.
 
They probably set it low because they want to encourage players to use deficit spending. Otherwise it would be a wasted mechanic.
There's also a line in it being an abstraction.

They'll set the interest rate towards something that feels comfortable from a gameplay perspective without feeling too out of touch with how things were in the game, within the realities of how the game systems work.

I support this, because a lot of the numbers have always felt a bit on the arbitrary side (and I suspect they were to most players who likely aren't very well versed on how much the actual wages and costs were in the 19th Century! hahaha)
 
Most people are ambivalent on the matter I would guess. As long as it works fine why care whether there are buttons or sliders? There are bigger things to be concerned about than how tax rates are selected.
Ambivalence is true for a lot in my experience.

Unrelated but I remember when Dragon Age Inquisition was initially human only PC RPG, there was a 100+ page thread on the forums upset about it. But friend and I noticed that it was the same 8-9 people making 90% of the posts. Forums are useful to get an idea about parts of the fanbase, particularly those particularly passionate, but it can have risks to assume (or ignore!) how representative they are of the whole audience in general.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Looking at the screenshots it would appear that the tax rate of the "payroll tax" itself is not flat (at least that's an interpretation many offered) and that doesn't resemble payroll taxes in real world.
No, as you yourself noted payroll taxes are usually designed with either floors (income below a certain level is not taxed) or caps (once you pay a certain amount, more payroll income is not taxed). That means effectively the rate is not flat.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
No, as you yourself noted payroll taxes are usually designed with either floors (income below a certain level is not taxed) or caps (once you pay a certain amount, more payroll income is not taxed). That means effectively the rate is not flat.
Looking up examples of payroll taxes, they ignore income tax deductions but mention things like our EI and CPP (In Canada here!).

Both of those taxes have caps on them which indeed makes them innately regressive. I also saw Social Security in the US cited as an example of a payroll tax, which also has a cap. It's possible that this nomenclature is pretty common hence why these payroll taxes are also regressive.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
No, as you yourself noted payroll taxes are usually designed with either floors (income below a certain level is not taxed) or caps (once you pay a certain amount, more payroll income is not taxed). That means effectively the rate is not flat.
This tax structure would look like 0%/X%/0%. The in-game payroll tax on the tooltip looks like +60%/+30%/+15% which doesn't resemble this structure. It looks more like non-linear income tax with brackets.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This tax structure would look like 0%/X%/0%. The in-game payroll tax on the tooltip looks like +60%/+30%/+15% which doesn't resemble this structure. It looks more like non-linear income tax with brackets.
You mean in a situation where a payroll tax has both a floor and a cap? No, the upper bracket would still pay tax, it would just work out to a much lower percentage because so much of their income would fall outside the cap.

Let’s say the cap is at $100,000 a year. If I make $150,000, I would pay as much tax as someone making $100,000 does. The last $50,000 of my income would essentially be untaxed.

Regardless, I think you’re getting too hung up on this. The numbers in the game should be round and easy to understand.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
You mean in a situation where a payroll tax has both a floor and a cap? No, the upper bracket would still pay tax, it would just work out to a much lower percentage because so much of their income would fall outside the cap.

Let’s say the cap is at $100,000 a year. If I make $150,000, I would pay as much tax as someone making $100,000 does. The last $50,000 of my income would essentially be untaxed.
What you are talking about is effective tax rate - this would be different for everyone and dependent on the person's employment income. In your example, if let's say tax rate is 10%, someone making 150K will have effective rate 6.66%, someone making 140K will have effective rate 7.14% and so on. This makes it clear why tax rates are expressed in terms of tax brackets and rates for the brackets and not in the terms of effective tax rates.

Regardless, I think you’re getting too hung up on this. The numbers in the game should be round and easy to understand.
Yes, that's the point. There are several approaches in achieving that - one is to have a simple tax system (perhaps losing some historical accuracy), another is to follow common taxation systems and their conventions.