• 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:
Adding different currencies and thus exchange rates is more "accurate" but it is not actually fun to play I suspect and also needlessly complicates the economic simulation.
Nobody said anything about exchange rates. Or even that different currencies is a game mechanic in the first place.

But it would be nice purely for flavor. You could see Dollars, Pounds, Francs or Marks depending on who you play as. But beyond that it's the same for every nation in the current game.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
  • 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.

Lovely stuff. Would it be possible to tie Minting to a building? And can the player create new taxes, or remove any of these?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Your premises are wrong. There are many things you can do with sliders. They only add granularity and allow for your revenues to follow your expenses.

You definitely can add a cooldown on taxes rate fixation. You can also make it so that you can only jump a certain amount at a time, though I would far more like if instead the maluses to increase taxes were more or less scaled, meaning that the more you raise taxes, the more it’s hard to do.
Where did I say you couldn’t do those things with sliders? My point was that if player’s would never choose (or rarely choose) to make tiny, granular changes to their tax system, then adding it as an option would not be good game design.
That’s assuming that to raise taxes, you would need a law, which makes perfect sense. I don’t understand why Paradox (and some of their fans apparently) can’t see that in a game about managing an historical country it would be better if tax increase was in itself a challenge.
Where did I say that increasing taxes shouldn’t be a challenge, exactly? There are political costs to the system as laid out in today’s dev diary. It makes your POPs radicalize faster and costs you legitimacy. That means that I as a player would probably not go in and add a 1% or even 5% to the rate: I’d wait and do tax increases all at once (or potentially not at all). Thus, sliders, while appearing to add options, in practice really would not.

And that’s not even getting into legibility to the player and AI performance, both of which also fare far better with a button system.
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
At the moment we don't have this for most countries, I'm split on the idea in that it would be a nice historical detail but at the same time having countries start the game in a dire financial state may not feel good gameplay wise.
There are actually 2 pros for representing them I can see in this statement

1. Historical accuracy
2. More varied countries and economic situations to play, which adds replayability.

Someone mentioned game rule about having this on or off, seems also a good idea.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
At the moment we don't have this for most countries, I'm split on the idea in that it would be a nice historical detail but at the same time having countries start the game in a dire financial state may not feel good gameplay wise.
With all due respect but about your "may not feel good gameplay wise" I have to respectfully disagree!

I dont think the "usual" Vicky player wants to be babysitted or likes systems to be overly "dumbed down", but in fact actually plays those games for exactly said challenges!

They don't want to play some abstraction or fantasy of a country! They want to play a HISTORICAL country in a challenging and mostly realistic game and see if they can succed in that challenge.

Today sadly to many games streamline or dumb things down for supposed "gameplay enjoyability". I urge you to not jump on this train and rethink your decision!
 
  • 8
  • 6
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
Question for the slider people:

If raising taxes by a 5% interval locks me out of changing taxes and still carries a political cost, why would I ever do it? Why wouldn’t I always hit the button twice and raise taxes by 10%?
I imagine the main reason would be because you wouldn't want to raise taxes too much. For example, if your current rate is 10% and you need 14% you may want to raise it to 15%, but raising it to 20% would be a bad idea (because pops can't afford that) regardless of political cost. I suppose, depending on the implementation of the political system one might game the system by raising it to 20% so that the next government can promptly lower it to 15%.

Presenting a lot of options is not good game design if players only ever pick one of those options. Sliders in Vicky 2 were a great example of this: players always slam taxes up to 100% and keep them there for most of the game.
I would argue it's not a good game design to have only one option of tax rate that players ever pick regardless of how many options are presented. I believe you're wrong about Vic2. Tax rates were quite a meaningful choice for the first half of the game and only in the second half (assuming nation development typical for player controlled nations) the choice would become an obvious (but 0% on poor and middle class, not 100%).


Then why are you raising taxes at all? Obviously we haven’t played the game yet, but I can’t really think there will be a lot of situations where it will make sense to raise taxes only by 5% (if doing so locks you out of changing taxes for a while and also carries a political cost).
We haven't played the game yet, but in Vic2 5% raise would be a large amount that would seriously impact your economy (unless it's only on rich and you have wealthy capitalists). I assume political cost is a fairly minor consideration, if your pops can still afford most of the same things it won't lead to radicalization and since we're playing as a spirit of a nation, it's pop happiness and the economy which are important. If party in charge of changing tax rate will get voted out we will keep playing as the nexrt government (one might even engineer this situation on purpose).

In your personal games, do you really stop to constantly fine tune your taxes? That seems so tedious.
I would probably fine tune taxes every few years in the early game (less so later on). After all taxes and tariffs were the main economic levers you had. I never thought it is tedious. As opposite to managing armies or upgrading yet another factory.
 
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Where did I say you couldn’t do those things with sliders? My point was that if player’s would never choose (or rarely choose) to make tiny, granular changes to their tax system, then adding it as an option would not be good game design.

Where did I say that increasing taxes shouldn’t be a challenge, exactly? There are political costs to the system as laid out in today’s dev diary. It makes your POPs radicalize faster and costs you legitimacy. That means that I as a player would probably not go in and add a 1% or even 5% to the rate: I’d wait and do tax increases all at once (or potentially not at all). Thus, sliders, while appearing to add options, in practice really would not.

And that’s not even getting into legibility to the player and AI performance, both of which also fare far better with a button system.
Thanks for that thoughtful answer. I misunderstood your first post and thought that you agreed with those excuses to not use sliders put forward by others. I'm sorry.

About your point, the reason why I wouldn't increase my income by 10% instead of 5% is that taxes (and incomes) are not always a good thing. As was stressed in the DD, you can have too much money. So instead of running an enormous surplus, especially if I have a big economy, I would rather have more options for them to be suited to the numerous circumstances I might find myself in.
 
Not every tax is collected based on income levels so it doesn't make sense to have it work that way. Having discrete general rates with the burden of taxation differing based on the type of tax seems like a reasonable way to go for me. Vicky 2 didn't have all the types of taxes that exist in Vicky 3, it only had general rates for each strata and acted like every nation in the world had income taxes in 1836. Sacrificing sliders for a greater variety of taxes with discrete rates you could change them to by clicking a button seems better to me. The trade-off is well worth it for being able to mold your nation how you see fit and being able to represent less efficient forms of taxation that existed during the Victorian era.

I think that an important aspect of the semiotics of game design is knowing what real-world systems your player is likely to be familiar with, and if your game is emulating that system, knowing what the appropriate level of simulation is. I imagine almost everyone who will be playing Victoria 3 is familiar with the concept of an income tax and it is something they have actually dealt with and "played" in real life, and therefore the bar is higher when emulating that than with a more antiquated, or niche thing. Especially when the audience is the people who are interested in a game about economic simulation. It'd be like playing a Golf Simulator released in 2022 that only let you pick from 5 swing speeds and only allowed you to rotate your character in 15° increments. Could you probably make a functional, fun game with those mechanics? Yes. Would you expect the audience for a Golf game to "like" that decision? No, I don't think so.

Anyways, since I've dealt with an income tax my whole life, and understand the scale of 1~3% changes to be a meaningful political struggle, that's what I instinctively expect to exist in a game meant to be simulating that. I've never, and I expect most people in this thread, have dealt with paying a land tax as a peasant, which is why there aren't as many worries expressed there, even though as your comment points out, it's basically the same issue.

So, when you design a game that doesn't have that "resolution of reality" you're going to get pushback (as evidenced by this thread) when it sort of feels like a decrease in simulation resolution from Vicky2 (even though yes I agree that the variable tax collection methods are a net positive to the simulation!) However, when you just look at it face value, it is "less to think about" which means unfortunately basically means "less features" unless there is a well articulated explanation of the tradeoff, and right now it seems the only explanation is "Sliders are too Micro."

This is why I suggested something that felt more to me to be on the scale of simulation resolution I expected from what I've seen from Vicky3 so far, which is something like creating a "Tax proposal" that moves through the same system as other laws, and allows that feature and the income feature to interact in a way that I think maps to how I experience politics happening in real life. To have an equal parity in simulation, not an exact perfect model of it.

That ended up getting longer than I thought. I do overall really like this DD, especially the way construction costs are being modelled, and like you said, that different revenue sources. Just felt like the buttons as Tax nodes felt off kilter with the rest of everything we've seen.

(I think that if Sliders were ever brought in Vicky3, that keeping the buttons in as some form of "The highest/lowest you could set this and have a 25%/50%/75% chance of passing, would be useful in actually minimizing micro for those who dislike it")
 
  • 4Like
  • 4
  • 4
Reactions:
I hope that tax increases and tax cuts in parliamentary systems are only possible with parliamentary majorities - setting taxes is probably the oldest competence of parliaments of all kinds.
A really good point. You don't have a parliement if it cannot constrain the executive and the only way to do so is to refuse its credits.
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Nobody said anything about exchange rates. Or even that different currencies is a game mechanic in the first place.

But it would be nice purely for flavor. You could see Dollars, Pounds, Francs or Marks depending on who you play as. But beyond that it's the same for every nation in the current game.
I can see all of the bugs now where the language localized text didn't use the currently-playing-country localized currency if this were to be implemented. I think that designer's, coder's and tester's time could be better spent elsewhere.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
May I ask why you set the interest rate to only 10%? I know today that sounds a lot, but 200 years ago 10% was really really low.

I think a higher interest rate would make the player think more about if he really wants to go to deficit spending (which on the top had his big breakthrough not until almost 100 years later in the great Depression) and if it really pays of.
 
I feel like caps on maximum gold reserves and debt floors are bad ideas, because these are actual real world concepts with their own intuitive economic effects.

A cap on gold reserves would make money disappear from the world. Given the large numbers allowed now datawise, there shouldnt be integer overflow problems. But having massive amounts of gold locked up in government offices should cause currency shortages in the population, leading to problems with them being able to accumulate wealth, or even buy food and other goods, if they arent getting money in some other way.

Likewise, the consequence of too much debt should be bankruptcy, which also has ruinous effects on whoever owns your national debt (since their investment just goes poof when you refuse to pay). You should be allowed to go into debt as far as pops (which would include banks) and other countries are willing to lend to you, and it should progressively cost more (depending on how unlikely you are to pay it back), and they should get the interest payments and the ruinous costs if you choose to default (or are forced to default). This can then lead to wars to force countries to pay back bad debts, or interest groups with that motivation, if your debts were owned by foreign pops, etc.
 
  • 7
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
May I ask why you set the interest rate to only 10%? I know today that sounds a lot, but 200 years ago 10% was really really low.

I think a higher interest rate would make the player think more about if he really wants to go to deficit spending (which on the top had his big breakthrough not until almost 100 years later in the great Depression) and if it really pays of.
They probably set it low because they want to encourage players to use deficit spending. Otherwise it would be a wasted mechanic.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Where did I say you couldn’t do those things with sliders? My point was that if player’s would never choose (or rarely choose) to make tiny, granular changes to their tax system, then adding it as an option would not be good game design.

Where did I say that increasing taxes shouldn’t be a challenge, exactly? There are political costs to the system as laid out in today’s dev diary. It makes your POPs radicalize faster and costs you legitimacy. That means that I as a player would probably not go in and add a 1% or even 5% to the rate: I’d wait and do tax increases all at once (or potentially not at all). Thus, sliders, while appearing to add options, in practice really would not.
I don't think it's the fact of a change itself that would radicalize pops, but rather that the tax increase would make pops unable to meet their needs and that would cause radicalization. So whether you've increased the tax in several small steps or in a single large step the result would be the same. You clearly interpreted that statement differently and make your argument on the basis of that assumption.

And that’s not even getting into legibility to the player and AI performance, both of which also fare far better with a button system.
I disagree with it. Legibility-wise I prefer a number (like 14%) that I can read at a glance, but that's subjective. For AI, in every implementation I can think of the evaluation of desired tax rate would result in some number (like 14%), so all button system does would make it set the closest available rate instead of the exact one.
 
Lovely stuff. Would it be possible to tie Minting to a building? And can the player create new taxes, or remove any of these?
Any Gold Fields the country controls adds a fixed amount of money to the Minting revenue stream.
Several of the tax categories are controlled by Laws which the player can change or abolish, thus creating or destroying revenue streams.
 
  • 21
  • 6Like
  • 2Love
Reactions:
I don't think it's the fact of a change itself that would radicalize pops, but rather that the tax increase would make pops unable to meet their needs and that would cause radicalization. So whether you've increased the tax in several small steps or in a single large step the result would be the same. You clearly interpreted that statement differently and make your argument on the basis of that assumption.
It does both. The tooltip in the Dev Diary says “+50% Radicalism from Standard of Living decreases.” Your POPs get angrier about losing standard of living because they blame taxes and not something as broad as “the economy.”
I disagree with it. Legibility-wise I prefer a number (like 14%) that I can read at a glance, but that's subjective. For AI, in every implementation I can think of the evaluation of desired tax rate would result in some number (like 14%), so all button system does would make it set the closest available rate instead of the exact one.
What does 14% mean though if it’s something like a poll tax? Versus if it’s a progressive income tax? It’s complicated, even more complicated than Vicky 2’s system of effective tax rates which already made that system highly illegible to players.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Looks like I might be in the minority here, but I'm glad that the taxation sliders have been removed.
 
  • 12
  • 2
Reactions: