• 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:
Aren't imports explicitly set up by the player, or did I read that wrong? If tariffs are used to protect the domestic industry, how often will players do that on imports that they set up? Why not just cancel the trade deal?
I appreciate that the tariffs system isn't finalized yet. I'm just wondering what I'm missing.
 
Bizarre conceit for the gold reserve limit. You can only buy 20K worth of gold with 30K? In what sense is it 20K worth of gold then?
it is the way to mask the lack of inventories (stockpiles)

gold bullions must be expensive only if the gold is scarce in the market. But this scenario can't be modelled without inventories.

this soft cap is an artificial and forced way to say there is a high demand of gold.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Can I melt the gold reserves with a giant "death ray". Or expose them to ionizing radiation? ... Oh the possibilities!
I’ve seen a theory of why Goldfinger was really the hero of his eponymous movie that’s relevant to this thread. Kind of. In 1964, when the movie was made. Britain was on the Bretton Woods system of currency exchange, which limited how much the price of any currency in the world was allowed to fluctuate, relative to gold. However, Britain’s days of empire were over. When the sun never set on the British Empire, it could make sure that the rest of the world used the money it spent on imports to buy British goods, and could also just tax its colonies to make up for its deficits. In the postwar period, it couldn’t do either and needed to pay for its imports in gold. Its three options were: allow money to leave the country and cause a recession, devalue its currency so less gold would leave the country, or say your currency is worth a certain amount of gold but don’t actually let your people convert it to gold or take gold out of the country. Britain had decided on the third option.

A fixed-rate system like this had led to economic disaster in the 1930s, when it turned out that playing by the rules would crush a country’s economy with falling prices, and one by one, they decided to leave the gold standard rather than let that continue to happen.

In the movie, Goldfinger’s exploiting the situation by smuggling gold out of Britain, helping people who want to trade their pounds for another currency, but aren’t being allowed to so the government can prop up the price of the pound. But the system he’s bringing down, and James Bond is fighting him to keep going, is entirely unsustainable, and would collapse a mere eight years later.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
Aren't imports explicitly set up by the player, or did I read that wrong? If tariffs are used to protect the domestic industry, how often will players do that on imports that they set up? Why not just cancel the trade deal?
We don't know the rules around setting up and discontinuing trade deals. If the importing government is always in complete control, it's hard to see how predatory trade practices as mentioned in some of the videos could work. So it's possible there are situations where you can't kill an import entirely but can impose a limited tariff on it.

You might also be in the situation where the local industry is still growing and can't meet all of your needs for a certain good. Rather than suffer the consequences of a serious deficit in a good, you might import but impose a tariff.
 
They probably set it low because they want to encourage players to use deficit spending. Otherwise it would be a wasted mechanic.
Historical interest rates were much below that point, for example in the 1st half of the 19th century US T-Bill rates were around 5-6%. Here is a nice chart, similar data exists for BoE. The more important factor was the creditworthiness of the government. Investors are far more willing to lend to a government with a long track record of borrowing and paying it back.

Bizarre conceit for the gold reserve limit. You can only buy 20K worth of gold with 30K? In what sense is it 20K worth of gold then?
This seems to be modelling national inflation in a roundabout way. If you have too much gold, the gold you have begins to be worth less. It should be circulating in the economy to have this effect but I can work my head around it that way if it helps the game in myriad other ways.
 
  • 1Like
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.
I'm more and more in love with this game, and also, i think it would be a wonderful idea to add historical debts. Having to work your balance back to black seens challenging and fun!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Cheers for the DD Iachek and the extra info from you and Wizzington :) The system sounds very good, and a step up from Vicky 2 in both detail and useability/understandability.

One thought that came to mind is that historically gold reserves often existed in partnership with debt, rather than be one or the other. It’s a bit counterintuitive to have the game design be as arbitrary as it is here. What about the possibility of setting a “base gold reserve” that is only drawn on if it’s needed to avoid bankruptcy – that way, if a player has a bit of debt, they’ve got a ‘buffer’ in case they’re tacking a bit close to the default line. This also creates an intuitive, and player-adjustable (if the size of the base gold reserve can be adjusted) trigger for a notification for a player that they might want to have a look at their debt, before their debt is so unmanageable that all any notification is doing is rubbing in that they're in trouble.

* The idea that a government would be making weekly adjustments to the tax rate without incensing the population is extremely unrealistic and discrete levels allows us to make it so changing the tax level is something that you can't be doing all the time and that changes can have political consequences

This is a very good point - taxation changes were always a pain, and adjusting them all the time, iirc, is both implausible and would create discontent in both the population, and the bureaucracy that needs to manage it.

Right now we don't have inflation mechanics, it's something we think we'll want in the game sooner or later but likely not for release.

I'd be a fan of having them in, but with care - which I'm quite sure you're on top of - you and the rest of the dev team seem to have a very good eye to the balance between plausibility and fun/manageability :)

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.

Paradox games generally start with a "state of the world at the time" - given the importance of economic gameplay to Vicky 3, having historical debt levels (or historical-ish, adjusted to gameplay mechanics and needs) feels far more appropriate than not, given the mechanics are there. As with all modern Paradox games, the 'country select' information can always warn players if they're taking a challenging country. Presumably countries are starting with historically plausible situations for the rest of their characteristics that interact with gameplay mechanics, why not debt?

It's not as if in EU4 Byzantium starts with a hugely powerful army just because it's (wildly, given its size!) popular - it gets (very roughly, adjusted for mechanics and gameplay) the historical situation it started with, and players know that if they start as Byzantium they have an uphill battle. I'd argue for giving countries their starting position relative to the mechanics in the game and their situation historically at the time.

This is just my 2 cents of course, and completely ignoreable, but it seems a bit odd making an exception for debt relative to other gameplay mechanics when it comes to the starting position.

We're going to prototype paying that interest out proportionately to Shareholders, so with any luck that's how it will work on release. My only hesitation is that mechanics which favor Pops at the (temporary) expense of the player, or vice versa, aren't clearly "good" or "bad" for the player which presents certain challenges in framing, explanation, and game dynamics. For example, a country that's deep in debt would pay a lot of interest to its captains of industry, who are quite pleased with that as the payments afford them greater luxuries (when actually they should perhaps be worried the debt will be defaulted on, and encourage government austerity and repayment). But if the country manages to climb out of debt, they're now punished by the factory owners who are mad their piles of gold are slightly smaller today.

Having the money go somewhere definitely feels intuitive, but as you say, it's important to make sure it doesn't end up going wacky (the idea that a debt-free Gov't would somehow make capitalists unhappy is a tad odd). If possible, I'd argue for finding where the mechanics go a bit askew and tweaking it - for example, adding in a modifier to capitalists if the country they're borrowing from relative to how close that country is to its debt ceiling? Thus, manageable debt is neither here nor there, but once a country becomes indebted such that capitalists worry about financial stability and whether they get their money back, that changes things.

Climbing out of debt should make the capitalists' gold piles bigger, not smaller - as a country climbs out of debt, it repays it - hence it goes back to the capitalists. On the other hand, if a country defaults and capitalists lose most/everything, that should make them very unhappy!

Our first debt model during early prototyping did actually use escalating interest rates the closer to the debt ceiling you got, for exactly these reasons. In practice, since compounding interest and escalating interest rate becomes exponential, that made for terrible, unfun death spirals where if your investments didn't all pan out perfectly all you could do was sit and wait for bankruptcy. It discouraged players from deficit spending, which was the exact opposite we wanted from our loans system. So nice idea, but didn't work.

It is a shame this doesn't work. Maybe very gradually escalating rates? Having some kind of "base gold reserve" mechanic to help with debt may also help manage this as well (although it may need a different implementation, rather than just digging into the base gold reserve at the debt ceiling - instead, have the base gold reserve kick in when interest rates hit a certain level - this gives players the time to reduce their spending so they can handle interest payments and get debt back on track).

For a naval pic this week, there's really only one thing Gov'ts should be spending their revenues on, and that's warship construction! Here's the armoured cruiser "Terrible" being put together (this looks to be the framing for her armoured deck, with some armour already down at the edges, although that's a guess):


Terrible construction small.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 3Love
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Looks like I might be in the minority here, but I'm glad that the taxation sliders have been removed.
You're almost certainly not in a minority of people interested in Victoria. It's just that the sample of people who post on the forum is statistically biased toward the more hard core players. And even then, we probably aren't even in a minority of those that post on these forums.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I would lie if I told that I didn't like them aesthetically, but functionnally they allow to convex more information in a less confusing manner and perhaps in less space.
The thing is, sliders really don't do that and in many cases, they just convey less information to the player and a more confusing manner. Take Victoria 2 for example, where quite a few POP effects triggered at certain specific levels on the taxation slider. With the slider, none of those effects were conveyed to the player, and having those effects made much of the slider meaningless since you only really cared about those specific points on the slider and having granularity in between didn't really matter in gameplay terms. With buttons, those effects can be clearly and openly shown to the player, and the buttons more accurately reflect the actual choices the player should be making while making those choices feel like they actually matter when the player is making a decision.
 
  • 11
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
That's what I interpret as the game showing effects of taking more money away from PoPs. So it's the effect of the taxation level, not of the change in taxation level.
I see what you’re saying. It's taxes being high that causes the effect, not the increase itself, which means it wouldn't be a reason to hold off raising taxes.

I'm not sure it's true though. Look at the screenshot in question:

Vicky 3 taxes.png

This represents a three increment increase in taxes, going from the middle increment to the highest increment. We can tell because the Taxation Level increases are all multiples of three (we can infer here that Payroll tax incrementally increases by 20%, 10%, and 5% for the lower, middle, and upper strata respectively).

However, the costs are not multiples of three. They may be fixed (any increase of taxes costs you 10 Legitimacy, for example, no matter how big or small it is). They may be non-linear (one increment costs you -1, two costs you -5, 3 costs you -10, for instance). Either one complicates using sliders that allow very small incremental changes.

EDIT: Actually I think this analysis is off. You can only go up two possible increments, so I think I misinterpreted.

2ND EDIT: Yes, I am sure now that I got it wrong. I think each increment gives +12% taxation for the Lower, +6% for the Middle, and +3% for the Upper Strata. I think probably going to level 4 costs you -5 Legitimacy and increases the impact of SoL decreases by +25%, going to level 5 gives you these values. The benefits of cutting taxes are unclear: they might give you legitimacy and lower the impact of SoL decreases or give some unsymmetric bonuses instead.

I would expect that poll tax would not be a percentage. So far it looked like income tax only has a flat rate, so a single percentage would be clear, but if there are more complex taxation systems then more complex presentation would be required.
That level of complexity mixed with the level of granularity of 1% increments sounds like a headache to me. Most players will react by not messing with the slider and sticking to one tax rate for long periods of time, just like in Vicky 2.
Personally, I don't like when the game hides such information and makes player go and dig through the save files to find it. I know, there are arguments for hiding information from the player (and that can be valid for some types of information, like data about other nations for example), but the taxation shouldn't be one of them.
What's being hidden here?
 
Last edited:
Real quick what creates the money supply in Vicky 3 as I recall currency in Vicky 2 was created via Gold mines is it the same here?
 
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%?

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.
You probably have to change them like laws, which they laid out in an earlier diary. And/Or, perhaps, the consequences (political and on your pops) for higher taxes will be significantly higher than medium high.
 
I see what you’re saying. It's taxes being high that causes the effect, not the increase itself, which means it wouldn't be a reason to hold off raising taxes.

I'm not sure it's true though. Look at the screenshot in question:

View attachment 750995
This represents a three increment increase in taxes, going from the middle increment to the highest increment. We can tell because the Taxation Level increases are all multiples of three (we can infer here that Payroll tax incrementally increases by 20%, 10%, and 5% for the lower, middle, and upper strata respectively).

However, the costs are not multiples of three. They may be fixed (any increase of taxes costs you 10 Legitimacy, for example, no matter how big or small it is). They may be non-linear (one increment costs you -1, two costs you -5, 3 costs you -10, for instance). Either one complicates using sliders that allow very small incremental changes.

EDIT: Actually I think this analysis is off. You can only go up two possible increments, so I think I misinterpreted.

2ND EDIT: Yes, I am sure now that I got it wrong. I think each increment gives +12% taxation for the Lower, +6% for the Middle, and +3% for the Upper Strata. I think probably going to level 4 costs you -5 Legitimacy and increases the impact of SoL decreases by +25%, going to level 5 gives you these values. The benefits of cutting taxes are unclear: they might give you legitimacy and lower the impact of SoL decreases or give some unsymmetric bonuses instead.
I am not sure how to interpret all those numbers. What is "+60% taxation level"? +60% in relation to what? Does it mean to say "60% tax rate on income"? But why wouldn't it simply say that? And 60% tax rate on poor strata would be way outside of a realistic range. So I am not sure here, my best guess was that you set the base tax rate when you pass income tax law. For example, the law might have been passed with 10% income tax on poor, 20% on middle and 40% on rich strata. Then this tooltip would mean the change in taxation to 16% on poor, 26% on middle and 46% on rich strata. I have asked for clarification on how this work earlier in the thread, but there were no answers so far.

That level of complexity mixed with the level of granularity of 1% increments sounds like a headache to me. Most players will react by not messing with the slider and sticking to one tax rate for long periods of time, just like in Vicky 2.
Well, developers shouldn't force the players to play in any particular way. If people don't want to use the tool at their disposal it's up to them. After all one doesn't have to play well to enjoy the game.

What's being hidden here?
In this particular case what is the actual tax rate. Instead it seems that you to hover over to get a tooltip with a rather cryptic information that people interpret in different ways. Of course, it's all WIP, so hopefully it will change by release time to present the information clearly and accurately.
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
The tax in the DD was regressive (higher percentages on lower incomes) and it was mentioned there were also flat and progressive options. For two out of those three options, only one pop stratum would actually get taxed the percentage shown on a slider.
I am not sure I follow. Vic2 was able to display that in simple and clear manner and it was allowing player construct the income taxation policy suitable to the situation (progressive, regressive or flat). Why wouldn't the same work in Vic3?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You probably have to change them like laws, which they laid out in an earlier diary. And/Or, perhaps, the consequences (political and on your pops) for higher taxes will be significantly higher than medium high.
Changing your tax law changes the distribution of taxes, like going from a Payroll tax to a Graduated Income tax.
 
I am not sure how to interpret all those numbers. What is "+60% taxation level"? +60% in relation to what? Does it mean to say "60% tax rate on income"? But why wouldn't it simply say that? And 60% tax rate on poor strata would be way outside of a realistic range. So I am not sure here, my best guess was that you set the base tax rate when you pass income tax law. For example, the law might have been passed with 10% income tax on poor, 20% on middle and 40% on rich strata. Then this tooltip would mean the change in taxation to 16% on poor, 26% on middle and 46% on rich strata. I have asked for clarification on how this work earlier in the thread, but there were no answers so far.
It’s the highest rate of taxation for the most regressive form of taxation. I think 60% of the Poor Strata’s income is perfectly reasonable.
Well, developers shouldn't force the players to play in any particular way. If people don't want to use the tool at their disposal it's up to them. After all one doesn't have to play well to enjoy the game.
I think they should design tools that are clear and legible to the player.
In this particular case what is the actual tax rate. Instead it seems that you to hover over to get a tooltip with a rather cryptic information that people interpret in different ways. Of course, it's all WIP, so hopefully it will change by release time to present the information clearly and accurately.
It’s 60% for the poor, 30% for the middle class, and 15% for the rich.
 
It’s the highest rate of taxation for the most regressive form of taxation. I think 60% of the Poor Strata’s income is perfectly reasonable.
What nation and when taxed poor at rate near that? By most part income tax on poor was about 10% or less. Even during the wars it wasn't getting anywhere close to 60%. I doubt there was any economy in that period that could sustainably function with poor taxed at 60%.

I think they should design tools that are clear and legible to the player.
Agreed.

It’s 60% for the poor, 30% for the middle class, and 15% for the rich.
But that's not what (literally) tooltip says.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
What nation and when taxed poor at rate near that? By most part income tax on poor was about 10% or less. Even during the wars it wasn't getting anywhere close to 60%. I doubt there was any economy in that period that could sustainably function with poor taxed at 60%.
I’m very confused by this comment. Again, this is the maximum taxation rate we’re talking about here. Aren’t you arguing for sliders that allow you to shift taxes anywhere between 0 and 100? Even if you think there should be max and min bars on that slider, are you really saying they should be lower than 60%?
But that's not what (literally) tooltip says.
Why not? Because it has a “+” in front of it?
 
  • 1
Reactions: