• 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 #13 - Standard of Living

DD13.png


Hello again and welcome to yet another walkthrough of some interrelated systems fundamental to Victoria 3’s economic model: Standard of Living, Wealth, Pop Needs, and Consumption.

All Pops in Victoria 3 have a Standard of Living score between 1 and 99, which represents - by a perfectly scientific and objective metric, don’t @ me - precisely how great their life is. Pops with levels 1-4 are labeled Starving, levels 5-9 are Struggling, and so on through Impoverished, Middling, Secure, Prosperous, Affluent, Wealthy, Lavish, and at levels 60+, Opulent. We don’t really expect a lot of Pops to reach levels 60+ but - knowing you folks - we’ve left plenty of headroom to accommodate your mad economic experiments.

Standard of Living affects two major aspects of the game: birth- and death rate, and Pop loyalty.

Birth rate is simply the percentage of children born to Pops each year, while death rate is the percentage of Pops who die. Both values start out high and decline with increasing Standard of Living, but birth rate declines slower than death rate, leading to a net increase in population growth with increasing Standard of Living. This system models that increasing Standard of Living tends to lead to longer life expectancy but declining natality. Each parameter can be modified independently by a variety of effects.

Scratch your priesthood’s back and they’ll scratch yours. Note that Interest Group Traits can vary between Interest Group variants, so a different religion might provide a different benefit.
fruitful.png


There are side effects to emancipation! But while reduced population growth here initially appears to be a penalty, increasing the proportion of industrial workforce at the same time tends to lead to increasing Standard of Living, which provides a net increase in population growth.
women-workplace.PNG

Pop loyalty is altered whenever their Standard of Living increases or declines from its current value. Martin will get into much more detail on this in next week’s Development Diary on Political Movements.

A Pop’s Wealth attribute forms the foundation for its Standard of Living. Pops can also gain more intangible boosts or penalties to their Standard of Living from any number of sources.

Pops accumulate Wealth over time while their weekly income exceeds their weekly expenses. Conversely, if a Pop’s expenses exceed its income, Wealth will decline. How large their expenses are depends on what and how much they consume, which is also dependent on their Wealth. What this means is that as long as a Pop’s income remains the same, and the cost of the goods and services in their state and market remains the same, that Pop’s Wealth will over time drift towards exactly the level of consumption they can afford to sustain. Of course, as Wealth changes the consumption also changes, which affects the prices of the goods in the market, which might in turn affect their wages, dividends, etcetera.

This weekly shortfall of funds will eventually lead to a reduction in Wealth and thereby consumption, but since the shortfall is only a small fraction of its income it will take several months to have an impact on the Wealth score and thereby the Standard of Living.
peasant-net-income.PNG

Wealth has a number of functions in addition to forming the basis for Standard of Living. A Pop’s raw Political Strength (excluding any such power conferred by the country’s Voting Franchise, which is treated separately) is dependent on their Wealth. Some privately operated Institutions provide benefits to Pops only in relation to their Wealth. Many Professional Qualifications also require Pops to have a certain amount of Wealth.

Each Wealth level is defined by a set of Needs and an amount of “value” that needs to be spent on goods to fulfill that Need. This “value” is defined in goods base prices, such that the Need for Standard Clothing for a Pop of size 10,000 with Wealth level 14 might be fulfilled by buying £87 worth of Clothes, assuming perfectly balanced supply and demand. If the actual price of Clothes where the Pop lives is over-demanded, their cost to fulfill this need will also be higher. As a result, cheaper goods means wealthier, happier Pops.

This Peasant Pop’s Wealth is low (6), so it consumes only the basic necessities.
simple-needs.png

Many Needs can be satisfied by a variety of different goods. For example, the Need for Heating requires Wood, Fabric, Coal, Oil, and/or Electricity. These can be purchased in any combination assuming the total base prices add up to the required value. When given this option Pops will attempt to make a rational purchase decision based on which goods are the most available, satisfying their Need with some mix of these goods or even only one, if that’s the only one available. In this way an inland, isolated state might not consume any Fish at all as long as it has sufficient Grain, Fruit, Meat, or even packaged Groceries to satisfy their Need for food.

A breakdown of how the Peasants in Ceylon spent their heating budget this week.
heating-for-peasants-in-ceylon.png

Goods can also appear in several different Needs categories. Groceries, Meat, and Fruit can fulfil the need for both Basic Food and Luxury Food, but Grain or Fish can only fulfil the need for Basic Food. As a result, maintaining only Millet Farms and Fishing Wharfs to meet your food needs will mostly satisfy your poor Pops, while focusing on Livestock Ranches and Banana Plantations will cause wealthy Pops to inflate the price of the available food supply and further impoverish the poor. Operating productive Food Industries that can turn Grain and Fish into Groceries is good for everyone in your country, and frees up any available supply of Meat and Fruit to be consumed by those with a Need for Luxury Food.

A breakdown of who requires Basic Food and how it can be fulfilled.
basic-food-substitution.png

Lower Wealth levels have only a handful of Needs, such as Simple Clothing, Heating, Basic Food, and Intoxicants. The middle levels introduce more refined Needs like Household Items, Services, Luxury Drinks, and Free Movement. Really wealthy Pops consume increasingly vast quantities of Luxury Goods to impress and outdo their peers. In some cases Needs disappear entirely in favor of more diverse Needs. The Need for Simple Clothing which can be satisfied by both Fabric and Clothes will, as a Pop is raised from abject poverty, be gradually phased out by the Need for Standard Clothing which include only professionally sewn items.

Compared to the Wealth 6 Peasants, these Wealth 17 Bureaucrats are more diverse in their requirements.
middle-needs.png

Introducing new goods into your market will help you diversify your economy and alleviate the demand on crucial industrial goods. Importing Oil - either petroleum from newly discovered deposits or whale oil from the few places in the world that produce it - will cause your Pops to buy some quantity of it for heating instead of Coal or Electricity, which lowers the price of those goods and help make your industries more profitable. Introducing Opium into your market will decrease Pop demand for Liquor and Tobacco... for good or ill.

Some goods are favored over others by default if available. Once Electricity is available to them, due to its convenience Pops will prefer to buy it over Wood or Coal, even if they’re the same price. Some goods can be replaced by other goods entirely, while others will always be required to some bare minimum. Train travel can completely replace the need for having your own Automobile to drive around in, but having an Automobile doesn’t ever completely remove the need for an occasional train ride to see your cousin who lives all the way in Paris.

In addition to these factors cultures can develop Obsessions for certain goods, and some even have Taboos they must abide by. A country can also encourage or discourage the consumption of certain goods using Authority, perhaps in an effort to avoid enriching a hated enemy or entice Pops to buy something that’s heavily taxed over something that is not. This impacts the purchase habits of Pops affected despite this being irrational from a strictly financial perspective.

What if the Bengali were obsessed with the status afforded to them by Luxury Furniture? This could happen due to events, or organically because Luxury Furniture is a really prevalent luxury good in markets where a lot of Bengali Pops live. But even if this habit is developed around their homelands, Bengali Pops that migrate abroad - to the USA or Australia or Japan - will continue preferring Luxury Furniture to other luxury goods, and will suffer financially if the same level of access is not available there.
bengali-obsessions-taboos.png

Let’s close out by considering the difference between this and the consumption model from previous games. In Victoria 2, Pops have different Life, Everyday, and Luxury Needs based on their Type (what we call Profession in Victoria 3), both in types of goods and quantities. Pops in Victoria 2 always strive to get promoted into Types which require more advanced, luxurious goods in larger quantities, but will fail to do so if they cannot afford it. Since certain advanced Types of Pops in Victoria 2 perform their duties objectively better than their less advanced counterparts (e.g. Craftsmen, Clerks) it becomes important to retain access to advanced goods in order to ensure that your workforce is internationally competitive.

In Victoria 3 this formula is turned on its head. An Engineer is not intrinsically better than a Machinist who is not intrinsically better than a Laborer, and there’s no ideal national proportions between them you need to maintain in order to maximize your competitiveness. Different Professions do fulfil different functions, but it’s the Production Methods of the Buildings they work in that determine what function they serve. By choosing what Buildings to construct and which Production Methods to activate, you create the opportunities for these Professions which in turn impose changes to the population. What types of goods you need to ensure access to in order to keep your population satisfied is not driven directly by what professional opportunities you have created, but rather by what Wealth development and Wealth distribution these changes have resulted in.

Professions that are part of the Middle Strata in this state are considerably better off than those in the Lower Strata, and not far off from the Upper Strata. It’s very likely this state hasn’t started industrializing yet, since Shopkeepers - who run the pre-industrial economy - are Middle Strata, and Upper Strata Aristocrats aren’t always particularly wealthy if their income originates from exploiting the Peasantry on Subsistence Farms. Since the Middle Strata is already wealthy enough to demand Transportation, construction of Railways in this state is likely to be both profitable and beneficial for population growth and general happiness.
sol-breakdown.PNG

As a result, Pops in Victoria 3 won’t always strive to ascend to a higher social strata, nor will an Aristocrat always have a higher income or goods consumption Needs compared to a Clerk. All of this is driven by market forces - a qualifying Clerk would gladly become an Aristocrat on available land if that comes with a higher income than remaining a Clerk, and this increased income will gradually result in an increase in their Wealth and consumption demand. Conversely, Aristocrats don’t demote to Laborers because they can't acquire enough goods to sustain their lifestyle - they would only turn to such desperate measures if they become landless (unemployed) and are trying to avoid starvation, or if by some miracle taking on a relatively well-paid Laborer job in a particularly profitable factory would actually yield a greater paycheck than their failing farm provides them with.

In practice this means that it's important in both games to secure your populations’ basic needs to prevent starvation and dissent, followed by appeasing their desire for ever more advanced or exotic goods in larger and larger quantities to increase the size of your economy and power on the world stage. But while reaching this commonly pursued end goal in Victoria 2 often meant pursuing a certain optimal population distribution no matter what else happened throughout the game, the Professions of the Pops you end up with could be vastly different between games in Victoria 3! If you build a colonial plantation economy, your Aristocrats might remain as dominant by endgame as they were at start. If you're a manufacturing powerhouse on the cutting edge of technological progress, your middle strata Pops might come to rival the Capitalist class in wealth and power. If your high taxes are reinvested in vast Institutions your power base might be dominated by Bureaucrats and Academics. If your workers own the means of production, your Laborers might even be wealthier - and consume more luxuries - than your neighbor's Aristocrats.

These possibilities for diverse Pop distributions also result in very different political tendencies in your population, which lead to demand for different kinds of Laws. While in Victoria 2 it’s primarily the rising Consciousness of a greater ratio of more advanced and literate types of Pops that drives a desire for reform in a liberal direction, Victoria 3’s more open-ended consumption model and the diversity of Professions it can create could result in your population having very different political desires by endgame depending on the path you’ve taken. This requires your political machinery to be working in tandem with your economic engine, both to create the right conditions for your Pops and to satisfy their changing desires.

Next week, we will learn more about these desires as Martin introduces us to Political Movements, which themselves are strongly connected to Standard of Living. Until then!
 
  • 242Like
  • 156Love
  • 18
  • 5
Reactions:
The main takeaway that I pulled from this is that it could be a viable strategy to intentionally subsidize agriculture & basic low-SOL needs (even to the point of a loss) so that you "free up" income to increase the Wealth and SOL of your pops to then *hopefully* make that money back from the luxury goods imports.

I'm also really curious how SOL will affect migration, both internal & external. I love the idea of trying to draw in immigrants by investing heavily in pushing the SOL of your population up to make it more attractive to move there.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Professions can actually have different Dependent ratios, but we're not quite sure to what extent we will distinguish them yet as too drastic differences between them can lead to some counterintuitive game dynamics.

However, this is one of the major reasons why we've chosen to go with the term "Workforce" and "Dependents" instead of Men and Women - it's not intended to be the case that at a 1/4 ratio, everyone in the Workforce is a man and every Dependent is a woman. Rather, it's that when Women in the Workplace become the norm, more Dependents join the Workforce.
I do have another issue with the Women in the Workforce concept, in that working class women tended to enter the workforce due to financial necessity than necessarily any kind of desire for emancipation- in fact thinking about it the opposite way around makes more sense- feminist thought being encouraged as more women enter the workplace. Women's suffrage passed in many countries after World War I necessitated women entering the workforce en masse to take on men's jobs, rather than the other way around. I think if the law is going to be enabled by Feminism, then it should focus on middle and upper class professions which traditionally excluded women, rather than industrial settings which were actually the targets of some reformers with "protective laws" that ended up reducing job opportunities for working-class women, in a similar manner to child labor laws. Which is to say, I don't think a strictly linear progression of social developments -> legal changes that implement a more gender-egalitarian workplace, is necessarily going to model what happened in reality.
 
  • 10Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Does the act of discouraging a good drive up its price? Or will the price fall because POPs don’t put out as many buy orders for it?

I ask because Prohibition lead to decreasing consumption and higher prices. Though, alcohol is a pretty inelastic good.
As you are using the vocabulary of the (neo-)classical eco-models, I'll solve the puzzle using these (independent of Wizz' incomplete answer):
1) Prohibition slightly reduces demand (only declaring a good illegal just has a minor effect on demand; see history of any drugs)
2) Prohibition has a strong effect on supply: It significantly increases the production costs (incl. transport)
3) Final effect in the simple market model: Consumption decreases, price increases. By how much depends on elasticity
Do I get full points on this task?


[Birth rates since 1960s]
Birth rates had been going down ever since the average income/productivity significantly increased, so at least since 1800-something. After WW2 this trend was accelerated, due to different reasons (reduced number of men in working age after WW2, widespread availability of the pill, higher levels of income and education, diverse technological advancements [e.g. refrigeration and wash machine], overall economic boom which lead to long term full employment in several big economies around the world etc.). But this is after WW2, when the pill finally started to push the fertility rate below 2.1 (the rate itself had been in general decline in the ~150 years prior). This development is not generally applicable for the time frame of the game.

Forcing other countries to accept your exports of addictive drugs would be an interesting game strategy...
As if somebody would ever do something to devilish... *nervously sips tea*
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Realistically? Absolutely. Would I like this to be in the game? For sure. However, this is also the kind of mechanical addition that I'm alright with not having in release and add in a at a later point, because it's more of a nice detail than a crucial mechanic (Heating is not a very significant part of expenses). I would also want a system like this to be used in other cases where it makes sense and I wouldn't just want to make it as simple as 'Pops in hot regions enjoy a higher average standard of living due to reduced heating expenses while Pops in cold regions are poorer'.

Note also that heating needs for living is affected by architecture which is usually adapted to local needs. So the difference might be slightly less.

But an interesting point would be "in hot climes food spoils faster, so while they need less heating, anyone who is not starving will need more spices to make the food palatable"
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Realistically? Absolutely. Would I like this to be in the game? For sure. However, this is also the kind of mechanical addition that I'm alright with not having in release and add in a at a later point, because it's more of a nice detail than a crucial mechanic (Heating is not a very significant part of expenses). I would also want a system like this to be used in other cases where it makes sense and I wouldn't just want to make it as simple as 'Pops in hot regions enjoy a higher average standard of living due to reduced heating expenses while Pops in cold regions are poorer'.
Pops in hot climates having higher standard of living at comparable wealth would be accurate, though. Both heating needs and caloric needs would be lower, and as long as other things are accounted for (principally water, though also infrastructure) they've tended to be a lot better off throughout history. Victoria's time period is an exception mostly because of the industrialization of Europe, and the effects of colonialism. Since these are also represented in the game, giving the warmer areas their advantages back seems like it would be a net benefit.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Is there a numerical value of money a pop needs to save to advance to the next level of wealth? Is it a fixed sum per level, or a geometric progression or something else? Can you also give examples of other factors beyond wealth that can affect standard of living?
At the moment Wealth levels are balanced such that 10k Workforce at Wealth 1 require a total weekly net income of £150, and each level is worth roughly 10% more than the level before it, so it's a quite gradual exponential increase that nevertheless gets astronomically high by levels 60+. Of course this is at base pricing, so specific market prices can impact how much money Pops need to have to achieve a certain Wealth level a lot. And even if the goods your population needs to buy are quite expensive, if many of them are made domestically they might have the wages to match on account of their industries producing high-value goods.

Also, it's not enough to just be able to afford Wealth 2 (at £165 base pricing) to advance to it - rather, the Pop's income is compared to its expenses, and it progresses in one direction or another until it switches to the new level. So assuming perfectly balanced supply and demand, a Pop of Wealth 1 that has a net income of £180 would gain 180/150 = 20% progress towards Wealth 2 per week.
 
  • 29Like
  • 23
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
As you are using the vocabulary of the (neo-)classical eco-models, I'll solve the puzzle using these (independent of Wizz' incomplete answer):
1) Prohibition slightly reduces demand (only declaring a good illegal just has a minor effect on demand; see history of any drugs)
2) Prohibition has a strong effect on supply: It significantly increases the production costs (incl. transport)
3) Final effect in the simple market model: Consumption decreases, price increases. By how much depends on elasticity
Do I get full points on this task?
I’d quibble with a couple of things.

First, I’d say that Prohibition more than slightly reduced demand. Alcohol consumption dropped pretty dramatically in the US, and never fully recovered. Pre-Prohibition Americans drank much more. Of course, this does vary geographically, as some areas were more effective at suppressing alcohol consumption than others.

Second, while Prohibition did increase costs, it also made it much easier to control supply. In a legal market, I can start selling alcohol and undercut you if you’re charging too high a price. In a black market, if you try to do that I’m going to come and shoot you with my Tommy gun.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Do things such as sanitation and health conditions (which usually rely on where a Pop is) influence a pop's standard of living, either directly (changing its value) or indirectly (increasing a pop's demand for 'medicine', 'drugs' or a 'sanitation' service)?

If I remember correctly, Vicky2's Life rating represented some of these elements - is there something similar to life rating associated to standard of living in V3?
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I think organized crime, black markets and so on would be a really interesting thing to add to the game, but we don't have any plans to explicitly simulate them for release (I know I keep saying that in this thread, but there are so many things I want to add to the game but where we need to prioritize the core features that we do have and ensure they're as good as they can be on release).


can i understand wiz. If you put everything you would like to have in the game in there, defend it with the publication as with the Berlin airport. Every year the release would be in the following year because you still have 10 new ideas.

And at some point in 2032 we'll have the game in our hands.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Is it theoretically possible to have your entire country at 60+ living standards? Or are working class pops unable to achieve opulence without no longer being able to still be working class?
 
Another fantastic diary. Every one makes me more excited.

Is there a reason pops need to purchase a "value" of a good, rather than a raw number of units of it per person? Given the required value varies depending on its price, if I understand correctly, wouldn't amount do basically the same thing with a bit less opaqueness?

EDIT: thinking about this longer, I suspect its because different goods might have varying efficacy in the same category? As in, maybe groceries get you 2x the value of simple food than grain does?
 
View attachment 752438

Hello again and welcome to yet another walkthrough of some interrelated systems fundamental to Victoria 3’s economic model: Standard of Living, Wealth, Pop Needs, and Consumption.

All Pops in Victoria 3 have a Standard of Living score between 1 and 99, which represents - by a perfectly scientific and objective metric, don’t @ me - precisely how great their life is. Pops with levels 1-4 are labeled Starving, levels 5-9 are Struggling, and so on through Impoverished, Middling, Secure, Prosperous, Affluent, Wealthy, Lavish, and at levels 60+, Opulent. We don’t really expect a lot of Pops to reach levels 60+ but - knowing you folks - we’ve left plenty of headroom to accommodate your mad economic experiments.

Standard of Living affects two major aspects of the game: birth- and death rate, and Pop loyalty.

Birth rate is simply the percentage of children born to Pops each year, while death rate is the percentage of Pops who die. Both values start out high and decline with increasing Standard of Living, but birth rate declines slower than death rate, leading to a net increase in population growth with increasing Standard of Living. This system models that increasing Standard of Living tends to lead to longer life expectancy but declining natality. Each parameter can be modified independently by a variety of effects.

Scratch your priesthood’s back and they’ll scratch yours. Note that Interest Group Traits can vary between Interest Group variants, so a different religion might provide a different benefit.
View attachment 752439

There are side effects to emancipation! But while reduced population growth here initially appears to be a penalty, increasing the proportion of industrial workforce at the same time tends to lead to increasing Standard of Living, which provides a net increase in population growth.
View attachment 752440
Pop loyalty is altered whenever their Standard of Living increases or declines from its current value. Martin will get into much more detail on this in next week’s Development Diary on Political Movements.

A Pop’s Wealth attribute forms the foundation for its Standard of Living. Pops can also gain more intangible boosts or penalties to their Standard of Living from any number of sources.

Pops accumulate Wealth over time while their weekly income exceeds their weekly expenses. Conversely, if a Pop’s expenses exceed its income, Wealth will decline. How large their expenses are depends on what and how much they consume, which is also dependent on their Wealth. What this means is that as long as a Pop’s income remains the same, and the cost of the goods and services in their state and market remains the same, that Pop’s Wealth will over time drift towards exactly the level of consumption they can afford to sustain. Of course, as Wealth changes the consumption also changes, which affects the prices of the goods in the market, which might in turn affect their wages, dividends, etcetera.

This weekly shortfall of funds will eventually lead to a reduction in Wealth and thereby consumption, but since the shortfall is only a small fraction of its income it will take several months to have an impact on the Wealth score and thereby the Standard of Living.
View attachment 752441
Wealth has a number of functions in addition to forming the basis for Standard of Living. A Pop’s raw Political Strength (excluding any such power conferred by the country’s Voting Franchise, which is treated separately) is dependent on their Wealth. Some privately operated Institutions provide benefits to Pops only in relation to their Wealth. Many Professional Qualifications also require Pops to have a certain amount of Wealth.

Each Wealth level is defined by a set of Needs and an amount of “value” that needs to be spent on goods to fulfill that Need. This “value” is defined in goods base prices, such that the Need for Standard Clothing for a Pop of size 10,000 with Wealth level 14 might be fulfilled by buying £87 worth of Clothes, assuming perfectly balanced supply and demand. If the actual price of Clothes where the Pop lives is over-demanded, their cost to fulfill this need will also be higher. As a result, cheaper goods means wealthier, happier Pops.

This Peasant Pop’s Wealth is low (6), so it consumes only the basic necessities.
View attachment 752442
Many Needs can be satisfied by a variety of different goods. For example, the Need for Heating requires Wood, Fabric, Coal, Oil, and/or Electricity. These can be purchased in any combination assuming the total base prices add up to the required value. When given this option Pops will attempt to make a rational purchase decision based on which goods are the most available, satisfying their Need with some mix of these goods or even only one, if that’s the only one available. In this way an inland, isolated state might not consume any Fish at all as long as it has sufficient Grain, Fruit, Meat, or even packaged Groceries to satisfy their Need for food.

A breakdown of how the Peasants in Ceylon spent their heating budget this week.
View attachment 752443
Goods can also appear in several different Needs categories. Groceries, Meat, and Fruit can fulfil the need for both Basic Food and Luxury Food, but Grain or Fish can only fulfil the need for Basic Food. As a result, maintaining only Millet Farms and Fishing Wharfs to meet your food needs will mostly satisfy your poor Pops, while focusing on Livestock Ranches and Banana Plantations will cause wealthy Pops to inflate the price of the available food supply and further impoverish the poor. Operating productive Food Industries that can turn Grain and Fish into Groceries is good for everyone in your country, and frees up any available supply of Meat and Fruit to be consumed by those with a Need for Luxury Food.

A breakdown of who requires Basic Food and how it can be fulfilled.
View attachment 752444
Lower Wealth levels have only a handful of Needs, such as Simple Clothing, Heating, Basic Food, and Intoxicants. The middle levels introduce more refined Needs like Household Items, Services, Luxury Drinks, and Free Movement. Really wealthy Pops consume increasingly vast quantities of Luxury Goods to impress and outdo their peers. In some cases Needs disappear entirely in favor of more diverse Needs. The Need for Simple Clothing which can be satisfied by both Fabric and Clothes will, as a Pop is raised from abject poverty, be gradually phased out by the Need for Standard Clothing which include only professionally sewn items.

Compared to the Wealth 6 Peasants, these Wealth 17 Bureaucrats are more diverse in their requirements.
View attachment 752445
Introducing new goods into your market will help you diversify your economy and alleviate the demand on crucial industrial goods. Importing Oil - either petroleum from newly discovered deposits or whale oil from the few places in the world that produce it - will cause your Pops to buy some quantity of it for heating instead of Coal or Electricity, which lowers the price of those goods and help make your industries more profitable. Introducing Opium into your market will decrease Pop demand for Liquor and Tobacco... for good or ill.

Some goods are favored over others by default if available. Once Electricity is available to them, due to its convenience Pops will prefer to buy it over Wood or Coal, even if they’re the same price. Some goods can be replaced by other goods entirely, while others will always be required to some bare minimum. Train travel can completely replace the need for having your own Automobile to drive around in, but having an Automobile doesn’t ever completely remove the need for an occasional train ride to see your cousin who lives all the way in Paris.

In addition to these factors cultures can develop Obsessions for certain goods, and some even have Taboos they must abide by. A country can also encourage or discourage the consumption of certain goods using Authority, perhaps in an effort to avoid enriching a hated enemy or entice Pops to buy something that’s heavily taxed over something that is not. This impacts the purchase habits of Pops affected despite this being irrational from a strictly financial perspective.

What if the Bengali were obsessed with the status afforded to them by Luxury Furniture? This could happen due to events, or organically because Luxury Furniture is a really prevalent luxury good in markets where a lot of Bengali Pops live. But even if this habit is developed around their homelands, Bengali Pops that migrate abroad - to the USA or Australia or Japan - will continue preferring Luxury Furniture to other luxury goods, and will suffer financially if the same level of access is not available there.
View attachment 752446
Let’s close out by considering the difference between this and the consumption model from previous games. In Victoria 2, Pops have different Life, Everyday, and Luxury Needs based on their Type (what we call Profession in Victoria 3), both in types of goods and quantities. Pops in Victoria 2 always strive to get promoted into Types which require more advanced, luxurious goods in larger quantities, but will fail to do so if they cannot afford it. Since certain advanced Types of Pops in Victoria 2 perform their duties objectively better than their less advanced counterparts (e.g. Craftsmen, Clerks) it becomes important to retain access to advanced goods in order to ensure that your workforce is internationally competitive.

In Victoria 3 this formula is turned on its head. An Engineer is not intrinsically better than a Machinist who is not intrinsically better than a Laborer, and there’s no ideal national proportions between them you need to maintain in order to maximize your competitiveness. Different Professions do fulfil different functions, but it’s the Production Methods of the Buildings they work in that determine what function they serve. By choosing what Buildings to construct and which Production Methods to activate, you create the opportunities for these Professions which in turn impose changes to the population. What types of goods you need to ensure access to in order to keep your population satisfied is not driven directly by what professional opportunities you have created, but rather by what Wealth development and Wealth distribution these changes have resulted in.

Professions that are part of the Middle Strata in this state are considerably better off than those in the Lower Strata, and not far off from the Upper Strata. It’s very likely this state hasn’t started industrializing yet, since Shopkeepers - who run the pre-industrial economy - are Middle Strata, and Upper Strata Aristocrats aren’t always particularly wealthy if their income originates from exploiting the Peasantry on Subsistence Farms. Since the Middle Strata is already wealthy enough to demand Transportation, construction of Railways in this state is likely to be both profitable and beneficial for population growth and general happiness.
View attachment 752447
As a result, Pops in Victoria 3 won’t always strive to ascend to a higher social strata, nor will an Aristocrat always have a higher income or goods consumption Needs compared to a Clerk. All of this is driven by market forces - a qualifying Clerk would gladly become an Aristocrat on available land if that comes with a higher income than remaining a Clerk, and this increased income will gradually result in an increase in their Wealth and consumption demand. Conversely, Aristocrats don’t demote to Laborers because they can't acquire enough goods to sustain their lifestyle - they would only turn to such desperate measures if they become landless (unemployed) and are trying to avoid starvation, or if by some miracle taking on a relatively well-paid Laborer job in a particularly profitable factory would actually yield a greater paycheck than their failing farm provides them with.

In practice this means that it's important in both games to secure your populations’ basic needs to prevent starvation and dissent, followed by appeasing their desire for ever more advanced or exotic goods in larger and larger quantities to increase the size of your economy and power on the world stage. But while reaching this commonly pursued end goal in Victoria 2 often meant pursuing a certain optimal population distribution no matter what else happened throughout the game, the Professions of the Pops you end up with could be vastly different between games in Victoria 3! If you build a colonial plantation economy, your Aristocrats might remain as dominant by endgame as they were at start. If you're a manufacturing powerhouse on the cutting edge of technological progress, your middle strata Pops might come to rival the Capitalist class in wealth and power. If your high taxes are reinvested in vast Institutions your power base might be dominated by Bureaucrats and Academics. If your workers own the means of production, your Laborers might even be wealthier - and consume more luxuries - than your neighbor's Aristocrats.

These possibilities for diverse Pop distributions also result in very different political tendencies in your population, which lead to demand for different kinds of Laws. While in Victoria 2 it’s primarily the rising Consciousness of a greater ratio of more advanced and literate types of Pops that drives a desire for reform in a liberal direction, Victoria 3’s more open-ended consumption model and the diversity of Professions it can create could result in your population having very different political desires by endgame depending on the path you’ve taken. This requires your political machinery to be working in tandem with your economic engine, both to create the right conditions for your Pops and to satisfy their changing desires.

Next week, we will learn more about these desires as Martin introduces us to Political Movements, which themselves are strongly connected to Standard of Living. Until then!

It is still not answered how "stock companies" work. Which I think was an announced method for ownership.
Can non-capitalists own stocks? Because that is basically the easiest way for labourers to "own the means of production".
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I see there is a National Standard of Living number. How is that calculated verses the different stratas? Also what impact does it have on the game?
The national value as well as the state-specific strata values are not separate values, but are all examples of where we have aggregated individual Pops' Standard of Living along with a breakdown of what the most prominent factors are that affects them. The idea here is to give the player some approximate ideas of major trends and factors on different levels of granularity, to make it easier to play both large and small countries. If you're playing, say, USA it's not really feasible to try to parse the details of thousands of Pops individually to figure out how to best address their varied needs, but if you want to make things better for all Middle Strata Pops in Pennsylvania you'll easily be able to see that the best way to do that is e.g. increase access to Transportation or Furniture, or cut Consumption Taxes on Tea.
 
  • 26
  • 17Like
  • 7
  • 2Love
Reactions:
Wow, this system sounds amazing! I love how it's going for something less pre-determined and more dynamic than the Victoria 2 system. It really sounds a lot more flexible and responsive to what's actually going on in the game.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
How is the goods distribution for a need determined? How does the pop reach 70% fabric and 30% wood for heating for example. Does this slowly drift depending on what is cheaper? Is there some math formula?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
cool dev dairy, but one image in particular is very interesting:
So this seems to be a culture tab for the bengali culture
So what do we have here
-turmoil: seems that cultures can also get angry at you, not only individual pops. Probably has something to do with nationalist revolts.
-obsessions and taboos: we already know from the dev diary
-migration targets: pretty interesting, probably used to simulate pops emigrating to places that have a lot of people of the same culture as the
-They're discriminated against by the EIC
-Cultural traits: they have south asian heritage. Seems to confirm my theory about heritage.
-homelands: these are really interesting. Probably has to do with asimilation
-cultures of the same heritage: confirms there are 20 total indian cultures

Seems pretty cool
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Isn't urbanisation usually a better represatation for the decline natality than standard of living? Especially if you want it generalized and not bring in cultural and religious.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: