• 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:
It looks like a really neat system. Lots to play around with. I am a bit skeptical about the purely income driven change between jobs, so you cannot have impoverished aristocrats desperately hanging on to their titles because working as a clerk is beneath them. But I guess that can at least be partially simulated, by simply making it very hard to qualify for a clerk job if you are currently an aristocrat.

I wonder how new technologies (e.g. telephones and radios) fit into the needs. Are they simply substitution (possibly efficient) goods in a broader category like "Communicaton", or can totally new needs arise? Is there any Red Queen Race, where more access to goods also simply mean that more consumption is needed to keep up with the Joneses.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
and, the picture show that only wine and liquor will be the taboos of the bengali culture, so.... is this means that they can drink vodka ?
No, because vodka would be one of the things covered by the game's Liquor good.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
Aren't taxes also part of a Pop's expenses and therefore impacting it's Wealth? Is that what you mean by "services"?
 
Aren't taxes also part of a Pop's expenses and therefore impacting it's Wealth? Is that what you mean by "services"?
There are things Pops buy called "Tickets" and "Services".
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I wonder how new technologies (e.g. telephones and radios) fit into the needs. Are they simply substitution (possibly efficient) goods in a broader category like "Communicaton", or can totally new needs arise? Is there any Red Queen Race, where more access to goods also simply mean that more consumption is needed to keep up with the Joneses.
At the moment they are substitutable goods within existing Needs categories, that either have a "convenience" bias that cause Pops to favor them if available or are intrinsically more effective to manufacture, causing them to become available in greater quantities which leads to greater relative consumption. For example, Telephones can substitute for Free Movement to some degree but cannot completely displace the Need for physical travel, and Radios are Luxury Items.

Introducing new, dynamic "Needs" that ups the bar along with new innovations becoming available is something that's been considered, but stretches the definition of "Need" and an objective "Standard of Living" scale a bit too far into cynicism for even my liking. The idea that my living standard would be going down as new iPhone is released because I gotta have it is interesting, but doesn't fit with our model's definitions of Needs and SoL.
 
  • 17Like
  • 8
  • 7Love
  • 2Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
It looks like a really neat system. Lots to play around with. I am a bit skeptical about the purely income driven change between jobs, so you cannot have impoverished aristocrats desperately hanging on to their titles because working as a clerk is beneath them. But I guess that can at least be partially simulated, by simply making it very hard to qualify for a clerk job if you are currently an aristocrat.

I wonder how new technologies (e.g. telephones and radios) fit into the needs. Are they simply substitution (possibly efficient) goods in a broader category like "Communicaton", or can totally new needs arise? Is there any Red Queen Race, where more access to goods also simply mean that more consumption is needed to keep up with the Joneses.
Speaking of "Communication", other ways of fulfilling that need should be the post office and newspapers. Maybe a broad "Entertainment" category that includes books and later on movies as well.
 
Is there ever substitution between needs categories? Like say my pops are having trouble sourcing luxury drinks but have abundant luxury food, will they still try to buy the same amount of drinks or will they substitute foods or something else?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Do different needs have different effects on pops? For example does good satisfaction of household items change the effect/behaviour of dependents? Does higher satisfaction of demand for intoxicants have a negative impact? (or does a sudden lack make people particularly angry?)
Also is there a luxury intoxicants need? Historically there has been quite a bit of stratification in terms of the types of intoxicants different classes and groups prefer.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
will struggling pops and certain jobs (farming) have increased workforce ratios if that is how the game is representing women in the workforce?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Question: When the clercks in the example would grow up to aristocrats, would they bring their ideology with them? And can it happen, that they actually replace aristocrats in one single step -they demote to something else at the same time clerks promote (this makes sense, money makes things profitable and the clerks have the money rn) (and u could influence it with taxes).
 
Last edited:
I hoped as much, but based on Lachek’s reply this ratios are just ratios of base prices, so they are not specific to a needs category. This would make the whole substitution much less flexible.
The conversion rates are based on the base price of the default good (I kept using "units" but it's more like "equivalent base value"), but that doesn't indicate that they wouldn't also be need-specific conversion rates. One does not preclude the other.

Coal might be five times as valuable as base than Lumber, which would make it far cheaper to transport around since you need much less of it for substitutable uses and would not require Heating to have any big conversion rate for Coal while still making Coal super-good for it, but nothing would stop a need from using a conversion rate of 0.1 for Coal to completely nerf its base value for that specific use. Or at least that's my read of it.
 
At the moment they are substitutable goods within existing Needs categories, that either have a "convenience" bias that cause Pops to favor them if available or are intrinsically more effective to manufacture, causing them to become available in greater quantities which leads to greater relative consumption. For example, Telephones can substitute for Free Movement to some degree but cannot completely displace the Need for physical travel, and Radios are Luxury Items.

Introducing new, dynamic "Needs" that ups the bar along with new innovations becoming available is something that's been considered, but stretches the definition of "Need" and an objective "Standard of Living" scale a bit too far into cynicism for even my liking. The idea that my living standard would be going down as new iPhone is released because I gotta have it is interesting, but doesn't fit with our model's definitions of Needs and SoL.
I would say it is more logical to have both telephones and radios be in the same category as services, to simulate these means of communication replacing demand for restaurants, pubs and other social gatherings. The long haul telephone connection was not good at the time to compete with physical transport in a meaningful way. Maybe paper could be in the same category to represent books, newspapers and postal service. By the way, do you plan to model telegraph in any way? It was one of the defining inventions of the era.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The conversion rates are based on the base price of the default good (I kept using "units" but it's more like "equivalent base value"), but that doesn't indicate that they wouldn't also be need-specific conversion rates. One does not preclude the other.

Coal might be five times as valuable as base than Lumber, which would make it far cheaper to transport around since you need much less of it for substitutable uses and would not require Heating to have any big conversion rate for Coal while still making Coal super-good for it, but nothing would stop a need from using a conversion rate of 0.1 for Coal to completely nerf its base value for that specific use. Or at least that's my read of it.
Would be great to get a confirmation from Lachek
 
Yes I can see nobles wrapped into crude fabric to keep their schwanz "heated"

Wood: fuel, heats, used to cook stuff
Coal: fuel, heats, used to cook stuff
Oil: fuel, heats
=/=
Fabric: keeps warm. Lasts years. Raw material.
=/=
Clothes: keep warm. Last years. Manufactured goods.

As you can see, only three goods have something in common, the goods used as fuel. Therefore, putting fabric in that category is counter-intuitive, just as it is illogical putting it together with clothes.
I agree that fabric shouldn't be allowed to completely replace fuel (and it's a bit weird that it's there to begin with) but I'd be fine with a partial replacement.

But it's definitely not illogical to have fabric in with "clothes" - even Nobel Prize winning author Selma Lagerlöf when talking about her childhood as a well-off aristo landowner relates about how in the late 19th century they made all their clothes at home out of fabrics. (i.e. DIY clothing from raw material)

And in the US using sackcloth to make dresses from was such a common occurrence that some flour mills would dye their bags so poor people could make prettier dresses out of just their bags.


Fertility should be lower at Starving than Struggling. Malnutrition and exertion cause periods to stop, for obvious evolutionary reasons.

Since fertility should mostly create new dependants, maybe unreasonably high birthrates among starving people are more about "people who nearly died, but got weakened into a dependant state"? (They already implied that among starving people deathrate should already be higher than birthrate)
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
You must've missed reading the actual category, because the category isn't called fuel. It's called heating. Which is not just consuming fuel if you know anything about HVAC.
So, after having debunked the fact "fabric" is heavy clothing you guys keep coming woth the insulation argument.

You must have missed the part (again) where I said that fabric can be used to do a lot of things other than insulation, and it makes no sense at all for it to be listed under a category which, otherwise, comprises only fuel goods used to cooking stuff or heating. Keep beating around the bush you and the others.

Dev: "heating" is used in hot regions mainly to cook stuff.
Do they cook stuff using a lot of fabric? What for? For lots and lots of tea bags?
(Again)

Fabric is used to do a lot of other stuff, as decoration for example (again). Consumption of fabric for blankets is a fraction of the total. What do we do, put fabric in basic needs AND in heating because you use a blanket when you go to sleep?

Firewood: fuel, cooking, heating
Oil: fuel, cooking, heating
Coal: fuel, cooking, heating
(Again)

Fabric: lasting good, used for a lot of stuff other than covering your shivering legs.

Just put it in basic needs, which can also cover blankets and stuff, it is the most logical thing to do (again).

Keep screaming insulation all day long with your typical passive aggressive tone
 
  • 17
  • 1
Reactions:
At the moment they are substitutable goods within existing Needs categories, that either have a "convenience" bias that cause Pops to favor them if available or are intrinsically more effective to manufacture, causing them to become available in greater quantities which leads to greater relative consumption. For example, Telephones can substitute for Free Movement to some degree but cannot completely displace the Need for physical travel, and Radios are Luxury Items.
Would you consider an information/communication/media need instead? Travel feels a bit unfitting for telephones. Such a need could be covered with paper early in the game (books and newspapers) or maybe even involve services, and then later in the game be displaced by telephones and radios. Obviously only middle class and higher people would have this need.

Introducing new, dynamic "Needs" that ups the bar along with new innovations becoming available is something that's been considered, but stretches the definition of "Need" and an objective "Standard of Living" scale a bit too far into cynicism for even my liking. The idea that my living standard would be going down as new iPhone is released because I gotta have it is interesting, but doesn't fit with our model's definitions of Needs and SoL.
Hm, I think you were on to something there though. Life wasn't really any more horrible 30 years ago where most people in wealthy countries didn't have home computers, mobile phones or internet access but these days a lack of those would be considered quite severe.

Not just due to cynical reasons like entitlement or being marketed to like you suggest. But also because the existence of these goods changed social conditions around them to make them necessary. These days, you need internet access to maintain friendships, buy certain things and get certain jobs. It's a genuine need. The same could be said about the telephone and radio.

Technology influencing social conditions impacting economic needs sounds like it's right in line with the view of history you want Victoria 3 to promote. I hope you reconsider.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I agree that fabric shouldn't be allowed to completely replace fuel (and it's a bit weird that it's there to begin with) but I'd be fine with a partial replacement.

But it's definitely not illogical to have fabric in with "clothes" - even Nobel Prize winning author Selma Lagerlöf when talking about her childhood as a well-off aristo landowner relates about how in the late 19th century they made all their clothes at home out of fabrics. (i.e. DIY clothing from raw material)

And in the US using sackcloth to make dresses from was such a common occurrence that some flour mills would dye their bags so poor people could make prettier dresses out of just their bags.




Since fertility should mostly create new dependants, maybe unreasonably high birthrates among starving people are more about "people who nearly died, but got weakened into a dependant state"? (They already implied that among starving people deathrate should already be higher than birthrate)
I understand what you are saying about the hand made clothes, but in game we already have "clothes" as a good, and if they are missing then "fabric" is not a replacement for clothes (unless not in the heating category need, which seem fixed as dev said), which is understandable from a gameplay perspective.
Also, in most hot or temperate countries people tend not to go around naked, even if they could.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
How will vaccinations contribute to the standard of living? I guess they will live longer, but if Bill Gates controlls them i need him to want them to reproduce and Gates didn't answer to any of my mails yet.
 
  • 10Haha
  • 1
Reactions: