from what I'm hearing, it sounds like I should never increase my GDP anymore. Thanks Generalist, I'm just going to pause construction at 37 million GDP :)
Honestly concerned I super under-emphasized that pumping the breaks a little does not mean stopping in the middle of the intersection so that GB can T-Bone you.
Conclusion: Before 37 GDP I want buildings to be profitable and have per capita taxation to make free money. Between 37 and 50 I want government goods to be as cheap as possible to pay as little as possible and switch to proportional taxtation. At 37 GDP I swap my investment from construction to research, laws and conquest, and after 50 it goes back to constuction. I wonder if it is better to conquest for vassal investment opportunities or get over 50 as fast as possible.
I think I liked it more when the threshold was 10m instead, but ngl, after doing a bit of math analysis and making a video I'd also be a little frustrated if they hotfixed it next week lol.
It's artificial modifiers like this that make me really want Vic3 to have some form of Capital renewal/refurbishment/maintenance/etc. I think a key part of the problem between early and late game is that the buildings always cost the same. It means that once you build something there's never a need to build (or rebuild) it later, and that what takes a fraction of your late game construction points takes everything early on. Having to Recapitalize your industry to keep up with technology, and making later tech buildings more expensive would be a good thing IMO. I would love to see some kind of cost to changing PMs so that later technology isn't just a pure bonus, but also comes with a tradeoff in upgrading. Less Developed countries end up being able to use this as an additional catchup mechanic by making use of the second mover advantage. Something like each PM Level cost more than the previous. You can upgrade the lower to the upper for a discount, but the original building plus refitting costs more than building the building from nothing. Add onto this some amount of construction points going into maintenance to stabilize construction when new construction is low, and I think it would be much better.
I just wish companies could buy privately owned buildings then I wouldn't need to rely on interventionalism so much in the early game if I got company slots
So, getting not too small one province nations that already built up their spam invest in you lets you use their boosted investment pools building stuff in you (which later you when annex them its yours again) has its merits? This to get over the wall.
You can just build some extra construction sectors then pause government construction so the investment pool funds 100% of construction to empty it. Floating like 5mil+ is a huge amount of money wasted.
Thanks for this video. I‘m still new to Victoria 3 and I still approach some of the mechanics with my Victoria 2 mindset, which often meant „avoid laissez-faire, if you want to produce what you really need“. This was/is a very helpful tutorial for me. 😊
It explains a lot about my last USA run, I had investment deal with both Brazil and Peru and around 1910 I realized both owned 20% of my gdp each, I had 1 billion GDP and each had a gdp of about 20 million, meaning each owned 10x their gdp in American assets. I was very confused how that happened, well I guess since their GDP was under 37m they were getting much better value by investing in me/ buying all the industry I was building using government money, that advantage compounded.
If you plot the IP contribution (collumn E) vs your current GDP, you can see there are two 'regimes' in this graph; from a GDP of 1 to 20, your investment contribution grows at a slope of ~2.16. Between 20 to 57, it grows by by a slope of ~0.16. So you could see it as a wall, but I see it as a boost for small GDP's to reach an 'effective investmentpool' of ~50 GDP as early as a GDP of 20. Then from 20 GDP to 57 GDP, your Investmentpool stays around this ~50GDP until you are actually past 50 GDP, after which point GDP and 'effective investmentpool' GDP grow together again. Sorry if anything is unclear, I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the technical math terms in English.
Very interesting video. I’ve noticed over a lot of USA games that without a bankroll you will hit huge deficit issues at around this GDP. I always assumed it was mismanagement. Shame they killed bankruptcy, that was a great answer to this problem
How does this translate in optimal play patterns for countries with large starting gdp-s, in particular BEIC and Qing? Naturally you'll lean onto agrarianism due to inner politics but still, hypothetically which would be the best if you had a choice of economic system?
You can get over the hump by integrating the subjects you've been building in. This has a nice side effect of your subjects probably being relatively backwards compared to you, so you'll gain a significant increase in productivity by switching to better PMs. You also get access to any investment pool contribution their local upper class (and government) have, which the AI is notorious for not spending. (which is another reason to integrate: it does no good if the AI has a 2x multiplier to investment if they're not spending it down) However, you lose out on the taxation, sometimes for a very long time depending on culture.
Awesome video. I've noticed the wall in my games, around it I just stop building more construction capacity and start relying more on government investment instead of private. Its nice to see this published on a well articulated video That being said, I truly dislike how you pronounce laissez-faire
This is a personal gripe with the game, but I find it annoying how industries do not escalate enough with the pacing of the player- You're either have to be China or get a ton of migrants. Conquering usually doesn't work for me. I just want a relaxed playthrough while looking at spreadsheets! Love the videos.
what? Only if you are a pitifully small country does what you're saying apply; Even then you are not limited to your own country's population anymore now that foreign investment is a thing. Even if you have fully automated your industries and somehow employed every last peasant in your country you can still invest in foreign countries and grow your GDP that way.
Sorry this is late but as far as I understand it always naturally existed at the start of the game and made playing small nations a slog to start your economy. Could easily spend 30 years just getting basic construction loop going for them until they broke 10-15M. So they added a multiplier to jump start small economies but falls off the bigger your GDP gets. Hence why it has diminishing returns and hits a rough patch where it has to equalize out to a flat rate. So effectively they've kicked the problem down the road to make early game not as boring for the majority of nations is the major reason I believe and to give small nations a better chance of not just being irrelevant forever. Someone could correct me if I'm wrong, not an expert or anything lol.
Thanks for this video!. So, the best would be having governments owned build under LF “IF” it would be possible to not to privatize them in order to get the must investment pool contribution?
Have you at any point talked about or done a breakdown of individual buildings GDP contribution? And the estimated wages based on SOL ect? is that even something that can be calculated or is it too variable in game to really matter? Nice spreadsheet btws
Hiding in the cupboard wouldn’t work for me. I'd take my phone with the video with me, meaning I can not prevent myself enjoying such wonderful calculations. I guess part of the reason is that I don’t mind maths and am interested in unnecessary details.
So, if I understood correctly, the range, 37m-50m GDP, is bad because it significantly decreases the investment pool contribution multiplier (negatively at some points, too). And so, increasing government spending while in the 37m-50m GDP range may be good because it helps get out of that range asap. Is this way of phrasing it accurate?
It's the other way around, during the 37-50 range you want to calm down on government CONSTRUCTION investment as the return of investment is lower. Instead you invest in tech/military/laws. Once you naturally grow over 50 you press construction again.
You could take that approach, yeah. But if you're taking sub farm GDP it's really not marginally as valuable as the 37m you have, so that's kinda like deleting value.
I hid my kids in the closet but I forgot I had a spreadsheet in the closet too
Immediately Call Child protective Services Anyone. 😂
We could say you stuffed it
from what I'm hearing, it sounds like I should never increase my GDP anymore. Thanks Generalist, I'm just going to pause construction at 37 million GDP :)
This is the way. (Don't do this)
Honestly concerned I super under-emphasized that pumping the breaks a little does not mean stopping in the middle of the intersection so that GB can T-Bone you.
Game so good it simulates the Middle income trap
Child scaring Generalist is my favorite Generalist
I'm a child jumpscare channel masquerading as a gaming channel
Conclusion: Before 37 GDP I want buildings to be profitable and have per capita taxation to make free money. Between 37 and 50 I want government goods to be as cheap as possible to pay as little as possible and switch to proportional taxtation. At 37 GDP I swap my investment from construction to research, laws and conquest, and after 50 it goes back to constuction.
I wonder if it is better to conquest for vassal investment opportunities or get over 50 as fast as possible.
The root of the problem is that there is a boost at all.
I think I liked it more when the threshold was 10m instead, but ngl, after doing a bit of math analysis and making a video I'd also be a little frustrated if they hotfixed it next week lol.
I missed the penalties to IP efficiency with GDP, now we just stay capitalists all the way, lost so much flavor
It's artificial modifiers like this that make me really want Vic3 to have some form of Capital renewal/refurbishment/maintenance/etc.
I think a key part of the problem between early and late game is that the buildings always cost the same. It means that once you build something there's never a need to build (or rebuild) it later, and that what takes a fraction of your late game construction points takes everything early on. Having to Recapitalize your industry to keep up with technology, and making later tech buildings more expensive would be a good thing IMO.
I would love to see some kind of cost to changing PMs so that later technology isn't just a pure bonus, but also comes with a tradeoff in upgrading. Less Developed countries end up being able to use this as an additional catchup mechanic by making use of the second mover advantage.
Something like each PM Level cost more than the previous. You can upgrade the lower to the upper for a discount, but the original building plus refitting costs more than building the building from nothing.
Add onto this some amount of construction points going into maintenance to stabilize construction when new construction is low, and I think it would be much better.
This is a brilliant idea. Go DM Wiz with this one.
I just wish companies could buy privately owned buildings then I wouldn't need to rely on interventionalism so much in the early game if I got company slots
They can, if you are on LF.
At work: spreadsheets about boring things.
At home: youtube spreadsheets about fun fictional things.
So, getting not too small one province nations that already built up their spam invest in you lets you use their boosted investment pools building stuff in you (which later you when annex them its yours again) has its merits? This to get over the wall.
You can just build some extra construction sectors then pause government construction so the investment pool funds 100% of construction to empty it. Floating like 5mil+ is a huge amount of money wasted.
Thanks for this video. I‘m still new to Victoria 3 and I still approach some of the mechanics with my Victoria 2 mindset, which often meant „avoid laissez-faire, if you want to produce what you really need“. This was/is a very helpful tutorial for me. 😊
It explains a lot about my last USA run, I had investment deal with both Brazil and Peru and around 1910 I realized both owned 20% of my gdp each, I had 1 billion GDP and each had a gdp of about 20 million, meaning each owned 10x their gdp in American assets. I was very confused how that happened, well I guess since their GDP was under 37m they were getting much better value by investing in me/ buying all the industry I was building using government money, that advantage compounded.
If you plot the IP contribution (collumn E) vs your current GDP, you can see there are two 'regimes' in this graph; from a GDP of 1 to 20, your investment contribution grows at a slope of ~2.16. Between 20 to 57, it grows by by a slope of ~0.16. So you could see it as a wall, but I see it as a boost for small GDP's to reach an 'effective investmentpool' of ~50 GDP as early as a GDP of 20. Then from 20 GDP to 57 GDP, your Investmentpool stays around this ~50GDP until you are actually past 50 GDP, after which point GDP and 'effective investmentpool' GDP grow together again. Sorry if anything is unclear, I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the technical math terms in English.
Very interesting video. I’ve noticed over a lot of USA games that without a bankroll you will hit huge deficit issues at around this GDP. I always assumed it was mismanagement.
Shame they killed bankruptcy, that was a great answer to this problem
How does this translate in optimal play patterns for countries with large starting gdp-s, in particular BEIC and Qing? Naturally you'll lean onto agrarianism due to inner politics but still, hypothetically which would be the best if you had a choice of economic system?
LF. Always go LF. It’s just more better at low gdp, still better at high gdp
You can get over the hump by integrating the subjects you've been building in. This has a nice side effect of your subjects probably being relatively backwards compared to you, so you'll gain a significant increase in productivity by switching to better PMs. You also get access to any investment pool contribution their local upper class (and government) have, which the AI is notorious for not spending. (which is another reason to integrate: it does no good if the AI has a 2x multiplier to investment if they're not spending it down) However, you lose out on the taxation, sometimes for a very long time depending on culture.
Good stuff👍
It doesn’t- they start past the threshold
Watching this before sleeping made me dream of spreadsheets.
Awesome video. I've noticed the wall in my games, around it I just stop building more construction capacity and start relying more on government investment instead of private. Its nice to see this published on a well articulated video
That being said, I truly dislike how you pronounce laissez-faire
This is a personal gripe with the game, but I find it annoying how industries do not escalate enough with the pacing of the player- You're either have to be China or get a ton of migrants. Conquering usually doesn't work for me. I just want a relaxed playthrough while looking at spreadsheets!
Love the videos.
what? Only if you are a pitifully small country does what you're saying apply; Even then you are not limited to your own country's population anymore now that foreign investment is a thing. Even if you have fully automated your industries and somehow employed every last peasant in your country you can still invest in foreign countries and grow your GDP that way.
@@joelfilho2625you can also just boosr migration to get new workers. It's possible to get millions of pops migrating to a single state annually
Why does this “wall “ even exist, and are there Willie walls at all later down the line
Sorry this is late but as far as I understand it always naturally existed at the start of the game and made playing small nations a slog to start your economy.
Could easily spend 30 years just getting basic construction loop going for them until they broke 10-15M. So they added a multiplier to jump start small economies but falls off the bigger your GDP gets.
Hence why it has diminishing returns and hits a rough patch where it has to equalize out to a flat rate. So effectively they've kicked the problem down the road to make early game not as boring for the majority of nations is the major reason I believe and to give small nations a better chance of not just being irrelevant forever.
Someone could correct me if I'm wrong, not an expert or anything lol.
Thanks for this video!. So, the best would be having governments owned build under LF “IF” it would be possible to not to privatize them in order to get the must investment pool contribution?
Have you at any point talked about or done a breakdown of individual buildings GDP contribution? And the estimated wages based on SOL ect? is that even something that can be calculated or is it too variable in game to really matter? Nice spreadsheet btws
The efficiency of every building PM per construction/worker is in the spreadsheet
Hiding in the cupboard wouldn’t work for me. I'd take my phone with the video with me, meaning I can not prevent myself enjoying such wonderful calculations. I guess part of the reason is that I don’t mind maths and am interested in unnecessary details.
im watching this at 17 But my dad calls me an adult so its ok
Your dad is WRONG
So, if I understood correctly, the range, 37m-50m GDP, is bad because it significantly decreases the investment pool contribution multiplier (negatively at some points, too). And so, increasing government spending while in the 37m-50m GDP range may be good because it helps get out of that range asap.
Is this way of phrasing it accurate?
It's the other way around, during the 37-50 range you want to calm down on government CONSTRUCTION investment as the return of investment is lower. Instead you invest in tech/military/laws. Once you naturally grow over 50 you press construction again.
i m under 38 am i supposed to go into the closet as well ?
So at 38 million GDP you go and conquere so much land that you get over the 57 million wall?
You could take that approach, yeah. But if you're taking sub farm GDP it's really not marginally as valuable as the 37m you have, so that's kinda like deleting value.
So you're saying I should switch to Command Economy at 38 million GDP?
Brilliant !!!
Too technical for me xd
Fair enough - I do try and frontload it a bit w/ the explanation that it's an advanced tutorial/spreadsheets
First
These videos could be 90 seconds
Literally summarize the main points in the first 2 min and say if you want the short version, here it is.