Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #71 - Autonomous Investment in 1.2

[johnty5]

Fortunately it seems that the devs have thoroughly considered how to fit these mechanics into the broader framework of the game.

I really hope that's true. What gives you that impression?

 

[agaabrieel]

I don't think this change is aimed solely at adressing the thematic dissonance between economic laws and actual gameplay: it introduces a new gameplay dynamic entirely, that being the conflict of economic interests between the 'landgeist, the eternal spirit of the nation' and groups of interest within said nation, which was a major part of the XIX century political history. I see this as an absolutely positive change.

 

[BrotherJonathan]

I really hope that's true. What gives you that impression?

It looks like they actually considered how to balance this properly instead of just adding an auto-build button or making it so laissez-faire can't manually construct buildings anymore and leaving it at that.

 

[johnty5]

It looks like they actually considered how to balance this properly instead of just adding an auto-build button or making it so laissez-faire can't manually construct buildings anymore and leaving it at that.

Fair point. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, but I can't shake the worry that it's simply a reaction to all the "I'm playing as the state and the state doesn't build everything under laissez-faire" thematic complaints.

 

[WARenie]

Yep. Hoping this change is a step towards 1, 2, 4 & 5 - and not simply a response to the widespread complaints about the thematic dissonance which I assume is what's being alluded to in 3. My albeit anecdotal impression is that complaints about (3) have dominated discussion about this on the forums and yet would be the worst reason for this change.

So called "thematic dissonance" is simply encompassing all other points into a single one. It's been discussed in countless threads that

"I, the ineffable landgeist of my nation, tell my capitalists exactly what industries to invest in"

is inherently acting against points 1, 2, 4, 5. Response to this "thematic dissonance" or whatever you call it is a step toward all other points as well.

 

[johnty5]

So called "thematic dissonance" is simply encompassing all other points into a single one. It's been discussed in countless threads that

Nope. Complaints about thematic dissonance are distinct and separate complaints from wanting 1, 2, 4 & 5. You can see it in every thread about this. There's a large section for whom "I believe I'm playing as the state and the state shouldn't build the majority of buildings under a laissez-faire government" is their sole concern. That's why those threads always turn into arguments about whether the player is playing as the state or as a "spirit of the nation" - because the thematic dissonance is about who the player imagines themselves as in game.

I'm not disputing that there are people who want the change because they believe it will make mechanics and gameplay more interesting and challenging. But there's another group - in my reading of the forums, the larger group - for whom this is entirely or mainly about thematic dissonance.

 

[WARenie]

Nope. Complaints about thematic dissonance are distinct and separate complaints from wanting 1, 2, 4 & 5. You can see it in every thread about this. There's a large section for whom "I believe I'm playing as the state and the state shouldn't build the majority of buildings under a laissez-faire government" is their sole concern. That's why those threads always turn into arguments about whether the player is playing as the state or as a "spirit of the nation" - because the thematic dissonance is about who the player imagines themselves as in game.

I'm not disputing that there are people who want the change because they believe it will make mechanics and gameplay more interesting and challenging. But there's another group - in my reading of the forums, the larger group - for whom this is entirely or mainly about thematic dissonance.

They are not distinct and this separate larger group does not exist. If some person has a concern "I believe I'm playing at the state and the state shouldn't build the majority of buildings under a laissez-faire government," this person has his own reasons why he cares so much about it. This ad hoc "thematic dissonance" simply does not exist in isolation to these reasons.

 

[camerons101]

The auto building in Victoria 2 was beyond atrocious. Now you want to make it worse by allowing it to disrupt your actual building queue assuming your GDP is high enough you're gaining millions a week... Unless the actual purpose is to gimp players who use this rule to keep them in line with the AI I can't fathom why anyone would be excited. Queueing up hundreds of buildings is extremely easy and not time consuming if you use the shift key when you have a large economy.

 

[MatthewP]

Tbh, I'm pretty worried about this. Splitting one of the main core-loop actions of the game (building things) between the player and the AI feels like it's going to be pretty janky.

The dev diary doesn't really explain what the gameplay reason for the change is - which makes me more worried that it's a change brought on by pressure from some sections of the community rather than a change designed to improve gameplay.

Hopefully it's about reducing the time spent building stuff - creating space to be filled by other systems that are in development. Fingers crossed.

Yeah, I share the concern. It would be nice if the devs had said something like "We want the economic gameplay to shift from building an economy directly to reacting to and managing an organic economy; we think from testing that the experience of setting up conditions to indirectly push the AI into good choices is going to be an equally or more engaging gameplay loop without the scaling issues that plague the current one."

I also haven't seen anything to this effect. But I have my fingers crossed that they're thinking about it.

 

[Fawr]

Something that is worth noting here is that the AI for this only has to consider which buildings make sense to build for profit and supplying needed goods for the market, which it actually has pretty solid tools for doing. Many of the issues that result in poor AI economic performance is actually things like the AI razing their ports or ending up in too many civil wars. With that said, we are also making a general concerted effort to improve the AI across the board in 1.2, including building selections.

At least if it uses the same profit numbers you show players it seems to ignore throughput bonuses and assume that the current PM you are using is the one the new building will use (problematic when you have 0 buildings and are using the earliest set of PMs).

 

[Fawr]

@Wizzington Might it be possible to bias AI calculations on where to invest to expand the logic from capitalist/aristocratic industries to do some version of prioritising investments in incorporated states/national-culture homeland states/national-culture majority states/states which have cultures represented in the cultures of the investment pool to help create more disparity between primary and non-primary ethnic/cultural groups and stop colonies becoming as rich as the metropole?

There is a thread going on now about how to make a colony poorer than the metropole - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/colonial-exploitation-is-it-exploitation.1566331/.

The biggest issue seems to be that the colony is tax free in the current game. That makes all pops in colonies much richer than pops in the metropole given similar jobs and income. Even discriminated pops with lower income still end up with higher SoL due to the tax advantage. I proposed taxing PoPs in colonies (even if most/all of it disappears rather than going to the government coffers).

 

[Veselyp]

At the moment there is no private construction industries, it's something we're looking into but it's fairly tricky to implement (would likely require turning construction into an actual good and subjecting it to market forces, which is a *major* revamp with severe implications) and so isn't coming for 1.2 at least.

Yes in both cases, if there's unused capacity on one type the other gets to use it.

This needs to be a thing. Construction is an actual good!