Regarding the devs saying that we play as "soul of nation rather than leadership" to justify players building private industries

[EUnderhill]

You are absolutely correct.

I did mean this in the context of this thread were people are arguing for vicky 2 style LF or interventionism. LF or interventionist style of restrictions would cause the paper shortage in a vicky 3 market system.

If there are indeed no restriction on use of state funds to construct factories, then tapping into the investment pool is not needed. I suspect there will greater restriction on both than has so far been implied.

 

[alexti]

You are absolutely correct.

I did mean this in the context of this thread were people are arguing for vicky 2 style LF or interventionism. LF or interventionist style of restrictions would cause the paper shortage in a vicky 3 market system.

I see, I thought people were still discussing whether the player should control private funds or not.

 

[Hammrtime]

If there are indeed no restriction on use of state funds to construct factories, then tapping into the investment pool is not needed. I suspect there will greater restriction on both than has so far been implied.

Not necessarily. I would prefer to spend my state fund on a navy, infrastructure and education. Having to spend it on the basic resources to run my government or fulfilling prerequisites to building up my army would be something the private sector can do if they had the brains to do it. The only upside is I would reap the profit.

 

[alexti]

"Free Trade" is generally used in an international context, L-F for domestic matters. So it is entirely without contradiction to let the boys play in the home market, but at the same time keep out foreign rivals.

Free trade agreements make countries commit to L-F in domestic economy (well, so called "free trade" agreements usually aren't exactly free trade), but maybe one can have L-F domestically with foreign trade closed? I am not sure, it seems like a subject for the academic debate

 

[alexti]

Not necessarily. I would prefer to spend my state fund on a navy, infrastructure and education. Having to spend it on the basic resources to run my government or fulfilling prerequisites to building up my army would be something the private sector can do if they had the brains to do it. The only upside is I would reap the profit.

Presumably the game play idea (for non-command economies) is that you would steer the private sector to take care of most of the needs and use government funds to address the gaps.

 

[EUnderhill]

Free trade agreements make countries commit to L-F in domestic economy (well, so called "free trade" agreements usually aren't exactly free trade), but maybe one can have L-F domestically with foreign trade closed? I am not sure, it seems like a subject for the academic debate

Free trade can exist without an agreement and be asymmetrical. It just means there is a government committed to raising revenue by means other than a duty charged on imports.

 

[alexti]

Free trade can exist without an agreement and be asymmetrical. It just means there is a government committed to raising revenue by means other than a duty charged on imports.

If the countries can still give subsidies to favor the domestic industries, it's not a free trade, it's just lack of tariffs and quotas.

 

[EUnderhill]

If the countries can still give subsidies to favor the domestic industries, it's not a free trade, it's just lack of tariffs and quotas.

Lack of import/export barriers are what define trade as free. Subsidies are what keep it from being, in the eyes of some, fair.

 

[alexti]

Lack of import/export barriers are what define trade as free. Subsidies are what keep it from being, in the eyes of some, fair.

Not in the modern terms. I am not sure if the term has evolved over the time. Subsidies can obviously be used as effective import barrier. Fair trade has different meaning (see wikipedia, for example).

 

[EUnderhill]

Not in the modern terms. I am not sure if the term has evolved over the time. Subsidies can obviously be used as effective import barrier. Fair trade has different meaning (see wikipedia, for example).

I didn't major in economics THAT long ago.

 

[Hammrtime]

Presumably the game play idea (for non-command economies) is that you would steer the private sector to take care of most of the needs and use government funds to address the gaps.

I will cut to the chase. Sounds boring. To many clicks and sliders to move to get the the capitalist what we can just get them to do with one click. Sounds like three 90 degree left turns that could be done with one 90 degree right turn.

I wouldn't hate requiring incentives were a certain profitability threshold is not met. The cost to subsidize or otherwise make it worth the capitalist's while was presented as a cost up front at the time of building the factory. More direct, less fiddling around.

I get it if you disagree, some folks here want an even more complicated game were playing as "the spirit of the nation" is just not what they had envisioned. They wanted to play as the leader of a nation were more nuanced tools are used to get outcomes. An investment pool they get to build from is just to direct.

So far, the dev team has exceeded my expectations on making the game look fun, accessible, simplified and yet somehow more complicated than vicky 2.

 

[Spartanlemur]

I will cut to the chase. Sounds boring. To many clicks and sliders to move to get the the capitalist what we can just get them to do with one click. Sounds like three 90 degree left turns that could be done with one 90 degree right turn.

Victoria 2 was not boring.

 

[thedarkendstar]

Im gonna be honest building coal mines in Montana as the USA would be really boring I should be managing a nation not engaging in micro economics of state I thought be securing markets and resources engaging in diplomacy keep Europeans from taking away from my markets the occasional war dealing with the civil war

 

[wilcoxchar]

Victoria 2 was not boring.

With anything but state capitalism or planned economy, it kinda was.

 

[thedarkendstar]

With anything but state capitalism or planned economy, it kinda was.

Those two things made it very boring to me managing factories is like negative fun to me

 

[thedarkendstar]

I spent my time trying to secure new spheres of influence to get the inputs I was trading for or resources in high demand colonizing a few wars getting literacy up.

 

[Zalthor]

Victoria 2 was not boring.

You know why LF wasn't as bad as it could have been in Vicky 2? Why some could argue that it was entertaining? The game one of the shortest Paradox Games. Vicky 3 will be three-four times as long.

 

[thedarkendstar]

You know why LF wasn't as bad as it could have been in Vicky 2? Why some could argue that it was entertaining? The game one of the shortest Paradox Games. Vicky 3 will be three-four times as long.

"why some could argue it was entertaining"

Chose your next words carefully sir lest 10 million anarcho liberal rebels rise up!

 

[alexti]

I will cut to the chase. Sounds boring. To many clicks and sliders to move to get the the capitalist what we can just get them to do with one click. Sounds like three 90 degree left turns that could be done with one 90 degree right turn.

How do you know that? They haven't explained how it's going to work yet. Presumably those things will work for the whole economy instead of clicking individually for every construction in every state (although that can also be automated).

 

[thedarkendstar]

I like sliders what if there was a Railroad slider for investment and I could be like I want x amount of money to go into building railroads nation wide so I dont have to click on ever state very good sir.