• 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 #11 - Employment and Qualifications

DD11.png


Happy Thursday and welcome to another deep-dive into the guts of Victoria 3’s economic machinery. This week we will be talking about Pop Professions, specifically how and why Pops change Profession. While this is an automatic process, the mechanics of it is still crucial knowledge to keep in the back of your head when building your society. Perhaps you want to ensure the population in one of your states are able to take on Machinist jobs before embarking on a rapid industrialization project there, or perhaps you want to ensure you don’t accidentally enable too much social mobility in a country already prone to uprisings against their true and lawful King.

First, a quick recap. In the Pops dev diary we learned that all Pops have a Profession, which determines their social strata and influences a number of things like wages, political strength, and Interest Group affiliations. In the Buildings dev diary we learned that buildings need Pops of specific Professions to work there in order for them to produce their intended effects on the economy and society. Finally, in the Production Methods dev diary we learned that different Production Methods change the number of Profession positions available in a building. So how do Pops get assigned to these spots?

Our approach here differs a bit from previous games. Victoria 1 and 2 has the concept of a “Pop Type”, a fundamental property of Pops in those games that defines most aspects of their existence - what function they perform in society, what goods they need to survive vs. what goods they desire, what ideologies they espouse, etcetera. Pops in Victoria 2 autonomously change into other types over time depending on their finances and the various needs and aspects of the country. Providing access to luxury goods in your country permits Pops to promote more easily. Generally speaking, higher-tier Pops will provide better bonuses for your country as different Pop Types perform different functions. By manufacturing or importing special goods and educating your population you would turn your simple, backwards Pops into advanced, progressive types in ideal ratios, which maximizes these bonuses to increase your competitive advantage.

Pop Types from Victoria 2: Aristocrats, Artisans, Bureaucrats, Capitalists, Clergymen, Clerks, Craftsmen, Farmers, Laborers, Officers, Slaves, and Soldiers.
poptypes-v2.png

Victoria 3 Pops instead have Professions. These are in some ways similar to “Pop Type”, but the ideal ratios and economic functions of those Professions differ based on the building they’re employed in and the Production Methods activated. The fundamental difference between these two approaches become clear when considering the Bureaucrat Pop Type/Profession in Victoria 2 and 3. In both games, Bureaucrats increase a country’s administrative ability. But in Victoria 2 Pops promote into Bureaucrats independently in relation to the amount of administrative spending the player sets, while in Victoria 3 Pops will only become Bureaucrats if there are available Bureaucrat jobs in Government buildings, usually as a result of the player actively expanding Government Administrations.

Professions in Victoria 3: Academics, Aristocrats, Bureaucrats, Capitalists, Clergymen (temporary icon; will be changed to be more universally applicable), Clerks, Engineers, Farmers, Laborers, Machinists, Officers, Peasants, Servicemen, Shopkeepers, and Slaves.
professions-v3.png

The latter approach gives the player more control over where these job opportunities are created, and combined with Production Methods cause demographic shifts to have stronger, more localized effects that are easier to predict and understand. It’s also more flexible, permitting the same Profession to cause different effects in different Buildings given different Production Methods. So in Victoria 3 higher-paid Pops don’t by their very nature perform a more valuable societal function than lower-paid Pops - rather, each acts as a crucial part of a Production Method’s ‘recipe’. Each of these roles require the others to be effective - without enough Laborers to shovel coal the engines the Machinists maintain stay dormant, and without seamstresses to work the sewing machines the Shopkeepers don’t have any clothes to sell.

Buildings adjust their wages over time in order to achieve full employment with minimal wage costs. As employment increases, so does the Throughput - the degree by which the building consumes input goods and produces output goods. By the laws of supply and demand, this makes a building less profitable per capita the closer to full employment it gets, so at first blush it might appear irrational for a building to pay more wages just to reduce their margins. But since a “building” does not represent a single factory but rather a whole industrial sector across a large area, and we assume the individual businesses in that sector compete with each other rather than engage in cartel behavior to extort consumers, this adjustment of wages to maximize employment makes sense. However, buildings won’t increase wages due to labor competition if this would cause them to go into deficit, so there’s little point to expanding industries beyond the point where they’re profitable.

Employees are hired into available jobs from the pool of Pops that already exist in the state, but unless they’re unemployed these Pops will already have a job somewhere doing something else. Pops can be hired under two conditions: first, they must be offered a measurably higher wage than the wage they’re currently getting from their current employment. Second, unless they already work as the required Profession in another building, they must also meet the Qualifications of that Profession to change into it.

These Steel Mills don’t pay as well as the Arms Industries, but they do seem to offer better terms than the Textile Mills and resource industries in the same state - with the notable exception of Fishing Wharves, who also need Machinists to service their trawlers.
steel-mills-hiring.PNG

Wages are set by individual buildings in response to market conditions. A building that is losing money will decrease wages until it’s back in the black. A building that has open jobs it can’t seem to fill will raise wages until it either fills the necessary positions or runs out of excess profits. As a result, different buildings in the same state will compete for the available workforce. What this means in practice is that a large population with the necessary Qualifications to perform all the jobs being created in the state will keep wages depressed and profits high. Only when industries are large or advanced enough that they need to compete with each other for a limited pool of qualified workers are wages forced to rise. This rise in wages also comes with increased consumption, which increases demand for goods and services that some of the same buildings may profit from in the end.

A Pop’s Qualifications measure how many of its workforce qualify for certain Professions, and updates monthly depending on how well their current properties match up to the expectations of the Profession in question. For example, at least a basic education level is required to become a Machinist while a much higher one is required to become an Engineer. Conversely, the ability to become an Aristocrat is less about education and more about social class and wealth. Buildings won’t hire Pops who don’t meet the Qualifications for the Profession in question.

These 981 Machinists qualify to become Engineers at a rate of 4.08 per month. Their Literacy is nothing to write home about but they at least meet the cut-off of 20%, aren’t starving to death, and benefit substantially from already working in an adjacent field. All factors and numbers are work-in-progress.
machinist-quals.PNG

If some Paper Mills required more Engineers and this Pop was being considered, only the amount of qualified Engineers they’ve accumulated so far could be hired. Currently that is only 85 (not shown). If those 85 were all hired, this Pop would then end up with only 896 members left in the workforce of which 0 now qualify to become Engineers. Since all recently hired Engineers used to be Machinists, all 85 retain their Machinist Qualifications. Furthermore, if 512 members of this Pop qualified to be Farmers before the hire (52%), of the 85 of them who were newly promoted to Engineers, 44 of these new Engineers are also qualified to become Farmers.

To be considered for a “job” as Aristocrat a Pop must have at least moderate Wealth, and the more Wealth they have the faster they will develop this potential. Unlike many other jobs Literacy is not a requirement for being accepted into the aristocracy, but an education does make it easier. Bureaucrats and Officers have an easier time becoming Aristocrats than other members of society, while Pops who suffer discrimination on account of their culture have a much harder time. Finally, if a Pop does not meet the minimum Wealth requirement, they actually devolve any prior potential for becoming Aristocrats. This means that down-and-out former nobles robbed of their land and forced to go unemployed or (perish the thought) become a wage laborer will - over time - lose their ability to return to their former social class. All factors and numbers are work-in-progress.
officers-quals.PNG

Like all Pop attributes, Qualifications follow the Pops as they split, merge, move between buildings, migrate, and die. If you had previously developed a lot of potential Bureaucrats in your country but ran into budgetary problems and had to shut down your schools, over time those Pops who have already developed the Qualifications to become Bureaucrats will die off and not be replaced by newly educated ones. If your Capitalists in a given state had been underpaying their local discriminated employees to the degree that nobody gained the Qualifications to take over for them, and then some of those Capitalists move away to operate a newly opened Iron Mine in the next state over, rather than promoting some of the local discriminated Laborers to the newly opened jobs they will simply leave the spots open (and the mines underproducing) until some qualified Capitalists move in from elsewhere to take over.

Qualifications are entirely moddable by simply providing the computational factors that should go into determining how the value develops each month. If you want to make a mod to split up the Clergymen Profession into individual variants for each Religion in the game, you could make the Imam Profession dependent on the Pop being Sunni or Shi’ite. If you wanted Aristocrat Qualification development to be highly dependent on the amount of unproductive Arable Land in the state the Pop lives in, you could do that. An event option or Decision that makes it faster and easier to educate Engineers but harder to educate Officers for the next 10 years? Absolutely.

A breakdown of all Pops in Lower Egypt that qualify to become Engineers. Of course, any openings will be offered to existing Engineers first, and not all of the remaining qualified Pops would actually be interested in the job - though if it was lucrative enough, perhaps some Aristocrats on a failing Subsistence Farm would consider a career change.
potential-engineers.PNG

The intent of Qualifications is to signal to a player what capacity for employment they have available among any subset of their population. They cannot, for example, conquer a state filled with under-educated people they also legally discriminate against and expect to immediately build up a cutting-edge manufacturing- and trade center there. These efforts will be throttled by their inability to employ the locals into highly qualified positions, meaning they have to wait for members of their already qualified workforce to migrate there from the old country to take on any high-status positions created for them. But by building out their education system, paying Bureaucracy to extend their administrative reach to the new state through incorporation, and changing their Laws to extend citizenship to these new residents, they can start to build this capacity also in the locals.

In summary, Qualifications is the mechanism by which access to education and your stance on discrimination - in addition to many other factors - impact your ability to expand different parts of your society. It is also the mechanism that sorts Pops logically into the economic (and thereby political) niches you carve out as you expand, ensuring your laws and economic conditions inform the social mobility of Pops based on who they are. It’s quite subtle, and you might not even notice it’s there - until you run into the challenges caused by rapid industrialization, mass migration, conquests, colonization, and other drastic population shifts.

That is all for this week! Next Thursday we will finally get into how all this economic activity translates into revenue streams for you, when Martin presents the mechanics governing the Treasury and national debt.
 
  • 218Like
  • 137Love
  • 19
  • 12
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Also, I think your dichotomy there is too simplistic. An artisan who is dependent on the import of cheap raw materials would oppose tariffs on them. I’ve cited it an example before, but American textile producers in New England were opposed to the Tariff of 1828 specifically because it taxed wool and hemp imports for the first time, even though they supported the increase of rates on British goods.
here you are right. usually there will be always an spectrum of differences between the actors modelled.

Still artisans in victoria2 (2010 pre-patch) made a lot more sense. they used the cheaper local goods to produce goods to sell (regular clothes, furniture) they opposed low tariffs by definition but they could support them if the actual policiy was protectionism and the artisan pops had their life-goods and everyday-goods in low numbers. they started a promotion towards craftsmen/capitalist once the industries arrived in the country/region and in 1900 the number of artisans was really low.

After the first patch the production of artisans was changed to be random, and now we have to micromanage the production methods. But what is missing is the big impact artisans had in the Victorian society. they were politically active, and many of them become later capitalists. Now in victoria 3 artisans are gone.

Conversely, a shopkeeper whose livelihood is mainly selling locally produced goods probably doesn't really care about tariffs, and certainly doesn't have the reason to oppose them that a rich big-city importer does. If I'm a clothier selling goods from the factory down the street vs. the latest Parisian fashions I probably have different views on the importance of free trade.

It can be the case in a region with 20% of infraestructure, but the impact of cheaper foreigner goods was always noticeable.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
In the 19th century, different countries and different social forms will have different occupations. For example, there are obvious differences between eastern and Western countries. Can this difference be reflected in Vic3?
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
They've mentioned some modified IGs in the past, e.g., Plantation Owners for the US instead of generic Landowners. I'm not sure if these actually have different rules (political views, membership, etc.) or if the differences are just cosmetic.
These are cosmetic, essentially. The Plantation Owners is a re-named Landowners (Not to say they do not have different values, say, compared to the Junkers, the Prussian Landowners, but they are derived from the same base template of "Landowners") IG for America. My question is whether or not there can be actual different Interest Groups per nation (i.e. IGs unique to one country). I do not believe so, seeing what has been shown.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
If a potentially qualified pop promotes to a profession requiring a higher literacy or wealth, does this lower the literacy rate of the pop they originated from?
 
My only gripe is that these symbols are not very readable, especially in tooltips. Granted, it's hard to invent a fast-to-discern scheme for fifteen different pop types but consider:
  • using brighter colors (Academics, Bureaucrats, Capitalists, Machinists and Servicemen have the same darkish colour scheme, making these particularly poor eye-catchers)
  • using more distinct colors (the same brass+blue scheme is used for Aristocrats, Clerks and Shopkeepers, though the latter is sufficiently distinct by its shape)
  • replacing either Clerk or Aristocrat icon altogether, they're too similar to the point where the similarity looks intentional and communicates a relationship between the two
In general the icons are pretty but please try to bear in mind their readability. I hope you appreciate the feedback.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
In the 19th century, different countries and different social forms will have different occupations. For example, there are obvious differences between eastern and Western countries. Can this difference be reflected in Vic3?

Can you give me some examples of important "Eastern" professions which can´t be represented via this system?
 
  • 5
Reactions:
in victoria 3 artisans has been removed without justification.

which immediately removes all the civil wars provoked by the tariffs.

I don't see anything good about it.
Isn't the tariffs provoking civil war more related to industrial protectionism vs those who benefit more from heavy imports. Like with USA how the slavestates imported everything while the north wanted tariffs to build up a more robust and diverse local production?

I'm guessing you are talking about Vic2 balancing? Wouldn't these cases be present in Vic3 if you had artisan set industries that relied on them importing their goods? So whatever interest group that dominates those would get pissy about tariffs?

Worth saying I'm not talking from authority here and I'm curious on how it works also but my impression is that Vic3 isn't losing anything but just chosing to represent the same thing in a different way.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
What this means in practice is that a large population with the necessary Qualifications to perform all the jobs being created in the state will keep wages depressed and profits high.​
So if I understand this correctly, let's have a look at this example:

There are two job opportunities in a state, both competing for the same workers. Let's say, they each want 100 and there are 100 in total in the state. One is slightly more profitable than the other. Over time, if nothing else changes, we will see an equilibrium in which the more profitable workplace ("1") is filled to 100% (taking in all available workers) and the other ("2") has 0?

Now what happened is that 1 increased its wages to compete against 2 and because 1 is more profitable, it could do so longer than 2, winning the race. However, 1 still diminished its profitability because of the high wages. My question is: Will the now empty 2 keep pushing up wages for 1, until it is demolished?

Or do I have an error in my example and, e.g. the split between 1 and 2 is more continuous, like 80%/20%, depending on the profitability-advantage, because it is reduced when having higher employment rate?

And in any case, we effectively see a distribution of wealth to the limiting factor of production (in this case: labor)? If there were more wokers than jobs, we'd see the profiuts go to the jop opportunity owners? If so, are the owners' wages paid before the job opportunity balance is made or will they effectively work for free to fill their jobs (given that "being in black" is the hard cut-off)?
 
Isn't the tariffs provoking civil war more related to industrial protectionism vs those who benefit more from heavy imports. Like with USA how the slavestates imported everything while the north wanted tariffs to build up a more robust and diverse local production?

I'm guessing you are talking about Vic2 balancing? Wouldn't these cases be present in Vic3 if you had artisan set industries that relied on them importing their goods? So whatever interest group that dominates those would get pissy about tariffs?

Worth saying I'm not talking from authority here and I'm curious on how it works also but my impression is that Vic3 isn't losing anything but just chosing to represent the same thing in a different way.

I would bet that paradox will simplify the ACW in a conflict just about the slavery. They are actively removing tariffs, their impact and the pops (artisans) which historically saw the tariffs as an important issue.

Mercantilism is now a policy/law which brings some bonus, but zero interaction with the pops. the player can't adjust the tariffs because the mechanic has been removed, not even reworked.

Interest groups are not a satisfactory option. they have no sense in this context. there is only ONE issue which is freetrade/protectionism. these kinds of pops must not care about religion, or the monarchy. And now we will have a lot of shopkeepers pro free-trade and zero protectionist artisans. it kinda makes sense now that the slider is just a plain % bonus.

I would like to be wrong, but the design decision seems pretty clear about the removal of tariffs as a mechanic and their impact in the local industrialisation.

As I said before, this war is now impossible to model with the new restrictions. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_civil_colombiana_de_1854
 
  • 8
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
So if I understand this correctly, let's have a look at this example:

There are two job opportunities in a state, both competing for the same workers. Let's say, they each want 100 and there are 100 in total in the state. One is slightly more profitable than the other. Over time, if nothing else changes, we will see an equilibrium in which the more profitable workplace ("1") is filled to 100% (taking in all available workers) and the other ("2") has 0?

Now what happened is that 1 increased its wages to compete against 2 and because 1 is more profitable, it could do so longer than 2, winning the race. However, 1 still diminished its profitability because of the high wages. My question is: Will the now empty 2 keep pushing up wages for 1, until it is demolished?

Or do I have an error in my example and, e.g. the split between 1 and 2 is more continuous, like 80%/20%, depending on the profitability-advantage, because it is reduced when having higher employment rate?

And in any case, we effectively see a distribution of wealth to the limiting factor of production (in this case: labor)? If there were more wokers than jobs, we'd see the profiuts go to the jop opportunity owners? If so, are the owners' wages paid before the job opportunity balance is made or will they effectively work for free to fill their jobs (given that "being in black" is the hard cut-off)?

So from my reading of the Dev diaries so far.

Business 1 & 2 both need Engineers but there aren't enough

The wages are roughly similar - nobody switches but new hires go to the highest paying (there is a friction to switching job - the pay increase needs to be notable)
Prices change and B2 starts offering a larger wage - thus engineers leave B1 and move to B2.
Therefore B1 starts producing less & B2 produces more (production is limited by employees)
Since supply has now changed B1 becomes more profitable (less supply, same demand = higher prices) & B2 becomes less profitable (more supply = lower price).
B1 now pays better wages & B2 pays worse wages so the engineers stop shifting jobs and stay where they are.

Thus it should either balance in equilibrium, or if B2 is now so profitable B1 can't compete at any price then B1 will either go bankrupt or the player will have to switch it to a different production method (or increase education in the area to get more engineers, or allow immigration, or allow other cultures the chance to promote, etc.)

[as to your question about an empty B1 - that will produce nothing (production is limited by employees) and thus wont artificially raise the prices for B2 ]


As the balance between B1 & B2 shift the capitalists (that also work at each business) will follow the engineers and shift jobs to B2. Since the capitalists get the largest portion of the wages they will do well at B2 and might balance out at B1. If the capitalists at B1 end up being really badly paid they might 'promote' to becoming engineers at B2 instead.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
The pop people would be even more illegible in tooltip form. The problem is just that when you squeeze icons into such a small size they need to be simpler and have higher contrast.

Hmmm, I guess. It's probably for the best, but I don't like change lol
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
So from my reading of the Dev diaries so far.

Business 1 & 2 both need Engineers but there aren't enough

The wages are roughly similar - nobody switches but new hires go to the highest paying (there is a friction to switching job - the pay increase needs to be notable)
Prices change and B2 starts offering a larger wage - thus engineers leave B1 and move to B2.
Therefore B1 starts producing less & B2 produces more (production is limited by employees)
Since supply has now changed B1 becomes more profitable (less supply, same demand = higher prices) & B2 becomes less profitable (more supply = lower price).
B1 now pays better wages & B2 pays worse wages so the engineers stop shifting jobs and stay where they are.

Thus it should either balance in equilibrium, or if B2 is now so profitable B1 can't compete at any price then B1 will either go bankrupt or the player will have to switch it to a different production method (or increase education in the area to get more engineers, or allow immigration, or allow other cultures the chance to promote, etc.)

[as to your question about an empty B1 - that will produce nothing (production is limited by employees) and thus wont artificially raise the prices for B2 ]


As the balance between B1 & B2 shift the capitalists (that also work at each business) will follow the engineers and shift jobs to B2. Since the capitalists get the largest portion of the wages they will do well at B2 and might balance out at B1. If the capitalists at B1 end up being really badly paid they might 'promote' to becoming engineers at B2 instead.
Thanks, I guess this is close to what I also could imagine from the information I understood.

And in this case, when B1 starts to pay better wages, and engineer drift stops, this wage level will persist, unless new engineers become available. What I am unsure about is, that an empty B1 would not induce upward (or better: stabilizing) pressure on the wages as it would - I think - create a floor level: When wages in B2 drop below a certain point, engineers will move to B1. So B2 can't lower wages without losing engineers. Which it doesn't want to if it is still marginally profitable.

So in the end, B2 does not maximaze total profits, and I guess this is what puzzles me. IF I understood correctly. But maybe the terminology was not clear to me and increased production should always also increase the total profit but just reduce the marginal profits? Depends on the market environment and the price sensitivity but I think it can be assumed to be this way?

I mean, from a socio-economic perspectiove, it is good to maximize social welfare by employing as many people as possible. But that's a macro-optimisation, not a micro-optimisation. The latter is how capitalism works, especially an unregulated one (which we may assume?). Thus the optimisation rule does not seem immediately evident to me. Not saying there can't be good reasons to implement it this way, though.
 
in victoria 3 artisans has been removed without justification.

which immediately removes all the civil wars provoked by the tariffs.

I don't see anything good about it.

Civil wars provoked by tariffs didnt exist in VIC2 either so nothing has been lost
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So in Victoria 3 higher-paid Pops don’t by their very nature perform a more valuable societal function than lower-paid Pops - rather, each acts as a crucial part of a Production Method’s ‘recipe’. Each of these roles require the others to be effective - without enough Laborers to shovel coal the engines the Machinists maintain stay dormant, and without seamstresses to work the sewing machines the Shopkeepers don’t have any clothes to sell.

Bravo!

But since a “building” does not represent a single factory but rather a whole industrial sector across a large area, and we assume the individual businesses in that sector compete with each other rather than engage in cartel behavior to extort consumers, this adjustment of wages to maximize employment makes sense. However, buildings won’t increase wages due to labor competition if this would cause them to go into deficit, so there’s little point to expanding industries beyond the point where they’re profitable.

Strategic reasons may warrant the expansion of industries beyond the point they are profitable. I understand this is covered with subsidies.

What about competition between buildings of different states? As other users have asked, what would be the labour mobility? If a building increases wages in one state, other states with qualified POPs may be inclined to move to have a better job. How does this mobility/migration work intra and inter nation? I believe you will have a whole DD explaining migration.

Only when industries are large or advanced enough that they need to compete with each other for a limited pool of qualified workers are wages forced to rise. This rise in wages also comes with increased consumption, which increases demand for goods and services that some of the same buildings may profit from in the end.

In this case, would it be possible that buildings paying lower wages run out of workforce earlier? If the player allows for higher POP qualifications, buildings that do not require qualifications may be out of POPs. Migration absent, will the output from these Buildings be imported? If the player wants to have an auto sufficient economy, how does the player keep the POPs qualification strata? Only by discrimination or can the player set up Decisions to manage the percentage of professions in your nation?

A breakdown of all Pops in Lower Egypt that qualify to become Engineers. Of course, any openings will be offered to existing Engineers first, and not all of the remaining qualified Pops would actually be interested in the job - though if it was lucrative enough, perhaps some Aristocrats on a failing Subsistence Farm would consider a career change.

With migration an Aristocrat should not ever consider a job in a subsistence farm as other POPs better 'qualified' would move to fill in the job for less salary.
EDITED: if the Aristocrat is the owner of the subsistance farm, would changing jobs mean a transfer of wealth to another Aristocrat by selling the land? I am curious with the next DD about land and how it was taxed.
the challenges caused by rapid industrialization, mass migration, conquests, colonization, and other drastic population shifts.

Very eager to know about them!

Great question! Currently there's no direct impact from the Command Economy Law on Qualifications or how Pops are preferentially sorted when hiring them. Qualifications is best thought of as a mishmash of "could this Pop literally carry out this particular Profession, given their current attributes" and "would other Pops in the country actually hire this Pop for this Profession, given their current attributes". The first part of that equation doesn't really change under Command Economy or cooperative forms of economic organization - you absolutely need a certain level of education to become an Academic or Engineer, and the greater the number of people who know how to read and write the greater the chance one of them will have the talents and tendencies to perform those jobs well. As for the second part... I'm not sure it'd make a difference, either! People tend to be, well, people, regardless of economic system, and people have biases about who they think would be a credible farmboy or clerk or military officer. So it's entirely possible Laws like those will end up making a difference to Qualification calculations before Victoria 3 is released, these numbers and factors aren't final, but even if so it probably won't make a huge impact.

What does change the equations quite a bit is more egalitarian access to the factors that produce Qualifications. In a liberal and non-discriminatory society, with a public school system and low wealth disparity, Pops will accumulate Qualifications a lot more equally on account of having more similar properties than in a discriminatory and stratified society.

However Qualifications are affected by wealth. In Command Economies you may not have different wages for jobs, how will POPs distribute to each Building? That is the main point of a Command Economy, the State decides where the workforce works. The education is free for every POP, with POPs accumulating Qualifications like in a non-discriminatory society. However, a Command Economy, not liberal, will decide where POPs work based on State Priorities. I understand this is not possible with the actual system.

That's not going to be modelled systemically at least, because it's no fun as a player to lay the tracks and build the infrastructure for a new Steel Mill and have the existing Steel Mill owners decide that production won't be increased because that might lead to them becoming individually less wealthy.

I believe is fun to have antagonists inside your nation. Interest Groups leaders (plural) should represent the type of tycoons that threaten the player power. I would like to see them in the game as 'Characters'. Characters may represent the maximum exponents of the Interest Groups and could have many interesting interactions with the player. Now, it seems the leaders for interest groups may be only a portrait and are not rooted in Buildings or States in the game. I hope we can have a DD about leaders and you expand on their role and interaction with the game.

Thank you for reading!
 
Last edited:
it helps to think of a building as an industrial sector, not a single factory
You've said this several times now. Wouldn't it make more sense to just rename "buildings" to "industrial sectors" or just "industries"?
 
  • 11
Reactions: