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

[Lordof]

That's a cope out argument.

The thing is no matter what you called it, it will end up with one thing: Absolute command planned economy.

There is inherently huge difference between Privatization which the government either left unregulated or controlled through regulation with economy that is developed with plans ahead by certain authority (call it the government, the soul of the nation, whatever), or a planned economy.

If you allow players to build private industry, then it is a planned economy, even if you slap "private" on it. In a game that focuses so much on economical aspect, having every economy essentially a planned economy without the existence of free market or a free flowing industry development based on supply and demand is absurd. It changes every facet of economy, not only nationally, but globalwide, imagine the ramifications of multiplayer games with many numbers of player controlled economy in what was supposed to be a free market, it will shape the world's economy quite differently than in real life, and thus affect many other things like war, politics, and diplomacy. If you think that world economy won't be different or be affected if say in the 1800's it doesn't matter whether every countries in the world implements planned economy or laissez faire, then why even say that economy is the main focus of the game?

You as a player can literally force capitalist to build thing that will enrich the country but will make the capitalist suffer without profit (or minimal gains), and then call it "Laissez Faire" even though it is just another planned economy system.

Every democratic laissez faire country in Victoria 3 basically implements "Communism with American characteristics" under this gameplay mechanic. And this is coming from a big socialist, I just dislike that the game basically removes the major and important aspect which is that Capitalists' main interest is always always, to increase capital and profits for individual benefits rather than the state, and yet what we have now is Capitalist basically cooperating to give their money in a shared pool out of the kindness of their heart due to patriotism and nationalism for the betterment of the state and its people without regards of personal profit for themselves, all because they are driven in their hearts by the soul of the nation.

 

[Juanvito]

We still don't know if it works like this, but if it does it is a big thumbs down. An economic simulation that does not produce investment decision would be a great step backwards from Vicky 2, and the differences between capitalism, communism, and market socialism would only be cosmetic.

Reminds me of Tropico, where you could have a "free market" economy where the player decides what is built, how many workers are hired and what are their wages.

 

[nemuri_no_kogoro]

"Communism with American characteristics" is a great summation of the issue.

I really like what we've seen so far, but the only think I'm worried about is that Paradox is making the gameplay experience on a worldwide level too uniform. Ideally, democratic capitalist, democratic communist, autocratic capitalist, and autocratic communist countries should play distinct from one another on the political-economic axis, but the way they're implementing the investment pool as well as the pure focus on interest groups (and the current lack of parties) makes me worried that these very different kinds of societies will end up playing the same.

 

[Vernichtere]

The capitalists do not throw the money into the common pool out of kindness of their hearts. The profits go to the capitalists.

Even before that, capitalism was only simulated in a very abstract way. The capitalist was unable to expand and take over entire industries. What would freedom mean in practice? You would have a capitalist without his own factory, he would then build a factory according to certain parameters and that was it. From then on, the factory will be defended and maybe closed at some point in order to reopen a factory. It always stays with one factory. I don't know if it's more realistic than the shared pool. Nor can one interact with these specific Kpaitalists. In terms of playing technology, however, it has massive disadvantages in terms of implementation for the AI and performance.

 

[Lordof]

The capitalists do not throw the money into the common pool out of kindness of their hearts. The profits go to the capitalists.

Even before that, capitalism was only simulated in a very abstract way. The capitalist was unable to expand and take over entire industries. What would freedom mean in practice? You would have a capitalist without his own factory, he would then build a factory according to certain parameters and that was it. From then on, the factory will be defended and maybe closed at some point in order to reopen a factory. It always stays with one factory. I don't know if it's more realistic than the shared pool. Nor can one interact with these specific Kpaitalists. In terms of playing technology, however, it has massive disadvantages in terms of implementation for the AI and performance.

Again even though the profits will go to Capitalist regardless whether it's minimal gains, or even no profits and only benefits the people and the state more, they will just let you build whatever you want with their money. In reality Capitalist will build industries sector that doesn't necessarily help the people or the state but will give them maximum amount of profits, and under this gameplay mechanic you can ignore that completely and align their decisions to yours. And the only reason the Capitalists are willing to do this is out of their kindness of their heart, because there's no answer for this.

Look at Germany pre-world war2 with its massive privatization efforts, the government has many times tried to pressure several companies to invest more in sector that those corporations are unwilling to invest (such as armaments and synthetic rubber) and they refused because the companies believed that the long term profitability isn't enough for them to invest in those sector, due to fear of an end to the armament boom.

Under this investment pool mechanic from what we know so far, capitalists will happily go build whatever your country needs and take the loss of profit agaisnt their own interest because "the soul of the nation" guides them.

It's a planned economy, there's no other argument. Anyone saying that this is in any form a Laissez Faire is absurd and concerning.

 

[Buttons12345]

If we play as the soul of the nation why are there rebellions?

 

[Vernichtere]

Again even though the profits will go to Capitalist regardless whether it's minimal gains, or even no profits and only benefits the people and the state more, they will just let you build whatever you want with their money. In reality Capitalist will build industries sector that doesn't necessarily help the peopl or the state but will give them maximum amount of profits, and under this gameplay mechanic you can ignore that completely. And the only reason the Capitalists are willing to do this is out of their kindness of their heart, because there's no answer for this.

Look at Germany pre-world war2 with its massive privatization efforts, the government has many times tried to pressure several companies to invest more in sector that those corporations are unwilling to invest (such as armaments and synthetic rubber) and they refused because the companies believed that the long term profitability isn't enough for them to invest in those sector, due to fear of an end to the armament boom.

Under this investment pool mechanic from what we know so far, capitalists will happily go build whatever your country needs and take the loss of profit agaisnt their own interest because "the soul of the nation" guides them.

And again: since when have capitalists been sitting on a single factory or are they only distributing their capital to a single branch? That's just as unrealistic.

And I am wonderful at putting restrictions on the use of a pool. You will simply not be able to build certain factories with private money if certain requirements in the province are not met.

 

[Wizzington]

This was specifically in response to the argument that it's 'unrealistic' for the player to be able to do things that are outside the purview of the government, even though there's plenty of other things players can do that makes no sense if you're just playing the government (such as backing a revolution to overthrow yourself).

Ultimately what the player is and isn't allowed to do comes down to what the game loop is like, and which gameplay experiences we want to present. I recognize that there are people who would like the private economy sector part of the game to be a largely hands off experience (under certain economic systems), but we simply do not want one of the core features of the game to be locked off for the player. Building construction is so fundamental to how Victoria 3 plays that it would be akin to taking away the ability to declare war in EU4.

As I said in the dev diary, we are considering how exactly to handle investment, and I'm not ruling out capitalist-directed investment/construction instead of a more player-controlled investment pool (or some sort of hybrid) if we can get it work well, but we are not going to block the player from constructing private industries with state money if they want to do so. If you want to get into the realism arguments here, state grants to private industries is something that happens all the time in real life and I do not know of any examples of capitalist countries outlawing spending government money in such a way.

 

[Rhazzaz0r]

You as a player can literally force capitalist to build thing that will enrich the country but will make the capitalist suffer without profit (or minimal gains), and then call it "Laissez Faire" even though it is just another planned economy system.

This is just not true. We only know that an investment pool exist, you and me have not a single detail about how you can use it, making assumption about how mechanics work without knowing is nothing but speculation.
And you also don't get the point for the "spirit of the nation" argument. The key argument on why the investment pool exists is because the economy is the core pillar of the game and the devs don't feel like handing that over to the ai is a good gameplay element.
Then a lot of players complaint about it destroying their simulation of playing as the goverment, to which the response is that you are actually not the goverment, but the spirit of the nation. And thats the point, the goverment doesn't decide where the investor money goes, the player does and the player is not the government.

 

[Rhazzaz0r]

If we play as the soul of the nation why are there rebellions?

Because they rebel against the government?

 

[Shadowstrike]

I'm not sure the argument is that "the state cannot build factories" or "the state cannot give subsidies to build factories", but rather about the relative distribution of who builds how many factories. Granted, I'm not sure how the gameplay loop would change if you went to a model where individual capitalists build more of the factories versus the player (or where it is more economic for the player to put down different amounts of subsidies to get factories built, with no guarantee that those will be taken up).

That said playing as "the spirit of the country" is kind of abstract, versus "playing as the government of the day". In the case of supporting a revolution, that might be thought of as changing who the player is (to the revolutionaries, rather than the government). It feels like an attempt to hybridize between HoI4, where you are clearly the government, and EU4 where you are a more abstract eminence grise.

 

[Alfred Dreyfus]

I can cope with the mana "capacities", I can cope with 0-100% tax sliders being replaced by 5 buttons... but I think the player directly controlling capitalists money is going to literally kill the game's design.

 

[Wizzington]

I'm not sure the argument is that "the state cannot build factories" or "the state cannot give subsidies to build factories", but rather about the relative distribution of who builds how many factories. Granted, I'm not sure how the gameplay loop would change if you went to a model where individual capitalists build more of the factories versus the player (or where it is more economic for the player to put down different amounts of subsidies to get factories built, with no guarantee that those will be taken up).

That said playing as "the spirit of the country" is kind of abstract, versus "playing as the government of the day". In the case of supporting a revolution, that might be thought of as changing who the player is (to the revolutionaries, rather than the government). It feels like an attempt to hybridize between HoI4, where you are clearly the government, and EU4 where you are a more abstract eminence grise.

I would challenge the idea that you're clearly playing the government in HOI4 given how many play-throughs depend on overthrowing the government to get a different ideology in power. Ultimately, who you play in our games is always going to be nebulous (even in Crusader Kings you can do things that are clearly against the interest of the character you're supposedly playing, like try to get killed in battle so your genius heir can take over) simply because of the scope of grand strategy. This is really only an issue if you overthink it, as most actions you take tend to fall within the scope of the government, or at least the ruling elite, but there's always exceptions simply because it's a game, not a perfect simulation of reality.

 

[ImperatorLJ]

I don't mind the rules of the game not being completely consistent with the "spirit of the nation" theme -- as long as the game itself is fun and engaging.

 

[Vityviktor]

You play as "France", "Prussia", "the United States of America", etc no matter what, despite government and even regime changes. So I understand the metaphor.

Honestly, I don't even know how this new system of the investment pool would work when the game comes out, but I actually prefer it to the lack of control (sometimes disastrous) of Vic2, where you ended up maneuvering to get the "good" economic policies in charge and avoid the "bad ones". If this means that private investment is reformulated in some other way just to make it different enough while still being functional and don't take control out of the players' hands, I'm ok with that.

 

[Pyoro]

It's a tricky one; since the argument at face value makes sense and nobody's here actually played the game yet. Why take away a gameplay element from the player? Nobody likes being unable to DoW in EU either ... but, oh, here's the Regency Council, and suddenly you can't. Because that means events matter; there's actual weight to decisions and what's going on in the game even if it's inconvenient and annoying. It's not that anyone like being out of control, it's not that people expect an AI-controlled economy to be without it's annoyances, it's that it makes the decision on whether you want control or not an impactful and meaningful one.

If I recall correctly, Victoria III was compared to "country gardening", this sort of "grow your own nation" sort of feel. But that's only interesting if there's also a challenge to it; otherwise I might as well just go and write out some embarrassing alt.history fiction and draw some imaginary borders on a map. If I want to achieve something, I want to have hurdles to overcome, and giving up control in exchange for something else is an interesting one (as we know from Vicky II).

The other thing is that decision need to feel like they matter. Just having "+5% GDP" in a submenu, and, woo, now I got a different flag, that's a bit of flavor. And that's fine for a while, but surely we've moved beyond that? Mechanical differences are where the real meat is. This is a game after all.

Ultimately, as with gardening, I might be into growing a bonsai, where I control every single piece every single day. Or I may be more into growing an organic garden where I just keep some broad control but otherwise enjoy looking into what it's growing into without my constant interference. And obviously if I want to grow a tropical garden in Scandanvia I got a real challenge at my hands, it shouldn't just be possibly because, hey, I have decided so ...

 

[Vernichtere]

I would challenge the idea that you're clearly playing the government in HOI4 given how many play-throughs depend on overthrowing the government to get a different ideology in power. Ultimately, who you play in our games is always going to be nebulous (even in Crusader Kings you can do things that are clearly against the interest of the character you're supposedly playing, like try to get killed in battle so your genius heir can take over) simply because of the scope of grand strategy. This is really only an issue if you overthink it, as most actions you take tend to fall within the scope of the government, or at least the ruling elite, but there's always exceptions simply because it's a game, not a perfect simulation of reality.

In the end it is always a game and the player is an outside force. And there is also no legal process in which the developer has to adhere to a statement exactly. Some things are kept abstract for practical reasons. Some are worked out more precisely to increase the fun of the game. Some you just can't work out.

In the end, it's always about whether the game is fun or not. Compared to its predecessors, EU IV no longer simulates the population. Which makes some things easier and some things more difficult in terms of fun. But there is not automatically a compelling logic behind it. Maybe it was just decided that way.

 

[Alfred Dreyfus]

This was specifically in response to the argument that it's 'unrealistic' for the player to be able to do things that are outside the purview of the government, even though there's plenty of other things players can do that makes no sense if you're just playing the government (such as backing a revolution to overthrow yourself).

Ultimately what the player is and isn't allowed to do comes down to what the game loop is like, and which gameplay experiences we want to present. I recognize that there are people who would like the private economy sector part of the game to be a largely hands off experience (under certain economic systems), but we simply do not want one of the core features of the game to be locked off for the player. Building construction is so fundamental to how Victoria 3 plays that it would be akin to taking away the ability to declare war in EU4.

As I said in the dev diary, we are considering how exactly to handle investment, and I'm not ruling out capitalist-directed investment/construction instead of a more player-controlled investment pool (or some sort of hybrid) if we can get it work well, but we are not going to block the player from constructing private industries with state money if they want to do so. If you want to get into the realism arguments here, state grants to private industries is something that happens all the time in real life and I do not know of any examples of capitalist countries outlawing spending government money in such a way.

The player can use his state budget to build his industry, even in a laissez-faire economic system (laissez-faire just means "let the capitalists do their thing with freedom", but laissez-faire doesn't necessarily forbid the player from building his state owned industry too). This budget comes from taxation that it is a challenge and the core mechanic of the game (or it should be).

But putting capitalists private money in players hands bypassing the challenge of taxation is absolutely insane and destroys the game.

Capitalists should be an autonomous entity. The player should be able to shift, encourage, seduce, steer capitalists and private industry, NOT directly control it.

Capitalists are POPs! How can the player control POPs private money! Seriously this is mad.

 

[Wizzington]

It's a tricky one; since the argument at face value makes sense and nobody's here actually played the game yet. Why take away a gameplay element from the player? Nobody likes being unable to DoW in EU either ... but, oh, here's the Regency Council, and suddenly you can't. Because that means events matter; there's actual weight to decisions and what's going on in the game even if it's inconvenient and annoying. It's not that anyone like being out of control, it's not that people expect an AI-controlled economy to be without it's annoyances, it's that it makes the decision on whether you want control or not an impactful and meaningful one.

If I recall correctly, Victoria III was compared to "country gardening", this sort of "grow your own nation" sort of feel. But that's only interesting if there's also a challenge to it; otherwise I might as well just go and write out some embarrassing alt.history fiction and draw some imaginary borders on a map. If I want to achieve something, I want to have hurdles to overcome, and giving up control in exchange for something else is an interesting one (as we know from Vicky II).

The other thing is that decision need to feel like they matter. Just having "+5% GDP" in a submenu, and, woo, now I got a different flag, that's a bit of flavor. And that's fine for a while, but surely we've moved beyond that? Mechanical differences are where the real meat is. This is a game after all.

Ultimately, as with gardening, I might be into growing a bonsai, where I control every single piece every single day. Or I may be more into growing an organic garden where I just keep some broad control but otherwise enjoy looking into what it's growing into without my constant interference. And obviously if I want to grow a tropical garden in Scandanvia I got a real challenge at my hands, it shouldn't just be possibly because, hey, I have decided so ...

Do not confuse the ability to make decisions with the automatic ability to make successful decisions. The fact that we want to give the player more control over growing and shaping their economy doesn't mean that their decisions can't end up really bad for their nation. If anything, the ability to make decisions and see the cause and effect of how they play out is pretty much what a strategy game is all about.

 

[HappyBanker]

I must "respectfully disagree" on this.

I am 100% on the "soul of the nation" side here. One of the main reason I bore out of victoria 2 games was that I had very limited control over the economy if not in planned economy.

I actualy like the fact to have to optimize which building is built whatever the economic system is.

And I am pretty sure the many game limitations and mechanisms will ensure that different economic systems will lead to different gameplay and roleplaying experiences.

For example :

laissez faire countries may only build factories with investor pool (which I like too)

planned economies may only build them with state money.

...this allready leads to very different playstyles, and sounds very realistict to me.

Just my opinion.