"+21.4% Tax Waste"

[Leoreth]

I read an article years ago on why the U.K. bureaucracy was effective. The information I provided above was from that article (oversight, penalties, and rotations). It also had screenings, which I had forgotten. I don't recall compensation, but if it wasnt in there, then it should have been.

All of these things are parts of an effective bureaucracy (with the possible exception of rotations, which may have been necessary during the period, but seems superfluous in later time periods). If you dont have oversight, then that clearly will be a problem. Penalties are obviously necessary. Screening for qualified and effective candidates needs to happen. And if you underpay bureaucrats, then they either will take from under the table or do a poor job!

The issue with expanding bureaucracy is that it can either lead to systems like this where different departments control and check each other and improve overall efficiency and drive down corruption, or alternatively just make the system more complex and introduce further entrenched interests that only make the system more complex and prone to corruption and waste. I wish there was some sense of the quality of bureaucracy in the game, beyond just its size and headcount.

On a slightly related note, will the impact of bureaucrat loyalty on the bureaucracy be modeled?

Bureaucrats were often as much an important interest group when implementing reform as other powerful groups like capitalists and aristocrats. Especially revolutionary states often struggled in their transition because the revolution necessarily required getting rid of bureaucrats that were invested in the old system. It would be nice if that was represented, because it seems like a good way to make revolution (or even rapid reform) destabilising: bureaucrats demote to other pops, you are suddenly short on bureaucratic capacity, and have to rebuild your administrative state.

 

[dunka2]

Just for clarification: Why do people assume that Vicky3 has a closed system? As far as I know there's no indication to that. I also think that Vicky 2 hadn't had a closed system, had it? I mean maybe I'm wrong, maybe vicky2 had a closed system?

They haven't said if it is a closed system in Victoria 3 or not, but I hope they do create a closed system.

As for Victoria 2, it was intended and coded as a closed system, but besides the previously mentioned issues with money being tied up in national banks and treasuries, there also was a bug somewhere that trapped money which the devs couldn't fix (or didn't have the time) requiring a periodic injection of money. So it was both closed and not closed.

 

[Guedes]

The main money sink in Vicky2 that caused the liquidity crises wasn’t really bugs nor events. It wasn’t even the fact that money disappeared when building buildings. It was that all the money that capitalists made from factory profits were put into the bank where only governments, not pops, could access it. Most of the money was still in the game, it was simply inaccessible for most of the economy. Thus V2 proved that trickle down economics doesn’t work.

Not quite. Capitalists also suffer when liquidity crisis hit. SoI market's bug is a huge money sink, the largest one i would say.

Playing without SoI i never experienced liquidity crisis in late game.

Edit; also money didnt disappeared when building buildings, dont know where did you got that one.

 

[Helmic____]

Not quite. Capitalists also suffer when liquidity crisis hit. SoI market's bug is a huge money sink, the largest one i would say.

Playing without SoI i never experienced liquidity crisis in late game

That’s true. I forgot that SOI deletes the money for the duplicated goods. I think it’s a combination of the two because in the endgame a huge amount is in national banks, but the completely deleted money is obviously worse.

 

[Alfred Dreyfus]

It seems obvious to me that the Pops mechanic should be in all of these history games.

Every time there is a discussion in the EU4 forums about if EU5 should have POPs, I'm surprised there is more support for not having POPs than for having POPs. I think there is too much brainless map painter players right now in EU4.

I agree every Paradox game should have some kind of POP mechanic, of course not at the same level of detail as Victoria, but yeah, some kind of organic POP system, even if simplified.

I hate abstractions like "province development".

 

[General WVPM]

Just for clarification: Why do people assume that Vicky3 has a closed system? As far as I know there's no indication to that. I also think that Vicky 2 hadn't had a closed system, had it? I mean maybe I'm wrong, maybe vicky2 had a closed system?

Victoria 2 did not have a closed system, as a closed system would mean that nothing goes in and nothing goes out. Precious metals were, by design, a source of currency. So the system would get more money in, but barely any money out (atleast that was the idea).

Personally I don't assume it will have a closed system, I just really really hope it minimizes leaks. EU style economy is just a disgrace for Victoria.

Think of it like this: in EU money is like a scoreboard. You can write a score and increase or decrease it at will. No side effects.
In Victoria 2, money was designed to be a possession, if I lose money, someone else gains it. This is what I hope Victoria 3 will use.

 

[EUnderhill]

Every time there is a discussion in the EU4 forums about if EU5 should have POPs, I'm surprised there is more support for not having POPs than for having POPs. I think there is too much brainless map painter players right now in EU4.

I agree every Paradox game should have some kind of POP mechanic, of course not at the same level of detail as Victoria, but yeah, some kind of organic POP system, even if simplified.

I hate abstractions like "province development".

EU V should not have POPs, but I would not object to a Victoria 1492 that has them.

 

[C.D. Howe]

The main money sink in Vicky2 that caused the liquidity crises wasn’t really bugs nor events. It wasn’t even the fact that money disappeared when building buildings. It was that all the money that capitalists made from factory profits were put into the bank where only governments, not pops, could access it. Most of the money was still in the game, it was simply inaccessible for most of the economy. Thus V2 proved that trickle down economics doesn’t work.

That is a pretty big weakness and not that realistic considering that in real life the banks would use those reserves to generate loans and increase the money supply. Unless Victoria 2 was operating under the assumption that every economy was experiencing a liquidity trap and each player got the chance to play like Japan since the 90s.

 

[EUnderhill]

That is a pretty big weakness and not that realistic considering that in real life the banks would use those reserves to generate loans and increase the money supply. Unless Victoria 2 was operating under the assumption that every economy was experiencing a liquidity trap and each player got the chance to play like Japan since the 90s.

That no POPs got to keep the interest paid by borrowers was another huge money sink.

 

[EUnderhill]

Agree, especially with that last bit. The aristocratic bureaucracy (robe nobles) were a serious problem for reform in Ancien Regime France. Not a big surprise that the people that were in charge of and benefiting from a corrupt system would be opposed to changing it.



I read this and didnt believe it and then...



Huh. I guess I am out of touch. EU4 is my principal Paradox game, but almost all of my time is spent playing Meiou & Taxes, which basically tries to make EU4 into Victoria during the EU time period. To me, that is the ultimate goal.

But there are clearly people out there who do not agree.

Personally, I prefer the EU4 period to the Victorian period. The world events are more interesting to me (plagues and the social changes they caused, end of feudalism/serfdom, colonization, reformation, agricultural revolution/enclosure movement and the escape from the Malthusian trap, rise of bureaucracy and modern government/taxation, the end of the privilege system/guilds, etc, etc).

What I really, really want is a game or a couple of games that can cover from 1350 - early 1900's in the Victoria economic/political simulation style. I dont know that it would need to include through WWI, but something that ends around that time period. That would be nirvana for me. I might have trouble holding on to a job.

I like M+T as a change of pace, but I expect the EU franchise to be boardgamey with a side order of map-painting and monarchs with A-D-M having a material role/roll. Victoria should be That Spreadsheet Game. CK needs no more realism than Prince Valiant, whereas HOI should stick to its knitting and be the dedicated wargame. Franchises should not necessarily be limited by era - overlap that allows a time period to have games that approach it with different attitudes would be a good thing. That is why I would have interest in a Victoria 1492 - not as a replacement for the EU game but as a complement.

 

[Helmic____]

That is a pretty big weakness and not that realistic considering that in real life the banks would use those reserves to generate loans and increase the money supply. Unless Victoria 2 was operating under the assumption that every economy was experiencing a liquidity trap and each player got the chance to play like Japan since the 90s.

Yeah, only governments not individuals being able to borrow isn’t very realistic. But I think the mechanism was only fine tuned for the early game, no one had the time to think what it would do late game where most government and factories have huge surpluses

 

[nikkythegreat]

What I want is the same as Vicky 2. Where money in the market wouldnt disappear but simply moved from one hand to another (without the disappearance bug this time) and money is only added to the market via precious_metals RGO or whatever its equivalent is in vicky 3. This is the system I loved about vicky 2. I doesnt matter if you consider this as a closed system or not.

Im sure that Im not the only one who shares this view.

 

[EUnderhill]

What I want is the same as Vicky 2. Where money in the market wouldnt disappear but simply moved from one hand to another (without the disappearance bug this time) and money is only added to the market via precious_metals RGO or whatever its equivalent is in vicky 3. This is the system I loved about vicky 2. I doesnt matter if you consider this as a closed system or not.

Im sure that Im not the only one who shares this view.

Precious metal mines were a kludgy way of trying to expand the money supply in pace with the growth of the economy.

 

[nikkythegreat]

Precious metal mines were a kludgy way of trying to expand the money supply in pace with the growth of the economy.

Why? I found it enough to fill the role without adding a too complicated mechanic. It added a steady yet growing stream of money into the world economy.

 

[EUnderhill]

Why? I found it enough to fill the role without adding a too complicated mechanic. It added a steady yet growing stream of money into the world economy.

It couldn't keep up with the unintentional sinks and became a mess to try and fine-tune and late in the game there was just too much industry for an RGO good to keep up.

 

[Baneslave]

[In Victoria2] also money didnt disappeared when building buildings, dont know where did you got that one.

Who pocketed the money cost (not resource cost) of higher level Naval Bases, though?

 

[Ferrous Will]

Who pocketed the money cost (not resource cost) of higher level Naval Bases, though?

The corrupt Admiralty?

 

[Baneslave]

The corrupt Admiralty?

That is not in game thing, so if that money doesn't go to anywhere it does just disappear.

 

[Ferrous Will]

That is not in game thing, so if that money doesn't go to anywhere it does just disappear.

ik, it's a joge.

 

[EUnderhill]

Who pocketed the money cost (not resource cost) of higher level Naval Bases, though?

The accounting always seemed a little bit murky. I could never quite tell if the state got the money from selling the resources to the project.