A compromise between giving player control over investments and lasser-faire

[mikhail321]

First of all I believe giving player a better control over construction projects is good as it creates engagement and safeguards against erroneous ai behavior. One of the most frustrating experiences of Vic2 was watching capis build some random small arms factory in Middle Siberia, have it occupied by 20 craftsmen, go bust immediately for some obscure reason and be replaced immediately with some other random project.
I don’t think it’s unrealistic either as even under liberal economic regimes governments had a multitude of tools to influence investment decisions through tax cuts, direct and indirect subsidies, licensing, public land distribution, informal links with business circles and so on.
However giving player full control over investment decisions detracts from the feeling of having a living economic system and has a risk to explode micromanagement.
For me the best option would be to allow player exclusive right to give directions for new buildings in a region, while letting the pops do expansion/upgrades on their own if economic laws permit private investment. This is how I mostly used to run Vic 2 economy.
This way you retain general control of the economic buildup of the regions, but allow some room for autonomy both to reduce micromanagement and to simulate less than absolute control over pops.
The way it could work is to have two investment pools: one on a state or national level under player’s control, another one on building level (can be depicted as an extra level of existing cash reserve). The buildings with expansion room available and close to 100% employment will start filling its investment pool with a certain split with dividend payouts (just like real life businesses do not distribute all the profits). when enough funds are accumulated they will be invested in an expansion project. The player can always top up this pool from general investment pool to stimulate some industries over others. The top up decisions can also be automated on state level, to let ai top up pools closest to completion (or in particular industries) to reduce micromanagement.
This way business will need to be successful to be expanded, so ai craziness will be very limited, the player will have very granular control, but there will still be some independent investment activity to simulate investment cycles and such. It will also make it more expensive for player to kick-start new industries vs. developing existing ones, which I think is very realistic.
EDIT: there is another similar thread, so please move the discussion there
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/factories-upgrading-themselves.1478911/

 

[johnty5]

Would the player be able to subsidise line breaks?

 

[mikhail321]

Would the player be able to subsidise line breaks?

I guess it should depend on economic law like in Vic 2. A lasser-fair government can only support successful businesses but would let the struggling ones fail. The interventionist one can subsidize them.

 

[wilcoxchar]

What we're getting is already the compromise. Under a laissez faire government you might have some control over what is built, but you have no control over how much money is available to build with.

Remember, you're not the head of government or head of state, you aren't limited by what powers they have. The head of government is a step or two below you.

 

[Kovax]

Depending on the type of government and laws passes, you might be able to license factories, which means the cappies can't build something stupid without permission, and will eventually choose something else instead of wasting the money and going bankrupt 2 months later.

Another form of government might allow the choice of ONE factory per province, or x number of factories in the entire country, so you could at least set up a few essentials.