A humble proposal for capitalist economies.

[bucknastyc]

It's a thorny issue about how to handle the player's role in buildings. I would like to state from the beginning that I'm fully on board with the devs approach.

I do have a small proposal though, on how the system might work to be engaging, fair, but also feel a bit more thematic.

My proposal is a permit system. In capitalist economies, capitalists will need a permit to build buildings. By default, everything would be allowed, and capitalists would simply build as they please. If the player chooses, though, you could review permits for a specific type of building. Then, you can approve or deny permits of that building. There is no cost to approve, but you will pay a small cost to deny (authority or some such mechanism).

This way, in the beginning, you use permits and manual building to direct your early economy. As time goes on, you become less restrictive because it's too expensive to deny them all, and some unprofitable ventures don't wreck the whole investment pool.

I don't know if it's very realistic or anything, but I think it would help to balance the feeling of needing to be smart with your investments earlier on, and later having a large enough economy that you need to focus on the macro scale.

Let me know what you think.

 

[Vernichtere]

Nice theory. According to what rates should the catalists invest? What are these free choices supposed to simulate? A competition at national level is not simulated. There are no different brands and companies are not buying up more and more other companies. How should the countries AI deal with it?

All that is more or less simulated is competition between the economic powers as such. It is not clear to me why a type of RNG is needed here.

 

[Subcomandante]

Forget it, you can't talk to these people. In the other thread one of them said he wants to lose control over investments to the ai, because "the constant struggle of failure and success," ie Schumpeter's creative destruction, turns him on.

 

[Vernichtere]

Forget it, you can't talk to these people. In the other thread one of them said he wants to lose control over investments to the ai, because the constant struggle of failure and success, ie "creative destruction", turns him on.

What I can still imagine losing control, for example, is a kind of decentralization, where certain provinces keep part of the taxes and build buildings themselves. But that would just be a kind of vassal like you have in CK3. That would have a certain logic.

Here, however, the fact that the micro-level of the economy is not simulated is repeatedly ignored. And there is also no such thing as planning. I am relatively certain that most friends of the "free" market economy have never considered how paradox games program such processes. The game would banally take a mixture of RNG and the current price. I can still reasonably get a country AI to follow a plan and react to changes in it. But I can neither miss some kind of planning for every capitalist, nor get the countries AI to react here. In the end I have a system that only the player can handle.

What is easier to simulate are light RNG steps. Like discounted investments in a certain area based on the RNG, or in certain regions.

 

[bucknastyc]

Forget it, you can't talk to these people. In the other thread one of them said he wants to lose control over investments to the ai, because "the constant struggle of failure and success," ie Schumpeter's creative destruction, turns him on.

Yeah that's pretty ridiculous. I think the devs will land on a good system, just brainstorming.

 

[Vernichtere]

Yeah that's pretty ridiculous. I think the devs will land on a good system, just brainstorming.

This is not even the desire to hand over control to the AI, but the desire to give each pop its own AI, including the wish of a micro level, so to speak, a kind of economic simulator like Gilde IV should be programmed