A Possible Remedy for Economic & Social Woes?

[unmerged(14386)]

In the Gamespot Review thread, a member (think it was Dinsdale) remarked on numerous things; a few of them being the games slant towards Democracy and liberal economics.

This thread is not ment to critisize either of those two institutions (im actually a fan of Democracy myself ). What this thread aims to do is gauge the feeling of the players of this game and determine possible solutions to the following problem.

At the present, it is very difficult, if not near impossible, to run a basic industrial (i.e. cloths, raw materials, steel) economy as a Tsar like (you;ll see numerous Russian references in my post primarily because it is the perfect example of a 19th century raw industrial superpower) ruler.

If you desire stable economies based on anything but LUXERY furniture and luxery clothes, your pretty much screwd.

Also, you need (to placate your people) institute massive social reform (medial, education...) and democracy no later then 1850, or your screwed. You'll face revolts and emigration.

This is AHISTORICAL to a massive, unacceptable degree. Virtually every one of the 19th century powers had a poorly treated peasent class and no welfare system. Yet, they all managed to do better then their in game counter parts would do if the used the historic systems.

(AGAIN, CHECK THE "GAMESPOT REVIEW" thread to hear more (think its on the 5th or 6th page))

Therefore, I proposs us brilliant gamers......umm ya...(j/k)....come up with a solution that can be implemented on a patch.

So far, the most promises idea is as follows:

1- Raise the daily needs of POPs so that basic goods are in higher demand. This would make basic industry economies more profitable.

2- Make tech requirements for Social projects and political systems. For example, I wish to give a 'fair' amount of healthcare to my citizens, i need to research "Basic Medicine". I want "good" I need improved medicine...and so forth. Each of these techs would allow the slider to go up furthur. Im not certain that this could be implemented, so any suggestions would be welcomed.

2(b)- For governements, have a bunch of prerequisits such as "imprved medicine", "basic railroads," and a bunch of other major techs that any civilized nation would have by oh say no earlier then, 1890. For special cases, i.e. the US, you can give them the "Democracy" tech as a starting tech to represent the fact that they were a 'democracy' before most nations began commonely using said government system. This would force nations to maintain systems they actually had, or investing heavily to change their systems. Most nations couldnt just press a little grey button and become democratic.

I feel that changes such as above, if possible, would correct the games slant towards policies that would have been all but impossible to establish in 1850. It would correct the imbalance, while still allowing ahistoric possibilites.

Any thoughts?

~Rob

 

[Yozhik]

> If you desire stable economies based on anything but LUXERY furniture and luxery clothes, your pretty much screwd.

Correction. You need to run the economy on something not produced elsewhere in sufficient quantities. This is very realistic.

> Also, you need (to placate your people) institute massive social reform (medial, education...) and democracy no later then 1850, or your screwed. You'll face revolts and emigration.

Since when? Only wrong cultures emigrate. And only when taxed to death and/or unemployed.

> This is AHISTORICAL to a massive, unacceptable degree. Virtually every one of the 19th century powers had a poorly treated peasent class and no welfare system. Yet, they all managed to do better then their in game counter parts would do if the used the historic systems.

Their game counterparts do use the historic systems and do well. Check the reform screen around 1900s. Then check the standings.

> 1- Raise the saily needs of POPs so that basic goods are in higher demand. This would make basic industry economies more profitable.

Ahistorical. Basic goods have always been cheap. Do you know that USA is forced to provide a lot of financial help to its agricultural industry?

> 2- Make tech requirements for Social projects and political systems. For example, I wish to give a 'fair' amount of healthcare to my citizens, i need to research "Basic Medicine". I want "good" I need improved medicine...and so forth. Each of these techs would allow the slider to go up furthur. Im not certain that this could be implemented, so any suggestions would be welcomed.

Nice. Useful.

> 2(b)- For governements, have a bunch of prerequisits such as "imprved medicine", "basic railroads," and a bunch of other major techs that any civilized nation would have by oh say no earlier then, 1890. For special cases, i.e. the US, you can give them the "Democracy" tech as a starting tech to represent the fact that they were a 'democracy' before most nations began commonely using said government system. This would force nations to maintain systems they actually had, or investing heavily to change their systems. Most nations couldnt just press a little grey button and become democratic.

True... But think Greece. They didn't have railroads

 

[unmerged(14386)]

Ah excellent repsponce, and some good points:

-------------------------
"> If you desire stable economies based on anything but LUXERY furniture and luxery clothes, your pretty much screwd.

Correction. You need to run the economy on something not produced elsewhere in sufficient quantities. This is very realistic."

--------------------------

Im MY gameing experience..what I have seens is that when I play as russia, or such nations, and try to produce an economy based on things that that nation would have built....im encontering problems. Now, in a perfect world, yes we would have economies based on what isn't built elsware.....but the problem is...it doesnt seem to be working. Russia didn't produce a ton of luxery items and their economy was not at least stable. My goal is to find a way to make historic industries profitable....even when more then one country uses them (like they actually were.....more then one country produced a certian raw material...and yet still profited.

-------------------------------------------
"> Also, you need (to placate your people) institute massive social reform (medial, education...) and democracy no later then 1850, or your screwed. You'll face revolts and emigration.

Since when? Only wrong cultures emigrate. And only when taxed to death and/or unemployed."
---------------------------------------------

EXACTLY....to afford the social programs, I needed to tax my people silly because they were pissed that I didnt have social programs and democracy. If I didnt, I got TOO many revolts (dont get me wrong, I think that the revolts are simulated well.[except a little TOO well i.e. too many revolts])....and if I did...then okay it worked. My point is that Russia (again....my best example cuz thats the one iv dont the most testing on) did not have the massive social welfare programs and deomocratic government that the game forces upon you. Im just looking for a way to make a historic economy profitable. If you have ANY idea by all mean offer them. Im not trying to foward my idea, but rather come up with good ones.

-----------------------------------
"> This is AHISTORICAL to a massive, unacceptable degree. Virtually every one of the 19th century powers had a poorly treated peasent class and no welfare system. Yet, they all managed to do better then their in game counter parts would do if the used the historic systems.

Their game counterparts do use the historic systems and do well. Check the reform screen around 1900s. Then check the standings."
-------------------------------

Hmm...I probley could have worded my complaint better, huh? I did notice that (with a few notable exceptions...[you know who Im takine about....chiiiiina lol]) it works our decently....sometimes a little tooo many reforcms (in my experience) but generall good. I was refering more towards the country when I play it. If i play with a historic economy...i do worse then the country actually did.


---------------------------------
"> 1- Raise the daily needs of POPs so that basic goods are in higher demand. This would make basic industry economies more profitable.

Ahistorical. Basic goods have always been cheap. Do you know that USA is forced to provide a lot of financial help to its agricultural industry?"
------------------------------------


First of all, I am aware that TODAY the US does...thats because the US economy has become so service based, there are almost no (compared to 1850) farms left. In the 19th century however, the governemnt often tried to reduce the nations reliance farms (i.e. platforms of the Whigs, most Democrats, and Federalist all supported industry manufacturing economies [the Dem-Reps were the only pro 'yeoman farmer' party]). Back to your point, I understand the...um..less historical approach of my suggestion, however, its end was to increase no luxery and farm output of other nations (and my own) to match historic levels.

***NOTE: more testing required on this subject....this (^^^^) was not MY idea, but rather one from someone else in the Gamespot thread that sounding promising***


--------------------------------
"> 2(b)- For governements, have a bunch of prerequisits such as "imprved medicine", "basic railroads," and a bunch of other major techs that any civilized nation would have by oh say no earlier then, 1890. For special cases, i.e. the US, you can give them the "Democracy" tech as a starting tech to represent the fact that they were a 'democracy' before most nations began commonely using said government system. This would force nations to maintain systems they actually had, or investing heavily to change their systems. Most nations couldnt just press a little grey button and become democratic.

True... But think Greece. They didn't have railroads "
---------------------------------------



A- greece actually DID have railroads in the Athenean period......they just hid them well! LOL

B- C'mon..greece (by which i suppose you mean athens) was by no means a real deomocracy....or even a republic.....but rather a group of Oligarchs who convinced the people that they actually ruled by the consent of the people.

C- I think you understand (basing on the fact that you seem intelligent) that the point was to delay the creation of democratic governments until a historial period.

Good responce.....quite thought provoking.

~Rob

 

[unmerged(14386)]

By the way,

Would a representative of Paradox be so kinds as to tell me whether of not proposed changes are even possible?

Id prefer not to waste my time offering suggestions if such a change is not possible.

Thanks.

~Rob

 

[unmerged(8351)]

Well I went off on some others in another "the economy is a useless piece of junk" thread who were pointlessly trashing the economic system exactly because they lacked this type of constructive and helpful content and tone.

In other words nice post Its so easy to tell the difference betwen posters who genuinely want to fi the game and those who just want to bitch (Also I am curious if you got that idea to make social reforms tech dependant from my two threads on the subject which were widely viewed but almost no one responded to )

As for the luxery furniture problems I think you hit the nail right on the head when you said that bulk goods need to have demand raised (or you could lower demand for luxery goods) If every nation in the world has a luxery furniture factory the things should be completely useless. Same with lux clothes and arty.

Having demand dynamically defined is a good idea but it makes getting the balance just right quite a pain...what industries a nation develops should generally be dependant on what raw materials are easily availible and where they can get the best price gradient. Perhaps the Ai just needs to be better at recognizig what industries would be profitable and build up accordingly (It would be really funny to see a game where lumber or something like that was chronically short)

 

[unmerged(14386)]

Well, thank you for your kind words on my post and I think that it is quite possible that I subconciously obsorbed your tech dependant idea and just didnt realize it. Or, it might be a case of 'great minds thinking alike'.

I also agree that people who 'bitch and moan' about things without offering other ideas are annoying and generally useless

I forget who it was that suggested it, but someone remarked that raising demands would be the best way to make basic goods industries more profitable. Couple that with decreasing demand on lux items and you would probly get a much better economic system.

Anyone else have thoughts/comments/ideas

and please...if you dont like something be constructive in what you say and alter alternatives.

~Rob

P.S. I had always thought that increasing basic goods demand was a good idea...but for some reason my brain never made the connection to reducing lux goods.... lol

 

[josenyclaw]

This is a great discussion. Basic goods are too cheap in this game as compared to industrial goods. The demand for and the price of these products definitely need to be increased.

For example, the American South lived off mass production of tobacco and cotton which permitted the textile industry in Europe to exist. They made a lot of money off those raw unfinished products.

Also, Tsarist Russia financed its late 19th century economic expansion through its grain exports. Almost all of these exports went out through the Black Sea and through the Turkish Straits. After the 1870's, this basic need for a safe export route influenced Russian policy in Turkey.

Finally, American cattle/beef and grain exports in the 19th century. Chicago exists as a rich modern city because it was the principal port for all the exports of wheat of Kansas and the longhorn cattle from Texas. There was enough profit to build a whole city.

Giving a higher price to the basic goods will also help solve the Euro welfare govts by 1850's issue as it will give a nation an incentive to keep prosperous conservaticve farmers in place and voting for conservative parties.

 

[unmerged(22409)]

B- C'mon..greece (by which i suppose you mean athens) was by no means a real deomocracy....or even a republic.....but rather a group of Oligarchs who convinced the people that they actually ruled by the consent of the people.

What you mean like the US today?

At least they didn't have to worry about dimples and hanging chads (poor chad) in greece. {chuckle}

Anyway, think my point is that I'm starting to get the feeling that a lot of these 'balance' issues stem more from the way people play, everyone plays differently, and that they all want the game to look the way they expect. Often based on incomplete historical knowledge. True game balance isn't as much the issue.

Yes there are some balance issues in regards to the armies, supplies (demand) and the WM. I'm confident they will somehow get fixed. but you can't say the game doesn't work because russia can't do what it did historically.
For starters it's a "what if" game. Yes it's possible to have the game turn out historically, but the odds are very low because it would depend on the actions of many many AI countries.

I do however like your idea of tying social reforms to tech discoveries. As it is I'd say most like me just wait for the cash to buy the highest level and all others are ignored.

 

[unmerged(21839)]

This is a great thread. I agree with the topic creator completly. I have no ideas off the top of my head... I just dont want this thread to go extinct.

 

[Dinsdale]

Yozhik

The game forces either an emmigrating, shrinking population or social reform. It forces revolts, escalating from the annoying to the unmanageable (not in crushing them, but in having the will to bother with it) or democracy. It forces a luxury good economy or poverty.

That's not the hallmark of anything other than a single dimensional game.

frasco101

Excellent points, though I think it will take more to allow players valid options in the game. Further, any economic tweak really needs to be thought out.

For example, if the high end factories had their output cut by about 1/4 then the profit differential between them and the more basic goods would prevent the powering up of industry as we have now. But, the side affects would be fewer goods available for the population leading to a whole bucket of trouble.

On the economy, I can offer no solutions.

But on the political side;

1) Plurality should be reduced, preferably by a % of the national army. People tend to think twice about distributing leaflets when the country is chock full of Checkists or Dragoons.

2) There has to be a penalty for democracy.
--I'd start by dropping off morale from their troops for any aggresive war.
--Democracies should have a % reduction in crime fighting effectiveness
--Education cost should be exponetially increased
--Factory productivity reduced

3) Switching government type should be turmultous.

4) Health/Welfare/etc all need their effects toned down. Population and emmigration should not be affected by any of them. AFAIK no one has been emmigrating to the US for the social medecine and welfare packages these last several centuries

5) Emmigration should be tied to employment. No one is going to leave their homes and families, selling everything they have to escape poverty if they are well paid in their own country. Emmigrants should be huddled masses, not booking suits on the Titanic

6) Universal suffrage should cost a fortune. Baden shouldn't be able to install voting booths for their entire population in 1836

7) Increase war exhaustion rates for democracies.

8) Lower war exhaustion rates for despots.

9) Slow down consciousness and militancy rises by a factor of 2

Revolts
Currently revolts are a danger to my wrist, not the country I'm managing. Something needs to be done so that they are not an irritant but a danger

--revolts should occur about 90% less frequently than they do now.

--when they do occur, make them more than 200 students throwing bread rolls. Make revolts occur at a state level. Every province should have a viscious horde of irregulars

--unreliable troops should either dissolve or join the revolters. More troops should be unreliable, particularly if they have been recruited in that state.

--after a revolt, no other revolt should occur in that state for at least 10 years. The Communards did not suddenly reincarnate every 6 months, they were wiped out, let it be so in the game. If there must be another penalty, hit productivity in the State for 5 years after a revolt.

 

[unmerged(14386)]

____________________________________________________
Further, any economic tweak really needs to be thought out.
____________________________________________________


This thread is less then a day old, give us a little time

Frankly, just about every idea you had is an excellent one I would love to see implemented. BUT (and this is a hell of a big but) I dont think a patch could create all of the drastic changes that you are suggesting. If Im wrong then I can only pray that paradox follows your advice. It just seems like a lot of that would require a game overhaul.

On Social, political, and revolt level I do think you are dead on.




___________________________________________
What you mean like the US today?

At least they didn't have to worry about dimples and hanging chads (poor chad) in greece. {chuckle}
___________________________________________

My friend, in an effort to lower my blood pressure, I'll assume that the above comment was ment as nothing more then a humorus jab. I would find it hard to believe that any intellectual person would actually:
a) judge a countries entire election system on a few thousand elderly voters in Palm Beech who could not punch a hole in a card.
b) actually insinuate that the US Republic is no more democratic (in the terms of voting and such, not in actual gov't as no nation has ever been a true democracy) then the ancient Athens Oligarchy.

I add that whole A & B thing simply because I have come across people in forums who would insinuate just that.

In any event. I appreciate any new Ideas on the topic of improving the social, political and economic model of this game. If anyone knows if such drastic changes, such as the ones Dimsdale is suggesting, are possible (if some are, say which ones) in a patch. Also, any...perhaps less ambitios ideas are welcomes.

Thanks for all your help, guys...

~Rob

 

[unmerged(22409)]

Actually frasco, I was saying that the us democracy is no better (or worse) than the old greek one.
Actually it's more like the old roman government. 'All nations can be great as long as they live by our rule.'

But in all regards, this is about the game, not about the 'mightier than thou' issue..

Lets just see this game made into the great game we all want it to be.

The game I care about, the US or rather it's so called democratic government can rot in hell.
The average Joe Yankie is ok by me.....

 

[Dinsdale]

irrelevant drivel

Why not take this crap to OT? All you will achieve is most likely flames and this topic being closed.

 

[unmerged(14386)]

How to Improve Vic Economic, Political and Social System

****Please note: A similar thread was closed because it got off topic as a result of personal political remarks. I appologize for my own words, and for allowing the discussion to get out of hand. I ask that ALL participants in this thread keep personal political remarks to a minmal (read: NONE AT ALL). Political remarks partaining to the game are, however still welcomed****


Hello, again, all. If you did not see our thread before it was closed (sorry bout that) then here is out mission statement:

We see problems with the economic, political and social systems in VIC. It is the opinion of many forum goers that the system understates the importance of Basic industries (cloth, and raw materials and such) and often forces nations to forcus more on luxery items to an un-historic degree.

Also, it seems that the current system, by means of emmigration, revolts and other consiquences, forces nations to accept democracy and liberal social policies (**note: this is not to critisize such policies**) before (in many cases generations before) their hstoric implementation. This often creates unaccepably unhistorial social policies from nations the remained authoritarian (successfully) for virtually the entire game length.

Some following ideas have been fowarded:


1- Raise the daily needs of POPs so that basic goods are in higher demand. This would make basic industry economies more profitable.

2- Make tech requirements for Social projects and political systems. For example, I wish to give a 'fair' amount of healthcare to my citizens, i need to research "Basic Medicine". I want "good" I need improved medicine...and so forth. Each of these techs would allow the slider to go up furthur. Im not certain that this could be implemented, so any suggestions would be welcomed.

2(b)- For governements, have a bunch of prerequisits such as "imprved medicine", "basic railroads," and a bunch of other major techs that any civilized nation would have by oh say no earlier then, 1890. For special cases, i.e. the US, you can give them the "Democracy" tech as a starting tech to represent the fact that they were a 'democracy' before most nations began commonely using said government system. This would force nations to maintain systems they actually had, or investing heavily to change their systems. Most nations couldnt just press a little grey button and become democratic.

I feel that changes such as above, if possible, would correct the games slant towards policies that would have been all but impossible to establish in 1850. It would correct the imbalance, while still allowing ahistoric possibilites.


***Dinesdale had this to say:

1) Plurality should be reduced, preferably by a % of the national army. People tend to think twice about distributing leaflets when the country is chock full of Checkists or Dragoons.

2) There has to be a penalty for democracy.
--I'd start by dropping off morale from their troops for any aggresive war.
--Democracies should have a % reduction in crime fighting effectiveness
--Education cost should be exponetially increased
--Factory productivity reduced

3) Switching government type should be turmultous.

4) Health/Welfare/etc all need their effects toned down. Population and emmigration should not be affected by any of them. AFAIK no one has been emmigrating to the US for the social medecine and welfare packages these last several centuries

5) Emmigration should be tied to employment. No one is going to leave their homes and families, selling everything they have to escape poverty if they are well paid in their own country. Emmigrants should be huddled masses, not booking suits on the Titanic

6) Universal suffrage should cost a fortune. Baden shouldn't be able to install voting booths for their entire population in 1836

7) Increase war exhaustion rates for democracies.

8) Lower war exhaustion rates for despots.

9) Slow down consciousness and militancy rises by a factor of 2

Revolts
Currently revolts are a danger to my wrist, not the country I'm managing. Something needs to be done so that they are not an irritant but a danger

--revolts should occur about 90% less frequently than they do now.

--when they do occur, make them more than 200 students throwing bread rolls. Make revolts occur at a state level. Every province should have a viscious horde of irregulars

--unreliable troops should either dissolve or join the revolters. More troops should be unreliable, particularly if they have been recruited in that state.

--after a revolt, no other revolt should occur in that state for at least 10 years. The Communards did not suddenly reincarnate every 6 months, they were wiped out, let it be so in the game. If there must be another penalty, hit productivity in the State for 5 years after a revolt.




If ANYONE has ANY good ideas please state them. If you disagree with something said, please be constructive and do not merely bash something said; offer another suggestion. If you feel we are way off base, please explain why.

Thank you all, and lets try to keep this one open by not resorting to sly political comments. It seems the moderators don't like it

 

[JScott991]

Everything you've said is correct.

Chances of it being implemented: 0%

Elaborate reforms like this are never put into Paradox games. We'll be lucky if we can get basic AI fixes on the army/navy size/mix issues rather than engine overhauls.

Edited Response: I won't take up space in your thread anymore than I already have. I agree that monarchy should be more powerful vis a vis democracy since Democracy was so rare in this period. I'm sure something simple will be done that will make the AI not change so fast to appease players who are upset about watching it happen. I also believe that threads like this are helpful for discussion, but when players disagree with each other over what specifically should be done, it only encourages the developer to do little. Besides, for the most part, these types of decisions are made by betas amongst themselves. Anyway, I would like to see these changes made, but I'd rather see the AI get fixed in other ways first.

 

[unmerged(14386)]

ahh my friend. The chance is not 0%!.......more like 0.025%! :rofl:

You may be right, but if we can think of a way of easily changing some things (i.e. it would be easy to increase POPs' goods demand and maybe make some things tech dependant) it could be implemented by paradoc...or more likely, some MOD.

It cant help to come up with some ideas.

 

[HallaK9]

Everything you've said is correct.

Chances of it being implemented: 0%

Aren't you the little ray of sunshine? I can't really see what in the original post can be viewed as "engine overhauls".

 

[unmerged(14386)]

"Aren't you the little ray of sunshine? I can't really see what in the original post can be viewed as "engine overhauls"."

LOL :rofl:

Well, I can understand why JScott thinks some would be an overhaul...because some of it may be. Dinsdales excellent reply may be a little ambitious. Simply put, Im not sure how certain elements could be implemented.

I will state here, now, that I do NOT expect most of this to be changed. MY hope is that Parasox will realize that some of these good ideas might actually help solve some basic problems in the game....problems that have generated A LOT of complaints.

So..if ANYONE from Paradox sees this thread, id appreciate if one of them would give us some feedback. I know their busy, but I think that we do have some good Ideas.


Until then, all (productive/constructive) comments are welcomed. If you have any ideas, please state them.

~Rob

 

[unmerged(13520)]

Some of the above elements may have a "0%" chance due to their complexity and ambition, but IMHO, there are plenty of others that apparently would have a greater chance of at least partial implementation, as they are less complicated, hopefully they are taken into consideration.

For example, (this has already been said elsewhere) increasing the market worth of agricultural resources at scenario start, in order to make agrarian economies at least a bit more profitable than they currently are (an understatement, perhaps).

 

[unmerged(14386)]

I agree with Scythe.

Some ideas are a little too ambitious, but many are good ones. Like he said, the 'raising demand of agricultural goods' idea is pretty simple...could be effective....and overall easy to implement.


Lets keep this diiscussion going and hopefully get some new ideas/suggestions.

This is my order to all of you: This Thread shall NOT be on page 2, until our complaints are rectofied and Victoria made perfect!
*Insert dramatic music and cut to scene of 'Nicholas and Alexandra' where soldiers march through on the parade grounds with the Tsar saluting.*