Bureaucrats, what are they good for?

[unmerged(199559)]

Okie so they are good at tax collection, aristocrats can do the same for monarchis. Bureocrats cost money (boo!), whereas aristocrats increase my rawmaterial production.

Besides, the troops etc are needed early before the world gets too mighty and complicated, no time for reforms.. gotta collect rifles early... do the invasions etc..

Later, well, with hundreds of provinces i might aswell have laissez-faire capitalists build the railroads and factories. Screw taxing the rich.. and clicketyclick railroads and factories like some centralplanning commie. Besides, me being a faulty human cannot possibly know whats profitable and what isnt, my capitalists who live inside the computer know better anyway.

I do wonder hwo that would turn out

 

[telesien]

And your point is?

 

[unmerged(199559)]

And your point is?

Perhaps this wasnt a statement.

 

[Rhion]

So it's supposed to be a question? Not sure what you're asking then though.

 

[leggbros]

So it's supposed to be a question? Not sure what you're asking then though.

I would assume it's "Bureaucrats, what are they good for?", since that is the only question mark in the whole post (although I am also a bit confused). The answer is probably explained in the Dev diaries but I don't happen to know offhand.

 

[telesien]

Well if it is question, than the answer would be, that the bureaucrats are better then aristocrats. Aristocrats do that work for free, but not nearly as efficiently.

 

[Cinéad IV]

Actually, this is quite a good question, and shows that Paradox are on the right track by not making promotion of bureaucrats a no-brainer.

As a big, backward country, creating a professional civil service is difficult, and very expensive. For those who might be inclined to modernise, there's a very real trade off to be made: invest the money to create the professional civil service, or leave your aristocracy as the primary form of local government which works, albeit at reduced efficiency.

The problem with the route Ikk describes is that your population won't like it: particularly if you industrialise, and create an urbanised middle class who are gaining political awareness.

 

[Lordmars]

Without a bureaucracy who will produce all those reports that no one ever reads, yet are supposed to be vital?

 

[Tormodius]

You need to extend the bureaucracy so that you can maintain the extending bureaucracy!

 

[OHgamer]

IIRC from an earlier Dev Diary, any social reforms you do make will require bureaucrats to have an effect on the population's mil and con. So if you pass good health care but then don't provide the govt support via bureaucrats to administer said health care system, the pops will not get the lower mil/con change that such reforms provide.

This was done in V1:Rev via how much you funded your social programs alone, now I think you not only have to fund the programs, but also provide the administrative budget to actually run the programs as well.

 

[unmerged(19915)]

Plus, someone needs to file those TPS reports after all!

ps: Thanks Ohgamer!

 

[Tormodius]

IIRC from an earlier Dev Diary, any social reforms you do make will require bureaucrats to have an effect on the population's mil and con.

Thats right, I remember reading that in a DD. It sounds like a pretty good system. There might perhaps be the same EU3 decisions where you can expand the bureacracy at the expense of some gold or something? At least that could be modded

 

[GrafKeks]

Okie so they are good at tax collection, aristocrats can do the same for monarchis. Bureocrats cost money (boo!), whereas aristocrats increase my rawmaterial production.

Besides, the troops etc are needed early before the world gets too mighty and complicated, no time for reforms.. gotta collect rifles early... do the invasions etc..

Later, well, with hundreds of provinces i might aswell have laissez-faire capitalists build the railroads and factories. Screw taxing the rich.. and clicketyclick railroads and factories like some centralplanning commie. Besides, me being a faulty human cannot possibly know whats profitable and what isnt, my capitalists who live inside the computer know better anyway.

I do wonder hwo that would turn out

In reality for nothing. There are a far too much in most countries...

Well in the game you need them for other state forms than monarchy, I guess

 

[unmerged(199559)]

Finally Almost given up hope my lil thread would never get beyond metaposting. Neither statement nor question, but armchair general musings.

Anyways, the view i got from the bureocrats update is that in order to gain substantial benefits something akin to half the population would have to be bureocrats. Which sounds awfully modern and anti-liberal.
If on the other hand you would keep maybe 10-15% of the population as aristocrats, the basic economic gains would be massive, and taxes hopefully none too lousy... id hope anyway..

As for social modernisation, well, we are supposed to be autocrats, opposed to socialism and such nonsense causing nothing but demoralisation. A true insult to hard working people, not to mention an inexcusable drain on prosperity.

Anyways, as said, the shift would be long and expensive and drain wealth and resources without neccesarely having a positive feedback in the early critical years.

 

[Jaidal]

I'd be curious as to where PI models the point of diminishing returns.