Capitalists NEED to build their own factories

[cristofolmc]

Here we see another example of the false dichotomy in the wild, with the commenter pretending that the only possibilities are complete player control over the economy or the Vicky2 capitalists carried over exactly as they were.

(We won't even get into why he wants to play a Liberal economy, without the actual Liberal economy.)

Stay tuned for the indignant response.

Here is annother example of puting in my mouth things I havent said.

Im all up for a toggle on and off option to give the control of your economy to the AI for those who want the AI to ruin it for you. I'm just saying the system should be kept as it is for those of us who are smarter than a PDX AI and prefer to make better economic decisions. It was a nightmare in Vicky2 seeing how cancerous laissez fair was, paradoxically. I dont want to go back to that. The devs have found a good solution. But yes sure, they can add the option to automatisize it for those who want at the expense of losing money, not my problem as long as the keep the current system in place.

 

[alexti]

But this is a game. Against the AI. And there is just NO way, no matter 10 years have past, that the AI will be REMOTELY close to a human player when it comes to take good economic decisions.

If it's a game against AI that won't be remotely close to a human player that won't be a game, but "I win" button But I share your concerns about AI strength.

 

[orc4hire]

And there is just NO way, no matter 10 years have past, that the AI will be REMOTELY close to a human player when it comes to take good economic decisions.

Is the point of the game to build the most optimally efficient economy?

I swear, so many people playing these games get so hung up on making everything as perfectly optimized as possible that they forget that it's just a game and the point is to have some fun. So what if the capitalists do what capitalists do and run some businesses into the ground? No one's going to make you go stand in a corner of the forum in shame.

 

[orc4hire]

Here is annother example of puting in my mouth things I havent said.

Im all up for a toggle on and off option to give the control of your economy to the AI for those who want the AI to ruin it for you. I'm just saying the system should be kept as it is for those of us who are smarter than a PDX AI and prefer to make better economic decisions. It was a nightmare in Vicky2 seeing how cancerous laissez fair was, paradoxically. I dont want to go back to that. The devs have found a good solution. But yes sure, they can add the option to automatisize it for those who want at the expense of losing money, not my problem as long as the keep the current system in place.

Right on schedule!

 

[cristofolmc]

Some people are stuck in the mindset that more player control = more fun. This is certainly not the case, otherwise you would be handed a map editor on purchase, not a game. Having an independent private economy is fun precisely because it places limitations on the players, creating challanges and forcing them to work around these limitations.

A lot of people have complained about laissez faire in Vicky2, because the capitalists were too stupid, but removing it alltogether would not be a solution to this, just a lazy way of avoiding the issue entirely. I agree that capitalists are more stupid than they should be, but to some degree the occasional stupidity of individuals is a core part of the capitalist system. You need to think of capitalism as a process of natural selection, where there will be smart ideas which turn into profitable enterprises and stupid ideas which turn into bankrupt factories. This means that you will see those failing factories pop up continuously, but it doesn't mean that the system itself is broken.

Laissez faire also doesn't mean that you have no way of interacting with your economy, it just means that you have to interact with your economy indirectly. There are many tools to do this, such as opening up new markets through diplomacy or war, changing the taxes and tariffs, state purchases (e.g. military supplies). Vicky3 could add additional options like tax cuts on certain goods.

If Vicky 3 wants to make laissez faire more fun, then above all else it needs to communicate to the players what they have to expect from this economic system and especially how they can interact with it. Otherwise many people will just see a lot of red numbers with no clearly visible way to change things and conclude that the system is just broken, even if it's not. Having an investment pool that players can directly control is entirely the wrong step to take. It removes a fun playstyle and turns everything into a command economy with window dressing.

Yes, sure, tell the players with tooltips that laissez fair is going to be less efficient than socialism. That surely will make it fun. And it makes it very realistic too, right?! Buth hey, its part of real life capitalism, capitalist investing continually in the same industries despite them not being profitable, again and again, sinking millions down the drain!

Surely, the AI will be tones better. But still, nowhere near as good as a human player, based on ALL the other PDX titles, old and new. Sorry, thats just a fact.

And Vicky is not a simulation program. It's a game. I'm an enemy of player agency in most cases and I do want things to happen organically and on their own. But not when it comes to hand over the AI the main feature of a game, where you cannot do anything about it becuase its laissez fair. Again, its a game. Im more than fine thinking that the capitalists are making the most economical beneficial decision even though its me with the mouse. If I want to simulate bad economic managment in a socialist country, I'll go laissez fair and hand over the rains of my economy to the AI.

 

[Nussor]

Yeah, capitalists building their own stuff was extremely cool and actually set the different economic systems apart beyond some generic +- modifiers.

 

[Darsara]

After my time in Victoria II (or Stellaris) I might be willing to give Capitalists a chance, but only if I can offer incentives towards certain things, or have better veto's over their actions if we can both act; 'You should build a Cannery here!' 'This would be a great place to build a steel mill sooner rather than later!' "Please, I need more guns, we need a weapons factory, our armies are dying!' 'For the love of God, not another factory producing yet another over-produced luxury-good no one can afford!'

 

[cristofolmc]

Is the point of the game to build the most optimally efficient economy?

I swear, so many people playing these games get so hung up on making everything as perfectly optimized as possible that they forget that it's just a game and the point is to have some fun. So what if the capitalists do what capitalists do and run some businesses into the ground? No one's going to make you go stand in a corner of the forum in shame.

Oh no, not at all, Im not a minimaxer. But I'd like at least my economy to be run properly. Better than in a socialist economy. Is that much to ask? To have a laissez fair economy function better than a socialist one? a I a minimaxer for that? Its not about being a minimaxer. Its about your economic decisions being profitable. Not wanting to throw money down the sink in stupid decisions doesnt make you a minimaxer. Its like saying that the fact that you dont want your country in EU4 to pay subsidies to another country because the AI decides to do so, youre a minmaxer xd. No, I just want to play right and make good use of my money. I dont care if my decision makes a little bit less money than the one of a pro vicky player minmaxer. But at least Im making a profit, not watching the AI make the 12th canned food ruinous factory xd.

But again this debate is useless. We can both be happy. Have a simple option to hand over your economy to the AI for those who want to roleplay. Hey I might even use that myself if the AI turns to be decent, for some of my games. I just dont want to be hands tied to it like I was with vicky2, thats all. And the devs agree and found a very good solution.

Its a win win!

 

[orc4hire]

Buth hey, its part of real life capitalism, capitalist investing continually in the same industries despite them not being profitable, again and again, sinking millions down the drain!

I suspect you're trying to be sarcastic here, so I'll point out that that is literally true.

 

[Fallofthepurple]

I think the min-max discussion isnt really fruitful, people should be able to give the reigns over to the factory owners even if that means that Laissez-Faire Larry is always gonna be in a disadvantage in comparison to Statist Sam.
Sometimes we take decisions not because of a number on screen but because of RP, its a game after all!

I also think that there is a benefit in this for people like me that want to micro their entire economy, it allows wildly different playstyles and experiences instead of watering down both by being too similar.

 

[cristofolmc]

I suspect you're trying to be sarcastic here, so I'll point out that that is literally true.

Yes, its literally true. You can see Silicon Valley investing on steam ships. Not on profitable things like social networks, series, internet etc. They invest over and over on unprofitable things like radios, gramophones and things like that that are not profitable but they keep investing on it because they are like Vicky2 AI and dont know when something is unprofitable so they just keep throwing their wealth at it xd

 

[orc4hire]

Oh no, not at all, Im not a minimaxer. But I'd like at least my economy to be run properly. Better than in a socialist economy. Is that much to ask? To have a laissez fair economy function better than a socialist one? a I a minimaxer for that? Its not about being a minimaxer. Its about your economic decisions being profitable. Not wanting to throw money down the sink in stupid decisions doesnt make you a minimaxer. Its like saying that the fact that you dont want your country in EU4 to pay subsidies to another country because the AI decides to do so, youre a minmaxer xd. No, I just want to play right and make good use of my money. I dont care if my decision makes a little bit less money than the one of a pro vicky player minmaxer. But at least Im making a profit, not watching the AI make the 12th canned food ruinous factory xd.

But again this debate is useless. We can both be happy. Have a simple option to hand over your economy to the AI for those who want to roleplay. Hey I might even use that myself if the AI turns to be decent, for some of my games. I just dont want to be hands tied to it like I was with vicky2, thats all. And the devs agree and found a very good solution.

Its a win win!

If you want to have the state control the economy, play an economic policy that lets you do that. It's cheating to play an economic policy that's literally, specifically, hands-off and still expect to have the same control.

 

[cristofolmc]

If you want to have the state control the economy, play an economic policy that lets you do that. It's cheating to play an economic policy that's literally, specifically, hands-off and still expect to have the same control.

Its not cheating. Its called a game. You dont get that. The difference between planned economy and liberal economy are represented in game through several mechanics.

Its such an absurd argument. Its like saying a man doesnt rule alone its country. So you shouldnt be in charge of anything in game, a Minister AI should handle all the areas for you and you just watch the screen and coordinate it like a leader does. Control everything yourself? Economy? Diplomacy? War? Police? Education? Hang on! That doesnt happen in real life, in no regime one man only controls all of that from the screen of their computer!

xd

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

Setting aside the “capitalists vs player decision making argument”, I want to see the AI be at least somewhat competent at building factories/managing the economy for the sake of the AI controlled nations above all else..

Will the capitalists sometimes build the wrong thing, and have it fail? Sure. That's how the market works. So what?)

Sometimes? More like most of the time. IRL survival of the fittest means that inefficient/ineffective businesses fail, leaving the better businesses to take over their market share, where as a planned economy would see those inefficient enterprises persist regardless. Meaning that over time the free market economy would surpass the planned economy in pretty much every way(see the West vs Warsaw Pact through out the Cold War).

In game however it just didn’t work very well, with huge unemployment, many factories closing down and clogging your states factory slots, and the ones that do okay only doing so through happenstance, and they RARELY chose to build a factory that actually suited a given state. It’s almost like they were programmed to AVOID building factories that would benefit from local resource production.

 

[orc4hire]

Its not cheating. Its called a game. You dont get that. The difference between planned economy and liberal economy are represented in game through several mechanics.

Its such an absurd argument. Its like saying a man doesnt rule alone its country. So you shouldnt be in charge of anything in game, a Minister AI should handle all the areas for you and you just watch the screen and coordinate it like a leader does. Control everything yourself? Economy? Diplomacy? War? Police? Education? Hang on! That doesnt happen in real life, in no regime one man only controls all of that from the screen of their computer!

xd

Right, it's a game and games have rules.

What's the difference between a laissez faire liberal economy and a socialist command economy if you get total control over the economy in both?

 

[orc4hire]

Setting aside the “capitalists vs player decision making argument”, I want to see the AI be at least somewhat competent at building factories/managing the economy for the sake of the AI controlled nations above all else..

Sometimes? More like most of the time. IRL survival of the fittest means that inefficient/ineffective businesses fail, leaving the better businesses to take over their market share, where as a planned economy would see those inefficient enterprises persist regardless. Meaning that over time the free market economy would surpass the planned economy in pretty much every way(see the West vs Warsaw Pact through out the Cold War).

In game however it just didn’t work very well, with huge unemployment, many factories closing down and clogging your states factory slots, and the ones that do okay only doing so through happenstance, and they RARELY chose to build a factory that actually suited a given state. It’s almost like they were programmed to AVOID building factories that would benefit from local resource production.

What does how capitalists chose factories in Vicky2 have to do with anything?

We're doing the false dichotomy again....

 

[Mr. Wiggles]

I radically disagree, WW1 saw an incredible involvement by the states in the economy.
Before WW1 states also pushed for industrialization and protected strategic industries.

 

[cristofolmc]

Sometimes? More like most of the time. IRL survival of the fittest means that inefficient/ineffective businesses fail, leaving the better businesses to take over their market share, where as a planned economy would see those inefficient enterprises persist regardless. Meaning that over time the free market economy would surpass the planned market in pretty much every way(see the West vs Warsaw Pact through out the Cold War).

But thats what happened in Vicky2 which is why this whole debate is just hilarious. The AI is inefficient as the state, persisting in inefficient enterprises regardless.

I would be fine with a AI controlled AI if it was capable of making a bad investment, recognize it, and never invest on it again until the circumstances change it enough so they know it will be profitable. The proble is that I doubt a PDX AI will ever be that smart (as smart as a human, in fact, which is what we are talking about here, human economic behaviour). What we saw instead on vicky2 instead is capitalist open a cement factory. See it fail. Close it. Open another cement factory. Fails. Immediatly open again. And so on and on and on.

 

[acidsun]

Thats all good. But laissez fair wasn't really a philosophical principle. But an economic one. It was thought that leaving private agents to do as they will with their own money would turn out in a better allocation of goods and market signals since the market is more efficient at it than the state.

A principle that is partially flawed.

But this is a game. Against the AI. And there is just NO way, no matter 10 years have past, that the AI will be REMOTELY close to a human player when it comes to take good economic decisions.

My point is exactly that a certain economic policy will leave the player at the mercy of a mechanism that won't always make good economic decisions (Like the flawed AI and like the flawed capitalists of history). If you want to direct your economy, you shouldn't be able to do so with the economy policy that literally means LET IT BE. Just pick certain degree of interventionism. If your interest groups allow for it.

It's like picking a democratic government and wanting to choose who wins "Because this is a game", and then also being allowed to pass any laws with said government even though it makes no sense. Of having rebels take over your country and force a different form of government and then being able to keep doing exactly what you were doing before. What's the point?

Vic is in great part about not being able to fully control certain aspects of your societies. This is a crucial one to be left out like this.

So yeah, the wanting the AI to build things is just Roleplaying. So okay, let the devs introduce an automatization button so the AI can ruin your economy. But for the rest of us, please, keep the system as it is with the investing pool so the human player, who knows best, can decide where to allocate resources.

I don't believe that's how this whole idea of Victoria games, of not giving the player 100% control over its laws and policies, but have to deal with interest groups (Now, literally) that restrict your agency in one way or another, works.

Players shouldn't be able to make interventionist strategic decisions in laissez faire governments, but should receive bonuses in other forms.

 

[EUnderhill]

As I said in one of the other threads about this, when you're at the Lazy Fair, capitalists should be building factories and the player, as the government, should have limited input on what factories get built. (Something the player had in V2, as you may recall.)

(Will the capitalists sometimes build the wrong thing, and have it fail? Sure. That's how the market works. So what?)

One exception, though, would be military factories. The player should always be able to build and subsidize those.

It was the repeated failure, game after game, that became the source of frustration. Having your cappies build fuel refineries in every state despite being five spots away from the lowest ranked nation with access to oil gets tired quickly. See also: luxury furniture and lack of tropical wood, luxury clothes and the lack of silk, liquor and the lack of glass, wine when there is a level 27 winery in some Italian minor, etc