Well yes, so far there hasnt been a PDX game that beats a human player on economic management. That doesnt mean it invalidates their whole game. There are other challenges. What they lack on economy they make up on alliances, or size, or bonuses from conent, or whatever. Doesnt mean I want my economy handled by the AI xd. So yes, we will be better at managing the economy than the rest of the AI, doesnt mean vicky3 wont be great to play. Just as the human is also always better at diplomacy. Doesnt mean the game is not fun any more. Doesnt mean either that I want to hand over the control of the diplomacy the AI to represent a democratic government in which the diplomacy is managed by the foreign affairs minister xd.
So yes, I dont see the problem with it being an option for the player. It worked in Imperator Rome. If you wanted to roleplay that the general had actual control of the army (I mean realistically the leader of a nation wouldnt be able to control 4 armies at the same time! How proposterous to allow the player to control them! How unrealistic!), you could give control of that army to the AI. In most cases had disasterous consequences (hence why I dont want the AI having control of my economy in Vicky 3 even if I play as a liberal economy), but hey, you had the option if you wanted to roleplay! (and we are talking about a new gen PDX game, with one of the best PDX AIs, so yeah, my confidence on the Vicky3 AI is minimal).
Your arguments either support what I said, or depend on exaggerations of what I've said.
If it's ok for the human to be better than the AI, and it won't ruin the game, so let the AI have more control of the eeconomy on laissez faire governments than the player.
It's not about realism. It's about somehow simulating in a game the ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE between a laissez faire and a planned economy.
The WHOLE GAME is based on AIs making decentralized economic decisions. Pops will buy goods. Promote or not. Migrate. Change ideology. Vote. Elect Governments. Revolt or not. All of this in an imperfect manner since it will be an AI controlling it. And when it comes to building factories you'll tell me it's a bad idea because the AI may fail? What would be the downside of a liberal government in this case, then? Since you ignore the only bad aspect of it which is not being able to plan an economy (Which can be good in many situations)?
Its this imperfection that actually simulates the downside of decentralised decisions. Capitalists doing business on their own should have pros and cons. Designing the game so that the MAIN DIFFERENCE between liberal and interventionist economic policies doesn't simply vanish.
All of your analogies refer to very different situations. For instance, one person can't command 4 armies, but 4 armies being coordinated by centralised decision maker acting on strategy and not on the self-interest of hundreds of individuals isn't as absurd as a free market economy being coordinated by a centralised decision maker acting on the basis of strategy and not on the self-interest of hundreds of individuals.
It seems to me you just want the game to adapt to your ideology, where fully liberal governments inevitably result in a good economy whatever the context in which they are elected and the economic setting of the country they rule.
They don't. Historically they are bad at developing a country from an early stage. Good at optimizing countries that are already advanced econmies. The best way to simulate this is having capitalist make bad decisions at earlier stages
