This part I agree of. However, in earlier versions of the game, before Revolutions, there were actual resource shortages on the WM and you actually had to fight for them, especiall in MP.
Dev Diary 4 - The Economic System and why it may seem a little similar
- Thread starter King
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
This part I agree of. However, in earlier versions of the game, before Revolutions, there were actual resource shortages on the WM and you actually had to fight for them, especiall in MP.
I think you're right about sticking with a single world market - there's no point for excessive complexity. But, on the note of embargoes, I do have a question:
I'm playing the United States, and the Confederates secede. I declare war. Will I be able to choke them by imposing a naval blockade, or will they be able to access the world market freely even when I've got them totally surrounded on land and sea?
I mean, I understand what you're saying about embargoes not happening too much in the 19th century - cutting off trade with one country just resulted in the same goods coming through via another nation. But cutting off a particular country from the world market as a whole - that was a pretty crucial factor in the American Civil War, and the Germans attempted something similar in WWI as well. So, is there any hope on this count, or will wars have no impact at all on trade?
I'm not very keen of changes to the current system but I think you got the point here. Surronding and blocking country can be a way of winning war - your enemy will be not longer able to buy weapons. It will also cause financial troubles. I like the idea of naval/ land blockade.
Will the economic balance between European provinces and colonies be more realistic?
In Vic1 colonies produced profit... European provinces loss because of sky-high social security spending.
In Vic1 colonies produced profit... European provinces loss because of sky-high social security spending.
You mean the named areas? Or course they are provinces, why should every
field be its own province?
Or do you mean the bold black lines? I think those are states.
Well the UK example actually is very weak, in the mid 19th century enough neutral parties could have provided the belligerent with prime UK dyes so at best the prices would go up. You would not lose access, except if you lose control of your sea lanes... but the the Royal Navy will cut you off not just from Dye but everything else as well.
What would be more useful would be a mechanic whereby the prices that a country has to pay for an imported good increase, the more of its borders (land and sea) are neighboured by hostile provinces. (A sea province would be hostile if enemy fleets control it)
WW1 is in the time frame so blockades and economic strangulation really needs to figure in, even if the world market mechanism is still there.
What would be more useful would be a mechanic whereby the prices that a country has to pay for an imported good increase, the more of its borders (land and sea) are neighboured by hostile provinces. (A sea province would be hostile if enemy fleets control it)
WW1 is in the time frame so blockades and economic strangulation really needs to figure in, even if the world market mechanism is still there.
I'm glad the world market is staying and the economic system is remaining largely unchanged. Please don't make it too easy to make money though.
The UK screenshot looks excellent, though I still prefer formations to single soldiers and I wish those province borders were thicker and less jagged.
Not sure what was supposedly so bad about the Vicky interface, it told you everything you needed to know didn't it? I particularly liked tab 3 of the tables/spreadsheets for comparing other countries' economies, militaries, populations etc all at once.
The UK screenshot looks excellent, though I still prefer formations to single soldiers and I wish those province borders were thicker and less jagged.
Not sure what was supposedly so bad about the Vicky interface, it told you everything you needed to know didn't it? I particularly liked tab 3 of the tables/spreadsheets for comparing other countries' economies, militaries, populations etc all at once.
You've made Doomdark sad, it's Christams and all.
Not my intention at all, especially with HTTT sitting under my virtual tree as a present from Paradox. Doomdark's dev diaries were great. There are plenty of reasons for the differences between the replies there and here, and none are to do with who did the diaries. For starters, HTTT is an expansion to an already well defined and established game, while this is a sequel able to go in whatever direction you want it to. Naturally there is going to be more debate about the latter, though I feel it may be going a little bit far with what is an introductory diary. There are a few too many comments assuming that the game will be a certain way, and bashing/supporting that, when we've still yet to hear what you've done to address the issues I'm sure you're aware of.
Shortage of imported food because of the British blockade was the main reason for the German revolution which ended the first world war. So yeah they should be modelled correctly. I'm pretty confident they will be though.
Totally agree with you. I think national-international trade and national-national trade can better model the trade system. For example, Germany(in WWI) shouldn't expect to get any materials produced by UK. Also, I hope trade embargo is possible in Vicky2.
I'm not a big fan of the way the world market worked in V1, but I think my axe is rather different than Ignudo's....
About a month ago we had a thread here about making the world market more realistic, i.e. with actual demand and supply (as opposed to the V1 market where any supply was met with an equivalent amount of demand, albeit at lower prices). I said then, and I'll say it again, that any attempt to code a full equilibrium model would fail. It would only result in different types of arbitrages (aka exploits) than existed in a simplified model. Given that result, why bother to allocate a ton of programming resources to that endeavor? Right about now, Ignudo is probably saying, "No - a full equilibrium model has no arbitrage." To which I counter, yeah but V2 is going to have many, many economic inputs (labor in particular) that will not have a freely determined price, and so right away your full equilibrium model is short circuited. There will indeed be arbitrage and plenty of it! The bottom line here for people who are not econofreaks is that when it comes to how economic prices are determined, simple and unrealistic trumps complex and still unrealistic.
I do think Ignudo hits the nail on the head about RGO's though. The V1 setup whereby you entered the industrialization track (i.e. civilized status) and then immediately moved an additional 50% of your population base into agricultural RGO's was frankly bizarre.
One of the things that bugged me about V1 was the need to baby sit the world market in order to slowly sell (or buy) items so that their price didn't spike. That was bad micromanagement and didn't add to the fun of the game. Program trading/order management anyone? At the very least there needs to an ability for the player to modify V1's trade order system to include conditional terms such as max units sold/bought per day.
I do like the look of the new map. But I have a feeling that just as in V1, most players will wind up using the political map filter 90% of the time.
About a month ago we had a thread here about making the world market more realistic, i.e. with actual demand and supply (as opposed to the V1 market where any supply was met with an equivalent amount of demand, albeit at lower prices). I said then, and I'll say it again, that any attempt to code a full equilibrium model would fail. It would only result in different types of arbitrages (aka exploits) than existed in a simplified model. Given that result, why bother to allocate a ton of programming resources to that endeavor? Right about now, Ignudo is probably saying, "No - a full equilibrium model has no arbitrage." To which I counter, yeah but V2 is going to have many, many economic inputs (labor in particular) that will not have a freely determined price, and so right away your full equilibrium model is short circuited. There will indeed be arbitrage and plenty of it! The bottom line here for people who are not econofreaks is that when it comes to how economic prices are determined, simple and unrealistic trumps complex and still unrealistic.
I do think Ignudo hits the nail on the head about RGO's though. The V1 setup whereby you entered the industrialization track (i.e. civilized status) and then immediately moved an additional 50% of your population base into agricultural RGO's was frankly bizarre.
One of the things that bugged me about V1 was the need to baby sit the world market in order to slowly sell (or buy) items so that their price didn't spike. That was bad micromanagement and didn't add to the fun of the game. Program trading/order management anyone? At the very least there needs to an ability for the player to modify V1's trade order system to include conditional terms such as max units sold/bought per day.
I do like the look of the new map. But I have a feeling that just as in V1, most players will wind up using the political map filter 90% of the time.
Why even bother releasing DD if they are as uninformative as this one? We didn't learn practically nothing about economy, except that economy model will be similar to the one in Vic1. And justifying this with an excuse that this is just an introduction for the readers that don't know much about Victoria and didn't play Vic1 is somehow silly. If they didn't play Vic1 and don't know much about Victoria in general, they certainly won't know nothing more about Vic2 if you say that economy model will be similar to the one used in vic1...
It's all "wait till next week", "more details in next installment" and so on. It's like listening to a virgin girlfriend.
It's all "wait till next week", "more details in next installment" and so on. It's like listening to a virgin girlfriend.
Rgo
In regards to RGO's
Upgrade: Allows higher productivity (i.e. wells, rain collectors, irrigation and other farming infrastructure, beyond provincial farming infrastructure)
Expand: Allows more POPs to work the land.
POP inputs
If farmers buys fertilizer, machine tools or similar, they should be able to improve productivity as well.
This off course means that a POP has to have some sort of "storage" (i.e. a line of text), and that this degrades over time (for instance one or two times a year depending on how many harvests there are)
Perhaps there should be a distinction between subsistence farmers, tenured farmers (renting the land - wont really see the benefit of increasing productivity) and free farmers (owns their own land - eager to increase productivity)
In regards to RGO's
Upgrade: Allows higher productivity (i.e. wells, rain collectors, irrigation and other farming infrastructure, beyond provincial farming infrastructure)
Expand: Allows more POPs to work the land.
POP inputs
If farmers buys fertilizer, machine tools or similar, they should be able to improve productivity as well.
This off course means that a POP has to have some sort of "storage" (i.e. a line of text), and that this degrades over time (for instance one or two times a year depending on how many harvests there are)
Perhaps there should be a distinction between subsistence farmers, tenured farmers (renting the land - wont really see the benefit of increasing productivity) and free farmers (owns their own land - eager to increase productivity)
me, however, think that it's the best thing ever in game developpment' history. had other games had the same commitment with their community would have saved many failures and disgruntled customers (hello Creative Assembly).
i find it extremely honest and correct from paradox to tell us "hey guys, we know you're expecting us to create another wonder but we found a problem in design here!". after this DD i would preorder the game inmediatly if it were available because i know they are taking care of the aspects we care about.
Dispite Johan's talibanness about world market. Johanus Vult!
No, I like the idea of DD, I believe it benefits customers and devs as they can track the community's response on new game design elements as well as listen to community proposals and maybe include them in the game.
I never said I prefer that you stop doing DD. I said that this onw was uninformative, it's title was "The economic system and why it may seem a little similar" but after reading it I don't know practically anything new about ES, I only know that it will include some sort of world market, similar to the one used in Vic1. And when one poster asked about underprodutcion as an economic intrument to keep economic advantage, the answer was, that it is not that simple...
Don't get me wrong, I value your work, I own practically all your games, I was just commenting that this DD was somehow dissapointing.
Yeah, I think one thing is blockade and other embargo. And I agree even a world market trade system could implement blockades with somewhat like "trade efficiency", affecting prices and/or goods and resources availability. The more harbours you have blocked, the more land borders you have with hostile powers, the less your trade efficiency is.
It could even give a chance to "national markets", and to developing commercial research and services in your country, which I'd find cool.
I agree people like alvaro and others, who see in this DD a very pleasant note of sincerity from developers. What it's as unusual in this (or other) industry as prizeable.
Last edited: