Developer Diary 5 – POPs, Bureaucrats and the Clergy

[OHgamer]

I am wondering how China is going to work: I think out of all the countries in the 19th century, China had by far the biggest bureaucracy but really had no social programs or reforms. I guess they will have really efficent taxation? Not sure that would be entirely accurate.

while in sheer numbers the bureaucracy might have been large, as a percent of the overall population it was not when compared to some European nations by this point, based on the research I've read about the late Qing state.

 

[alvaro]

Money does not just magically disappear in Victoria 2; like the Spice it must flow. Governments collect money from POPs and then while doing its thing they give money to POPs. We feel that this adds depth to the economy by a very simple change.

by all means this is the part that got me more excited about. actually as i read it i got confused about that clergy thing and started to think about what King has in the pocket still for us.
i am trying not to overreact but...well....mmm....hoo....ha

 

[Delegate]

Not so in Victoria 2; each POP earns money according to what they do.

I Like it a lot.

They are paid from the old crime fighting slider (now re-branded administration) and the amount of money you need to devote to administration is based on the number of bureaucrats your country has. At state level they affect tax collection and crime fighting, at national level how effective social reforms are. There is a maximum effect they have, but that won’t stop the bureaucracy growing leading to a possible bloated bureaucracy.

We felt that the tax collection ability was an important balancing factor in the game. As we mentioned in a previous developer diary we can use the number of bureaucrats as a way to balance out various countries, without having to resort to hard coded nerfs. However it also has another neat consequence... You have just claimed a colony, it is yours, you need to send troops off to defend it, etc. However, there is no administration there, leading to no revenue coming in to your country. Essentially, the colonial game will cost you money initially, however if bureaucrats emigrate to your colonies or if you are able to start creating a local bureaucracy then you will start to see money flowing in.

Awesome! This should really handicap states like China and the Ottoman Empire, and make the player choose carefully how they treat their bureaucrats.

Regarding the growth of colonial bureaucracy, that will perfectly simulate the growth of colonies as well, especially in Africa and Asia, as bureaucrats migrated to the colonies and became the landed administrative minority in a region [for example Africa].

Now I did say we would talk a bit more about the economic system of Victoria 2 in this developer dairy, and here we have it. Money does not just magically disappear in Victoria 2; like the Spice it must flow. Governments collect money from POPs and then while doing its thing they give money to POPs. We feel that this adds depth to the economy by a very simple change.

Truly, you are gods! This was desperately needed in Victoria 1. No more random 'money goes here and comes from here and now dissappears here... abuhhh?'

 

[Red_Communist]

Good DD, gave me lots of info. about how Victoria 2 will work. It'll help me soooo much.

Looking forward to the release of this game!

 

[Zelvik]

I realy like the information in this dev diary. The whole inversion of the pop money cycle is a great thing to hear.

 

[BlueWarrior]

Nice - looks like it is all starting to come together

 

[extox]

I like this dev.

 

[takedown47]

is it possible to mark trade route with a dotted line on the map when the player switches to a trade overlay?

 

[unmerged(148761)]

while in sheer numbers the bureaucracy might have been large, as a percent of the overall population it was not when compared to some European nations by this point, based on the research I've read about the late Qing state.

Maybe compared to France or Britain, but most European nations had a much larger role for aristocrats in government management than China did. I hope the Devs don't try to "nerf" China by ahistorically giving them too few bureaucrat pops: China was literally being run by bureaucrats before the word existed in european languages.

 

[unmerged(181770)]

Maybe compared to France or Britain, but most European nations had a much larger role for aristocrats in government management than China did. I hope the Devs don't try to "nerf" China by ahistorically giving them too few bureaucrat pops: China was literally being run by bureaucrats before the word existed in european languages.

Yeah, this can be represented by low administration efficiency, say, 10W bureaucrats POP in Qing Dynasty have the same efficiency as 5W bureaucrats in European countries.

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

I'm liking the changes you're making to the game mechanics, it should make for very interesting playing. I can already see some of the decisions that are going to have to be made managing POPs, in a much better way than deciding whether to promote or split them. It should also really add to the feel of the different nations.

 

[henryjai]

while in sheer numbers the bureaucracy might have been large, as a percent of the overall population it was not when compared to some European nations by this point, based on the research I've read about the late Qing state.

there are plenty of corruptions, smugglings, whatever...

you don't need to nerf them by giving them less bureaucrats...

 

[unmerged(91061)]

I love the way money is no longer destroyed or evaporates into thin air.
Will the economy be entirely closed? Or will there still be some outlets like inefficient Central Planning creating "negative value", that is, goods worth less than when they were raw materials?
I take it money will of course be able to be "created", but what about "destroyed"?

 

[unmerged(148761)]

I love the way money is no longer destroyed or evaporates into thin air.
Will the economy be entirely closed? Or will there still be some outlets like inefficient Central Planning creating "negative value", that is, goods worth less than when they were raw materials?
I take it money will of course be able to be "created", but what about "destroyed"?

Honestly, there weren't any centrally planned economies during this period. The countries that Vicky labeled as "centrally planned" were agricultural countries like Russia, China, and the Ottoman Empire that were the furthest possible thing to the idea of a "planned economy" that came about during the 20th century and was implemented by fascist and communist states.

 

[Orinsul]

maybe not so important but im asking anyway, will the POPs look like the ones in Victoria, like fancier versions of the same idea, in a similar style and with the same sort of wee bloke as in the first or is there talk on the table of a look entirely new?

 

[Jake Dust]

The best DD

Now about the guy who said that high literacy pops shouldn't be affect as much by the clergy (Sorry, it's nine pages, and I don't wanna read everything again ), just look at the Southern USA. Landowners have high literacy, but that doesn't mean they are more liberal or left-wing (LOL) or against the clergy, in fact, it's quite the opposite situation.

(and I have to admit, representing commie teachers as clergy is ironically correct )

 

[truth is life]

I like what I see, and if every dev diary is this good I expect to see a pretty darn good game when it comes out!

 

[Hansag]

Just a thought

If you introduce Education as a social reform instead.

Clergy could get money channelled to them for doing:
Education (raises literacy)
Health (through healthcare slider)
...

If there is no spending on Education and Health, POPs have to pay the Clergy out of their own pockets (through going to Temple/Shrine etc.).

But they aught also be able to pay Capitalists in order to get an education (i.e. Private Schools, Hospitals etc.).

To this, if you have Bureaucrats in a province, they get paid from the country budget, but the people get a certain level of Literacy from them.

 

[unmerged(45464)]

Should not bureaucrats make the system less effective? I mean look at the USSR with their infamous massive bureaucracy, it took forever to get anything done.

 

[unmerged(148761)]

Should not bureaucrats make the system less effective? I mean look at the USSR with their infamous massive bureaucracy, it took forever to get anything done.

In a word, no. The development of a state run bureaucracy was a major part of the development of powerful nation states.

Bureaucrats are a much more effective way of gathering taxes, administrating justice, educating the population, etc. Having meritocratic, professional classes doing these jobs is vastly better than having the aristocracy or clergy do it, which was the model in previous times. Now... if you try to have them determine how to run an economy, what jobs people should have, what factories should produce, etc, like the USSR did, then you have inefficiency.