Interventionism vs Agrarianism? The latter is almost never better than the first one, right?

[SmokeyMcSubpoena]

So, USUALLY, GENERALLY, NOT ALWAYS rofl, inb4 any of that, this game seems to arrange the laws vertically, going from most conservative, to most liberal. Not a horrible way of presenting it.

By that logic (bear with me), it should be the "next" law to pass. I'm still learning about the history, but common sense tells me interventionism is better than an agrarian system...for obvious reasons (about which I could always be wrong I reckon...).

How does that work in game terms, because there's a point where the less progressive IGs want agrarianism....but the UI layout makes it seem like a more liberal reform.

Am I reading into the UI order too much, or would there be a reason to ever go inter. -> ag economy? Since you don't pay a flat building cost and you can't ever be prevented from building., I don't get why I'd wanna turn the economy that way, seems using the investment pool funds for factories would ALWAYS be better in a game about industrializing.

TIA!

PS: I'm not great at the game, but it's safe to assume that while I haven't played anything but PDX games for the last 10 years lol, I'm not above being taught something new.

 

[Nitan17]

Am I reading into the UI order too much

Yes.

 

[PedroLuiz]

So, USUALLY, GENERALLY, NOT ALWAYS rofl, inb4 any of that, this game seems to arrange the laws vertically, going from most conservative, to most liberal. Not a horrible way of presenting it.

By that logic (bear with me), it should be the "next" law to pass. I'm still learning about the history, but common sense tells me interventionism is better than an agrarian system...for obvious reasons (about which I could always be wrong I reckon...).

How does that work in game terms, because there's a point where the less progressive IGs want agrarianism....but the UI layout makes it seem like a more liberal reform.

Am I reading into the UI order too much, or would there be a reason to ever go inter. -> ag economy? Since you don't pay a flat building cost and you can't ever be prevented from building., I don't get why I'd wanna turn the economy that way, seems using the investment pool funds for factories would ALWAYS be better in a game about industrializing.

TIA!

PS: I'm not great at the game, but it's safe to assume that while I haven't played anything but PDX games for the last 10 years lol, I'm not above being taught something new.

it irked me out as well but again Theocracy is more "liberal" than a republic so

Yes.

 

[SmokeyMcSubpoena]

it irked me out as well but again Theocracy is more "liberal" than a republic so

out of ALL their weird design decisions? The fact that they didn't arrange the laws like that consistently is honestly weird to me....but like....in the nicest sense to them....it's their least....questionable design choice...

when I saw the way the laws were presented, I was like oh ok, I see where they said screw it, and where they legit probably didn't have a say in what the product was like on release.

I just wish they'd be consistent...with this one, but I agree, the theocracy placement is weird as well...that one just seems more "obvious" even to folks who are apolitical

 

[Bearjuden]

Serfdom is also by this logic more liberal than banning it, but I do think it's fair for OP to point out this inconsistency. There's easily enough of a pattern to confuse a player. It's not actually true that down is more liberal, but the UI does imply it.

Anyway to your point though OP: yes, Agrarianism is garbage and you're correct, just use Interventionism.

 

[PedroLuiz]

Agrarianism is garbage and you're correct, just use Interventionism.

Agrarianism is better than traditionalism since it allows you to build railways with Investment funds without dealing with the Aristocracy and the rural folk

 

[Bearjuden]

Agrarianism is better than traditionalism since it allows you to build railways with Investment funds without dealing with the Aristocracy and the rural folk

Over Traditionalism, yes, but...that wasn't the question. OP was comparing Agrarianism to Interventionism. Agrarianism's IP builds so slowly it's barely useful for railways (better than not having it of course but it's only inconsistent for actual use), the primary benefit is really that it doesn't block you from other useful laws like how Traditionalism does. Interventionism's IP however can actually be used on a regular basis.

 

[hamburgertrain]

I'd argue that agrarianism is better early game for big countries with lots of aristocrats but few to no capitalists. For example as Qing your much better off with agrarianism than interventionism early on because you are flush with aristocrats who will contribute to feeding your opium addiction and fulfil other agrarian needs

 

[SmokeyMcSubpoena]

Thanks a bunch y'all, I was 99.999% sure that it's just inconsistent UI patterns, I appreciate the help!

 

[SmokeyMcSubpoena]

I'd argue that agrarianism is better early game for big countries with lots of aristocrats but few to no capitalists. For example as Qing your much better off with agrarianism than interventionism early on because you are flush with aristocrats who will contribute to feeding your opium addiction and fulfil other agrarian needs

I haven't played Qing or Russia yet.....my brain melted and my eyes glazed over when I saw a late game video with the number of buildings, but I WAS wondering if the agrarian law is there for that kind of gameplay......but I also assume they're gonna tweak all the econ laws once they have more robust mechanics released, and let you take a backseat and...you know...only be able to indirectly fun the sectors the law covers, once there's more than just 100% player factory build agency most of the time

 

[icedt729]

Agrarianism basically exists to represent export-oriented agricultural economies (compared to Traditionalism, which is for subsistence-oriented agricultural economies). It's also easier to accomplish for underdeveloped countries since Landowners don't hate it and Rural Folk support it, so countries that start with Traditionalism can often escape into Agrarianism earlier than they could get to Interventionism or Laissez-faire.

 

[Richard Dolder]

I haven't played Qing or Russia yet.....my brain melted and my eyes glazed over when I saw a late game video with the number of buildings, but I WAS wondering if the agrarian law is there for that kind of gameplay......

I assume it's to represent the proposed distributionist models, which it does so poorly. (But the game models anything but capitalism poorly, which you can't really hold against it, it's hard to model capitalism AND.)

but I also assume they're gonna tweak all the econ laws once they have more robust mechanics released, and let you take a backseat and...you know...only be able to indirectly fun the sectors the law covers, once there's more than just 100% player factory build agency most of the time

You will always have direct access to the economy, since it's the main driver and goal of everything else.
But it would be nice to have the investment pool when it is out of the players control to have different logics in interventionism, laissez faire, and agraganarism. Rather than just "How much from where, and what they build" an interventionist or distributionist economy should not go "oooo profit" for it's automatic build up.

 

[SmokeyMcSubpoena]

I assume it's to represent the proposed distributionist models, which it does so poorly. (But the game models anything but capitalism poorly, which you can't really hold against it, it's hard to model capitalism AND.)

You will always have direct access to the economy, since it's the main driver and goal of everything else.
But it would be nice to have the investment pool when it is out of the players control to have different logics in interventionism, laissez faire, and agraganarism. Rather than just "How much from where, and what they build" an interventionist or distributionist economy should not go "oooo profit" for it's automatic build up.

I just got into Vic2, ironically as a result of finally learning it via 3's REALLY nice tutorial. There, I had a surprising amount of fun in my second serious game once I realized interventionism only let me expand factories, and do foreign investment.

I'm not sure I want something as binary, but it felt super weird to have the same amount of choices as to where stuff gets built in 3, under interventionism.

But yea, I agree with the first sentence especially, it'd be boring to have no impact on anything other than the size of the investment pool in 3 as a capitalist. I'm hoping the (legit) DLC will flesh this stuff out, and incrementally develop systems rather than add more ways to RP.

 

[iniudan]

If you have lot of peasant and are at least on per-capita tax, agrarianism is better then interventionist, has farm build 4 time faster then factory and use half the infrastructure. Advantage of agrarianism is rapidly developing a taxable consumer base.

Farm are also the most efficient way to foster immigration, as farm require little to no input, so having ton of superfluous level won't cause much problem, so agrarianism can be worth it if you have a large territory but low population, like a lot of the Americas.


EDIT: Had written census taxes instead of per-capita.

 

[evilcat]

There are some cases like colonization, or military force then you can prefer one or the other. Also with trade laws you can have different favorites.
However in case of Agralism, it would make sense to place it closer to Traditionalism.
With some nations we move from Traditionalism to Agralism as middle step, to not piss off landowners too much, but pass some other laws.
In the early game mass farmng with exporting special good (wine, liquor, meat) could provide some nice cash. And we can turn many peasants into labourers, which pay more taxes, buy more goods.
Unofrtunetly AI will never produce enought industrial goods, like steel or glass, so we have to abandon arcadia.

 

[ac566]

out of ALL their weird design decisions? The fact that they didn't arrange the laws like that consistently is honestly weird to me....but like....in the nicest sense to them....it's their least....questionable design choice...

when I saw the way the laws were presented, I was like oh ok, I see where they said screw it, and where they legit probably didn't have a say in what the product was like on release.

I just wish they'd be consistent...with this one, but I agree, the theocracy placement is weird as well...that one just seems more "obvious" even to folks who are apolitical

Down only means "unlocked with later techs" or at the same tech level/unlock. It's not inconsistent, you just drew a false conclusion.

 

[SmokeyMcSubpoena]

you just drew a false conclusion.

Thanks for speedily glossing over the four or so words I put in bold at the beginning of my post , it helps not to read carefully when you're trying to point out other people's incorrect blanket conclusions!

Later tech is ALWAYS better, so your own standards: if the tech UI is arranged vertically down by how good it is, and later tech unlocks laws, and the law UI is arranged in the same way as the tech UI, then laws at the bottom are the best, because techs at the bottom are the best, and laws are arranged according to what unlocks them. Basic deductive reasoning, if a bit wordy.

It's just bad UI design boss, which is a universal sentiment to the point the DDs are about it. Economic theory doesn't develop linearly, throughout history, and it's weird to put Free Trade and Command Econ. in descending order, but not all the law screens have this issue.

The insulting part is that you assumed you're the first one to clear the darkness on this topic, despite significantly better answers you didn't bother to read either. That's why I was mean to you.

 

[Surimi]

I haven't played Qing or Russia yet.....my brain melted and my eyes glazed over when I saw a late game video with the number of buildings, but I WAS wondering if the agrarian law is there for that kind of gameplay......but I also assume they're gonna tweak all the econ laws once they have more robust mechanics released, and let you take a backseat and...you know...only be able to indirectly fun the sectors the law covers, once there's more than just 100% player factory build agency most of the time

Qing can definately rock agrarianism for a while because it has a lot of cash crop potential and can get a huge aristocrat investment pool going. For Russia, it would be less good (save perhaps easy way to transition out of traditionalism early) as you'd mostly be limited to producing common goods like grain (and cloth/meat) which won't yield huge profits like cash crops. That said, the bonuses to agricultural throughput only apply to grain farming (wheat, rice, millet). Not to livestock or cash crops. So you could turn Ukraine into a big mega-farm and just feed the entire world with grain exports, I'm just not sure it would be as viable as Qing growing cash crops or Persia/Afghanistan addicting the world to opium.

The problem with agrarianism is that, while it can be a very fast way to grow your GDP, you're also entrenching your already powerful aristocrats by giving them more wealth and power. You can get around this by pushing for universal suffrage early, which tends to shift the power in agricultural economies to the rural folk. You also need to get out of land-based taxation quickly, as peasants actually pay a lot of tax under land-based taxation.

Another final thing to bear in mind is that, while agrarianism can be one of the fastest ways to get people out of subsistence farming, you're also taking away potential peasant jobs which could otherwise keep pops from becoming unemployed. Late game, your country may well outgrow the ammount of available agricultural land, and at that point the only way to provide jobs is industrialization. Thus, I wouldn't say many nations can really expect to thrive on agrarianism for the whole game, but it could be a viable way for some nations (particularly those who can produce cash crops) to boost GDP and jump-start everything.

 

[SmokeyMcSubpoena]

Qing can......everything.

All that makes a lot of sense, I think. I need to play around more with it then, because a couple of the things that you and others say should happen, I don't know how to....plan....yet....which is the part that's fun for me, trying to solve the puzzle.

Makes a lot of sense (on paper) how the game would be affected as Qing or Russia. I look forward to trying them after the new patch, and with some heavy flavor and historicity modding once that's a thing.

Thanks a bunch!

 

[PedroLuiz]

All that makes a lot of sense, I think. I need to play around more with it then, because a couple of the things that you and others say should happen, I don't know how to....plan....yet....which is the part that's fun for me, trying to solve the puzzle.

Makes a lot of sense (on paper) how the game would be affected as Qing or Russia. I look forward to trying them after the new patch, and with some heavy flavor and historicity modding once that's a thing.

Thanks a bunch!

Qing is an experience...