Investment pools don't have to be a problem

[alexti]

1. It's going to be a core part because the engine design and scripting environment encourage it. The devs have all but confirmed that it's so core in the gameplay that they created a weird workaround to try and hand-wavey explain it in terms of capitalists. Let's not kid ourselves here.

Devs actually posted some clarifications and while choosing what industry to invest into is a core part of the gameplay, whether it means manually selecting every building is not clear. They said they will explain details in later DDs. They've also expressed that they've heard fears about everything playing the same and they have some measures to create distinct gameplay and looking into it more. So there are causes for optimisim

 

[alanschu]

Devs actually posted some clarifications and while choosing what industry to invest into is a core part of the gameplay, whether it means manually selecting every building is not clear. They said they will explain details in later DDs. They've also expressed that they've heard fears about everything playing the same and they have some measures to create distinct gameplay and looking into it more. So there are causes for optimisim

I think it goes without saying that doing what they can to make sure that wide scale building construction is not overly tedious is something that has to happen. Arguably more so now that you can't even fall back on a laissez-faire system like in Victoria 2.

I'm hopeful that the investment pool can be done in a such a way that it'll still be engaging for the player while leaving much of the "power" still within the capitalists themselves. Having there be costs to build something outside of what the capitalist themselves want (and having them outright reject many options) such as authority, bureaucracy, or money (or maybe even all 3 are possible ways to provide a cost, could go a long way.

For example, capitalist wants to pay for a canned food factory. You can approve it and it goes along. But maybe you can spend some capacity or money to persuade them to build a liquor factory instead, and they're interested. Of course, they see that it'd be a fools errand to build a cement factory so that is just not even an option for them. Something like this could possibly work out well as it would still grant the player some degree of agency, but in the wake of rapid industrialization with many factories being built then it's not possible to convince all of them to act against what their express interests are.

Of course, making this seem clear and not tedious is still paramount (and needs to be regardless of the economic policies of the country).

 

[alexti]

I'm hopeful that the investment pool can be done in a such a way that it'll still be engaging for the player while leaving much of the "power" still within the capitalists themselves. Having there be costs to build something outside of what the capitalist themselves want (and having them outright reject many options) such as authority, bureaucracy, or money (or maybe even all 3 are possible ways to provide a cost, could go a long way.

I like the idea of overruling capitalists costing authority. It is realistic - even in laissez-faire economy the head of the government can talk some capitalists into certain projects. More importantly, it has the right scaling - it is a useful tool to start industrialization or to make minor corrections, but it's not practical to employ on a large scale since authority capacity doesn't scale with size. So a good tool without micromanagement issues.

 

[Vernichtere]

Once again, the investment pool does not exist because the AI is bad at picking an investment. This is something inherently implementable in script.

The investment pool exists because the game designers have become convinced that this mechanic is more engaging than having the POPs pick investments according to some rules the player would have to learn by either long hours of gameplay or by reading the wiki. Maybe they are wrong; but it is a design decision, not a limitation of the game.

The capitalists do not make decisions with their predecessors that simulate capitalism. A pop cannot own several factories at the same time. One speaks of RNG because pop doesn't plan either. He reacts to a concrete situation with certain probabilities. There is no bad planning going on. There is no planning at all. It's just a reaction like the farmer pop's reaction. Tags, on the other hand, always match goals.


If you have an environment in which no company empires can emerge, it makes no sense to take control away from the TAG of the countries.

Company empires cannot come into being for several reasons. A factory is an entire sector in a province and they employ entire population units at the same time. The Pops are also simply whole populations and not economic actors with a plan. You would need at least some kind of your own company TAG, which then interacts with the Pops again. To make this interesting, the economic cycles would have to be even more detailed and contain something like differences in quality.

 

[Datagalningen]

I don’t think micromanagement will be the issue people make it out to be as long as there’s some kind of macromanagement tool along the lines of the one in EU4. Basically you first assess what you think your country or your pops need depending on your goals, and conclude you need say furniture. You then select the furniture factory in the macromanagement tool and it gives you an overview of states in which furniture factories can be built or upgraded. You can then sort your states by calculated profitability or unemployment among pops who can work in furniture factories. Combine this with the ability to schedule upgrades and you could have furniture factories springing up all over your country in a few clicks.

I’d be fine with an option to let your pops build factories for you, but i think players who leave factory construction to their pops will be at a clear disadvantage as the factories built by AI won’t necessarily further your specific interests.

 

[durbal]

I like the idea of overruling capitalists costing authority. It is realistic - even in laissez-faire economy the head of the government can talk some capitalists into certain projects. More importantly, it has the right scaling - it is a useful tool to start industrialization or to make minor corrections, but it's not practical to employ on a large scale since authority capacity doesn't scale with size. So a good tool without micromanagement issues.

I don't like the idea of spending some points and making capitalists do what you want (that's quite literally just mana). Making them do what you want needs to include incentives.

 

[durbal]

Manchester isn’t in Ireland, durbal.

You ignored my larger point, which is that shifting people from the countryside to the cities will be a gameplay challenge whether or not you or the capitalist AI decide what buildings to build.

Irish peasants are.

Your larger point is irrelevant since I'm not talking about specifically about urbanization on its own but in the context of capitalists -- capitalists that acted in their own interests won't build an artillery factory in Tennessee because there will be nobody to work there. Yet you, as the player, can decide to do so using abstracted capitalist income from the investment pool. That's nonsense.

 

[Spartakusbund]

Irish peasants are.

Not when they’re in Manchester!

Your larger point is irrelevant since I'm not talking about specifically about urbanization on its own but in the context of capitalists -- capitalists that acted in their own interests won't build an artillery factory in Tennessee because there will be nobody to work there. Yet you, as the player, can decide to do so using abstracted capitalist income from the investment pool. That's nonsense.

We don’t know how the investment pool works yet (and given how the devs have talked about it how it functions is still up in the air). Forcing the building of an unprofitable factory might not be possible. It would definitely not be a good idea if your economic ideas don’t allow you to subsidize it.

I would point out, though, that somebody’s got to be the one to build the first factory in an area, whether building is under AI or player control. Probably not going to be an artillery factory though.

 

[Vernichtere]

Irish peasants are.

Your larger point is irrelevant since I'm not talking about specifically about urbanization on its own but in the context of capitalists -- capitalists that acted in their own interests won't build an artillery factory in Tennessee because there will be nobody to work there. Yet you, as the player, can decide to do so using abstracted capitalist income from the investment pool. That's nonsense.

The capitalist would also open an additional factory and expand. He would also buy up competitors' factories or offer different grades. And now?

Especially since the expected "AI" of the capitalist would do just that. You would build in no man's land and based on the market situation at the time of the tick

 

[Lorehead]

If the country you’re playing really has capitalists so powerful that the government cannot have an industrial policy at all, those capitalists are the ones making the decisions relevant to the game. If that’s what laissez-faire means, an economy run on those principles should change your government type, to let you play as the robber barons who are really in charge.

 

[wtrmute]

I think it goes without saying that doing what they can to make sure that wide scale building construction is not overly tedious is something that has to happen. Arguably more so now that you can't even fall back on a laissez-faire system like in Victoria 2.

I don't necessarily disagree with your wider point, but the concept that you need to "fall back on a laisser-faire system" is extremely concerning to me. You should not be forced to adopt an economic system just for the sake of avoiding micro. Having radical Liberalism because you want to simulate a minimal State country is fine, even laudable; having radical Liberalism just because the player thinks the country is too big for them to use another economic system is about as bad as the player having to have a command economy in order to fine-tune the economy so that the country does not stagnate.

The capitalists do not make decisions with their predecessors that simulate capitalism. A pop cannot own several factories at the same time. One speaks of RNG because pop doesn't plan either. He reacts to a concrete situation with certain probabilities. There is no bad planning going on. There is no planning at all. It's just a reaction like the farmer pop's reaction. Tags, on the other hand, always match goals.

I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or anything, but my point was not that Capitalists planned or did not; my point was that Investment Pools aren't in the game because the AI is bad, but because the design team decided that this is more fun.

Also, do we know that a pop cannot own more than one company? Did any of the devs say that? I don't think it is hard to have a certain (group of) POPs have shares on the ownership of a given set of companies and receive profits from each independently.

Regarding conglomerates as tags, I'm not sure this is something that would be in theme for Victoria; while there were some powerful priivate interests in the period (Lloyd's of London, Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, etc.) they were not national-level players like the British East India Company had been a century earlier, so it doesn't make sense to simulate them using tags. In particular, they would not have a territory, they would not have POPs (only have POPs work for them), and they would have interests spread inside one or more of other tags which represented the countries they operated in. It's too different in mechanics.

 

[Lordof]

Any form of Player control over the free market under laissez faire is absurd and that is final.

Investment pool is clearly the weakest design this game has as of now, the same way how Mana was the first crack in Imperator, the inclusion of total command economy and absolute planned economy is game that focuses on economy is a cause for concern

And that is why it is controversial, only time will tell will the developers stay to true to their statement that won't retread Imperator devs mistake in complete neglecting concerns by consumers early in the product development

 

[Lorehead]

I don’t think the Investment Pool necessarily implies a total command economy. I hope the capitalists still sometimes surprise me. But I strongly agree that the player should be able to enact strategic priorities.

 

[makapse]

How will AI nations do the investment planning? If they are able to do it, then we can apply the same principles for the player nation.

 

[Baneslave]

Investment pool is clearly the weakest design this game has as of now, the same way how Mana was the first crack in Imperator, the inclusion of total command economy and absolute planned economy is game that focuses on economy is a cause for concern

People have really strong feeling about this "Investment pool" without really knowing how it works. (Unless I missed some information somewhere).

Victoria 2 had investment pool(s) where capitalists poured investments into factory and railroad building. Victoria 3's investment pool is different thing, but we don't know how.

And Victoria 2 had problem in both extremes: Planned economies of large countries were miserable micromanagement fests where no automated development of any type was possible. And in the laissez-faire end of the pool player had practically no control over one of major pillars of the game. There was also the fact that hardcoded parties of the country might only have economic policies that player doesn't want play with...

 

[alanschu]

I don't necessarily disagree with your wider point, but the concept that you need to "fall back on a laisser-faire system" is extremely concerning to me. You should not be forced to adopt an economic system just for the sake of avoiding micro. Having radical Liberalism because you want to simulate a minimal State country is fine, even laudable; having radical Liberalism just because the player thinks the country is too big for them to use another economic system is about as bad as the player having to have a command economy in order to fine-tune the economy so that the country does not stagnate.

To be clear, I was describing the situation as it is in Victoria 2.

I entirely agree that the player shouldn't be forced to choose a different economic system just to deal with micromanagement.

 

[alexti]

I don't like the idea of spending some points and making capitalists do what you want (that's quite literally just mana). Making them do what you want needs to include incentives.

I agree with that having incentives are critical and that should be the main mechanism, however it doesn't exclude possibility of small scale interventions using "personal connections"

 

[alanschu]

I agree with that having incentives are critical and that should be the main mechanism, however it doesn't exclude possibility of small scale interventions using "personal connections"

I think it's also important to note that say, "using 20 authority for 10 years" is the same as "reducing the available authority to use for 10 years." Whether it be a degree of backroom deals, leveraging influence, or empowering people to drive policy in other ways. It feels to me a lot like granting privileges to lobbyists in exchange for some sort of favor and whatnot.

I'd *love* it if stuff like this wasn't actually abstracted, but I do think that that would be a whole lot more to add to the game.

 

[Vernichtere]

People have really strong feeling about this "Investment pool" without really knowing how it works. (Unless I missed some information somewhere).

Victoria 2 had investment pool(s) where capitalists poured investments into factory and railroad building. Victoria 3's investment pool is different thing, but we don't know how.

And Victoria 2 had problem in both extremes: Planned economies of large countries were miserable micromanagement fests where no automated development of any type was possible. And in the laissez-faire end of the pool player had practically no control over one of major pillars of the game. There was also the fact that hardcoded parties of the country might only have economic policies that player doesn't want play with...

It is more or less also the discussion about whether freedom is worth it. If you look at the mechanics behind the capitalists' free investment, it becomes very questionable to demand freedom here.

I can also use the same argumentation to demand that my armies act largely autonomously, or I lose control as soon as the theater of war is far away. Just to see in the end how the individual armies act without a common plan.

There are just no companies and actual competition that would create agents with credible targets. Nonetheless, the questionable argument of realism is brought up here, garnished with the out-of-the-air assertion that the AI will already handle the system.

And yeah, it's not really good in terms of game design as such either. Usually you start out with more direct control over things, not less. Here one would rather start in such a way that one can only control the development to a very limited extent, just to bring the government to power as quickly as possible, which allows greater access.

I prefer the abstraction of the investment pools

 

[Dedalo89]

What I think people is missing is how flexible the investment fund can be. For example it could show the player a value that represents the preference of the capitalists for building a factory in a state. And then depending in the economic system there would be a threshold so you can only build the ones with a min value. How limiting this threshold would be could easily be a game option, including no limit.
And the fact that is showing you the caps thinking would be interesting for the people playing without restrictions so they can roleplay or as a guide for beginners, as well as for the ones that want more of a simulation as they would be able to see what tariffs or subsidies are needed to change their opinion.
As the devs have already said there would be autonomous building, the player could configure it to choose from what the caps offer. This could be made into a game option "real laissez faire" that force the automation with a very limiting threshold.
And as a bonus the threshold could be tied also to the interest groups as a way to make the jump between economical models less bumpy and allow different shades of laissez faire or any other.