Of the game mechanics that have been revealed to us so far, one of the more controversial ones is the investment pool, which lets the player build factories and other buildings using the money of your capitalists and aristocrats. This is different from Vicky 2, where capitalists choose for themselves what factories to invest in with their money unless you were playing a planned economy.
While I understand the investment pool from a gameplay perspective as it makes the player always involved in their economy, a core aspect of the game, valid criticisms have been raised regarding the investment pool's ability to accurately depict free market capitalism. Realistically you would think a capitalist economy would be more inclined to produce goods based on their profitability while a planned economy would produce what the government (the player) wants it to. For example the player might want to bolster artillery production in their country as it would be useful for them in war (as was often the case in Victoria 2) while a capitalist wouldn't necessarily make the same investment in peacetime when artillery demand is low.
I think a potential solution to this problem would simply be to prevent the player from downgrading buildings in more capitalist oriented economic systems. According to one dev response pops can leave the building they're working in to take higher paying jobs, which potentially solves some of the problems people have with the investment pools. In my mind, this means that you can build however many artillery factories you want; as long as the artillery factories aren't running a profit, pops will find their way into other workplaces that run higher profits and as such pay higher wages. A factory running a deficit will eventually have to close unless subsidised.
If you repeatedly try to build artillery factories or other unprofitable buildings with your investment pool it will eventually run out, and as the money in investment pools indirectly comes from dividends paid out by profitable factories the player would be incentivised to produce profitable goods instead, much like your capitalists would if left to their own devices. By making the player unable to downgrade buildings they would be unable to force workers into less profitable industries of the players desire. When it comes to subsidizing factories to keep them from failing I hope that subsidies are never more than just enough to keep the factory open. A factory running a good profit should offer higher wages and attract more workers than a failing, subsidized factory so that there is some restriction to the players ability to dictate what is produced.
As for people concerned with microing larger economies I don't think making players of big countries always pick laissez faire economic systems so that AI does investment for them is a good mechanic and I would rather see efficient macromanagement tools than pop investments that happen only under certain economic systems.
While I understand the investment pool from a gameplay perspective as it makes the player always involved in their economy, a core aspect of the game, valid criticisms have been raised regarding the investment pool's ability to accurately depict free market capitalism. Realistically you would think a capitalist economy would be more inclined to produce goods based on their profitability while a planned economy would produce what the government (the player) wants it to. For example the player might want to bolster artillery production in their country as it would be useful for them in war (as was often the case in Victoria 2) while a capitalist wouldn't necessarily make the same investment in peacetime when artillery demand is low.
I think a potential solution to this problem would simply be to prevent the player from downgrading buildings in more capitalist oriented economic systems. According to one dev response pops can leave the building they're working in to take higher paying jobs, which potentially solves some of the problems people have with the investment pools. In my mind, this means that you can build however many artillery factories you want; as long as the artillery factories aren't running a profit, pops will find their way into other workplaces that run higher profits and as such pay higher wages. A factory running a deficit will eventually have to close unless subsidised.
If you repeatedly try to build artillery factories or other unprofitable buildings with your investment pool it will eventually run out, and as the money in investment pools indirectly comes from dividends paid out by profitable factories the player would be incentivised to produce profitable goods instead, much like your capitalists would if left to their own devices. By making the player unable to downgrade buildings they would be unable to force workers into less profitable industries of the players desire. When it comes to subsidizing factories to keep them from failing I hope that subsidies are never more than just enough to keep the factory open. A factory running a good profit should offer higher wages and attract more workers than a failing, subsidized factory so that there is some restriction to the players ability to dictate what is produced.
As for people concerned with microing larger economies I don't think making players of big countries always pick laissez faire economic systems so that AI does investment for them is a good mechanic and I would rather see efficient macromanagement tools than pop investments that happen only under certain economic systems.
- 11
- 4
- 2