Partially remove player control of production methods

[Panagean]

One of V3's central challenges is managing the political and socio-economic change that occured over the 19th and 20th centuries, as different political and economic groups come into conflict over proposed laws, electoral systems, etc.. A big factor in this is the relative wealth/income of different pops, with wealth broadly moving away from aristocrats and agricultural communities to capitalists and industrial specialists over the course of the game.

At the moment, the player has more or less total control over that second process through production methods, e.g. mandating shareholder capitalism or machinist-focused employment. This is done instantly, at the click of a button, without complaint. As most production methods are a straight economic upgrade (leaving off a few involving high explosives and rare resources like oil, and extremely large countries like China that might want to use high employment methods instead of welfare systems), there is very rarely a reason not to do this - note the correct observation that many people have made that public-trading is OP because of its commitment to the investment pool. (Sidenote, but the idea of managing a huge number of sidegrades and remembering which was best in each case makes my brain scream with boredom, so please don't take this as an argument for sidegrade focused, player driven gameplay).

This basically takes the bite out of any connection between economic and political gameplay, and has no bearing in reality. Private owners don't sell off businesses on a whim, they do so because they either need to raise money for the business to invest (i.e. the business can't support this cost itself - its reserves are low), or because they want to cash out and make money for themselves (i.e. its productivity is much higher than when they invested in it). Owners are generally resistant to change, either through bull-headedness, fixed costs associated with switching over (totally unmodelled in V3), or economies of scale unique to their business position (oil-powered generators might be more efficient, but probably not if you also own the coalmine next door and pay below market rates). I appreciate that there is a design ethos that we form the spirit of the nation rather than just its government, but that doesn't make much sense when different parts of that nation are meant to come into economic conflict.

Totally removing player control of this would, however, probably remove the principle economic activity of the game, so what I would propose is:

• Players can set national priorities for production methods (once they unlock), giving a bias for factories to switch over to that method. This bias would be higher in more centralised economies, and total in a command economy. Subsidised factories would also have a stronger bias.
• Factories must pay a cost from their reserves for each production method they wish to switch, each time they do so
• Factories will generally switch production methods if it seems to be economically advantageous to the people currently in charge (and to a lesser extent, currently employed, perhaps depending on the economic system - unions generally oppose firing all the staff to put in a hyper-efficient robot, for example)
• Factories will only switch ownership method if the right economic conditions emerge - i.e. the need to raise capital, or the desire for owners to "cash out" of succesful businesses (maybe increased if their SoL is falling as they need the dosh

I appreciate modelling this for every factory in every state would put a significant AI burden on an already overtaxed game, but at the moment, the V3 world just feels very sterile and unresponsive to me - national gardening is a good analogy in part because the aristocratic weeds don't really put up much of a fight when I force them to sell their soil off to the industrial rosebush I want to plant.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Totally removing player control of this would, however, probably remove the principle economic activity of the game, so what I would propose is:

• Players can set national priorities for production methods (once they unlock), giving a bias for factories to switch over to that method. This bias would be higher in more centralised economies, and total in a command economy. Subsidised factories would also have a stronger bias.
• Factories must pay a cost from their reserves for each production method they wish to switch, each time they do so
• Factories will generally switch production methods if it seems to be economically advantageous to the people currently in charge (and to a lesser extent, currently employed, perhaps depending on the economic system - unions generally oppose firing all the staff to put in a hyper-efficient robot, for example)
• Factories will only switch ownership method if the right economic conditions emerge - i.e. the need to raise capital, or the desire for owners to "cash out" of succesful businesses (maybe increased if their SoL is falling as they need the dosh

Very good idea.

The player absolute control of jobs and PM could be handed over to the AI to do the national priorities set by the player.

For example, Increase SoL? Increase jobs? Increase Machinist? Decrease clerks? What is the logic that the AI will follow to do all these things? The individual profit of the building? demand will take into account the home market but also international markets? Trade should also handed over to the AI. Will it be possible to set local national objectives, for example, to promote certain goods in colonies and not in Home states?

Buildings include many different businesses, how can this be modeled when a whole state changes the PM for all the business at the same time?

The AI should also be able to reduce the number of buildings by closing sites when profits are low and jobs are not filled.

How the different interests of the era will be reflected in this system? If the AI follows the player national interests and profit, where are religious, militar, aristocrat, conservative, liberal, etc… movements conflicts represented in the game?

 

[Panagean]

Very good idea.

Thank you!

The player absolute control of jobs and PM could be handed over to the AI to do the national priorities set by the player.

For example, Increase SoL? Increase jobs? Increase Machinist? Decrease clerks? What is the logic that the AI will follow to do all these things? The individual profit of the building? demand will take into account the home market but also international markets? Trade should also handed over to the AI. Will it be possible to set local national objectives, for example, to promote certain goods in colonies and not in Home states?

Buildings include many different businesses, how can this be modeled when a whole state changes the PM for all the business at the same time?

The AI should also be able to reduce the number of buildings by closing sites when profits are low and jobs are not filled.

I think this is all cool stuff, but the idea I'm presenting here is just limited to production methods being decided by the owners (i.e. dividend-receivers) of each industry in each state. I view that as a first step in getting maximum reactivity from POP/AI systems while still maintaining a core role for players in industry construction (I would be happy if the player wasn't involved with that, too, but I'm trying to balance what feels possible without conflicting with dev vision for the game here too much).

In that model, the player could just set a nation-wide, per-industry preference for each PM.

The AI would simulate the owners of each industry in each state, changing PMs in response to:

• The player's national preference
• The profitability of the changes of inputs/outputs at current market prices
• The available reserves of the business
• A fixed penalty to switching to avoid it happening all the time (potentially each switch depletes the reserves to simulate plant cost)
• The clout-weighted degree of unemployment this would cause: owners rarely vote themselves out of a job unless they really have to, and socialist societies might prioritise full employment over Pareto-efficient distribution of resources.
• For ownership methods: industries are more likely to change ownership method if they are highly profitable (existing investors think they can take a profit on their investment)
• For ownership methods: industries are more likely to change ownership methods if the local pops of the new owning class are wealthier than that of the old owning class: i.e. failing aristocrats sell to capitalists when the nouveau-riche capitalists can buy them out

How the different interests of the era will be reflected in this system? If the AI follows the player national interests and profit, where are religious, militar, aristocrat, conservative, liberal, etc… movements conflicts represented in the game?

It's those last three points above that I think really inject political life into this system. If this was to work in reality the way it does in my head (unlikely!), you'd get interesting situations like:

• Aristocrats and inefficient modes of production being able to hold on in industries without international or domestic competition, changing national politics
• A self-supporting wave of capitalist takeover, as capitalists get wealthier than aristocrats, buy up factories, switch them to more efficient methods, and then buy up more factories, resulting in a classical liberal political explosion
• Different electoral societies making different choices about how to structure their industries (see the socialist example above), strongly influencing the wealth pyramid
• Players having to influence *other* industries to impact the one stubbornly old-school bit of their economy to change the profitability calculation, resulting in knockon political change

 

[MatthewP]

Factories will only switch ownership method if the right economic conditions emerge - i.e. the need to raise capital, or the desire for owners to "cash out" of succesful businesses (maybe increased if their SoL is falling as they need the dosh

I think it’s a great idea and would add dynamism to the game.

But I disagree with this part. It seems like you’re suggesting a PM would change to some kind of industrial process but it would still be run by shopkeepers? That doesn’t seem to make sense; capitalists run industrial PMs not because the game assumes some guys come and buy up all the old owners but because owning/running that type of business by definition makes you a capitalist. I agree it’s an issue how easy this is to do currently but the rest of your change would solve that.

If you’re just saying that there should need to be clear economic advantage or pressure from the government to get the PMs to switch, then I agree. But I don’t think the old PM should have to be going bankrupt or something like that.

 

[Panagean]

I think it’s a great idea and would add dynamism to the game.

Thanks!

That doesn’t seem to make sense; capitalists run industrial PMs not because the game assumes some guys come and buy up all the old owners but because owning/running that type of business by definition makes you a capitalist.

Isn't that what the ownership methods (i.e. privately owned vs publicly traded) represent? But you may very well be right and I have it backwards. I just think that putting roadblocks in the way of aristocrats realising it would be "better" if their business was sold to/run by other capitalists. Naturally, less of an issue if they can transform into capitalists themselves, but I think that's not what the game models because the pop promotion/transformation is a separate system to pop hiring/firing on PM-changes.

 

[MatthewP]

Thanks!

Isn't that what the ownership methods (i.e. privately owned vs publicly traded) represent? But you may very well be right and I have it backwards. I just think that putting roadblocks in the way of aristocrats realising it would be "better" if their business was sold to/run by other capitalists. Naturally, less of an issue if they can transform into capitalists themselves, but I think that's not what the game models because the pop promotion/transformation is a separate system to pop hiring/firing on PM-changes.

I think of it as: we have the old way of mining or whatever. Aristocrats own it, because it’s something along the lines of “get a bunch of peasants with minimal tools to go do something,” which is an aristocrat sort of thing.

Now a new idea of how to do it more efficiently on an industrial scale comes along. This way requires machinery, trained workers, and so on: capital. Over time the new way outcompetes the old way.

What does this change look like? Different things. Old aristocrats may adopt the new way. Capitalists from other places or industries might invest and start competing with aristocrats who refuse to change. Rich shopkeepers or workers who have expertise and can get investment may become new capitalists. But the commonality is, once their means of making money becomes owning a capitalist factory, they are capitalists. They may retain their old politics for a while, but at some point their new economic interests will start to shape their political interests.

Tweaks may be needed, but I think the game actually models this part quite well. Aristocrats are much more likely than peasants to become capitalists, and they will keep supporting the aristocratic IG for quite some time. But eventually they (or maybe their children) will start to care about the things that affect their new way of life.

The thing that isn’t working well is that the change from the old way to the new way is instant, cost-free, and completely detached from the simulation. I think your suggestion is a great way to close that gap.

 

[Sir.Dr.X]

That's true. Depending on the economic law setting, the player should have more or less control over the production methods/economy. Free Market + Liberalism should completely deprive the player of control over production/trade/building factories. At the same time, supplying the market should be the responsibility of AI, which should prioritize cheaper products, even if they are foreign. In other words, it should be possible to bring the free market economy to collapse by flooding it with cheaper products produced by foreign monopolies, which should translate into the collapse of the domestic industry. Of course, the transition to a centrally planned economy or to state capitalism should remove all restrictions from the player and allow him to manage the industry. Exactly the same mechanics should apply in AI-led countries, which means that a player producing cheaper or selling below the production price should be able to bankrupt the AI economy if the country has the Free Market economic law. Such techniques will naturally not work for countries with trade law mercantilism, protectionism or a closed economy.

 

[RaccoonCity]

I love your suggestion. I hope devs read this.

 

[Panagean]

I love your suggestion. I hope devs read this.

Thank you!

 

[lachek]

Totally removing player control of this would, however, probably remove the principle economic activity of the game, so what I would propose is:

• Players can set national priorities for production methods (once they unlock), giving a bias for factories to switch over to that method. This bias would be higher in more centralised economies, and total in a command economy. Subsidised factories would also have a stronger bias.
• Factories must pay a cost from their reserves for each production method they wish to switch, each time they do so
• Factories will generally switch production methods if it seems to be economically advantageous to the people currently in charge (and to a lesser extent, currently employed, perhaps depending on the economic system - unions generally oppose firing all the staff to put in a hyper-efficient robot, for example)
• Factories will only switch ownership method if the right economic conditions emerge - i.e. the need to raise capital, or the desire for owners to "cash out" of succesful businesses (maybe increased if their SoL is falling as they need the dosh

Excellent suggestion! Part of this was actually already in our work backlog as mechanics to prototype, but I will add the rest to the list as well with minimal adjustments.

I appreciate modelling this for every factory in every state would put a significant AI burden on an already overtaxed game

Not at all, actually - the AI already does all these computations for their own buildings, we'd just need to do it for the player's buildings as well which is no big deal. The additional factors you mention above pure profit puts a little bit of extra strain on it, but not at all so much it'd cause the complexity of the operation to notably change.

 

[starchitect]

This is fantastic. I hope there is a way to stagger checks so that buildings can evaluate switching PMS one by one. What I would really want semi-automated PMs to be able to do is handle transitions- I am going to switch my urban centers over to kerosene gas lamps, but right now I only have enough coal for a few of them. So, my capital switches, price of coal goes up and its unprofitable for another city to switch until another coal mine comes online. I click one button to say that coal gas lamps are desired, and then in order to make sure all centers switch, all I have to do is bring the price of coal down.

There should be global settings for desired PM:
1. Maximize Profit (default setting, will keep outdated PMs if they are less profitable due to input costs)
2. Maximize Output (will pick the PM that creates the most output goods, as long as that PM is profitable, wont switch if it causes the building to lose money and fire. Subsidies would allow you to maximize output even if the PM is unprofitable)
3. Minimize/Maximize Labor (This would likely be a separate button for the automation PMs, could be chosen in addition to max profit or output)
4. Maximize Profit to Ownership Shares (I am not sure if this is actually any different from regular maximize profit? Ownership might not need an automation setting)
5. Disable downgrading or disable a specific PM (otherwise maximize profit may switch back to a prior setting if prices change)

All of these would not consider switching your entire industry at once. Instead, it might switch 10% of your buildings per week, and there is a good chance you will have a mix of PMs at any given time until you have ample supply of inputs. For me, I dont really think this needs to be a take away agency from players by letting capitalists choose instead, its just purely a QoL improvement. I could see an argument that laissez faire only allows maximize profit, but I think you already get enough out of that disabling subsidies, which will make maximize output harder to maintain

 

[Panagean]

Excellent suggestion! Part of this was actually already in our work backlog as mechanics to prototype, but I will add the rest to the list as well with minimal adjustments.

Oh wow! It really means a lot to know that you've read my suggestion and that it might make it into a later version of the game - really brightened my (as it happened, birthday) weekend! Thanks and good luck with the implementation/testing!

 

[Allan Nonymous]

Love this, but how would this work with command economy/council republic?

 

[Fletz]

Oh wow! It really means a lot to know that you've read my suggestion and that it might make it into a later version of the game - really brightened my (as it happened, birthday) weekend! Thanks and good luck with the implementation/testing!

BEST BIRTHDAY(-Weekend) EVER!?!

 

[Fletz]

Love this, but how would this work with command economy/council republic?

I would say command economy would be the status quo but with better tools to manage larger amount of PMs/buildings?

 

[Panagean]

I intentionally haven't commented much on command economies and council republics because I don't know as much about their histories and implementations in game (also because I think the core systems should be focused on working for capitalist systems, given that was the norm during this time period), so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I think council republics could maybe be adapted to work within this system by changing the priorities (i.e. who is considered an owner, and prioritising employment over profit). It might be worth increasing a "randomness" factor if it's used at all in the system to model the decentralisation of communes. There's an implementational question for command economies about whether you still have control over every factory, or just an absolute national preference. I might controversially argue for the latter as a bit of an intentional debuff to command economies trying to impose "one size fits all" policies on diverse countries, which I believe was an issue the Soviet Union faced.