Players should not be able to choose which buildings are constructed under Planned Economy.
- Thread starter Aramel
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Ok, to be serious for one minute. I find it very silly how people are angry about the whole "spirit of the nation" thing. Who do they think they were playing as in the other games? The King of France? I was unaware he decided that France should research Impressionism.
I'm agnostic about the whole investment pool thing. I can see how it could work well, and how it could fail. I'm most worried about the amount of micro-management, but the Devs said that there will be automation tools, so hopefully, I can just turn them on and not have to worry about it.
By the way, I'm not kidding about the Bismarck thing. Mostly. One flaw in politics games I found is that parliaments tend to be nothing more than a roadblock and barrier to your vision. The other MPs should have agendas and plans of their own! If you lose a vote, they should get a chance to push their own vision, and not just doom your country to inaction. I can never find a game where you do not have 100% control over your government. At most, they put some arbitrary limit on what actions you can do. You never see the other politicians do things.
When playable republics in CK3 Paradox!
I'm agnostic about the whole investment pool thing. I can see how it could work well, and how it could fail. I'm most worried about the amount of micro-management, but the Devs said that there will be automation tools, so hopefully, I can just turn them on and not have to worry about it.
By the way, I'm not kidding about the Bismarck thing. Mostly. One flaw in politics games I found is that parliaments tend to be nothing more than a roadblock and barrier to your vision. The other MPs should have agendas and plans of their own! If you lose a vote, they should get a chance to push their own vision, and not just doom your country to inaction. I can never find a game where you do not have 100% control over your government. At most, they put some arbitrary limit on what actions you can do. You never see the other politicians do things.
Well, I do play a lot of CK2...
When playable republics in CK3 Paradox!
- 12
- 1
- 1
Who is, unlike capitalists in Free Market is actual part of Government machine
- 3
We've been over this. It's insulting to imagine that the player is some sort of nebulous undefined "spirit of the government".
- 9
- 4
- 2
This is how literally every PDX title, including CK no matter how much it likes to pretend otherwise, operates. People getting mad about this need to seriously examine what the player can do in other PDX titles and ask how thats not playing as the "spirit of the nation".
- 5
- 1
- 1
You mean the game that irrecoverably dumbed down the game by introducing colonist, diplomat, and merchant mana to the game and letting you play as nations that weren't France, Spain, England, Austria, Poland, the Ottomans, or Russia? Like non-Europeans?!?!?!
- 7
Players should not be able to do anything, like commanding armies and setting taxes. These should be done by officer pops and elected politician pops that gather in an assembly to decide the laws of the nation.
Victoria 3 should just be a game where you sit back and watch the AI do things.
Victoria 3 should just be a game where you sit back and watch the AI do things.
- 12
- 6
- 2
- 1
Yes, but that game dumbed down the board game by letting you play as Poland.
- 3
- 1
Seriously though, your argument is funny but not very good because it's a false simmetry. The game attempts to simulate economic, political and military dynamics, and each of these dynamics can be better simulated differently. Because the dynamics are different, not opposite.
Centralized decisions are better simulated by player direction while decentralized decisions are left to the AI. This is the pattern throughout the game. Hence you (As a player) command armies, state constructions and government actions in general (Limited by decentralized AI decisions if you're a democracy with a more liberal government), but not private economic and political dynamics.
"Ah, you're the spirit of the nation" - is also a pointless argument. Means nothing and what this spirit of the nation can do is totally arbitrary.
If I'm the spirit of the nation, why can't I direct my population to elect whichever government I want, have pops never rebel, buy the goods I want them to buy, promote however I like and etc etc just like I can with the richer class
The entire economic and political system is based on AI decision making, not player agency, and suddenly in the crucial point that differentiates the economic systems this is put aside
I'm afraid it will partially turn out like Stellaris, where designing a liberal capitalist utopia or a fascist totalitarian regime feels pretty much the same gameplay wise
Centralized decisions are better simulated by player direction while decentralized decisions are left to the AI. This is the pattern throughout the game. Hence you (As a player) command armies, state constructions and government actions in general (Limited by decentralized AI decisions if you're a democracy with a more liberal government), but not private economic and political dynamics.
"Ah, you're the spirit of the nation" - is also a pointless argument. Means nothing and what this spirit of the nation can do is totally arbitrary.
If I'm the spirit of the nation, why can't I direct my population to elect whichever government I want, have pops never rebel, buy the goods I want them to buy, promote however I like and etc etc just like I can with the richer class
The entire economic and political system is based on AI decision making, not player agency, and suddenly in the crucial point that differentiates the economic systems this is put aside
I'm afraid it will partially turn out like Stellaris, where designing a liberal capitalist utopia or a fascist totalitarian regime feels pretty much the same gameplay wise
- 12
- 6
- 1
Very nice and cosy beating of strawmen here. People are not against "spirit of the nation" per se, they are specifically against explanation that something should be in one way or another just because of "spirit of the nation" without any proper and believable argument. If someone wants to explain some game design decision with it, this someone should better say: "Sorry, but I have no desire to explain my thoughts process to you."
- 6
- 3
- 1
How come your pops can't pass laws without your permission in democracy, then? And research is the ultimate decentralized process, yet I have never seen anybody suggest leaving it up to the AI. Edit: Except for me!
Spirit of the nation was an argument against it being outside the player's preview. This is the main gameplay argument:
Last edited:
- 9
- 4
They define the government that pass those laws. And thus which laws can be passed.
As to research: It is neither the ultimate decentralized process (The more governments have funded science, the faster it progressed) BUT yes, in the 1800s science was mostly a private initiative and you have a good point.
But I don't like the research system from Victoria 2 either and I very much prefer the Stellaris one. Since research is quite more linear and progressive than a market system, I'm neither in favour of full control nor absolute lack of control.
The idea that you can't exactly predict which technology you'll be able to research next, and the chance of researching something that gives you an edge over another country even though you're more or less equivalent is a great one
I find this argument arbitrary. Politics is equally fundamental ("Everything is political") and yet it is largely AI based.
I can deal with investment pools, though, depending on the limitations they put for you to build stuff.
- 2
I am satisfied with answer of Wiz, but it requires explanations in further dev diaries, what exactly is so fundamental there and how exactly capis with AI forbid player to engage into this fundamental process, so it's now a wait until further diaries.
But not really satisfied with people still trying to explain things with "spiritual" arguments for hours be it "yes, cap should have AI because player is this spirit" or "not, no cap AI, because player is these spirits" side.
- 2
One day there'll be a game of political intrigue for you and me, layered over a complex web of socio-economic relationships and a world in flux. One day.
Until then, we may have to content ourselves by *sigh* running for office?
- 2
I totally agree, gameplay in a free market economy should look exactly the same as gameplay in a planned socialist one.
- 1
- 1
Devs never gave the "spirit of the nation" argument for motivating something. Wiz gave it as an counter argument when somebody said that it is impossible that the player should control capitalist funds, because it is inconceivable that the state should control them. In response Wiz said that the player is not the same as the state, giving the "spirit of the nation" as an example of what the player can be thought as IN THAT SITUATION.
Read the dev responses people.
- 6
- 3
Ultimately the reason the reason the vicky2 cap AI was scraped was because of gameplay reasons, not because of "spirit of the nation" arguments or anything people might have said.
- 3