Please reformulate the capacites system

[5687VB]

I understand that the capacities system is logical choice from a gamer design perspective, but I think the way it is show it is not good enough. Here my suggestions:

- Bureaucracy: Basically improve over Vic2 system. A local system tied to the locals pops. Here you could add an extra burden in the capital if you have a very centralized country (laws) because the central government will constantly interfere in small local matters or a smaller one if you have like a federation system. Here you can add interesting gameplays simulating real life problems empires suffer like different languages population, two capitals and etc increasing bureaucratic demand. But all this need to be tied to pop's, laws and government structure and operate in the local level and as an result affect the rest of the country.

- Authority: is a really bad idea. The power of a government is convincing the others do they work (no man rules alone). So the power of a monarch is tied to loyalty of groups and pops not something abstract. Again you can do all that this currency can do with a good simulation of law and government systems.

- Influence: even this could be improved. So your influence should be proportional to GDP, military power, culture, past experiences (old enemies, new friends) and etc not a simple number. Build a better system when the relation with every country matters and you need to create a diplomatic corps that need resources (money, people), not just a simple number.

Finally, reduce the abstraction, connect the systems and leave arbitrary numbers only when they are indispensable and use the least amount possible.

 

[Cinigs]

I understand that the capacities system is logical choice from a gamer design perspective, but I think the way it is show it is not good enough. Here my suggestions:

- Bureaucracy: Basically improve over Vic2 system. A local system tied to the locals pops. Here you could add an extra burden in the capital if you have a very centralized country (laws) because the central government will constantly interfere in small local matters or a smaller one if you have like a federation system. Here you can add interesting gameplays simulating real life problems empires suffer like different languages population, two capitals and etc increasing bureaucratic demand. But all this need to be tied to pop's, laws and government structure and operate in the local level and as an result affect the rest of the country.

- Authority: is a really bad idea. The power of a government is convincing the others do they work (no man rules alone). So the power of a monarch is tied to loyalty of groups and pops not something abstract. Again you can do all that this currency can do with a good simulation of law and government systems.

- Influence: even this could be improved. So your influence should be proportional to GDP, military power, culture, past experiences (old enemies, new friends) and etc not a simple number. Build a better system when the relation with every country matters and you need to create a diplomatic corps that need resources (money, people), not just a simple number.

Finally, reduce the abstraction, connect the systems and leave arbitrary numbers only when they are indispensable and use the least amount possible.

"Here you could add an extra burden in the capital if you have a very centralized country (laws) because the central government will constantly interfere in small local matters or a smaller one if you have like a federation system"
The opposite is usually true. The are a lot of economies of scale with buracracy.

"empires suffer like different languages population"
This exists but is ethnicity not just langauge.

"two capitals"
I feel like they wouldn't include 2 capitals with how war works.

"But all this need to be tied to pop's, laws and government structure"
It is

"Authority: is a really bad idea"
Sort of agree. It's basically national focuses but it is kind of gamey.

"So your influence should be proportional to GDP, military power, culture"
That's what the great, major, minor, etc power is.

"past experiences (old enemies, new friends)"
Countries will start with relationships representing this.

"build a better system when the relation with every country matters"
Historically it didn't, most countries didn't have formal relationships with each other. Hell even now, many smaller nations don't have diplomatic relationships with each other now.

"create a diplomatic corps that need resources (money, people), not just a simple number."
0.03% of Americans are in the United States Foreign Service. For other countries, it is even less. Like it's a rounding error in terms spending so there not a huge point in making a whole system for it.

 

[Nirmara]

"create a diplomatic corps that need resources (money, people), not just a simple number."
0.03% of Americans are in the United States Foreign Service. For other countries, it is even less. Like it's a rounding error in terms spending so there not a huge point in making a whole system for it.

Diplomacy was an even smaller operation back then employing but a handful of peoples. Just to give an idea, the Foreign Office, a highly centralized institution, employed in 1900 a grand total of 8 typists in the London office.

Regarding the cost, the state expenditure for diplomatic enterprise tended to be quite low due to the average to mediocre pay being offered and the negligible infrastructure cost. In the case of ambassadors, the low pay coupled with high expenditures required by the job made diplomacy a domain traditionally reserved for the aristocracy. The only exception was the US diplomatic corps which was composed of industrialists, but it was seen as an anomaly back then. I guess it could be argued that some aristocrats and bureaucrats should work those diplomatic jobs but even then we are speaking of a handful of pops so the jobs would be filled immediately without any player intervention making this mechanic superfluous.

 

[Victor Cortez]

I understand we need to kill time until release, but I don't think it makes too much sense to ask devs to scrap a big chunk of their game before we have actually played it.
It simply won't happen.

 

[Leoreth]

I like how the "less abstractions" people never have any concrete suggestions for a better design, just vague buzzwords.

 

[Ololorium]

I understand that the capacities system is logical choice from a gamer design perspective, but I think the way it is show it is not good enough. Here my suggestions:

- Bureaucracy: Basically improve over Vic2 system. A local system tied to the locals pops. Here you could add an extra burden in the capital if you have a very centralized country (laws) because the central government will constantly interfere in small local matters or a smaller one if you have like a federation system. Here you can add interesting gameplays simulating real life problems empires suffer like different languages population, two capitals and etc increasing bureaucratic demand. But all this need to be tied to pop's, laws and government structure and operate in the local level and as an result affect the rest of the country.

- Authority: is a really bad idea. The power of a government is convincing the others do they work (no man rules alone). So the power of a monarch is tied to loyalty of groups and pops not something abstract. Again you can do all that this currency can do with a good simulation of law and government systems.

- Influence: even this could be improved. So your influence should be proportional to GDP, military power, culture, past experiences (old enemies, new friends) and etc not a simple number. Build a better system when the relation with every country matters and you need to create a diplomatic corps that need resources (money, people), not just a simple number.

Finally, reduce the abstraction, connect the systems and leave arbitrary numbers only when they are indispensable and use the least amount possible.

Things you want are either:
1) Already represented by the capacities system - pops, laws and government structure do affect Bureaucratic capacity, law and government system do affect Authority and you also don't need to spend Authority on things that loyal groups want, Influence is already proportional to GDP, military power and cultural prestige.
2) Vague nonsense ("you can add interesting gameplays simulating real life problems empires suffer like different languages population, two capitals and etc", "power of a government is convincing the others do they work (no man rules alone)", "Build a better system when the relation with every country matters", "reduce the abstraction, connect the systems").
I can see that you really, really dislike abstract numbers representing things. Well, this is too bad because everything in computer games is represented by a number, visible or hidden. In Victoria 2 you had relationship between countries, militancy and consciousness all represented as "just a simple number". Prestige is "just a simple number", industrial and military rankings are "just simple numbers" etc. Production efficiency, army attack and defense, etc., etc - all "simple numbers". Even literacy was an abstraction over how educated your population is, not just the proportion of people that can read, so it's also - the horror! - an abstract number that NEEDS to be thrown away because numbers make games literally unplayable I guess.
Please take some time to actually think about how you would design alternative systems to work and how your design would improve things in tangible way, make a concrete example that compares your system with the current system, then post your thought-out suggestions. People who argued that throwing away political parties in favor of Interest Groups would not work well in democratic states did exactly that and the devs listened. "Build a better system, reduce the abstraction" is not a helpful suggestion.

 

[rafsq]

I understand some people may be dragged by the "mana hate" bandwagon too much, but if this capacities system doesn't make everything in the game dependent to it (like EU4's Mil, Dip and Adm currency), it seems perfectly fine and mixes with the main theme of the game.

 

[Paghalay]

In Victoria 2

The issue is people looking back with rose tinted glasses upon mechanics that have a lot of abstraction, and most likely quasi-capacities underneath that the player is just never explicitly told about.

I still think that if capacities were a hidden value and not mentioned, the mana haters would be fine and enjoy the game despite the "mana" system still being in place.

If people want to run a country in a realistic way with no abstractions, then run for office in the real world, but even then, economic decisions are made on abstracted numbers and broad estimates. the CPI itself is rather abstracted.

 

[Kapitalisti]

I like how the "less abstractions" people never have any concrete suggestions for a better design, just vague buzzwords.

Would you say their demands are too... abstracted?

 

[Helmic____]

Simply tying the capacities to the pops instead of directly from laws and “base value” would dramatically improve the mechanic to the point that few people would complain. The laws should affect the pops which should feed into for example authority.

Relative Prestige should feed into influence just like it does for the dynamic amount of GPs, Britain should have more influence than a barely GP Sweden. And ruler traits should be less decisive than being 1/4 of the influence of a secondary power

 

[Ololorium]

Simply tying the capacities to the pops instead of directly from laws and “base value” would dramatically improve the mechanic to the point that few people would complain. The laws should affect the pops which should feed into for example authority.

It's an interesting idea, actually. Let's think about each of the capacities:
1) Bureaucratic Capacity. We know it's coming from only 2 sources: Bureaucrats working in formal administration on government payroll and "Base" of 100. I think the base value is supposed to help the least technologically advanced nations that don't have a formal bureaucracy. Maybe before invention and implementation of state services or under some government systems Aristocrats should generate Bureaucratic Capacity?
2) Authority. This one explicitly represents the ability of the state to force people to do what they normally wouldn't. So in my opinion, it makes sense for it to come mostly from laws and system of authority, instead of directly from pops. Which pops would contribute to it, the police? Well, no number of police officers would increase the ability of a democratic state to force people to repair roads for free or ban certain harmless goods because a democratic state wouldn't use its police officers in such a way (and if it did, it woud by definition be undemocratic).
3) Influence. Again, which pops would contribute to it? As people in this thread explained, diplomatic corps is tiny even today and was even smaller in Victorian times. The only thing I would change is to tie the number directly to prestige instead of rank, so we would have more granularity, here I agree with you. And why shouldn't ruler traits be significant here? An active ruler can achieve a lot on diplomatic stage compared to someone who doesn't care. I guess there is the general aversion to rulers doing much because in Victoria 2 they didn't do anything, but that system was just plain wrong. Rulers shouldn't grant +10% discipline, +5% factory output or something like that, because in real life no ruler could singlehandedly have such impact, or if it did it was because of the systems they put in place, not simply because they were "strict" or "industrious". But on diplomatic stage acts of one person and personal relationships matter a lot, so it makes sense for diplomatic influence to depend on a ruler to a significant degree.

 

[Lapoleon]

The only thing I would change is to tie the number directly to prestige instead of rank, so we would have more granularity, here I agree with you.

I understand the feeling behind this, but think about how annoying this would be. As Sweden, a medium power, you would get a 100 base power and then let's say 431 based on your prestige, this would give you 531 Influence.

Now you would like to influence the Netherlands and Belgium. The Netherlands costs 267 to influence while Belgium costs 259. Deciding ahead of time if you want to do this is already a bit mathematical, but let's add the numbers: 267+259 = 526 Influence. Just below your limit. Now Belgium builds 3 extra brigades and suddenly the numbers change and they are suddenly 268. Now you have a deficit of -4 Influence and some penalty is applied to you.

Now in the example as given it would probably be more along the lines of:
You have 100 (base) + 500 (minor) = 600 Influence
The Netherlands and Belgium are both minor powers and cost 250 to Influence so you have 100 remaining.

From a simulation standpoint the first method is slightly more complex and better. From a gameplay standpoint however it would be annoying as heck to work with.

 

[Ololorium]

I understand the feeling behind this, but think about how annoying this would be. As Sweden, a medium power, you would get a 100 base power and then let's say 431 based on your prestige, this would give you 531 Influence.

Now you would like to influence the Netherlands and Belgium. The Netherlands costs 267 to influence while Belgium costs 259. Deciding ahead of time if you want to do this is already a bit mathematical, but let's add the numbers: 267+259 = 526 Influence. Just below your limit. Now Belgium builds 3 extra brigades and suddenly the numbers change and they are suddenly 268. Now you have a deficit of -4 Influence and some penalty is applied to you.

Now in the example as given it would probably be more along the lines of:
You have 100 (base) + 500 (minor) = 600 Influence
The Netherlands and Belgium are both minor powers and cost 250 to Influence so you have 100 remaining.

From a simulation standpoint the first method is slightly more complex and better. From a gameplay standpoint however it would be annoying as heck to work with.

Since the capacities are soft caps, I believe tiny changes like these are unlikely to result in significant penalties. At the same time, if diplomatic weight of a country suddenly changes because it jumped from "minor nation" to a "secondary power", it would result in a big hit to your Capacity. Imagine if Belgium adding 3 brigades pushes it through the "secondary power" threshold and suddenly you need to pay 100 more Capacity to maintain your relationships - it would probably be more frustrating than gradual small changes.

 

[CassalettIV]

I believe it is crucial to discuss Victoria 3 on his own, and if one were to compare it to Victoria II, then one must ask if the way Victoria II made it was really any better.

Bureaucracy is, to me, way better now. In Victoria II bureaucracy had no limit, it was a common thing to have an overbloated bureaucracy even when you already had enough, leading to insane maintenance costs. In Victoria 3, much like factory pops, it seems that Bureaucrats are hired as long as there is somewhere for them to work. I wouldn't want to pay any more pops I wouldn't need. In this way this system is a lot better, both by itself and compared to Vic 2. My only concern is it being homogeneous rather than each state having it's own administrative efficiency, but it seems there is much more I haven't seen yet that could answer that.

 

[Spartakusbund]

Simply tying the capacities to the pops instead of directly from laws and “base value” would dramatically improve the mechanic to the point that few people would complain. The laws should affect the pops which should feed into for example authority.

Relative Prestige should feed into influence just like it does for the dynamic amount of GPs, Britain should have more influence than a barely GP Sweden. And ruler traits should be less decisive than being 1/4 of the influence of a secondary power

Bureaucratic capacity is tied to pops, which is good.

Influence and Authority should not be tied to POPs. Having extra diplomat POPs should not give you more influence, or whatever alternative kind of system you’re thinking. That’s just not how diplomacy works. Authority should come out of your laws and the type of government you have, not POP loyalty. POPs will be very loyal in well run liberal states, but those states should have low Authority.

 

[Helmic____]

It's an interesting idea, actually. Let's think about each of the capacities:
1) Bureaucratic Capacity. We know it's coming from only 2 sources: Bureaucrats working in formal administration on government payroll and "Base" of 100. I think the base value is supposed to help the least technologically advanced nations that don't have a formal bureaucracy. Maybe before invention and implementation of state services or under some government systems Aristocrats should generate Bureaucratic Capacity?
2) Authority. This one explicitly represents the ability of the state to force people to do what they normally wouldn't. So in my opinion, it makes sense for it to come mostly from laws and system of authority, instead of directly from pops. Which pops would contribute to it, the police? Well, no number of police officers would increase the ability of a democratic state to force people to repair roads for free or ban certain harmless goods because a democratic state wouldn't use its police officers in such a way (and if it did, it woud by definition be undemocratic).
3) Influence. Again, which pops would contribute to it? As people in this thread explained, diplomatic corps is tiny even today and was even smaller in Victorian times. The only thing I would change is to tie the number directly to prestige instead of rank, so we would have more granularity, here I agree with you. And why shouldn't ruler traits be significant here? An active ruler can achieve a lot on diplomatic stage compared to someone who doesn't care. I guess there is the general aversion to rulers doing much because in Victoria 2 they didn't do anything, but that system was just plain wrong. Rulers shouldn't grant +10% discipline, +5% factory output or something like that, because in real life no ruler could singlehandedly have such impact, or if it did it was because of the systems they put in place, not simply because they were "strict" or "industrious". But on diplomatic stage acts of one person and personal relationships matter a lot, so it makes sense for diplomatic influence to depend on a ruler to a significant degree.

When it comes to authority, a democratic government should be able to force its pops to maintain the roads, but for example press freedom should make the pops and other pops much more mad (give more militancy) compared to a nation with less press freedom that can suppress criticism for the mandate. And yes I think large police institutions should lead to more authority if authority is supposed to be that the government forces pops to do something (could also be things like secret police or basically the military). If authority is supposed to represent that the pops are ok with what the king wants (which is implied by what we know about the mechanic, because it gives no militancy on use) then loyalty could be feeding into it. So it depends on what it is supposed to represent, but a nation without the ability to crack down and with a revolting populace should be in no position to force its people to do forced labour just because it limits the freedom of the press

 

[Spartakusbund]

When it comes to authority, a democratic government should be able to force its pops to maintain the roads, but for example press freedom should make the pops and other pops much more mad (give more militancy) compared to a nation with less press freedom that can suppress criticism for the mandate. And yes I think large police institutions should lead to more authority if authority is supposed to be that the government forces pops to do something (could also be things like secret police or basically the military). If authority is supposed to represent that the pops are ok with what the king wants (which is implied by what we know about the mechanic, because it gives no militancy on use) then loyalty could be feeding into it. So it depends on what it is supposed to represent, but a nation without the ability to crack down and with a revolting populace should be in no position to force its people to do forced labour just because it limits the freedom of the press

We don’t know what going over the Authority cap does. My guess is that it either increases Turmoil/Radicalism or makes their effects more intense. That would do exactly what you describe here. A monarchy than can easily suppress dissent through its restrictions on free expression can get away with more than a republic that ensures freedom of speech.

 

[Helmic____]

We don’t know what going over the Authority cap does. My guess is that it either increases Turmoil/Radicalism or makes their effects more intense. That would do exactly what you describe here. A monarchy than can easily suppress dissent through its restrictions on free expression can get away with more than a republic that ensures freedom of speech.

Yeah but that should be the main consequence, not one from going over some limit. The press, if free, should write about you forcing your pops to maintain roads even if it’s only in 2 provinces instead of 4. Of course on a worse level, but it shouldn’t go from being totally fine to being the worst thing ever.

and then we have things like oligarchy giving +200 regardless of how powerful the oligarchs actually are. It should be defendant on that faction (pop or IG) to give you authority. An oligarchical system with weak oligarchs shouldn’t provide flat benefits. That’s one of the things that tying it to pops (or IG) could help make the feature much better.

 

[Spartakusbund]

Yeah but that should be the main consequence, not one from going over some limit. The press, if free, should write about you forcing your pops to maintain roads even if it’s only in 2 provinces instead of 4. Of course on a worse level, but it shouldn’t go from being totally fine to being the worst thing ever.

It doesn’t go from being totally fine to the worse thing ever. As you cross from +1 to -1 Authority, you go from having a very minor bonus to reform time to a very mine malus to [unknown value]. You’re right, there’s a level of abstraction involved but this is a video game.

and then we have things like oligarchy giving +200 regardless of how powerful the oligarchs actually are. It should be defendant on that faction (pop or IG) to give you authority. An oligarchical system with weak oligarchs shouldn’t provide flat benefits. That’s one of the things that tying it to pops (or IG) could help make the feature much better.

Again, this would fail to capture the intent of the system. As a democracy, I could potentially be making Interest Groups in my ruling coalition very happy. That shouldn’t give me more authority.

If an autocracy is failing to keep the Interest Groups it relies on happy, that will be handled by different mechanics than the Authority one.

 

[Edam42]

When it comes to authority, a democratic government should be able to force its pops to maintain the roads, but for example press freedom should make the pops and other pops much more mad (give more militancy) compared to a nation with less press freedom that can suppress criticism for the mandate. And yes I think large police institutions should lead to more authority if authority is supposed to be that the government forces pops to do something (could also be things like secret police or basically the military). If authority is supposed to represent that the pops are ok with what the king wants (which is implied by what we know about the mechanic, because it gives no militancy on use) then loyalty could be feeding into it. So it depends on what it is supposed to represent, but a nation without the ability to crack down and with a revolting populace should be in no position to force its people to do forced labour just because it limits the freedom of the press

Democracies, or more broadly constitutional states, should definitely have less authority. Authority seems to be a way to differentiate the absolute power of autocracy and the constrained power of democracy, with allowances for shades of grey in between. While democratic republics and constitutional monarchies should have some room for executive action or royal prerogative (as exercised by their ministers), it would be restrained by checks and balances; the courts and the legislature. It’s not representing whether the ‘pops are ok with it’, it’s representing the freedom of the government to act within the institutions of the state. We know this because authority capacity is reduced by constitutional reform. We haven’t seen what happens when you exceed the capacity but it should represent some sort of overreach, making pops unhappy, radical, more in favour of reform. You are able to exceed your authority in a democracy, but this is dictatorial and will hopefully be reflected in the consequences. We’ll see but it looks like a good way to model the power of a government to rule by decree to me.

However, the capacity should be more explicitly tied to the institutional checks and balances on the government and less to concepts like freedom of conscience and of the press, which should more directly linked to Pops and how easily they radicalise.