Regarding the devs saying that we play as "soul of nation rather than leadership" to justify players building private industries

[alanschu]

I spent my time trying to secure new spheres of influence to get the inputs I was trading for or resources in high demand colonizing a few wars getting literacy up.

So much of this stuff is, boiled down and reduced, simple as well. Spheres of influence were determined by clicking a priority on how to invest your influence and waiting, colonizing was just spending mana, and getting literacy up was just about getting Clergy to an arbitrary percentage and then waiting. Virtually any mechanic can be made to come across as boring if presented in mundane ways.

Those decisions though are part of our strategies and where and when we can make choices and seeing the consequences of our assorted decisions is what we end up loving about games like these.

 

[Hammrtime]

I spent my time trying to secure new spheres of influence to get the inputs I was trading for or resources in high demand colonizing a few wars getting literacy up.

I am super hyped for this in Vicky 3. With the direction this game is taking, doing all these things is so much more important.

 

[BabyBuffalo]

This was specifically in response to the argument that it's 'unrealistic' for the player to be able to do things that are outside the purview of the government, even though there's plenty of other things players can do that makes no sense if you're just playing the government (such as backing a revolution to overthrow yourself).

Ultimately what the player is and isn't allowed to do comes down to what the game loop is like, and which gameplay experiences we want to present. I recognize that there are people who would like the private economy sector part of the game to be a largely hands off experience (under certain economic systems), but we simply do not want one of the core features of the game to be locked off for the player. Building construction is so fundamental to how Victoria 3 plays that it would be akin to taking away the ability to declare war in EU4.

As I said in the dev diary, we are considering how exactly to handle investment, and I'm not ruling out capitalist-directed investment/construction instead of a more player-controlled investment pool (or some sort of hybrid) if we can get it work well, but we are not going to block the player from constructing private industries with state money if they want to do so. If you want to get into the realism arguments here, state grants to private industries is something that happens all the time in real life and I do not know of any examples of capitalist countries outlawing spending government money in such a way.

Before I begin, I just want to say I really like the idea of the investment pool. It seems like a good way to deal with the issues Vic 2 had and I'm personally fine with how it as originally presented.

But I had an idea on how to use it to satisfy the people wanting a more laissez-faire solution. Instead of using the money in the investment pool to directly build factories, how about the option to use the money to give "tax breaks" or "incentives" to certain industries? (Like how in Victoria 2 you could use your national focus to encourage certain types of industries)

I'm imagining you could choose to focus on, say, forestry/lumber/furniture and your capitalists would be more likely to build those factories as well as having some of the costs of building it covered by the investment pool.

Obviously the game is still in development and this might not be possible with the given systems. Keep up the good work guys, I'm loving the game so far

 

[EUnderhill]

Not in the modern terms. I am not sure if the term has evolved over the time. Subsidies can obviously be used as effective import barrier. Fair trade has different meaning (see wikipedia, for example).

It does seem that for purposes of the game, "Free Trade" combines elements of both L-F and what we knew as Free Trade in prior games. Instead of trade and industrial policies being separate, there is now one track that has powers and penalties drawn from both.

 

[Somberg]

If there are indeed no restriction on use of state funds to construct factories, then tapping into the investment pool is not needed. I suspect there will greater restriction on both than has so far been implied.

There are restrictions depending on the economic system. Only service industry and infrastructure can be subsidized using state funds under Free Trade, for example. Rest is handled by the investment pool I imagine. It’s all in the “everything we know so far” Reddit post.

 

[Juanvito]

There are restrictions depending on the economic system. Only service industry and infrastructure can be subsidized using state funds under Free Trade, for example. Rest is handled by the investment pool I imagine. It’s all in the “everything we know so far” Reddit post.

Until we see a Dev Diary about the Investment Pool, this sounds like choosing which pocket to take out money from.

 

[Cymsdale]

Until we see a Dev Diary about the Investment Pool, this sounds like choosing which pocket to take out money from.

We basically know next to nothing about how the investment pool works (nor the other 90+% of the game's systems) and the devs themselves have said it's still being worked out but here we are on page 17 of a thread arguing over the details of it.

 

[durbal]

We basically know next to nothing about how the investment pool works (nor the other 90+% of the game's systems) and the devs themselves have said it's still being worked out but here we are on page 17 of a thread arguing over the details of it.

...Or discussing possible implementations and their consequences.

 

[WedjetSEA]

From the dev's explanation, it follows the same line as "we are not sure if we can pull off AI capitalists deciding on investment pool really."

I hope that devs will keep developing the game AI and not just give up and provide a lame excuse for it. If I want to totally control my economy, I've already known what economic type I'm going to pick anyway; thank you sir/madam!

 

[EUnderhill]

There are restrictions depending on the economic system. Only service industry and infrastructure can be subsidized using state funds under Free Trade, for example. Rest is handled by the investment pool I imagine. It’s all in the “everything we know so far” Reddit post.

Or at least the 'everything we think we know based on early alpha builds" post. It also states that subsidies are mandatory for anything state-built.

 

[Sbrubbles]

From the dev's explanation, it follows the same line as "we are not sure if we can pull off AI capitalists deciding on investment pool really."

I hope that devs will keep developing the game AI and not just give up and provide a lame excuse for it. If I want to totally control my economy, I've already known what economic type I'm going to pick anyway; thank you sir/madam!

There will need to be a (hopefully decent) AI to decide on the investment pool no matter which way the devs take this, because the player only controls one country.

Actually, I suppose they could have entirely distinct mechanics for AI countries, but I would find this unlikely.

 

[JBolt]

This was specifically in response to the argument that it's 'unrealistic' for the player to be able to do things that are outside the purview of the government, even though there's plenty of other things players can do that makes no sense if you're just playing the government (such as backing a revolution to overthrow yourself).

Ultimately what the player is and isn't allowed to do comes down to what the game loop is like, and which gameplay experiences we want to present. I recognize that there are people who would like the private economy sector part of the game to be a largely hands off experience (under certain economic systems), but we simply do not want one of the core features of the game to be locked off for the player. Building construction is so fundamental to how Victoria 3 plays that it would be akin to taking away the ability to declare war in EU4.

As I said in the dev diary, we are considering how exactly to handle investment, and I'm not ruling out capitalist-directed investment/construction instead of a more player-controlled investment pool (or some sort of hybrid) if we can get it work well, but we are not going to block the player from constructing private industries with state money if they want to do so. If you want to get into the realism arguments here, state grants to private industries is something that happens all the time in real life and I do not know of any examples of capitalist countries outlawing spending government money in such a way.

I don’t understand how a system that at its core worked fine in Victoria 2 (just needs better AI prioritization) needs to be melted down. It doesn’t take away a central game mechanic, it just gives a new dynamic where you have to try and influence things in other ways by encouraging craftsmen and more capitalists to increase the investment that occurs. How sad to take that dynamic away, where a government (as in real life) wants to get its hands in the pie but can’t. To instantly give the player full control actually works against the game by making it shallower and less reflective of the motives of government.

 

[EUnderhill]

I don’t understand how a system that at its core worked fine in Victoria 2 (just needs better AI prioritization) needs to be melted down. It doesn’t take away a central game mechanic, it just gives a new dynamic where you have to try and influence things in other ways by encouraging craftsmen and more capitalists to increase the investment that occurs. How sad to take that dynamic away, where a government (as in real life) wants to get its hands in the pie but can’t. To instantly give the player full control actually works against the game by making it shallower and less reflective of the motives of government.

When the player uses the investment pool, it is to the bank accounts of the capitalists that the profits go, not to the coffers of the state.

 

[wthree]

This latest decision has deeply damaged my hope for Victoria 3. It shows a lot about the direction of the game even if this changes, and I'm not looking forward to it at all.

Thoroughly disappointed. I was looking forward to another Victoria, not another idle clicking mobile game.

 

[JBolt]

When the player uses the investment pool, it is to the bank accounts of the capitalists that the profits go, not to the coffers of the state.

Doesn’t matter where the profits go. A player will prioritize things like small arms, machine parts, and ammunition as a rule. Capitalism and capitalists would instead look at what is most profitable, which might instead be luxury clothes or furniture. Governments IRL prioritize themselves, free market Laissez-Faire prioritizes what is most profitable, whatever that may be. And, to have the player physically invest their pops money for them is a blatant step back and dumbing down of the mechanic in Vic2, instead of making it more intelligent and advanced by having capitalists build a Lumber factory on a wood province, which wouldn’t be hard to code. It will ruin the game actually to do it like this.

 

[Vernichtere]

This latest decision has deeply damaged my hope for Victoria 3. It shows a lot about the direction of the game even if this changes, and I'm not looking forward to it at all.

Thoroughly disappointed. I was looking forward to another Victoria, not another idle clicking mobile game.

A Guide to Giving Constructive Feedback

Since we're only at DevDiary 3 we've got quite a while to go. A lot of the discussion so far has been reasonable and civilized, but a lot can still be improved. So let's all try to improve the standard of discussion. A few general rules on...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[EUnderhill]

Doesn’t matter where the profits go. A player will prioritize things like small arms, machine parts, and ammunition as a rule. Capitalism and capitalists would instead look at what is most profitable, which might instead be luxury clothes or furniture. Governments IRL prioritize themselves, free market Laissez-Faire prioritizes what is most profitable, whatever that may be. And, to have the player physically invest their pops money for them is a blatant step back and dumbing down of the mechanic in Vic2, instead of making it more intelligent and advanced by having capitalists build a Lumber factory on a wood province, which wouldn’t be hard to code. It will ruin the game actually to do it like this.

Of course it matters where the profits go. Maintaining a standard of living for the rich is a way to keep them from radicalizing, so a smart player will have to consider that when deciding between industries of various levels of profit. Even a low-margin business can create enormous profits given sufficient volume.

 

[wthree]

A Guide to Giving Constructive Feedback

Since we're only at DevDiary 3 we've got quite a while to go. A lot of the discussion so far has been reasonable and civilized, but a lot can still be improved. So let's all try to improve the standard of discussion. A few general rules on...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Well, to elaborate a bit, it just seems to show that the direction of the game is very far from the "soft touch" approach of Victoria 2, and what in my opinion, makes it such a great game.
Instead, they're opting for a model based around clicking upgrade buttons to make numbers grow.
In general, decisions like these are much more about "gamifying" everything, instead of being more along the lines of a simulator, i.e climbing up the ladder of betterness in a very linear and uninventive way.
Combine this with the [better government] boxes that appear in some of the screenshots, and combined with paradox's general design strategy, im predicting the games design direction to essentially be one of aggressively clicking around the screen to level up your country.

In generally, it doesnt bode well, and its a red flag that this just isnt going to be a game im going to enjoy....at all.

 

[Vernichtere]

Well, to elaborate a bit, it just seems to show that the direction of the game is very far from the "soft touch" approach of Victoria 2, and what in my opinion, makes it such a great game.
Instead, they're opting for a model based around clicking upgrade buttons to make numbers grow.
In general, decisions like these are much more about "gamifying" everything, instead of being more along the lines of a simulator, i.e climbing up the ladder of betterness in a very linear and uninventive way.
Combine this with the [better government] boxes that appear in some of the screenshots, and combined with paradox's general design strategy, im predicting the games design direction to essentially be one of aggressively clicking around the screen to level up your country.

In generally, it doesnt bode well, and its a red flag that this just isnt going to be a game im going to enjoy....at all.

The player still has no control over wages in the privately owned factories. All that changes is the control over who determines which factories are built. But even there the factors will probably not be arbitrary and the same as in relation to factories built directly from the state budget. I can incorporate many variables there.

My problem with the capitalists' freedom to make decisions is simply that the profit does not outweigh the costs. If Paradox incorporates corporations, it would be a different story. The competition wasn't really simulated in the previous games either. In relation to the individual capitalist, the old system simply meant the subsidence economy of a single pop, which persistently defended its factory and did not expand. Under these conditions it is ultimately not so important to me whether after another bankruptcy, pop or the budget decides which factory will open instead.

 

[Somberg]

Doesn’t matter where the profits go. A player will prioritize things like small arms, machine parts, and ammunition as a rule. Capitalism and capitalists would instead look at what is most profitable, which might instead be luxury clothes or furniture. Governments IRL prioritize themselves, free market Laissez-Faire prioritizes what is most profitable, whatever that may be. And, to have the player physically invest their pops money for them is a blatant step back and dumbing down of the mechanic in Vic2, instead of making it more intelligent and advanced by having capitalists build a Lumber factory on a wood province, which wouldn’t be hard to code. It will ruin the game actually to do it like this.

A player can do that but if they are unprofitable you will be making your capitalists poorer, shrinking the size of your investment pool, and I'm guessing will end up with a closed factory and a bunch of unemployed workers. This is like the same argument being made over and over again, the player will never have any reason to act like a capitalist even though there are ways the game could punish players in an economic system where they have to use the investment pool to construct private industries and where all the losses and profits from them falls on the shoulders of capitalists and/or aristocrats if they try to focus on unprofitable industries.

The argument here is basically player choice vs. simulation and you want the game to simulate capitalism because you don't think players would have an incentive to act like a capitalist would. Yet you make a massive assumption regarding player behavior ("they will always prioritize x,y,z goods") and that Vicky 2's system was better even though the capitalist AI was subpar and your economy would crash if you ended up with an L-F party in power after having been Interventionist or State Capitalist because the player was propping up a bunch of unprofitable factories to get the goods they wanted and grow their industrial base. There's a reason why in Vicky 2 the strategy for industrializing your country was to get a State Capitalist party in power because it was hard to build up industries with L-F not just because of the AI but because of how the market worked.

In Vicky 3 using the investment pool, not having parties (right now), and having markets modeled on a smaller scale means that wouldn't happen. Folks also keep focusing solely on factories, ignoring the fact that resource extraction buildings and farms now exist as things that can be constructed as well and they fall under the umbrella of private industries. So you want the AI to have to develop supply chains, creating the resource extraction buildings and farms necessary to support factories creating more advanced goods which is something they didn't have to do in Vicky 2. They would have to know what is needed and then actually be competent in constructing the right buildings or the player would have to rely on securing trade deals and having a big enough market to have the raw materials they need for their factories if they had no control over creating private industry buildings.

We still don't completely know how the investment pool system works because we don't know about each economic system and the different restrictions and limitations they have over how it can be used vs. how state funds can be used. They also do not follow neatly along the spectrum of government control over the economy. "Laissez-Faire" is not an economic system in Vicky 3, the closest thing to it is Free Trade from the looks of it. So how do you even determine how much control a capitalist AI would have if the economic systems themselves are not completely organized along the lines of government control of economic decisions? Very big question to answer if you ask me.