State Capitalism><Planned Economy

[King]

Exactly what I thought...
But then tell me, why I should pick Planned over State ??? Obviously I am not restricted in building anything in both of the policies, BUT as State your capitalists will build something, and in planned they won't ! Plus, I get lower restrictions on the Taxometer...

Are State Capitalism simply better than Planned ???

No it is never really that simple. Under State Capitalism your Capitalists will need to accumulate a lot of money before they can build. As your number of factories increases so too will the ammount of money they need. Essentially it becomes increasing a more efficient use of resources for you to build factories and especailly railways than allow your capitalists to do so. State Capitalism can be useful if your empire is large and you do not wish to take the time to build a railway in every province or build every single factory. However on an investment scale planned economy is much better because your pesky capitalists will not waste £5,000 on factory you could build for half that.

 

[King]

So does that make State Capitalism the best over all, because of the increase in cost your capitalists must spend in order to build factories, or is the building cost penalty' much lower in total and accumlative effort in Interventionism and Laissez faire for capitialists?

We tried to make it that there was no "best" choice, but players would find a choice that they would like best. I prefer interventionism myself (especailly when I get monopoly structure that rocks) because I can expand factories I like and build railways in vital locations, but my capitalists will still build a reasonable rate. However LF still gives faster building, so it is all about the level of control that you like.