As you know this building system is not present in Vic 2. But I think the Dev had good idea to bring building in Vic 3 as it will provide more complexity in the game. I want to know what you guys think?
- 2
Thoughts on the Vic 3 Buildings?
- Thread starter Tallenta
- 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.
I like the building mechanics in general. The idea to make railroad and ports not magical is good. They are well presented.
However, I can’t help but notice one of the fears expressed about bureaucrats is revealing itself true. From what I read, the bureaucratic buildings have no impact whatsoever on their surroundings and solely serve to fill the capacity gauge. That said other type of buildings might have local impacts.
About the investor pool, I’m less outraged by the fact that capitalists don’t own everything.
However, I can’t help but notice one of the fears expressed about bureaucrats is revealing itself true. From what I read, the bureaucratic buildings have no impact whatsoever on their surroundings and solely serve to fill the capacity gauge. That said other type of buildings might have local impacts.
About the investor pool, I’m less outraged by the fact that capitalists don’t own everything.
- 1
It's not that different from Vic2, they are adding buildings for few things that were more abstracted in Vic2, but overall it seems to be an evolution of Vic2 system.
- 6
- 1
I'm pretty much fine with what they've shown so far. I'm a tiny bit concerned about the UI; they've said that there's no cap to how many buildings you can build in a state, but the UI they've shown is clearly adapted for no more than a handful. Hopefully this is because there will rarely be any reason to build more than a handful of buildings in one state, but if not this could be problematic.
- 5
Yeah, the system itself functionally a variation from the factories in Vic 2, just expanded to cover more use cases.
- 4
- 2
I would rather see the UI windows expand(to a point) to accommodate greater numbers of displayed buildings, than have to scroll when more than a few types are present.
I think this is a good upgrade, in vic2 I would do the factory building in the early but then left the factories and railroads to capitalist and only do the naval base and forts(ehich are not shown in the buildings interestingly). This way player would involve themselves more in econonmy and country development but a building builder such as the one in EU4 is a must I think in this scenario.
The concern some people have is that there are no local effect. Ie no reason not to centralize all admin in the capital region.
- 7
- 1
I think they've done this because it appears that colonies won't be directly controlled by us but instead administered by various types of subjects, negating the need for more localised administration since the subject will handle that instead. This might become problematic with the USA and its many territories at game start, but I imagine that tax collection will be much reduced in unincorporated states. However I do think this is a mistake as the current bureaucrat system promotes centralisation which makes sense for Japan, the UK, France, and Italy, but doesn't make sense For the USA, Germany, Canada, Australia, Colombia, Brazil, etc. Really unitary systems were relatively rare with most countries practicing some sort of decentralisation or federalism.
I like them, at least on paper. Guess I'll have to wait and see how they feel once the game is out, but I think they're onto something here.
- 2
I'm really curious how conquering land will work. Because apparently all workplaces are grouped on state region level. Will you only be able to conquer entire state regions?
- 1
From what I got in Vicky 2 bureaucrats, they had a local function in that they increase the local effectiveness of the regions they are in. I find that realistic because it simulates the reach of the central administration on those regions. We are not at an age yet where you can have access to a government official relatively quickly by way of car or computer.
While most of the bureaucracy could go into the capital (indeed there might even be communication problems if they are too far from each other), I believe at least some should oversee the farther regions.
As some said, unless those states are autonomous, which I doubt they will be at release or ever (sadly), those bureaucrats can also represent smaller regional administrations. Not everyone lived in an unitary state!
- 3
Maybe there are centralism/decentralism laws that give bonuses/penalties for having all bureaucrats in the same state vs spreading them out?
- 1
I must have missed something.
Can you show what you read and where that indicates this?
Thanks.
- 1
I think that you are misinterpreting the evidence about bureaucrats. The team themselves have said that they want to model federalist vs unitarian governments, so obviously there will be more intrincate effects from that. What we know now is that the Bureaucracy capacity in Sweden does not seem to be affected by the distribution of bureaucrats among its states, but that could be simply a false impression from just seeing a couple of states near the capital of an unitary government. Norway (PU) and Finland (vassal?) will probably require some bureucracy in them, as well, but they are probably small enough that just keeping it in Oslo and Helsinki should do fine, at least in 1836.
Also, what do you mean "the capitalists don't own everything?" My understanding of the investor pool is that, while you pick which businesses are created, the owners are the capitalists which contribute the money into the pool, and not the State — for that, you need to create a State-owned building using Treasury funds. Do they say otherwise somewhere?
- 1
- 1
I'm curious, in a mixed economy can i privatilaze industry if i need money, or nationalize if i want to invest?
- 2
the main reason why one wouldn't centralise all admin on the capital region is cost, opportunity cost, for example let's imagine you capital state has a million plus people, do to the nature of the your empire, building only admin buildings in your capital, let's say the result goes to a staggering 10% of the population are now bureaucrats, that's 10% of your population (which in this example would be hundreds of thousands) are no longer employed in any number of more productive activities, second those 10% need to be educated depriving other industries of a valuable resource, third, if there are other industries that require educated personnel, this means either the cost of you bureaucrats will skyrocket (need to pay them more so they don't move to a better paying job) or you will have constant manpower shortages and consequentially beurocratic inefectiveness.
While centralization vs decentralization was and still is an important topic, it's a debate that is only trully relevant to the goverment, but in vic3 it has been confirmed that the player will remain the "spirit of the nation" so the game just assumes either unified will (centralized state) or convergent will (central and perefiral goverments just so happen to be in perfect agrement everytime the player decides to do something), being to abstracted to represent any of the nitty-gritty of decentralization