Victoria 3 based on Imperator: Rome v2.0 - Interesting?

[chrism2012]

Hi to all.

After reviewing all the changelogs and various YT videos (e.g. Lord Lambert) regarding Imperator: Rome v2.0(.1). I'm curious if Victoria 3 would actually be doable / interesting on the fundament of I:R.

- There's already a basic market / trading system in place (basic resources needed to produce certain unit types in province => expandable for producing higher goods through factories?).
- Different culture + religious pops with also different strategic values (nobles, freemen etc., could be changed to capitalists, clerks, laborers etc.).
- Levies raised and composed from actual pops in a province (similar to Vic2).
- Different techtrees (dependant on culture) but still with invention chances (=> Vic2 tech system, additionally with foci like in HOI4?).
- City vs. countryside improvements (=> usable to simplify / complicate growing urbanization and rural fleeing?).
- And so on.

I'm interested in Vic-users' opinions.

Would the current I:R v2.0 form a good basis for Vic 3 (I think it would)? Or is it too rudimentary / out of place for Victoria's (global) system? There's already an I:R mod in development for the Victorian age but it's far too early to tell.

 

[Deliberus]

I'm not playing Imperator: Rome until all of its DLCs are released, that way I can experience it all at once and it would be cheaper to buy as CK2 had a massive sale at the end of its development life cycle (and I would assume it'd be the same).

Though if what you're talking about is true then I'm certainly more interested in it than I was during it's disastrous launch

 

[Cypres]

I really hope they don't Form Vic3 after IR, imperator is a bunch of different ideas and mechanics but not a game (yet) Victoria 2 is a game. Most of the vic2 fans want just a prettified vic2.1 as a base for a new game.

 

[Gurkhal]

Hi to all.

After reviewing all the changelogs and various YT videos (e.g. Lord Lambert) regarding Imperator: Rome v2.0(.1). I'm curious if Victoria 3 would actually be doable / interesting on the fundament of I:R.

- There's already a basic market / trading system in place (basic resources needed to produce certain unit types in province => expandable for producing higher goods through factories?).
- Different culture + religious pops with also different strategic values (nobles, freemen etc., could be changed to capitalists, clerks, laborers etc.).
- Levies raised and composed from actual pops in a province (similar to Vic2).
- Different techtrees (dependant on culture) but still with invention chances (=> Vic2 tech system, additionally with foci like in HOI4?).
- City vs. countryside improvements (=> usable to simplify / complicate growing urbanization and rural fleeing?).
- And so on.

I'm interested in Vic-users' opinions.

Would the current I:R v2.0 form a good basis for Vic 3 (I think it would)? Or is it too rudimentary / out of place for Victoria's (global) system? There's already an I:R mod in development for the Victorian age but it's far too early to tell.

Considering that I am a fan of Imperator I think that there are many ideas from Imperator that could be used in Victoria III. But we should keep in mind that there will be many differences between the two and thus while individual solutions and ideas can be taken from Imperator, at the end of it I feel that Victoria III must be based on its predecessor Victoria II to keep continuity within the series.

Still, I think that Imperator has a number good ideas and solutions that can be useful or inspiring for Victoria III.

 

[chrism2012]

I'm not playing Imperator: Rome until all of its DLCs are released...

It's hard to tell how many more DLCs are scheduled for I:R; e.g. both the entire Indian subcontinent and Africa ( or China itself like in some mods) are still open for more development, main game concecpts...

I really hope they don't Form Vic3 after IR, imperator is a bunch of different ideas and mechanics but not a game (yet) Victoria 2 is a game. Most of the vic2 fans want just a prettified vic2.1 as a base for a new game.

Is King actually still at Paradox (or has he left again)? I'm not so sure that the Vic2-mechanics could be easily ported to the current (imo quite beautiful) engine CK3 is using?

But we should keep in mind that there will be many differences between the two and thus while individual solutions and ideas can be taken from Imperator, at the end of it I feel that Victoria III must be based on its predecessor Victoria II to keep continuity within the series.

I see it the same way, question is if (current) Paradox would actually use those design choices made by Johan/King back then or change (water) it to attract more potential buyers like in CK3...

 

[Delterius]

Imperator's pop system is the one thing that would make me instantly drop Victoria 3. To say nothing of the overall design philosophy of Imperator. It is the inverse of everything appealing about Victoria 2. Increasing literacy and improving the supply of luxury goods so that pops, and here's the keyword: indirectly, assimilate and promote? Yes. Press a button in every province to spend 'political power' (Not Mana™) to turn your 13 protestant czech farmers into catholic south german craftsmen? Nah, thanks. I'm good.

 

[Kovax]

As Delterius puts is "indirectly, assimilate and promote". Victoria 2 has it occur "naturally" over time, with a few things that the player can do to affect the process in one direction or the other. I:R appears to make it a conscious and instantaneous choice to either do or not do, from what little I've seen.

I just bought I:R through GOG over the weekend, but only had about an hour or so to start learning the fundamentals. So far, it looks to have a few interesting concepts which might (or might not) be applicable to V3, but I don't think I want to see a V3 based off of I:R. Still too early to tell whether or not I like the game.

I also purchased Slitherine/Ageod's Field of Glory: Empires, which looks to be considerably simpler in several respects (trade goods are "global", in that your empire either has that specific good and gets the bonuses for it, or it doesn't; quantity doesn't matter), and seems easier to just pick up and play. I put in about 3-4 hours so far, and believe I've got most of the early-game aspects figured out, without resorting to a tutorial or manual. The "pop" system appears very similar to what was in Master of Orion, or Slitherine's earlier titles such as Legion, Chariots of War, or Sparta, where you move a population icon (representing a very significant portion of your total population) from a food production row to a building materials row, or to a money-earning row or culture/happiness-making row. In comparison to FoG:E, in I:R you try to ENTICE individuals to move from one occupation to another through various indirect means. It will almost certainly take several times that learning period, and will likely require looking up several game mechanics on the wiki or here on the game forums, since the game appears to have substantially more depth (added in several post-release free patches, still ongoing) than FoG:E, (which is now out of development and final). FoG:E will likely hold my interest for a week or two, and then I'll start to crave something with more depth and detail. At that point, I'll either dive into I:R or else go back to playing V2 and HOI3.

I'll know more in a week or three, once I've played a bit more of both games, but from the looks of it, FoG:E already has the "kiddie pool" end of the market covered for the timeframe (although its "decadence" mechanics might take a bit more thought), so I'm hoping that I:R ends up as the "deep end of the pool", more akin to what keeps V2 popular with its fanatics.

 

[Amtep]

As far as I can tell, those instant assimilation and conversion buttons are gone in I:R 2.0. You can affect them with governor policies and by building some buildings that encourage them. Some laws have an effect too, and you can make decisions about specific cultures (such as allowing intermarriage) that increase assimilation speed. It's similar for promotion/demotion, where you can affect both the speed and the desired ratio of pop types.

There is still instant pop movement, but only of slaves and tribesmen. For higher ranked pops, you have to rely on migration attraction and migration speed modifiers. Or move the slaves and wait for them to promote.

There's still a glaring loophole in the tribal migration mechanics. When you press the 'migrate' button, the whole population of a province instantly converts into wandering tribesmen of your culture and religion, regardless of what they were before. It's possible to build a massive tribal empire that way, especially with the new levy mechanics where army size depends on the number of accepted culture pops. But migration can be left out of Vic3 entirely.

That these changes could be made after release shows that the I:R engine is pretty flexible about the game rules, so that's promising.

The biggest thing I would miss in going from a vic2 pop system to an I:R pop system is the detailed pop sizes. Having 500 of one pop and 600,000 of another felt a lot more realistic than I:R's model, where a single pop unit already represents a large amount of a province's population. In particular, it seems it will be hard to model the New World's emptiness and China's population density in the same game.

 

[Tovarits]

Yes. Press a button in every province to spend 'political power' (Not Mana™) to turn your 13 protestant czech farmers into catholic south german craftsmen? Nah, thanks. I'm good.

Almost all mana mechanisms are gone in I:R. Almost everything is tied to modifiers.

E: I know this was said in upper posts. But I think it can't be stressed enough, that I:R 2.0 is totally different than 1.0. Many have very bad and outdated opinion about I:R. I bought it from sale before Menander update, and never experienced the launch expect when checking older versions in Steam. Therefore for me, it is quite confusing that people critizes features I have never experienced.

 

[qer]

Still, what mechanics would be superior to what we have in Vic 2? There is no global market, Pop's are completely different in concept, mobilization does already a similar thing to levies, etc... I don't know why people want to add features from a game with a different perspective to other titles. Vic 3 needs a new creative direction with solid gameplay fundations.

 

[chrism2012]

Almost all mana mechanisms are gone in I:R. Almost everything is tied to modifiers.

E: I know this was said in upper posts. But I think it can't be stressed enough, that I:R 2.0 is totally different than 1.0.

That's the very reason why I specifically wrote I:R v2.0 in the main title. I know that older versions were (in regards to many game mechanics) quite troublesome and often outright dubious (Mana?). However, pop mechanics / alterations, unit + building construction, trade, stats etc. seem to be quite logical and working now in v2.0 (...which isn't working really well in Vic2, except you're using mods like APD etc. which I always did).

Still, what mechanics would be superior to what we have in Vic 2? There is no global market, Pop's are completely different in concept, mobilization does already a similar thing to levies, etc... I don't know why people want to add features from a game with a different perspective to other titles. Vic 3 needs a new creative direction with solid gameplay fundations.

True. It's not that I asked for a Vic 3 being exactly as / like I:R, but if I:R 2.0 would form a good basis to finally start development of Vic 3, preferably before CK7 comes out...
Besides the global market (and factory development) the most interesting aspect for me would be the pop simulation since Vic 2 always had (and still has) its problems with the (quite abundant) depiction of market simulation but also with pop types, culture, religion, consciousness etc.).

 

[Kovax]

since Vic 2 always had (and still has) its problems with the (quite abundant) depiction of market simulation but also with pop types, culture, religion, consciousness etc.).

Those are things which ride the fine line between "bug" and "feature" in Vic 2. They could certainly use improvement, but trying to do so without breaking the interactions completely could be difficult.

 

[Delterius]

That's the very reason why I specifically wrote I:R v2.0 in the main title. I know that older versions were (in regards to many game mechanics) quite troublesome and often outright dubious (Mana?). However, pop mechanics / alterations, unit + building construction, trade, stats etc. seem to be quite logical and working now in v2.0 (...which isn't working really well in Vic2, except you're using mods like APD etc. which I always did).

Frankly I disagree. Victoria 2 is slim. Modern Paradox design isn't. Victoria 2 follows simple models based on the material realities of the period. If you want the quality of your population to increase then all you do is develop certain indicators. You get rid of slavery (and serfdom in HPM+) so that people are free to do the jobs required of them. You invest in education to get your literacy up. And you get access to key goods such as coal, iron and rubber via colonialism and technology. Everything flows from these very tangible things. In a modern Paradox game what you do is stack 27 different types of +0.04% growth. Modifiers from technology also exist in Victoria 2 but they aren't the centerpiece and they tend to feel stronger because, again, everything in the game flows from very tangible fundamental things. Can your people move around? How stable is your country? Would they rather live in a liberal democracy in the New World? Do they have well paying jobs in prosperous factories? Can they pay for luxury goods? Can they pay for basic goods? Are there enough goods units of clothes for the 4 million pops in your country?

The economic system in Imperator may be logical enough but building contruction isn't appealing to me. Hell, what's got to be the single most tedious aspect of Victoria 2 is building forts and ports. Likewise all the things you refer to as buggy or problematic are the reason why we keep coming back to Victoria 2. Those features stand to be refined, not overhauled.

In my opinion there's one game that should be the basis for Victoria 3 and its called Victoria 2.

 

[Vohen]

Hi to all.

After reviewing all the changelogs and various YT videos (e.g. Lord Lambert) regarding Imperator: Rome v2.0(.1). I'm curious if Victoria 3 would actually be doable / interesting on the fundament of I:R.

- There's already a basic market / trading system in place (basic resources needed to produce certain unit types in province => expandable for producing higher goods through factories?).
- Different culture + religious pops with also different strategic values (nobles, freemen etc., could be changed to capitalists, clerks, laborers etc.).
- Levies raised and composed from actual pops in a province (similar to Vic2).
- Different techtrees (dependant on culture) but still with invention chances (=> Vic2 tech system, additionally with foci like in HOI4?).
- City vs. countryside improvements (=> usable to simplify / complicate growing urbanization and rural fleeing?).
- And so on.

I'm interested in Vic-users' opinions.

Would the current I:R v2.0 form a good basis for Vic 3 (I think it would)? Or is it too rudimentary / out of place for Victoria's (global) system? There's already an I:R mod in development for the Victorian age but it's far too early to tell.

From all those bullet point, Vic2 already has something very similar, if not better.
(And I'd like to point out how bad the trade system is in imperator, most people just automate the whole thing because it's a massive pain to deal with).
However, there are two exceptions to me: cities and buildings.

The city/settlement mechanic is, imo, perfect for victoria, where it could very well model the massive migratory movements toward cities, increasing the urbanization characteristic of this era.
Not so much in the same way as Imperator, where you're founding cities from the ground up, but very much so in showing the population moving from rural areas to urban centers.

As for buildings, it's a great way to replace the national focus mechanic.
You want more of a pop type, what is it that you do? You set a "national focus" on them, but what the heck does that even mean?
If you want more clergymen (which should really have their name changed) for literacy, why aren't you building schools?
You want clerks, why aren't you building more universities?
You want more bureaucrats, why aren't you building more public partitions?
Capitalists? Build a stock market!
Soldiers? Build some recruitment camps!
Etc etc.
One thing to point out though, is how, in the spirit of the game, many of those buildings should not be buildable only by the state, depending on state policy they should be available for private investors to build as well.
I think this could become a great mechanic for the elusive Vic3.

 

[Vohen]

Press a button in every province to spend 'political power' (Not Mana™) to turn your 13 protestant czech farmers into catholic south german craftsmen? Nah, thanks.

Well, good news for you then, imperator hasn't been like that for quite some time now, and it only just got even better.
If you want pops to assimilate in good numbers, you have to invest in cities in their region, building grand theaters and overall infrastructure so that the local populace can migrate there and be meaningfully exposed to your culture.
Or you can integrate that culture, making them "accepted" in your country, but then they won't assimilate anymore, and for every culture you integrate, the less happy all your integrated (including primary) culture gets.
So it's a real balancing act, integration makes you more unstable, but has an almost immediate effect and requires no investment, while assimilation is the opposite.
And considering how the size of your army is directly dependent on how many integrated pops you have, it's a very important thing to consider.

It's pretty interesting, and religious conversion is quite similar, but without the integration part.
Which is a shame tbh, lots of missed opportunities with syncretism that was so characteristic of the era lost there.

 

[chrism2012]

However, there are two exceptions to me: cities and buildings.

After playing some time with 2.0.1 I've come to a similar conclusion. The use of buildings to prioritize certain pop and production developments in cities and/or rural settlements looks quite promising.

Regarding industrialization: If you combined it with certain prerequisites (regarding goods) to construct certain buildings (e.g. local goods or traded iron and coal must be available in order to build an iron works), then a basic factory mechanics could also be created.

Regarding trade: I always want to do things manually (like making trade treaties), but I can see that it becomes quite tedious when you have to do it for 100+ provinces, so auto-trade is logical to use at some point... ;-)

In a modern Paradox game what you do is stack 27 different types of +0.04% growth.

I see what you mean (e.g. Vic2 tech research electric_furnace for +100% coal+iron output). I don't like too small steps either.

On the other hand those many little things that you can initiate (be it by tech research, decisions, foci etc.) enable you to shape your country / economy / pops / whatever in a very specific way that you decide, instead of being pressed to enable all (less but bigger) things in order to keep up with the global development, and thus become quite generic as every other nation.

Regarding refinement of Vic2: I've played many years with mods from Naselus, Gaga Extrem, original ShinWalks etc. All of them were able to refine the mechanics of some / many aspects of the game, however none of them could balance it to a point where it lasted into mid to late game, because (according to the devs) it simply wasn't possible.
It's true that the original vision of Vic2 regarding the game mechanics is very unique and sophisticated, however the implementation was not, like the global market system with impending sphere influence (China artisans), militancy and (many, many...many) rebels, consciousness and political / social reform desire and militancy (and many more rebels again).
Maybe never could...and it's one reason why I think that a (somewhat simpler) model like the one in I:R v2.0 should be used for Vic3 development? As with I:R as well it all depends on the game devs, currently I:R looks more promising.

 

[Guedes]

From all those bullet point, Vic2 already has something very similar, if not better.
(And I'd like to point out how bad the trade system is in imperator, most people just automate the whole thing because it's a massive pain to deal with).
However, there are two exceptions to me: cities and buildings.

The city/settlement mechanic is, imo, perfect for victoria, where it could very well model the massive migratory movements toward cities, increasing the urbanization characteristic of this era.
Not so much in the same way as Imperator, where you're founding cities from the ground up, but very much so in showing the population moving from rural areas to urban centers.

As for buildings, it's a great way to replace the national focus mechanic.
You want more of a pop type, what is it that you do? You set a "national focus" on them, but what the heck does that even mean?
If you want more clergymen (which should really have their name changed) for literacy, why aren't you building schools?
You want clerks, why aren't you building more universities?
You want more bureaucrats, why aren't you building more public partitions?
Capitalists? Build a stock market!
Soldiers? Build some recruitment camps!
Etc etc.
One thing to point out though, is how, in the spirit of the game, many of those buildings should not be buildable only by the state, depending on state policy they should be available for private investors to build as well.
I think this could become a great mechanic for the elusive Vic3.

Victoria 2 already has an abstraction for province infrastructure which is the railroads. Granted, it could be a little more flashed out. But i prefer this simplistic abstraction than the same old cookie cutter buildings of "school/temple/barracks" most commonly known as "educationbutton/religiousbutton/militarybutton" in every strategy game ever.

The thing only gets worse when you are pretty much forced to specialize your provinces into the "military province", "tech province", "producing province" which is totally unrealistic and, at least for me, immersion breaking (and I;R had that at some point, i dont know if it still that way in 2.0).

Plus, as someone pointed out earlier, building things is already one of the most boring stuffs in Vic. I would hate to micromanage specific building in my 50+ provinces. It just becomes a hassle in the long run. Vic 2 almost doesnt have any micromanage besides the totally ignorable and buggy SoI's, so lets just keep it that way.

Also, theres no logic behind the idea that just because you build one school teachers will just appear out of thin air to educate the people. Victoria 2 actually has one of the best systems ever to emulate this; people act for incentives. Want more teachers in your country? Easy enough; just pay them better. People will naturally trend towards becoming teachers. And at a national level, no micromanage per province needed.

NF's also are an abstraction, albeit they could have a cost attached to them. You can see them simply as national propaganda, for example. Instead of the "i want YOU for the u.s. army" paper, just imagine "i want YOU for the u.s. literacy effort". Again, it could have a cost attached to it, but in the end it would change very little.

 

[Vohen]

Regarding trade: I always want to do things manually (like making trade treaties), but I can see that it becomes quite tedious when you have to do it for 100+ provinces, so auto-trade is logical to use at some point... ;-)

I could see that if it wasn't for one thing: pops in Imperator don't have needs.
Which is something I don't want at all whatsoever in Victoria.
So with needs, you having to micromanage every single resource that comes into your country in every province to satisfy every pop's needs is going to become absolute hell.

Victoria 2 already has an abstraction for province infrastructure which is the railroads. Granted, it could be a little more flashed out. But i prefer this simplistic abstraction than the same old cookie cutter buildings of "school/temple/barracks" most commonly known as "educationbutton/religiousbutton/militarybutton" in every strategy game ever.

The thing only gets worse when you are pretty much forced to specialize your provinces into the "military province", "tech province", "producing province" which is totally unrealistic and, at least for me, immersion breaking (and I;R had that at some point, i dont know if it still that way in 2.0).

Plus, as someone pointed out earlier, building things is already one of the most boring stuffs in Vic. I would hate to micromanage specific building in my 50+ provinces. It just becomes a hassle in the long run. Vic 2 almost doesnt have any micromanage besides the totally ignorable and buggy SoI's, so lets just keep it that way.

Also, theres no logic behind the idea that just because you build one school teachers will just appear out of thin air to educate the people. Victoria 2 actually has one of the best systems ever to emulate this; people act for incentives. Want more teachers in your country? Easy enough; just pay them better. People will naturally trend towards becoming teachers. And at a national level, no micromanage per province needed.

NF's also are an abstraction, albeit they could have a cost attached to them. You can see them simply as national propaganda, for example. Instead of the "i want YOU for the u.s. army" paper, just imagine "i want YOU for the u.s. literacy effort". Again, it could have a cost attached to it, but in the end it would change very little.

Specialization can exist in imperator, but it feels much more natural now.
Building that incentivize a certain pop type are limited, so you'll never see a city with 100% of a single type, not even close.
A city is going to have a pretty diverse composition no matter what you do, but you can skew this composition in favor of certain types with buildings.

I think, with a good macro builder, the issue of micromanagement can be largely avoided.
Also, in Vic2 you only ever have about a handful of NFs to play with, which you almost always choose to use in your most populous states, so I feel the same concept would apply here, you wouldn't need to build far and wide, but focus on your most important states as well.
And same as with Vic2, if you don't want to bother with it you can just open it up to the private sector, leaving your pops to manage it for you.

I don't think pops should promote instantly either, but the logic here would be that, for example, with a university pops will be more incentivized to promote to clerks instead of, say, bureaucrats.
But only up to a point, when that university is "full", you'll have to expand it to continue the effect.

But that's fair enough, seeing NFs as propaganda.
And I suppose having a cost for them would alleviate the issue.
That abstraction isn't the only issue I have with NFs though, the fact that you can only have one per state also bothers me.
It makes sense when you're only considering pop type promotion, but if you want to focus on completely unrelated things, like party loyalty or industry type encouragement, it makes no sense why I can't use a NF on those simultaneously.
I'd love to be able to liberalize my economy while using my NFs to encourage the correct industries in certain states, at least guiding a little the dumb capitalists and avoid them building one hundred clipper factories or something.
The way it's set up, it's only ever worth it to use NFs to promote pop types, in 99.999% of cases you'll be doing that, which I think it's a shame.

 

[Guedes]

Specialization can exist in imperator, but it feels much more natural now.
Building that incentivize a certain pop type are limited, so you'll never see a city with 100% of a single type, not even close.
A city is going to have a pretty diverse composition no matter what you do, but you can skew this composition in favor of certain types with buildings.

I think, with a good macro builder, the issue of micromanagement can be largely avoided.
Also, in Vic2 you only ever have about a handful of NFs to play with, which you almost always choose to use in your most populous states, so I feel the same concept would apply here, you wouldn't need to build far and wide, but focus on your most important states as well.
And same as with Vic2, if you don't want to bother with it you can just open it up to the private sector, leaving your pops to manage it for you.

I don't think pops should promote instantly either, but the logic here would be that, for example, with a university pops will be more incentivized to promote to clerks instead of, say, bureaucrats.
But only up to a point, when that university is "full", you'll have to expand it to continue the effect.

Back when i played I;R it wasnt only possible, but desirable , to develop only slaves, only techdudes and only normaldudes cities. Than again, i dont know if that still holds true, but the main issue i'm pointing out here is not the POP's dynamic per se, but: why rely at buildings (which are at the end of the day just buttons that give modifiers for a cost) to dictate POP's dynamics instead of the already perfect (in my opinion) system of incentives that Victoria 2 already has?

But that's fair enough, seeing NFs as propaganda.
And I suppose having a cost for them would alleviate the issue.
That abstraction isn't the only issue I have with NFs though, the fact that you can only have one per state also bothers me.
It makes sense when you're only considering pop type promotion, but if you want to focus on completely unrelated things, like party loyalty or industry type encouragement, it makes no sense why I can't use a NF on those simultaneously.
I'd love to be able to liberalize my economy while using my NFs to encourage the correct industries in certain states, at least guiding a little the dumb capitalists and avoid them building one hundred clipper factories or something.
The way it's set up, it's only ever worth it to use NFs to promote pop types, in 99.999% of cases you'll be doing that, which I think it's a shame.

Yeah those industry incentive NF's shouldn't even exist TBH, specially because the game already gives you tools to directly achieve the means they are designed to (like constructing the industry yourself or just funding the capis projects that you desire). Besides they dont even work most of the time since they only give a small chance.

In fact, IIRC those NF actually didnt existed in original vanilla (they were added in AHD or HoD), and they should have remained that way.

I think they were only implemented as an attempt to the player dont feel at the back seat playing with liberals governments which, as liberal governments types go, are exactly intended to be at the back seat anyways.

 

[Vohen]

Back when i played I;R it wasnt only possible, but desirable , to develop only slaves, only techdudes and only normaldudes cities. Than again, i dont know if that still holds true, but the main issue i'm pointing out here is not the POP's dynamic per se, but: why rely at buildings (which are at the end of the day just buttons that give modifiers for a cost) to dictate POP's dynamics instead of the already perfect (in my opinion) system of incentives that Victoria 2 already has?

Imperator has changed a lot, if you haven't played the game in the past two weeks your point of reference is likely outdated.
And I'm not saying they should replace every dynamic for promotion/demotion.
Most of those are already great and need very little change.
I'm advocating for them to replace NFs specifically, as a way for you to impact (but not control) this dynamic.
All else is pretty good as it is.

Yeah those industry incentive NF's shouldn't even exist TBH, specially because the game already gives you tools to directly achieve the means they are designed to (like constructing the industry yourself or just funding the capis projects that you desire). Besides they dont even work most of the time since they only give a small chance.

In fact, IIRC those NF actually didnt existed in original vanilla (they were added in AHD or HoD), and they should have remained that way.

I think they were only implemented as an attempt to the player dont feel at the back seat playing with liberals governments which, as liberal governments types go, are exactly intended to be at the back seat anyways.

The intention was good, but the implementation, not so much.
I'd like to at least be able to incentivize my capitalists to not be dumb (but again, not control) with their factory placement, or influence party loyalties, but as it is the system doesn't work for that at all, it's virtually never a good idea to do it.
If the system is supposed to be propaganda, then there's no reason I couldn't, for example, encourage craftsmen at the same time as I promote liberalism and incentivize automotive industry, as those focuses aren't mutually exclusive.