What's the best choice?
- Thread starter colourfulbeast
- 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.
What do you mean ? Are you talking of the economic policies of available parties ? State capitalism and Planned economy let you build factories and often it's better to be able to build them since the AI is not as efficient as the player to identify the goods to produce.
Still Laissez-faire can work if you already have a good base, and the bonus from Laissez-faire can be nice.
So it depends of the state of your economy
Still Laissez-faire can work if you already have a good base, and the bonus from Laissez-faire can be nice.
So it depends of the state of your economy
State Capitalism is great if you have to build up the industry, L-F is good if you have a powerful base of capitalists that can build factories by themselve, interventionism is good if you want to maximize your IND score without having to build everything yourself.
Depends on your literacy.
LAssez faire as 1836 Russia is awful, as 100% litterate GP Sweden in 1900 not as much. Even then the AI never does a better job than the player, so interventionism is the way to go. Planned economy is worse than Lassez Faire however. You can influence factory upgrade directly with interventionism and if you have the patience, also factory building - just put the industry NF you want, close factories, and watch they build the one you want. Works 90% time.
LAssez faire as 1836 Russia is awful, as 100% litterate GP Sweden in 1900 not as much. Even then the AI never does a better job than the player, so interventionism is the way to go. Planned economy is worse than Lassez Faire however. You can influence factory upgrade directly with interventionism and if you have the patience, also factory building - just put the industry NF you want, close factories, and watch they build the one you want. Works 90% time.
In HoD, and certainly in single player, Planned Economy > LF. You get an additional 5% throughput, and no pesky capitalists. The only problem is that you have to buy all your railways yourself, but that's not a really big deal.
LF gives +5% output, thats way better as it directly increases profit.
Anyway, the economic policy is purely a personal thing, some players like to micromanage the shit out their economy, others don't want to do anything with it.
I mostly go for no subsides and build some factories on state capitalism, as subsides screw your budget and you need factories to get rich capitalists.
Apart from the wierd output bonus, the only thing i like about LF is that i don't have to constantly disable subsides (couldnt paradox add an option to disable standard subsides?).
If you want to sit back and enjoy a war, go LF.
If you want to controll everything in order to boost your industry score, go planned economy.
If you want the power to act, but not the need, go state capitalism.
Interventionism is the worst IMO as it only allows subsides, which i hate.
As said before, it's purely a personal playstyle issue.
The big downside of State Capitalism is that you have to upgrade the factories yourself. I'd much rather if they switched it: it would be better if capitalists could upgrade factories but not build new ones.
However, SC's loss is Interventionism's gain. Once you have a booming economy, it's a pain to have to manually upgrade factories all of the time. Letting capitalists take that over while still retaining the ability to manually upgrade and to subsidize your normally unprofitably military goods factories is handy.
However, SC's loss is Interventionism's gain. Once you have a booming economy, it's a pain to have to manually upgrade factories all of the time. Letting capitalists take that over while still retaining the ability to manually upgrade and to subsidize your normally unprofitably military goods factories is handy.
I personally prefer L-F, I have observed in HOD that if you initially go from a policy that allows subsidisation of factories to L-F, which does not allow. Initially you will lose some Industrial score as failing factories are closed. I have heard some players say that this is bad and capitalists don't know how to run your countries economy, which I laugh at as the factories that close are those which are not profitable anyway. Once the closed factories are replayed with new ones, I always find that my industry score gets higher and higher than it ever was while subsidising.
Ofc, if you want to, you can try, and in time improve to be able to routinely check what factories are profitable and what are not, without L-F and close the non-profit factories and replace them with profitable. However for lazy-fair players like myself, I find capitalists much more effective, particularly that i hate having to upgrade factories myself.
Ofc, if you want to, you can try, and in time improve to be able to routinely check what factories are profitable and what are not, without L-F and close the non-profit factories and replace them with profitable. However for lazy-fair players like myself, I find capitalists much more effective, particularly that i hate having to upgrade factories myself.
There are some factories that are routinely or initially extremely unprofitable, but are useful and profitable in certain circumstances or exceptionally useful later. For example, munitions and electrics factories; often you will find that canned food especially, and other munitions are unprofitable until you go to war. You don't want to risk your military success on volatile imports, so you can subsidise these factories during peacetime, and allow you to stockpile large amounts of reserves, if you have a surplus.
Well, upgrading all factories is one SHIFT click. Twice per year and you are fine.
But that's just making me micromanage something and yet at the same time not make any decisions. If I'm in "upgrade everything as quickly as possible!" mode I'd just like to set a checkbox on the factory to do that without me having to keep track of when factories in ten states finish their upgrades.
Basically, state capitalism is fine until you get out of the "which factory should take the next ten thousand workers?" mode. You really want Interventionism once you're having trouble keeping up with craftsman promotion, and it's only because of the interface.
Basically, state capitalism is fine until you get out of the "which factory should take the next ten thousand workers?" mode. You really want Interventionism once you're having trouble keeping up with craftsman promotion, and it's only because of the interface.
The problem is the minimum tax. There are often times where you need to decrease militancy. Good luck doing that with 50% tax all the time.
As I said, only when you have a decent literacy. It´s not a no-brainer.
SC is good for build a proper factory chain and start industrialization. But once a few factories are built in each state, Interventionism is better because it allows to reduce the rich tax to 0% for capitalists to accumulate wealth. LF is terrible when tax efficiency is low but it is best when your literacy/tax efficiency/industry score is high. With that said, it usually means LF is only good near the end of the game.
I usually subsides all my factories until industry score reaches around 100. Then cancel all the subsidies unless industry score is really important for your country's status (e.g. No. 8 or No. 16). Subsidy is not mandatory in interventionism so I still believe interventionism is the best for most of the game time. During great wars, AI likes mobilization and increase tax, so LF can cause a big resource and demand shortage. so I prefer to switch to interventionism and subsidize every factories until the end of war.
I usually subsides all my factories until industry score reaches around 100. Then cancel all the subsidies unless industry score is really important for your country's status (e.g. No. 8 or No. 16). Subsidy is not mandatory in interventionism so I still believe interventionism is the best for most of the game time. During great wars, AI likes mobilization and increase tax, so LF can cause a big resource and demand shortage. so I prefer to switch to interventionism and subsidize every factories until the end of war.