Will liberal economies remain the worst?

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

If we're to be realistic, most world economies started off highly protectionist and with a high degree of state control in order to develop themselves well.
The Laissez-Faire approach in practice was only a detriment for undeveloped economies, ripe for the picking by foreign entities.

Also yeah, if your economy lives off subsidies, don't expect wonders if you switch to LF.

 

[mursolini]

Don't listen to them, they is just wrong. They are extrapolating from little information and deliberately ignoring a ton of what the devs have said. For example, the devs have confirmed time and time again, that governments should and do feel different to play. Furthermore, they, and many others, conflate "players will have control" with "players will be able to do whatever with no consequences" which is just literally wrong as the devs have said multiple times.

That is a gross misrepresentation.

If you want to challenge quotes from DD, that capitalist put their savings into investment pool that player will control, even under LF, go ahead and prove it.

As for "government should feel different" it's you are the one extrapolating how governments will feel different, or not, from dev. words that player will feel different under different system.

 

[Heatth]

Until the game releases (or, at least, we see a dev diary covering this in detail), those are just words. Right now it looks like there won't be capi AI, at least at game release, which would be big step backwards from Vicky 2.

Of course these are just words. My point isn't "trust the devs they are perfect". It is "don't listen to the person who is just literally wrong". Everything we have is just words. And for this system in particular, we don't even have detailed explanation and screenshots. So we either believe in what the devs have said or we are skeptical. But we don't assume it is a different thing than what they are saying because that would be just baseless.

If you want to challenge quotes from DD, that capitalist put their savings into investment pool that player will control, even under LF, go ahead and prove it.

What you said was:

however just wants to give your government power of economical intervention, for free, at no consequences

(emphasis mine)

That is a different statement and a wrong one. If I wanted to be pedantic I could talk how you spending the money capitalists put in the investment pool is not really "economical intervention" (it is a different mechanic simulating a different thing). But the more important thing is the "at no consequences". That is just literally wrong. That was never said, in fact, it was said the opposite. There are consequences. We don't know which ones yet, the devs haven't said. But there are some so saying it doesn't misleads people and make them rage over nothing.

A lot of the outcry over the mechanic comes from the mistaken belief that the player can just do whatever, always, no matter what. That is wrong, flat out. We don't know the exacft limitations, we don't know the exact consequences. We don't know if the system is good. What we do know it is emphatically not "the player can spend the capitalists money whenever they want whichever way they like". IF you want be skeptical over the mechanic, sure, but don't go around spreading misinformation and stop extrapolating stuff from what wasn't said.

 

[mursolini]

What you said was:


(emphasis mine)

That is a different statement and a wrong one. If I wanted to be pedantic I could talk how you spending the money capitalists put in the investment pool is not really "economical intervention" (it is a different mechanic simulating a different thing).

In V2 economic intervention policy allowed basic control of your factories.

In V3, you get roughly state capitalist level, out of box. Argue semantics all you want.

[BGCOLOR=rgb(42, 32, 42)]But[/BGCOLOR]ut the more important thing is the "at no consequences". That is just literally wrong. That was never said, in fact, it was said the opposite. There are consequences. We don't know which ones yet, the devs haven't said. But there are some so saying it doesn't misleads people and make them rage over nothing.

You get control over investment pool by default. Default thing, is there, without consequences. Everything else, us your extrapolation.

A lot of the outcry over the mechanic comes from the mistaken belief that the player can just do whatever, always, no matter what. That is wrong, flat out. We don't know the exacft limitations, we don't know the exact consequences. We don't know if the system is good. What we do know it is emphatically not "the player can spend the capitalists money whenever they want whichever way they like". IF you want be skeptical over the mechanic, sure, but don't go around spreading misinformation and stop extrapolating stuff from what wasn't said.

Maybe, instead of reaching out for strawman, try make a better argument?

Players will be able to build national economy, under LF. Players can use money obtained not by taxes, to build at the very least, factories. That is vast, and unnecessary amount of control over economy. In previous games, obtaining that amount of control was difficult to many players, and game played ok, without that constant control.

Even if there are limitations, player still has far more control, than not having options to directly build them.

Sure, go ahead, tell us how much limits that devs maybe, or maybe not impose on player.

 

[Helmic____]

It's amazing how much ire has been provoked by removing Vicky 2's most hated feature.

It wasn’t hated because it was a bad idea, it was hated because the ai was bad early game. Fixing the cap AI would remove most complaints about the V2 system

 

[ajokitty]

The economy system, from what I understand, functions thusly:

In Victoria II, LF economies prohibited the construction of buildings by the player. This will not be the case in Vicky 3. Because the developers consider buildings to be an integral aspect of the game, they wish to maintain player control over it. Players will have control over most of the details: Where buildings are built, what kinds of buildings are built, how many levels buildings have, and what production methods they use.

Buildings employ and are owned by POPs. Building ownership is primarily determined by a production method highly restricted by laws. Ownership of a building gives the POP all of the profits. Some options include:

• Merchant Guilds - Ownership by Shopkeeper POPs
• Privately Owned - Ownership by Capitalist POPs
• Publicly Traded - It's a secret
• Government Run - Management by Bureaucrat POPs, Mandatory Subsidies, Profits collected by Government
• Worker Cooperative - Ownership by Worker POPs

Players have access to an Investment Pool. This pool represents entrepreneurship. Some POPs will contribute profits from the buildings they own to the pool. Which POPs contribute to the Pool and what the money can spent on are determined by the laws of the nation. Normally, only Capitalist POPs and sometimes Aristocrat POPs will contribute, and the money is primarily for buildings.

Nations can subsidize buildings. Subsidized buildings will try to maximize the workers employed in them, raising wages if necessary, while the government promises to make-up the deficit from government funds. If the building was already profitable, subsidizing it will do nothing. Which buildings can be subsidized is determined by the nation's laws.

Buildings primarily produce Goods, though some raise a nation's Capacities. Goods represent various products. Goods can be used to construct buildings, consumed by Buildings to produce new products, or consumed by POPs. The price of a Good is determined by its supply and demand.

Goods can only be brought and sold within a Market. Most Markets are limited to a single nation, but nations can establish Customs Unions to join Markets. Goods also require Infrastructure to be transported to other States within a Market. It is also possible to establish Import and Export Trade Routes for specific Goods with other Markets, but the number of routes is limited by a variety of factors, the most relevant of which is the nation's laws.

POPs make money from the buildings they own and the wages from the jobs they work. The wealth of a POP is used to determine its Political Strength and buy goods to support its Standard of Living. The Political Strength of a POP will be given to the Interest Groups it supports, giving them Clout. The relative Clout of the different Interest Groups play a key role in how difficult or easy a law is to pass. POPs will spend their wealth to support their Standard of Living. Higher Standards of Living require luxury Goods. POPs with a Standard of Living above what they expect will be more likely to support the government. POPs with a Standard of Living below what they expect are prone to radicalization.

---

Putting it all together, it seems like the game will rely on natural consequences of decisions, rather than artificial penalties.

There is nothing stopping you from blowing all the wealth in the Investment Pool on Furniture factories. However, doing so would both cause an oversupply of furniture and a shortage of other goods. As the price of furniture falls, so will wages. The Standards of Living for the workers will follow. Some of the workers will radicalize. Others will emigrate to better countries. Subsidizing would protect the workers, but also be a massive drain on the nation's coffers.

In a more serious example, a nation might try to increase the size of their Investment Pool by encouraging capitalists, trying to build the most profitable buildings. However, doing so will also result in the establishment of a powerful class of capitalists, who will act to encourage their interests through Interest Groups, preventing the passage of laws that threaten their wealth. Meanwhile, a dictatorship drawing on socialist principles like the Soviet Union will not need the Investment Pool, earning all the profits itself, but will also have to contend with the mandatory subsidization of Buildings.

There is a reason why the developers want the players to have full control over buildings. The effects of the decisions that a player makes will cascade through the economy and into politics and international diplomacy. The game has been described as a game where you can garden your nation. Buildings are an essential tool in that respect.

 

[Avian Overlord]

There are consequences. We don't know which ones yet, the devs haven't said. But there are some so saying it doesn't misleads people and make them rage over nothing.

I mean, if you can't subsidize factories (or can't afford to), than the only ones that stick around are going to be the profitable ones. That alone is a big limitation.

 

[Heatth]

@ajokitty, Great write up. The only thing it is missing is that what you can spend your investment pool on is limited by laws as well. We don't know details, but I suspect that, for example, if you have laws that allow aristocrats to invest, then your pool is limited to things like farm buildings and other stuff aristocrats like. For capitalist it might be factories or maybe only profitable industries. To I repeat, we don't actually know what the limit are. Unlike Vic 2 I believe they confirmed you can always use the state funds to buy factories (and other buildings).

In V2 economic intervention policy allowed basic control of your factories.

In V3, you get roughly state capitalist level, out of box. Argue semantics all you want.

By using Vic 2 definitions "intervention" means you can subsidies your factories. This is not what the investment pool is. It is a different mechanic, as I said. It is pedantic, but just because that is not really your main point, so it is pointless to argue it.

You get control over investment pool by default. Default thing, is there, without consequences. Everything else, us your extrapolation.

It is you who keeps inventing a "without consequences" out of nowhere. The devs and a journalist who could have a look at the game already talked about the limitations and the devs have already talked about having to keep your capitalists happy (as part of interest groups

Maybe, instead of reaching out for strawman, try make a better argument?

I will when you actually addresses my argument? You are literally just ignoring me saying that there are consequence. You either addresses that your we are through.

Even if there are limitations, player still has far more control, than not having options to directly build them.

If that is your opinion that is fine, I am not trying to argue for the merits of the mechanic. I frankly don't have much of an opinion for now. I just want you to stop spreading misinformation. Stop repeating the "with no consequences" thing, it is wrong.