Victoria 3's Private Ownership Makes No Sense - Here's How to Fix it
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2024
- Finally, a Victoria 3 Video Essay that wants to put the capital in capitalism into Victoria 3. This video discusses how every economic model of Victoria 3 functions in the same way, with only surface level differences, and seeks to provide an answer to that problem.
I particularly target the three forms of private ownership: Merchant Guilds, Private Ownership, and Public Trading, and I lump those three into one group for simplicity.
I believe in the maintenance of developer intention, and specificity with regards to suggestions, so this video goes through a rather in-depth explanation of a couple mechanics that I believe would make Victoria 3 a significantly better economic simulator, without shaping it into something different. I seek to add depth, and nuance to the economic systems of the game, without any overhauling.
Let me know in the comments what you think of my ideas, and any issues you could foresee. Thank you.
TWITCH: / tarkusarkusarkusarkusar
PATREON: / language-to-poll-76327535
DISCORD: / discord
Besides that, I hope you enjoy the video! Here are the timestamps, and music in the video:
Intro: 0:00
Fear, Greed, and Rights: 1:33
Internal Competition: 8:14
Potential Issues: 15:51
Summary: 20:04
Music in the video (in order of appearance)
Out of Tartarus - Hades
Praise the Lamb - Cult of the Lamb
A Monster - Furi OST (Waveshaper)
A Kora Tale - Endless Legend OST
The Drakkars - CK3 OST
In Taberna - CK2 OST
War of the Sundered - Endless Legend OST
Mulligan - Hearthstone OST - Hry
Early in the video, I talked about how saved money is ultimately economically useless. This isn't quite right, since stored away money can contribute to lowering interest rates from banks for loans. This is true, but what I meant more was the idea that if people are saving, and not spending, then their money isn't stimulating growth through the exchange of goods and services, which usually is unhealthy for an economy.
Nonetheless, it is NOT correct that saving money is useless in an economy, so my bad for that.
I think Imperator tackled this problem best, and one could adapt the character system from there quite well into Victoria.
I didn't understand from the beginning why the characters in Victoria are limited to politicians and generals/admirals when some of the most interesting people of the time where industrialists/Trusts, inventors/pioneers etc.
But to come to the actual point, in Imperator families could own estates, which you as the player/state could grand and take away. Different families where interested in keeping the balance and improving their own standing inside your empire.
All you have to do is translate stuff like estate into company, rewrite the events to tackle problems like Monopolies and the labor movement and you already have a system that represents the time era reasonably well.
I've only played a little bit of imperator, but the great families was definitely a concept I could see great promise in, especially for a game like vic3, so sorely lacking any interesting character interactions, beyond the occasional random assassination or "retirement".
Kind of also looking for more real evidence of interest group conflict. Like how industrialists sent in the Pinkertons in the US to curtail strikes, which should end in a small pop loss and more radicalization. Or maybe more events similar to the triangle shirtwaist factory fire, leading to yet more conflict and radicalization movements. I just feel like those events, which had national consequences and coverage, don't happen often enough or have enough/harsher options. That kind of thing just needs to happen more in game without player input
I completely agree with this. More events that have wide-reaching consequences would help the game a lot, but also, it wouldn't fix the game's problems. To me, stuff like that is flavour, and flavour can help a meal, but if your base ingredients are dogshit, it doesn't matter what flavour you put on it. To me, Victoria 3 has bland base mechanics. Not necessarily shit, but... not nearly good enough to be thinking of flavour. (Nonetheless, I imagine flavour is all we'll get for a long time from Vic 3, with Paradox's DLC habits)
Only if socialism inevitably leads to the Holodomor.
Making games increasingly deep and engaging after launch are a double edged sword from a developer perspective. We'll usually have months and years worth of content in the pipeline being worked on and chipped away at, the double edged sword part of all of it is on one edge, expanding a project to offer more nuanced features and content involves alot of math, code, algorithms and balance reworks to make sure additional content works smoothly with previous blocks of mathematics algorithms and code. The other edge is seeing the community point out and suggest additions and tweaks that make sense and delivering on that in a timely manner while still being able to meet the deadline of all the preplanned work in the lifecycle of the project if the in house bureaucracy is even nimble enough to allow it on any given change. The latter edge is the fun part.
I am so interested to see what's going to be a big focus of the first dlc
It's going to be war with the Russian empire
For prussia lol
@Boon2000 The game gets boring when you realize it is simply like playing HOI IV but with only civilian construction
@Boon2000 And they removed the navy diplomacy from vicky 2 and oversimplified everything to the point that it's not immersive at all. At least in Vicky 2 you could make some sort of army organization that made some sense
I agree with many points, like for example it makes no sense that complete nationalization of privately owned businesses doesn't have any retaliation from capitalists. It also doesn't make sense that the country has either 100% private economy or 100% coops or 100% nationalized.
However, you seem to confuse private ownership of factories with personal property like car, or command economy with a lack of liberty. Command economy doesn't mean that the state will take your car, toothbroosh or cat, it means that the means of production under government control, and state uses surplus value from those means for some means (medicine, military, education, conquest etc).
There are also many different types of command economy, which can be authoritarian or democratic ones, centralized or decentralized, or even temporary for times of crisis.
I like a lot of the ideas proposed here, but one thing when it comes to characters in Victoria 3, is that you have to keep in mind that the game only lasts 100 years. In CK3 if you get stuck with somebody extremely uncooperative, you can much more easily wait them out (and also you have more tools to remove them from power if you don't want to wait) but in Vic3 it's quite possible to have a playthrough with only 2 characters ever appearing in any given position.
I imagine that many businesses would exist and choke each other out economically instead of killing so those characters would only end up staying after a lot of other business owners have lost their businesses. It would also be nice to have an 867-type game from ck3 so disparaged countries have more time to grow.
Excelent video - with very good, well presented suggestions
One thing, totally fair if you have no interest in doing so, you should cross post the transcript of this to the suggestions forum - it would dramatically increase the odds of a dev actually seeing and considering the idea.
I think the real problem is the private construction, you need to build something bad bud 80% is being used for a rye farm, i mean it's great but why does it get priority
To me, the issues with ownership run MUCH deeper than just construction. The game assumes that no mixed economy can exist, when we all know that nationalization and privatization are a slider, not an all or nothing concept. In the video, I talked about having collectivization alongside that too, and although that's a little harder to justify historically, it's entirely POSSIBLE and did happen in small amounts in history.
@@Tarkusarkusar what do you mean by a slider
@@Cecilia-ky3uw a range
Also how would you change construction - governments don't build factories as much as finance them. Maybe you get the ability to invest in factories people are willing to build rather than choosing them in a non central planned economy?
@@Tarkusarkusar Given the nature of paradox games as a "history sandbox" rather than following historicity and trying to be faithful to real world events, I think letting the player make the decision to add collectivization totally fits.
Love these shorter precise video essay style episodes! Keen to watch more.
2:13 saving isn’t economically useless, it decreases interest rates thereby making it easier for people to create more roundabout methods of production.
Aside from that a solid video, it was especially good that you brought up that the idea of a monolithic ‘industrialist’ group was nonsensical. For example an owner of a textile mill in the US would likely favor high protective tariffs while a sugar mill owner in the US would oppose protective tariffs, especially on sugar. Personally I wish the game had banking, as it is an important part of the time period.
As for your oligarchs making demands and the like, I think it could also be used in command economies to represent the powerful and well connected managers of state-owned businesses.
Yeah, my bad about the interest rates. I'll put a pinned comment addressing it. I was thinking more along the lines of how if a person doesn't spend their money, then it's not doing anything in the economy, which can have the positive effect of decreasing interest rates, but usually is a sign of trouble ahead. Definitely was an oversimplification though.
I also like your idea about command economies having similar systems for the bureaucrats that run things. I think a similar system to what I talked about in the video ought to be available for all the ownership types, but they would have to be sort of reskinned to suit the differences between them.
Even Victoria 2 had some form of banking, you could take loans from other countries. Overall I give Vic3 0.2(Open Alpha)/10
4:52 no actually, selling off state run businesses does not attract economic investment. It would just absolutely ruin your economy. This is exactly what happened when the Soviet union dissolved. People thought that the selling of state run assets would increase investment in the economy. Instead gdp shrank by half, standards of living fell off a cliff, wealth inequality skyrocketed, and the average lifespan decreased by 10 years.
You definetly have some great ideas, and this was the only thing in the video that stood out to me. I really like your idea of having the consciences of a monopoly be dynamic instead of a flat modifier. One could argue that viki 3 isn't real life, it's a game, and that selling off state run businesses to gain capital investment might make a fun game mechanic. However, I think it would be really cool if the game rewarded players for having a general knowledge of history, and how some economic principles are counterintuitive.
It feels like Victoria 3 is going to end up like Stellaris in so far as the game will take a few years to finally get it's gameplay and identity to align and become what the fans were hoping.
You mean what the developers long term vision for it is.
The military system wilnot change much i think though
@@Cecilia-ky3uw It will change as a dlc add on.
Merchant guilds were sort of a mix between a union and a mafia usually defined by official government-approved monopolies. Usually the promise was to keep product quality high and sometimes pay extra taxes. A way to differentiate would be to make it so the building wages are simply higher, the government had one-tenth shares while the shopkeeps held the rest. Finally, merchant businesses would resist innovation, while private businesses would welcome it. I find it interesting you can fire large numbers of shopkeepers who own highly lucrative businesses just because you upgraded the building tech and suddenly it has to be privately owned instead of merchant owned and there are zero luddite riots or political backlash.
If we're already limiting the number of relevant businesses to some arbitrary number- in your example five, then I think that's already a good start for multi-state corporations. Essentially, you could just have each building be 'ownable' by a business. Each building's 'worth' would be represented by their cash reserves, and the total cash reserves of all buildings owned by a business would be their 'budget'. Businesses would then use their 'budget' to 'buy' more buildings. Businesses would then go around attempting to keep their own profits high while depleting the cash reserves of their opponent's buildings to buy them out.
This would also serve as a dynamic way to model monopolies. Businesses would be looking to both obtain vertical and horizontal monopolies by buying out all the buildings of a certain type, and as much of their supply chain as possible.
So this would mean you would need to consider how close to a monopoly a business already is while appraising the value of their requests or considering their demands. This would also provide a good excuse to add of anti-trust laws to regulate how close to a monopoly businesses can get and/or affect their ability to take certain actions. In fact, you could add a scale that shows the level of intervention in your economy, with one side being laissez-faire and the other command economy. Then, you could replace the economic system laws with a series of laws that affect your position on this scale.
And your position on this scale could affect various things, like boosts to IG clout, modifiers to their opinion, various bonuses for buildings with certain ownership methods, and so on.
Ah, as an addition, you could also have a 'small businesses' sixth faction that automatically owns every other building. Not the most elegant solution, but it would cut down on calculations while also adding the most content. I think it's an okay compromise, at least.
I like this suggestion a lot, particularly with the addition that they only buy buildings of their type, and buildings in their supply chain. I think that'd have to be a much more robust system, but it would be really cool to watch your country's industry be snapped up by monopoly corporations. The only reason I lean into simplicity so strongly is, quite frankly, Paradox's more casual audience these days.
Whenever I talk about preserving developer intentions, this is very much part of it. Victoria 3 is not Victoria 2, and one thing which differentiates those games is simplicity vs complexity. I do think what you're proposing is likely skirting the line of complexity for Paradox's philosophy. That being said, I'm pretty sure even what I'm proposing is too complicated for Paradox OMEGALUL
We'll see though. I'm not sure what direction Paradox wants to take Victoria 3, but we'll know once some dev diaries come out.
@@Tarkusarkusar I agree with you, and I'll add in one more potential issue: performance. We've already got shit performance, and as far as I can tell there's no easy solution. As I recall, it also tends to get worse over time precisely because of the increase in buildings. The number of calculations buildings are undergoing, and the massive amount of them that are built by mid-late game, is what causes the chug.
At least, that's the way I understand it anyway.
More to the point though, the system I've described would add that many more calculations focused around buildings. It's also about as simplified as I can imagine it while still being a dynamic mechanic.
Only doing individual buildings in a state would be much simpler, but has two major issues. First, the power of such a business would naturally be diluted in nations with significantly more states. I doubt Russia or China would even feel the effects of the system.
Conversely, businesses would be far too powerful in smaller nations. If I'm playing lanfang and build a single textile industry, it's going to immediately be a massive part of my gdp. That's realistic in the sense that it has a real-life analogue, but those situations also invariably involve a foreign company building the mill/factory/whatever. Generally, the political strong-arming comes first as the government has to cajole and bend over backwards for multi-nationals just to get the thing built. This wouldn't really make sense though if the government is the one building it, and it would be really unsatisfying to have to deal with this issue for every single small nation every time you play them.
Really good video good suggestions for how to fix the issues it has imo.
The fact that you can't have a transitionary stage of economies really also undermines fairly influential historical movements to reform the humanitarian disasters that the sheer speed of the economic development had caused to dehumanise the workers.
You briefly mentioned how one-state factories are somewhat of the problem and yeah, but I'd agree I don't think there is really a way to change that with it making sense, and would overcomplicate the game in a way that probably wouldn't by itself and inherently enhance historical accuracy / generally how fun it is to play.
Like okay monopolies of oligopolies were huge economic interests throughout the period, but to be able to model how those things work across a whole nation let alone when you expand that across how big you can make your market, and like what if those dynamics were going on for a power that then left the market being largely dominated by foreign investments etc, which yk was a force in the period but to even start to make that a mechanic with current game state would be rather foolish.
Love your video essays, and quite like the more episodic nature of this one being much more like approachable to promote the ideas. Good stuff.
I like this style of video! Makes the concepts you propose easier to understand. In regards to the current privatisation mechanic, I personally think the prioritisation of private construction investment of the AI should be improved. One of the benefits of privitisation would be the compounding of valuable industries and the assests/infrastructure for them, rather than the current AI randomly assigning something to build. I think this would have a far greater impact on the value of having privatised sectors of the economy as not only is it more realistic but it ties nicely with the already present modifiers from economies of scale. Whilst its not as radical as changes you proposed I do think it would be a subtle but substantial improvement to the current system.
Edit: I think the randomly assigned private construction syatem could work as a type of venture capital system where pops of a certain wealth bracket invest in risky, unknown or underutilised industries within a country's economy but I think thats where its getting a bit too complex
The minmaxer inside of me very much hates that the private investment pool seems to love building industry spread out everywhere, rather than expanding existing industries while there is pops to work them
the game with most videos on how to fix the game
TRUE
Agree with most of your points, really really like the owneship triangle you proposed, can't feel like the internal competition thing would suck
Great video
Tbh no ownership type makes sense as you're rolling all industries of said type over a vast region under a single umbrella. Try to do the same with car mechanics in your city and you see how ridiculous it is. Even in countries with command economy there's still a random Joe in his garage that people go to for small help and even in libertarian paradise any established big organization would have one on their sole payroll. Maybe instead they should be listed as % of total number and not as umbrella for all?
Anyway, if I recall right, the whole intent behind "ownership type" in UI was to allow players to promote wealth of certain strata ie workers, shareholders, bureacracy, nobles, industrialists or government itself. So you would have to spread out industries to get benefits from all of them. Plus sadly it doesn't seem to work anyway.
it doesnt seem to work because not all IGs are equally strong, liberal capitalist individualist (intelligentsia + industrialists) and communist collectivist (trade union + intelligentsia) are strongest, so promoting their types of ownership is without the question
making petite burgouis and fascist/monarchies/oligarchies way weaker economies, ergo not worth even investing/playing
it also has to do with how the laws work
its a balance issue
so it is what it is
This mechanic could be really interesting for civil wars since agrarian aristocratic and industrial capitalists were a hidden driver in the fight over slavery and why both factions were viewed as legitimate by many internationally. Leading oligarchs could also become more co-operative once communism establishes itself as well
One thing I would point out is that there isn’t necessarily a 1 to 1 relationship between pop type and interest group. Theoretically capitalists in the industrialists interest group could favor certain policies and capitalists in the armed forces or intelligentsia interest groups could support other policies
One way to represent multi-state business could be some sort of subsidiary system. Essentially, businesses in different states that work together under the same leader.
So Standard Oil Texas and Standard Oil Pennsylvania would both push for the same things and be run by Rockefeller.
Idk if this would actually work, but it could be a way to show the formation of monopolies and their relationship to the State.
Ok. First things first. @2:08 you made a MASSIVE error. Money saved does not contribute to inflation. Inflation is an increase of the currency supply, which can only be done through the issuance of new currency. This is done either through fractional reserve banking and the attendant velocity of money or by the issuance (printing, minting, etc. etc.) of new funds. In theory, if there are multiple currencies competing then it can be created other ways, such as ad infinitum subdivision of currency as with Bitcoin, or through arbitrage of conversion rates. But the former is incredibly rare and the latter is usually only significant in aggregate, over extended periods of time, and also tends to normalize.
Saving money is also not "wasted" money. While there may be an opportunity cost associated with not spending money now, it is still money saved, and the future economy may reflect later purchase decisions from savings in the moment. Doubly so if it's being used to lend to others.
Inflation can also be caused by low interest rates as that will make loans more popular.
saving money is actually deflationary rather than inflationary
As your GDP gets higher, command economy gets worse because of the same GDP size malus that also applies to the IPT. I think for most runs, but the time you can implement it, going to it would be particularly bad (but would allow you to construct a lot in the short run, before your economy shrivels up).
Love this! I hope paradox adopts these ideas!
The main thing that I wish they’d add to this game from the beginning that seems like a no brainer was full blown companies, corporations, and maybe for socialists trade unions and guilds that can own and build buildings so they can basically be another interest group that will have to be managed.
Like the reason why liberalism sucks so much in vic2 is because the ai can’t handle having individual capitalists manage an economy because the moment their factories run out of money they just instantly shut them down, so to me having companies just made sense but not to paradox apparently.
this channel needs to blow up, bro is genuinely so good at the game lmao
I think corn laws does a good job show casing the core issue with how IGs are now. It makes no sense that having a market liberal takeover would then get the entire IG behind abolishing serfdom. We would need something like radicalized pops creating a split off IG of opposition. This all said, this kind of thing would create a lot of wonky situations.
expanding on your internal competition system for capitalists, you can even have the flip side of a similar balancing system for socialist systems where you have you juggle trade and worker unions with things like wages, importing goods that make them happy etc. And for full blown Communist gvms you can your heads of states that vye in competition for you to build and invest in THERE state or else kinda situation. And for Fascist or Junta gvms (basically authoritarian militarists) you have your generals or heads of military branches competing with each other for funs, like maybe if you invest too much into military, your admirals will be upset and vice versa. Something like this would add HUGE flavor to the routes of government seeing it more like "who would you rather appease to keep in charge, who would be most beneficial to prop up and keep happy" like real world gvms even to this day. I love all the ideas layed out in this video and honestly it has my think thank BREWING with ideas that make me hyped for potential directions this game would take. TRUE state building stuff yk. Great video you earned yourself a new subscriber!
It's actually kind of odd. It seems like private construction is an after thought as government construction is always more efficient (at least to a point) so max taxing and spending will always be more efficient and will create economies, rather then it kind of being the other way around. In none of the main European nations was their economies predominantly built by the state.
bro is making a tutorial for paradox
The thing i dislike about Victoria 3 is the sense that i need push my country to do everything, in Vic2 it was more like steering a country (aside from reasearching) through legislation and war. In vic3 i need to build building, constantly watching over production methods, market needs and push laws. Wars are not intresting at all, just set random generals at random fronts and attack. I cannot even starve my people to death because they can always buy things even if supply is literal 0. They went from micromanaging troops to micromanaging economy
tbf that was the goal of vic3 paradox has enough micromanaging army games imo wars are used to expand your gdp not overall power
vic2 had plenty of economy management too
@@pokefantrent2065 Victoria 3 can and could have easily been a culmination of everything paradox has learned and improved about it's systems across all thier grand strategy franchises, I'm sure that's the vision for this installment yet they don't have the budget to work everything in behind the scenes for 10 to 15 years like other select studios and publishers have especially when working on multiple franchises with one studio instead of an umbrella of studios and 3rd party developers, these days games need to launch to fund further improvements to complete the vision. It most likely took them the better part of 5 years just to get the economics system functioning with long term playability to 1936 and beyond on top of everything else they had to work on secondary to that. Don't be mistaken, they claim Vic 3 to be an economy and diplomacy sim because those systems were what they spent the most resources and man hours on split amongst all thier other projects. Eventually they'll get the game to a point where military, diplomacy and economy are deep nuanced and dynamic systems that truly represents everything they've learned over the past decade. After a short break they'll already be working on Vic 4, these project lifecycles are planned out years in advance.
Part of the problem with Victoria 2 is that, yeah you could just let the AI build everything, but the AI was really bad at it, so in reality you ended up just having to build everything yourself anyway which made policies like Laissez-faire (which banned you from ever constructing economic buildings) pretty much useless
I would prefer if each level of building was though as separate entity, with each assigned an owner or a holding company. Of course owners and holding companies could have more than one building. And those entities would each play their own game, trying to expand their business by constructing new ones or buying others. And for those entities that already have some kind of a business it should cheaper to expand in this industry. AI should be incentives to to specialize in one kind of business and only buy other businesses they cannot meaningfully expand in their business or when vertical integration would provide a lot of benefit for their main operation (e.g. steel company buying iron and coal mines just to use them their needs, without selling them outside the company). Also throughput bonuses should apply for a specific company so the bigger company is the more efficient it is, but on the other hand, the less competition there is, the higher prices get for the consumers. Also character traits would have influence on the way company operates. Cruel owner would be far more likely to squeeze every man, woman and children out of their last penny and treating their own workforce as slaves. While pious character would be more concerned about their workers wellbeing than his own earnings.
I think they should do something with the almost inevitable money hoarding when you change your production method to command economy. I tried to virtually eliminate taxes by changing to consumption-based taxation with maximum social reforms and still it didn't work. You should be able to subsidize consumption of goods like it historically happened with booze in the russian empire or something of the sort idk
I really like the business idea but would love it if it workee more like intrest groups for buildings where a business can buy up and own several buildings and maybe even get a monopoly on a certain product. And the more buildings they kwn the more clout they have
Command economy is still the worst because of the inefficiency thing if you have a high GDP.
At 2 billion GDP you get 50% more (!) government income if you're on _any_ other economic law but on graduated taxation on lowest (30% dividend taxes).
And the pops get to keep something for themselves.
The inefficiency thing also applies to the investment pool so technically that makes coop ownership (no IP) the best economic law in the game.
Without any contender whatsoever.
Scrolled through the comments looking for this lol
I like the episodic videos much more!
So many things make no sense I'm not sure if this should be a priority.
Good Ideas!
Completely agree, government and cooperative ownership should be locked away behind tech and not economic laws. I loathe that you can't have mixed economies in Vic3, let me mix capitalist and cooperative ownerships in consumer and export sectors while maintaining a government run "commanding heights" of essentials!
I think if you implement a “powerful businesses” type of mechanic, it should be based on both the number of employees and the % of GDP contributed by the business so that it’s balanced between the value of the good produced and the overall impact on the economy. In addition to your vertical integration idea, I don’t think the businesses should be permanently tied to having just one type of good they produce, when even back then conglomerates were starting to take shape (maybe this should be locked behind a technology).
I love you bro
I almost feel that a better way to model ownership would be to remove capitalists, replacing them with shares (entrusted to workers, some pop, or government.) and separate "state industry" and "private industry" as two sections in the building tab. "State Industry" is what the player has more direct input over, being able to select prod methods and ownership model (co-op, split shares, or state owned.). The "Private Industry" section could be effectively a simulation where each industry level is treated as a new instance rather than an expansion, and the collective adherence to prod methods displayed as a percentage for the building group. A system like this allows the player to privatize and nationalize their industry, and would let private construction not interrupt the player.
BONUS: Victoria 3's government system is far and away the worst part of the game and desperately needs an extensive rework.
Half of these seem like someone going crazy with their imagination in a discord suggestion channel, half are really good specific improvements
I really hope, Vic 3 will get the Stellaris treatment soon, where they overhaul the game with some more radical changes. And I really think this game need some serious reworks if they want the game to feel alive till the end date. In my opinion the game is kinda over after 1900 right now, as I somtimes find it hard to even see the map good, when the only thing I see are the Icons of the stuff being build.
I think doing episodic works as some people may only be intrested in one topic.
What about making it cost authority to nationalize industries? That way more autocratic forms of government naturally have more of an ability to nationalize
He's discussed this before and I think the conclusion was that bureucracy would be better simply because it scales more, perhaps you could change the more autrocratic govt types/laws to give reductions on institution burcrecracy cost alongside this?
Authority in the late game is so hard to come by especially if you started as a major power, it feels like it would be too limiting.
as the other reply said below, it's difficult to justify using authority because it's such a limited resource, but it could be something like a cooldown. You nationalize a business, and it takes some authority for a few years, then you can do it again? Not sure, bureaucracy still feels like the better way to do it, and then having an artificial cap on how much you can nationalize based on your laws.
I think it woul be good if collectivization could involve an exchange of money, basically you would pay off the capitalist owner. This could mean it's a lot cheaper to take over a failing industry and you could even structure your economy in such a way to make it easier to take over an industry.
Interesting ideas. Very very fast though. Might be just me getting old, but had to replay lots of it as it felt like a race to read a speech asquicklyaspossible.
Maybe an choice Anti trust legislation would be a thing to have
I disagree with capitalists having personality from point of priority of design. I don't think anyone ever downsized factories just due to some capitalist wanting it.
What they can want is good based tariffs to work differently and additional costs for consumer goods. The first one requires reworking of (free) trade and second one requires weird mechanics.
I don't feel capitalists can want anything from the state except policies if the state is building everything to make their pockets full. The problem is that when it is only either government run / privately owned the choice is linear and highly unrealistic.
I hope paradox sees this
Expanding from @TheArklyte 's comment i guess it should be more like clout for interest groups then where you can discourage or bolster a certain type of ownership method over time. That way u can make it more realistic since no company when it changes its ownership type does so in a day and markets are fluid. There's always a interim period of some sort. This could be represented in many ways in the game like the businesses not hiring for a year or so unless mandatory to not run of reserves in that timeframe, or needing more pops for administrative work etc.
As to the fluidity it could be tied to the clout of respective interest groups. So trade unions for collective ownership, industrialists for publicly traded and aristocrats and or petite bourgeoise for merchant guilds. The percentage of clout should influence the chance and or time that a business swaps ownership method. For example the us has very few coops today and most business are privately owned in some fashion due to its long history of worker and union suppression, so people are less likely to collectivice cuz its not likely to be part of their common experience. Western Europe in contrast has a lot more due to its history and its more likely to get new ones.
Furthermore if foreign investments get added like in vic2 u could add diplo and foreign markets into the equation. where a certain amount or all of the generated profits go into a foreign market or big company in a similar way that unincorporated states work at the moment. As to the diplo part you could nationalize certain businesses for the cost of influence and or relation malus maybe even risk of diplomatic backlash in form of wars or embargo's.
Very intelligent video and ideas. I think part of the problem with V3 is that 3 of the interest groups are actually the same; there are 3 owners of capital, land-owners, farm owners and factory owners. Often their representative IG’s don’t have values that align with the self interest of the capital owners. Take farmers, often the farmer IG is anti trade, even when trade could raise depressed produce prices. IMO all capital owners should seek the increase in their product prices, if prices are low they should support export routes to new markets, if prices are high they should not support import routes from new markets. Subsidise should be supported by those receiving it, and unsupported by those missing out.
Maybe the capital owner IGs should be merged and contain a variety of sub-IGs, representing each industry group. Mining, farming, consumer-factories, industrial-good-factories, arms manufacturers. Each sub-IG representing an association of similar capital owners all seeking to maximise their profits at the expense of other groups.
Noooooooo.
Land owners and factory owners are very different IGs. The Rural / Urban divide is arguably more important than propertied / unpropertied.
And the rural folk IG represents "unpropertied rural folk", which a family farm functionally is "unpropertied" out in the countryside. And your opinion is wrong, these people are generally not pro-trade since their interests are not as straight forward as money so much as they are opposing the consolidation of property which would result in the loss of their homes and way of life. Peasants aren't stupid.
vicky 3 developer: 00ga b00ga me clique buttun do nazionalize all industry
Bruh pdx need to hire u already
Here's how you actually fix it: Close the game, delete Vicky 3, download Vicky 2, and play a good game.
Paradox didn't want to pay their employees to come up with a realistic way for workers to share in a corporations profits... (lol jk but could be idk)
- approval for capitalists/gdp of nationalised stuff should be -approval for capitalists * gdp of nationalised stuff
Like in real lifee
please make a mod
Just gotta find someone who can mod OMEGALUL
but command economy IS the most powerfull economic model in the world
private ownership is cringe, embrace public ownership
I don't get how you can't have universal suffrage, guaranteed liberties and command economy at once. It makes perfect sense in a socialist sense
Everyone votes. Everyone can do what he likes, within reason. Everyone must do what the state says is an appropriate occupation for a specific time/place.
What happens if you don't want to work in the mine the state built in your backyard (GL and CE)? What happens when the election results in the closing of the local factory which provides the only non-subsistence occupation around (US and CE)?
If you assume guaranteed liberties DOESN'T include the right to choose where to work, serfdom or slavery are words, then you are correct that there is no conflict. Likewise with the assumption that all elections will have unanimous votes, which is obviously impossible for any polity of any size.
@@conradmills4977 you don't know what command economy is then. You can be free to work where you want in a command economy.
@@Bjasileus Not if the industry is deemed wasteful by the state, not if the state sees no need to expand the industry such that it employs all who want to work there, not if your labor would be better applied elsewhere by the state, etc, etc, etc.
✡ownership
"Victoria 3's Private Ownership Makes No Sense." It makes no sense in real life either.
SOUNDS ALOT LIKE THE BEST PARADOX GAMES POLITICS SYSTEM cough cough IMPERATOR ROME