Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #2 - Capacities

[wilcoxchar]

They are still points for abstract sources that have very tangible effects on your nation. Unfortunately there is no better system

No they're not. The entire thing about monarch points in EU4 was that they were a random number with very little or no input from the player into how the number is determined, and that they were a commodity that was earned and spent in discrete amounts. That is absolutely not the case here. The player can do plenty of things to affect the value of each capacity. Additionally, it's a worker management system that is constantly present and the player is only allocating the workers, it's not a resource pool. So it's in no way like EU4's monarch points except that numbers exist.

 

[SolemZez]

I like how this sounds so far

 

[JustJacque]

All the people complaining about effort put into your education system making it harder to organize your police as being unrealistic have never been in a job where someone has quit and rather than hiring new staff, the duties just get divided.

 

[Lapoleon]

Is there any particular reason to display the capacities as units rather than as percentages? -53 is far less useful than 79%/-21%

Yes.

Let's say that you are at 80% of your bureaucratic capacity. You want to build and staff an office to improve it. How is this going to be shown? Will it say: if fully staffed generates 25% bureaucracy? 25% of what, your current bureaucracy. That would mean that you're now at 125% of your previous limit, which means that you're now using 80/125 ≈ 66%. Which is 14 percentage points or 18% lower than what you were previously at.
It could also show: if fully staffed improves bureaucratic capacity by 150. But now you have to find out what your limit is, since the 80% doesn't really tell you how many points you actually need.

I understand that showing it as a percentage might make it somewhat more immersive, however as shown above there are two problems:
1: actually interacting with the capacities or planning around them needs absolute values instead of percentages.
2: people are surprisingly bad at understanding and using percentages. Your own example already shows this a little bit. Does 79% mean that you're using 79% of your cap? Or that you have 79% remaining, or are you 79% over your limit? What does -21% mean, negatives tend to be bad, so it probably means that you are over your cap. But are you 21% over your cap, or do you need to decrease your "spending" by 21%? The latter would mean that you are currently at 126.5% of your cap.

 

[SanicK]

I'm really enjoying everything they're showing, not just the DD, but all the dev responses. Although they are abstractions, they are connected with several other game mechanisms (pops, buildings, resources etc). I can't wait for the news DDs. Keep up the good work.

 

[Shock360]

Some opinions of V3’ administrative system
First of all, I think the administrative system should be divided into three levels: country/ state/provincial. A total bureaucracy of country is not a good choice. The country provides administrative efficiency (reflects the country's control over the state), while the state provides administrative capacity (reflects the total bureaucratic capacity of the region). Administrative efficiency multiplied by administrative capacity is equal to province administrative ability (reflect province's actual administrative ability). The province is the basic unit of administration. The province has administrative burden, which can be regarded as the consumption of administrative ability, determined by the population of the province, the number of reforms implemented or the number of laws. When administrative capacity and administrative burden are equal, tax efficiency and mobilization efficiency only depend on technology. In case of surplus or shortage of administrative ability, a certain buff or DE buff can be provided.

Secondly, administrative efficiency/administrative system should be made into a chain structure. The capital/state center city should be the starting point/node, the road/air route should be the line linking the cities (points), and then the administrative capacity can be spreads from the state center city to the provinces.

The administrative efficiency of a country is added to each state, spreading from the capital to the central cities of the surrounding state and declining with the increase of distance. The basic administrative efficiency of reaching a state is the administrative efficiency that is conveyed from the capital to the central city of the state. Administrative efficiency depends on the capital's bureaucratic architecture, bureaucratic pop and technology.

Each state has its own administrative capacity. This administrative capacity is determined by the bureaucratic pop, bureaucratic buildings of all cities in the region and technology. After arriving at the state central city, administrative efficiency and administrative capacity multiplied equal to the administrative ability of the state. The administrative ability of the region starts from the central city and extends to the provinces.

The existence of roads or air routes can greatly reduce the decay of administrative efficiency and administrative capacity, and the operating efficiency of roads or air routes can affect the rate of decay. Thus, efficient roads or routes can greatly reduce this attenuation, and while roads or routes blocked by the enemy, this effect will lose.

But completely isolated states/provinces also have a minimum administrative efficiency, which can be defined as the administrative efficiency before isolation divided by 5. When the state central city is isolated from the capital, the administrative efficiency should have a decay process, which can be reduced to the lowest administrative efficiency in about a year. When the central cities of the isolated state are reconnected to the capital, they can be restored from the minimum administrative efficiency to the current maximum administrative efficiency in three months. As for the enclaves, if they are surrounded by friendly countries, enclaves can use the roads of friendly countries to connect with capital; if they are surrounded by hostile countries, enclaves can be regarded as isolated.

When the capital is captured, the administrative efficiency of the country will suffer a major blow, and all states will become isolated. If the capital is not recovered after one or two months of occupation, the temporary capital can be set up in a city within near states of the capital. The administrative efficiency of the temporary capital depends on the construction and bureaucratic pop of the temporary capital. (Of course, there will be a DE buff).

Only sate central cities can build the highest level of bureaucratic buildings, non-central cities can only build the second level of bureaucratic buildings. The administrative ability of a region also decays from the central city to the provinces of the state, which is similar to the decaying rule of administrative efficiency. Similarly, when the central city of the state is captured, the rest of the provinces and cities of the state will fall into a temporary isolation, and after one to two months temporary administrative center can be established in other cities of the state. When all the cities in the local area are captured, administrative centers can be set up in cities of nearby states (DE buff is more serious). When all the provinces of the state are occupied, the temporary administrative center of the state will be dissolved.

@Wizzington thanks for your reading.

I feel like a system where most of it works the same, but the tax penalty spreads in a similar system could be a good compromise, to keep the same system as already in while still helping distuingish between different areas of beucracray

 

[Spartakusbund]

@Wizzington Are the bonuses/maluses for being under/over your Capacities symmetrical? (I.e. do reforms take longer to enact if you are over Authority Capacity, do you get more tax for having more bureaucrats than you need)

 

[natorious]

As a customer it's enough to say "I don't like X Y and Z" It's not our job to design the game for them, they have the talent and we literally give them our money to do it for us.

No, they're not hired contractors or employees. They are creating a product that we either buy or not.

If you want them to make something you'll like, I reckon your chances are much higher when you say what you would like versus only stating what you don't.

 

[Jiangzijian]

I feel like a system where most of it works the same, but the tax penalty spreads in a similar system could be a good compromise, to keep the same system as already in while still helping distuingish between different areas of beucracray

Good idea. Perhaps this will better mimic the way the country is governed.

 

[Hiiri]

If you want them to make something you'll like, I reckon your chances are much higher when you say what you would like versus only stating what you don't.

I, and probably most of us here, have zero expertise in game design, therefore whatever I have to say on the topic has very little value. Not only is it hard work which I wouldn't be paid to do, it would also be a waste of time.

 

[Ru8bin]

No they're not. The entire thing about monarch points in EU4 was that they were a random number with very little or no input from the player into how the number is determined, and that they were a commodity that was earned and spent in discrete amounts. That is absolutely not the case here. The player can do plenty of things to affect the value of each capacity. Additionally, it's a worker management system that is constantly present and the player is only allocating the workers, it's not a resource pool. So it's in no way like EU4's monarch points except that numbers exist.

The same can be argued for eu4 mana . They can be influenced(+3 from base ,+1 from power projection,+1 estate,+5 advisor) and ruler(0-6) for each man type.Idk how influecible it is in vic3 cause we haven't' seen much.Just because they are not pooled doesn't mean its no mana.You can remove mana pool in eu4 by making it such that you use mana per month in individual fields like idea ,tech and so on.Regarding commodity ,it still it a resource .most of the thing is a resource in paradox games which we can expend It and is a core of every game.Idk why you are arguing its not.How will you play any game without resource to spend??It's a step forward for sure but it still seems somewhat similar to me .Your argument is not concrete and very vague as if you know something that we don't(maybe you can share it with us).But then again we will have to see how it will be in action to be sure if its like mana or not.

EDIT:I am fine with this system though but i think its still somewhat like mana

 

[Druplesnubb]

Yes.

Let's say that you are at 80% of your bureaucratic capacity. You want to build and staff an office to improve it. How is this going to be shown? Will it say: if fully staffed generates 25% bureaucracy? 25% of what, your current bureaucracy. That would mean that you're now at 125% of your previous limit, which means that you're now using 80/125 ≈ 66%. Which is 14 percentage points or 18% lower than what you were previously at.
It could also show: if fully staffed improves bureaucratic capacity by 150. But now you have to find out what your limit is, since the 80% doesn't really tell you how many points you actually need.

I understand that showing it as a percentage might make it somewhat more immersive, however as shown above there are two problems:
1: actually interacting with the capacities or planning around them needs absolute values instead of percentages.
2: people are surprisingly bad at understanding and using percentages. Your own example already shows this a little bit. Does 79% mean that you're using 79% of your cap? Or that you have 79% remaining, or are you 79% over your limit? What does -21% mean, negatives tend to be bad, so it probably means that you are over your cap. But are you 21% over your cap, or do you need to decrease your "spending" by 21%? The latter would mean that you are currently at 126.5% of your cap.

I think the best way to show it is like the EU4 force limits and Stellaris Admin cap, as a simple x/y. This will make it more intuitive how the capacities actually work rather than people thinking they are resources. Since you get specific bonuses or maluses depending on how far over or under the cap you are, I think it might also be a good idea to also put (+z) or (-z) directly afterwards.

 

[Gintro]

Mana

 

[Mr. Wiggles]

If you want them to make something you'll like, I reckon your chances are much higher when you say what you would like versus only stating what you don't.

Why not both

 

[qbln]

 

[D3th]

looks like lack the impact of distance or regional administrations like we some space specie

 

[Avian Overlord]

In fact, real world is not a closed economy. Bank add magic money to the world every time someone take a loan.

Yeah, that's the thing. The amount of gold under the gold standard (and printed cash in a fiat system) is only the first factor in the currency supply. The amount of fractional reserve banking determines how much money is actually in the system.

 

[Logos1836]

I feel like there is a lot of division in this thread about whether capacity and mana are similar. I feel like I might be able to clarify things for each side so we can all get on the same page. It seems the arguments for them being different is that:
1. It changes the way you can use up the currency making it mover versatile.
2. Has more advantages than mana for the player such as being easier to plan for, and be more consistent.
3. Is less random and allows the player to influence it more

By how the developers have talked about capacities, it seems that these are some of the key factors as to why they chose capacities to replace mana.

All of these things are true and I agree that capacities are different and better than mana. However, the reason I think the other people on the thread consider the mechanic the same is that they have similar disadvantages like:
1. They both limit the player in an abstract way
2. They both make the game much less engaging by pooling a lot of different actions into 1 function.
3. They both are rather simplistic as far as mechanics go.
4. The way you influence them are through static modifiers

The best way I've heard it explained is as follows:

"Let me use an example from a mostly mana-free game, CK2.

Suppose I want a rival dead. To accomplish this I can take the war focus and try to challenge them to a duel, which will give me a fun RP description of the duel and its outcome. I could declare war or raid them and try to drag them to my prison in chains. I can start a plot and bribe their courtiers to poison their food. I could even join a satanic society and use a dark network of demon worshipers to abduct them!

Or, if CK2 had mana, I could spend 500 sneak mana to kill them.

The first seems more fun to me because it is less abstract, more immersive, and allows for more roleplaying."

I think these are completely valid points also.... Capacities have some of the same issues as mana, which is why a lot of people don't see the difference...

 

[Baneslave]

CK2 definitely had manas. Prestige and Piety, for example. Being able to build tribal buildings with Prestige is pretty darn fantastical. "I am famous conqueror! Simsalabim, new barracks appear shall here! The price I paid is that I am less famous now."

And Victoria 2 had same problem that Victoria 3 will have with Tax Efficiency suddenly dropping as Social Reforms are instituted. (We instituted Public School System, which increased amount of Bureaucrats required which instantly dragged Tax Efficiency downwards. Doesn't make sense that tax collectors suddenly moved to be teachers, but that is acceptable level of abstraction, IMO.)

 

[wtrmute]

CK2 definitely had manas. Prestige and Piety, for example. Being able to build tribal buildings with Prestige is pretty darn fantastical. "I am famous conqueror! Simsalabim, new barracks appear shall here! The price I paid is that I am less famous now."

And Victoria 2 had same problem that Victoria 3 will have with Tax Efficiency suddenly dropping as Social Reforms are instituted. (We instituted Public School System, which increased amount of Bureaucrats required which instantly dragged Tax Efficiency downwards. Doesn't make sense that tax collectors suddenly moved to be teachers, but that is acceptable level of abstraction, IMO.)

Prestige definitely does have a mana-like character to it, but it's not like you just spend the prestige and suddenly new barracks appear (unless you have the `instantbuild` cheat enabled). Essentially the point of spending prestige for tribal buildings is that you strongarm people into initiating a tribal institution, and your heroic aura takes a hit because you're acting like a thug. It's not perfect, but it's not completely divorced from plausibility.

Regarding V2 drop in tax efficiency, it makes no sense that tax collectors suddenly become teachers, because they'd have to become priests, which they do not. It's just that part of your bureaucratic machinery has to be moved from the internal revenue service into the department of education, to use an US metaphor. I agree that this is still an acceptable level of abstraction, though.