• 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.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #72 - Economic Law Changes in 1.2

16_9.jpg

Hello and welcome to the second Victoria 3 dev diary for 2023! Today we’re going to continue talking about patch 1.2 for Victoria 3 (release date to be announced), on a topic that is closely related to last week’s dev diary, namely Economic Laws and how they have changed in 1.2. As we mentioned in Dev Diary #64, one of our post-release ambitions is to increase the differences in gameplay between different economic systems. What I mean by that is that there should be deeper mechanical differences between for example Laissez-Faire and Command Economy in terms of how they impact your country and the economic decisions you make. All of the existing Economic Laws have received changes in 1.2 and we’ve also added a new one, so I’m simply going to go through them one by one and explain how they work now.

Before I start however, I should mention a change that has happened since last week based on feedback we received on the Autonomous Investment dev diary. Several people pointed out that with a weighting system in place, there wasn’t really a need for hard restrictions on what the Investment Pool could fund under Autonomous Investment, and we agree! Thus, Autonomous Investment no longer has any restrictions on what profit-generating buildings can be built, just weighting based on who is investing and what they would want to invest in (as mentioned last week, if you’re running Agrarianism, expect a lot of farms). The restrictions still apply under Directly Controlled Investment however (and the tooltips will reflect this based on which setting you are using).

Traditionalism: Traditionalism in 1.2 is largely the same as before: A very backwards system that you should generally be trying to get out of. The main difference from 1.1 is that the Investment Pool isn’t disabled for Traditionalism, though you take a hefty penalty to investment efficiency (further reduced if you also have Serfdom) and the building types you can construct with the Investment Pool are highly curtailed if you are playing with Directly Controlled Investment.

DD72_1.png

Interventionism: The ‘golden middle way’ of economic laws, Interventionism also isn’t extensively changed in 1.2: It provides no particular bonuses or penalties, but gives you the freedom to subsidize any and all building types as well as extensive options for the Investment Pool under Directly Controlled Investment, while providing a balanced allocation between Private and Government Construction Allocation under Autonomous Investment.

DD72_2.png

Agrarianism: Agrarianism has received a fairly substantial boost in 1.2, with both the addition of Farmers as an investing Pop Type and a hefty bonus to the efficiency of all rural investments. Capitalists are now also not locked out of investing under Agrarianism, though they do so at a penalty and their building selection is quite limited if you’re playing with Directly Controlled Investment.

DD72_3.png

Laissez-Faire: The invisible hand of the Free Market made manifest, Laissez-Faire in 1.2 is meant to be the go-to law for the player that wants to get the absolute most out of their Investment Pool when it comes to industrializing. It does come with some significant drawbacks though, as it is no longer possible to downsize non-government buildings under Laissez-Faire.

DD72_4.png

Cooperative Ownership: A new Economic Law introduced in 1.2, Cooperative Ownership is now a fully fledged economic system instead of just being unlocked by becoming a Council Republic. Under Cooperative Ownership, all Pops working in a building receive an equal number of shares and Aristocrat/Capitalist jobs are eliminated. While this should lead to higher Standard of Living among the workforce, it also means far less money in the Investment Pool, as Farmers and Shopkeepers invest far less than their wealthier counterparts under other systems.

DD72_5.png

Command Economy: Command Economy is the law that has received the largest (and most needed) overhaul under 1.2. Instead of being a frankly weird system where the Bureaucrats own the profits but you are required to subsidize them, Command Economy now makes use of a new system called Government Shares, which is used by the Government Run ownership production method. Just like how Pop Shares entitle Pops to a portion of a building’s dividends, Government Shares ensure that buildings pay some or all of their profits directly into the treasury - though in large economies this is subject to an efficiency modifier, with some of the money being wasted due to the inefficiencies inherent to large, heavily centralized systems. While this is not something we currently have a setup for in the base game, Government Shares can also freely be mixed with Pop Shares, so we’re looking forward to seeing what modders make with this!

DD72_6.png

Another change you might have noticed when looking at the screenshots in this dev diary is that we have tied some economic laws more closely to a country’s Distribution of Power and Government Principles. For one, seizing the means of production is no longer a one-step reform into Council Republic, but rather a multi-step reform that involves first implementing a Council Republic, then Cooperative Ownership, and finally allows you to branch off into Anarchism if you so desire. Command Economy now also requires Autocracy or Oligarchy, as it’s difficult to pull off a fully centralized economy without the corresponding amount of centralized powers (and with the new Government Shares mechanic should provide more reasons to want to keep a grip on power in the late game).

So the question on everyone's mind is, when will you be able to play with these changes and all the other updates and fixes coming in 1.2? Some of these changes are pretty big and we don't want to rush this patch out too early, but at the same time we know you're anxious to get your hands on it. To find the right balance between these we've decided to launch patch 1.2 in open beta, which we will talk more about in next week's dev diary! In there we will also focus a bit more generally on patch 1.2, giving you more of a birds-eye view of what the patch will look like, along with giving you an expected release date.
 
  • 153Like
  • 82Love
  • 10
  • 6
  • 4
Reactions:
Command Economy now makes use of a new system called Government Shares, which is used by the Government Run ownership production method. Just like how Pop Shares entitle Pops to a portion of a building’s dividends, Government Shares ensure that buildings pay some or all of their profits directly into the treasury - though in large economies this is subject to an efficiency modifier, with some of the money being wasted due to the inefficiencies inherent to large, heavily centralized systems.​

Can government shares be used to add foreign investment, with profits being given to the investing power?
 
  • 6Like
  • 3
  • 2Love
Reactions:
With all this thing of the autonomous investment. Is there a plan for adding more levers to influence what pops build? Something like minor laws that increase the investment in certain sectors? Or tax breaks to some sectors or both? So a more indirect steering of the economy is possible?
 
  • 8
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Changes look nice. Very happy that Co-Op ownership is no longer locked behind councils.

Agree with the other post on the Red "Yes" it is a bit odd to see especially when used as a double negative.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It does come with some significant drawbacks though, as it is no longer possible to downsize non-government buildings under Laissez-Faire.​
Do the capitalists downsize them automatically? I feel like it would odd to have size 50 factories that are 50% unemployed that are just gobbling up your infrastructure that you can't downsize.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I am not a fan of the quasi double negative sentences. You got red "Yes" and a green "Yes" before a condition.

For example:
  • Yes Can Subsidize Infrastructure
  • Yes Can Subsidize Trade Center
  • Yes Disallow Downsizing Non-Government Buildings
It is easier to read (in my humble opinion):
  • Yes Can Subsidize Infrastructure
  • Yes Can Subsidize Trade Center
  • No Can Downsize Non-Government Buildings
Other than that input, you got a long way to go before the game is any fun. I hope you dont abandon it.
I agree that this is awkward, it's a limitation in how rules-type modifiers function that forces us to use 'Yes' in both cases. We're going to look into improving it.
 
  • 40Like
  • 23
  • 5
  • 2Love
Reactions:
Is it required to have Council Republic to enact Cooperative Ownership? I would love to try out some other government types with Cooperative Ownership. Eg Constitutional Monarchy with Cooperative Ownership would get close to GK Chesteron's Distributism (although maybe Agrarianism would be a slightly better fit).
At the moment this is required since Cooperative Ownership is such a radical economic shift that it should require multiple legal changes to implement. I do think there is room for mixing co-ops and government ownership into the regular economic laws but we'd need to do in a way that you can't just eliminate the aristocrats by changing some PMs.
 
  • 38Like
  • 9
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Do the capitalists downsize them automatically? I feel like it would odd to have size 50 factories that are 50% unemployed that are just gobbling up your infrastructure that you can't downsize.
At the moment no but I'd be open to adding this if it feels like it's needed when playing with LF.
 
  • 43Like
  • 10
  • 4
Reactions:
why are the workers in the co-op economic system not contribute to investment pool?

and i do agree that it is a little bit weird that central planning is locked behind oligarchy,i understand your point of needing a centralized form of governance for it but why cant it be democratic as well?
 
  • 5
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I agree with @galkowskit here, great system but locking command economy behind autocracy and oligarchy seems a bit strange. The reason is that Autocracy empowers the landowners (+50% Aristocrats political strength) while Oligarchy empowers both capitalists (+25% Capitalists political strength) and land owners (+50% Aristocrats political strength). Its weird needing to implement Aristocratic and Capitalist control (which they would strongly approve of ironically) in order to achieve communism. Maybe there could be a "Dictatorship of the proletariat" (potentially with a more generic name?) which would function similar to the previous, but empower Bureaucrats by +50% or even +100% to better show the power of the party in these circumstances.

This new distribution of power law could even have a huge government ideology penalty of like +75% to simulate the effect of a 1 party state.
 
  • 18
  • 5Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Cooperative Ownership: A new Economic Law introduced in 1.2, Cooperative Ownership is now a fully fledged economic system instead of just being unlocked by becoming a Council Republic. Under Cooperative Ownership, all Pops working in a building receive an equal number of shares and Aristocrat/Capitalist jobs are eliminated. While this should lead to higher Standard of Living among the workforce, it also means far less money in the Investment Pool, as Farmers and Shopkeepers invest far less than their wealthier counterparts under other systems.

If I'm reading this correctly, Cooperative Ownership does not allow use of subsidies. Is this just missing text since it's WIP? It doesn't seem to make much sense to me that Worker Co-ops would outlaw the use of subsidies to maintain full employment.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I agree with @galkowskit here, great system but locking command economy behind autocracy and oligarchy seems a bit strange. The reason is that Autocracy empowers the landowners (+50% Aristocrats political strength) while Oligarchy empowers both capitalists (+25% Capitalists political strength) and land owners (+50% Aristocrats political strength). Its weird needing to implement Aristocratic and Capitalist control (which they would strongly approve of ironically) in order to achieve communism. Maybe there could be a "Dictatorship of the proletariat" (potentially with a more generic name?) which would function similar to the previous, but empower Bureaucrats by +50% or even +100% to better show the power of the party in these circumstances.

This new distribution of power law could even have a huge government ideology penalty of like +75% to simulate the effect of a 1 party state. I could imagine a similar system for a military dictatorship
One Party States is something I think we could definitely add in the future in order to represent a Soviet style semi-democratic system.
 
  • 48Like
  • 26
  • 6
  • 4Love
  • 1
Reactions:
If I'm reading this correctly, Cooperative Ownership does not allow use of subsidies. Is this just missing text since it's WIP? It doesn't seem to make much sense to me that Worker Co-ops would outlaw the use of subsidies to maintain full employment.
WIP, definitely not intended.
 
  • 27Like
  • 14
  • 2
Reactions:
I agree with @galkowskit here, great system but locking command economy behind autocracy and oligarchy seems a bit strange. The reason is that Autocracy empowers the landowners (+50% Aristocrats political strength) while Oligarchy empowers both capitalists (+25% Capitalists political strength) and land owners (+50% Aristocrats political strength). Its weird needing to implement Aristocratic and Capitalist control (which they would strongly approve of ironically) in order to achieve communism. Maybe there could be a "Dictatorship of the proletariat" (potentially with a more generic name?) which would function similar to the previous, but empower Bureaucrats by +50% or even +100% to better show the power of the party in these circumstances.

This new distribution of power law could even have a huge government ideology penalty of like +75% to simulate the effect of a 1 party state.
I'd prefer if the Autocracy/Oligarchy boost to a group was dynamic based on other laws. So sometimes it would boost Aristocrats or Capitalists and other times - the Bureaucrats. I can see how difficult to do that well would be, though.
 
  • 17
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Council republic should have access to command economy. Participatory planning is possible, and locking council republics into a coop market economy is silly when a lot of the projects that would build council republics also had ambitions to abolish market based distribution.

I also agree a bureaucratic dictatorship form of authority should exist because neither autocracy nor oligarchy work well to represent a planned economy that isn't worker run considering what IG they boost.

I think the combination of those two things would set up for interesting IG conflict between trade unions and intelligentsia in a planned economy, where the intelligentsia wants a bureaucratic led state and the unions a council republic to oversee the planned economy.
 
  • 14Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Council republic should have access to command economy. Participatory planning is possible, and locking council republics into a coop market economy is silly when a lot of the projects that would build council republics also had ambitions to abolish market based distribution.

I also agree a bureaucratic dictatorship form of authority should exist because neither autocracy nor oligarchy work well to represent a planned economy that isn't worker run considering what IG they boost.
Council Republics can be Autocracies and Oligarchies so there is nothing blocking a Council Republic Command Economy.
 
  • 23
  • 18Like
  • 10
  • 5
Reactions:
why are the workers in the co-op economic system not contribute to investment pool?

and i do agree that it is a little bit weird that central planning is locked behind oligarchy,i understand your point of needing a centralized form of governance for it but why cant it be democratic as well?
Yeah, all professions could invest 5% of their shares to investment fund.

Even 2% would be good, as its 100% of pops investing, not 5%.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
if autocracy unlocks command economy, does command economy also lock democratic laws once you have it? I like the distinction between communist and vanguardist as implemented in 1.0 (a more orthodox marxism vs a leninist approach) but I wonder how that will work in game in 1.2. Democratic command economies are already fairly nerfed in 1.0 since you don't get much authority. But I do enjoy trying to create a democratic egalitarian utopia in game and its nice having that option. I guess that option is still available with the cooperative economy, which basically gets you to the current meta in 1.0 anyways, but I think having the option to choose between worker's coops and government owned industries is historically accurate and would be more engaging if both options had meaningful advantages.

But then, this system could also simulate vanguardism better? The vanguardist tells the worker "yes, we will have democracy under the utopia, but for now we need autocracy to implement the revolution!" It should be up to the player whether this is an honest claim, a white lie, or a convenient falsehood to fool the workers.

I still think the game could use a mixed economy method that unlocks all ownership methods but doesn't give many specialized advantages. Aside from anything else, it would be accurate (like Lenin's NEP or the reformist socialism of Germany's SDP and the more radical elements of the British labour party)
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Council Republics can be Autocracies and Oligarchies so there is nothing blocking a Council Republic Command Economy.
That's not a great answer, I'm sorry. It doesn't answer the issue of autocratic or oligarchic IGs having no reason to be the ones associated with command economy, nor does it answer why democracy should require markets.

I still think the game could use a mixed economy method that unlocks all ownership methods but doesn't give many specialized advantages. Aside from anything else, it would be accurate (like Lenin's NEP or the reformist socialism of Germany's SDP and the more radical elements of the British labour party)

I think having a bit more flexibility to mix and match methods used by different industries should be an option. Social democrats pushing for state ownership of some assets while leaving others to the market or the reverse with market reforms in command economies for example.
 
  • 9
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions: