• 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:
The changes for 1.2 looks pretty good so far and are going in the right direction (obviously, we need to see the end results). However, I cannot understand why the game was released in the state it was while the problems were obvious to the community (and I cannot believe the dev thought the game was ready to be released). It is going to take at least a year to fix everything that needs fixing, and as a consumer, it doesn't feel great.
Aren't all games a hot code on launch anyway? At least anything made by midsize to largest corporations.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
good changes all in all, but there are two things i need to react to:
1. coops, the way they work in the game, where individual worker own shares in their particular company is not socialism/communism, rather it is capitalist - so weird that you need council republic to enact it. for it to be socialist then workers as a class needs to owner of all that society produce - so if any system should require council republic it should be command economy.
2. why do you need autocracy or oligarchy for command economy? if soviet is the idea, then the whole interest groups and political parties need to be redone - where a specific IG (for instance intelligentsia) is able to take state power through some kind of vanguard party or wherever,
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Well, lets put it this way: ultimately, my proposal is, in the most minimalist version, just adding 1-2 more categories of economic laws. Is that actually *that* much of a stretch?

For example, the current category of 'economic system' laws could be split into two: 'ownership system' and 'state involvement.' That alone would provide quite a bit more nuance. If you want to add a third, it could be 'developmental focus' to represent which sectors are favored (agriculture, mixed, industry, or market-driven).
1 more category of economic law with 5 options gives 5x5 posibilities, so 25 combinations to check and balance.
2 more categories is 5x5x5 possibilities, so 125 combinations to check and ballance.
Add trade, migration, discrimination and balance of power laws to crosscheck and problems multiplies like rabbits. (more then 78 000 combinations to check)

To be fair - i have no idea about game dev - just assuming.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I like the changes and even more the decision to go the way of a beta release :)
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'm so confused why Anarcho-capitalism (Anarchy + Lesseiz-Faire) and Anarcho-comunism (Anarchy + Command Economy) are disabled.
That seemed to be main Anarchist movements i know.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm so confused why Anarcho-capitalism (Anarchy + Lesseiz-Faire) and Anarcho-comunism (Anarchy + Command Economy) are disabled.
That seemed to be main Anarchist movements i know.
Because Anarcho-Communism has nothing to do with Command Economies, and 'Anarcho'-Capitalism would likely have Wealth Voting or Oligarchy (since Anarchy gives all pops equal political power, while a key tenet of AnCap is the idea that Capital Accumulation is indicative of virtue and talent, and therefore individuals with more capital should wield more political power)

Anarcho-Capitalism is also wildly anachronistic for the time period, not turning up as an ideology until post-WW2 with the advent of thinkers like Rothbard, Rand, and Hoppe.
 
  • 7
  • 3
  • 2Love
  • 1
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'd like to second this (on the 7th page, I'm not counting all of them). Grew up bilingual, one of them fully using double negatives. Native Ameerican-english speakers short circuit most of the time when I do this, in emails. Or at home, with my wife, or anywhere else. Minor gripe, deffo not unplayable lol, but I also have to re-read a lot of these.

To me, even the "NO: can downsize" seems tough to read, why not just use "cannot" and make that red? But either way, formatting is all about opinion until it's a profession, and this isn't a newspaper. They're like, intelligible enough.

Amazing changes on making the political system be logically linked to an ideologically appropriate law!
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Why is not being able to downsize non government buildings a downside? The only thing extra buildings “cost” is a tiny extra bit of infrastructure (unless you have a command economy where you need to subsidise them obviously). If they’re not profitable under laissez faire they will just be empty and give you extra capacity to expand the workforce if/when demand increases.
 
Can we unify the usage of the word "Agriculture". It is used in various places like the image below and state modifiers to mean "Any Farm" but also used in the building lens and state specific building tab to mean "Farms, Plantations, and Ranches".

DD72_2.png
 
  • 14
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm so confused why Anarcho-capitalism (Anarchy + Lesseiz-Faire) and Anarcho-comunism (Anarchy + Command Economy) are disabled.
That seemed to be main Anarchist movements i know.
In both of those instances, the word "Anarcho-" plays second fiddle to the inherently statist elements that either economic system implies. The second you add either word, someone needs to either rule on an anti-trust issue eventually, or figure out who actually gets to use the last pair of the People's Shoes. Whatever anarcho-communist gets the only remaining pair, is in charge. Anarchy can't exist without autarky at the community level. Game can't simulate that, state would go broke.

Either it's almost indistinguishable from barely (un)restricted victorian capitalism, or a proto soviet, just by another name. Which exists in the game already as a council republic. Even Proudhon struggled with what to do with that concept during this time period, in order to make it work.

I'd love a proper anarchy system, but I'm not sure if it'd translate well into this game, the more I think about it. Anno had nothing but visual effects on theirs...I don't think they played any differently, but I could be wrong.
 
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
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!

First of all, very excited about the changes! Secondly, will the open beta be available when next week's dev diary is released?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Really liking the implementation of government shares as that was always my gripe about the government run PM. Just for clarification, are government shares for all government run buildings? like if I'm on interventionism and decide to nationalize the railways does the country still get the profits? or is it only for command economies?
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Very happy with this DD, and I’m glad that I can feel justified in keeping my faith in the devs even with the various issues at launch
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Cooperative Ownership has a new type of universal ownership share for all Pops in the building. Given the positive effect Cooperative Ownership has on SoL, we don't want to just have it be also great for investment, as first of all I don't think it unreasonable that poorer Pops will prioritize improving their material standard over investing into expanding the business, and secondly it would simply just make into the 'best' law.
Maybe it is time to start putting investment as a "need" instead, based on wealth level? (And the amounts of investments you make = your wealth level then also decides how much dividends you get?)
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Maybe it is time to start putting investment as a "need" instead, based on wealth level? (And the amounts of investments you make = your wealth level then also decides how much dividends you get?)
How that would be different from consumption tax on things that only richer pops consume? Only difference it doesn't go to separate place.
 
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.
I would still really like to see an option where LF disallows you from spending government money on private construction. That way yes, you have a very efficient investment pool, but also you pay for that by actually being in the free market that the law advertises. It's very silly that in a supposedly free market the government can still choose to spend vast portions of its wealth to support an industry. And it would properly make LF feed very different from the other systems. Each economic system should feel very distinct, and this would help a lot for LF.

edit: at the absolute minimum, if you control the IP. I understand the devs never want to fully lock out the player of construction but frankly my answer to that is don't go to LF then. You aren't locked out, you chose to disable it. Though I would like to see this as an option all around as well but at least if it's doable in one way then it can be modded for the other as well.
 
  • 6
  • 4Like
Reactions:
>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 it's not possible to not have a market economy as a socialist economy without being vanguardist? That's really weird.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Reading the dev diary again I have found another apparently strange thing under Cooperative Ownership, apparently Farmers are putting money in the investment pool but that money can't be used to fund Farms, Plantations or Ranches.
If I have understood this right, this shouldn't be a problem under the Autonomous Investment Game Rule, Farmers should still fund buildings for themselves, but the fact that under Directly Controlled Investment Pool you can't use the funds to build Rural buildings is strange nonetheless.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
Maybe you could have a military junta take over a corrupt country formerly ruled over by feckless liberals and they install a Generalissimo to take control and steer the country back onto the right path
 
  • 2Haha
  • 1Like
Reactions:
For the Cooperative Ownership, should labourers, machinist and engineers also be allowed to invest more efficiently? Since workers could now, in theory, pool funds together to create buildings where they can work in.
Also for command economy, could there be a way to have a decentralised command economy? Can it work? I would imagine it as a way to let the individual states(similar to private individuals) to privately construct buildings, but those buildings could be dictated by the central government. In a way this could give the player more control on what could be built by the AI.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions: