• 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:
This comment is reserved by the Community Team for gathering Dev Responses in, for ease of reading.


galkowskit said:


Great to see the new law and the changes overall, looks like a great patch is coming. The only gripe I have is the Command Economy being locked behind Autocracy/Oligarchy. There are political systems where that wouldn't be the case (syndicalism comes to mind) and that would have (in theory) more decentralised power structure (parliamentary republic/council republic) even with universal suffrage, but still have an official (even elected!) government body that would do the central planning. "Ministry of Production" if you will.

I'm sure modders can fix that, but... eh. I think it was worth the mention.
There has been a bit of internal debate about this but I do honestly have a hard time seeing how a fully centralized economy with everything being directly owned by the central government would work without a whole lot more power being vested into that central government than you would get under a system where power ultimately rests with the electorate. I would argue that the Cooperative law fits Syndicalism far better than Command Economy, though perhaps we could introduce some sort of hybrid model.


TheLand said:


All sounds great stuff!

At present Oligarchy is quite Capitalist-favourable (I think it gives Aristos and Capis extra clout or something?) - which doesn't fit very well with this particular change. Will Oligarchy be getting some tweaks?
It would probably make sense to boost the power of the Bureaucrats as well, at least, given Command Economy eliminates the traditional upper strata over time.


xur said:


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.

Click to expand...
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.


UsAndRufus said:


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.


FaIconere said:


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.


hamburgertrain said:


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.


Hethran said:


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.


Nyvis said:


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.


Oglesby said:


Be careful with your optimism, all they have stated is an open beta for the next patch not for all future patches.
While I'm not going to explicitly promise open beta for all future patches, I certainly don't expect this open beta will be a one-off affair. Victoria 3 is a complex game with a lot of interlocking systems and we want to avoid the sort of issues introduced with Legitimacy introduced in Patch 1.1 from ending up in officially released patches again.


Wendigo514 said:


With these much needed changes the economic systems certainly feel more flashed out and I really like the changes to having Governement Shares under Command Economy. However I am not fully seld off about locking Command Economy under Autocracy/Oligarchy, which seems too restrictive, and the lack of investment pool contribution from some professions in particular under Cooperative Ownership. Unless things have changed, under Worker Cooperative production method only Farmers, Laborers and Mechanists have Ownership Shares and according to the law only Farmers and Shopkeepers (who don't have ownership!) will increase their contribution efficiency.
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.


Libra_Feather said:


Why laborers and machinists can not invest in cooperative ownership? There are no shopkeepers in factories when council repiblic is active.
This is a fair point and I would really just repeat that we don't want Cooperative Ownership to simply be the best economic law. Might be that we can solve this by just adding a small universal investment to match the universal ownership, but I want to see how the current balance shakes out first. It also might not be the worst idea to have some shopkeepers added to factories under cooperative ownership - someone has to sell all those nice worker-owned fancy chairs, after all.


MohawkWolfo98 said:


This might be abit of a tangent, but would legitimacy mechanics be potentially reworked again? In general, scrolling through the forum and Reddit, players often seem very confused about how parties canoften have 0 legitimacy in most circumstances, despite winning the election previously
It's not so much about reworking the mechanics as it is about preventing the formation of too disunited parties. We'll have more to say about this next week.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Great to see the new law and the changes overall, looks like a great patch is coming. The only gripe I have is the Command Economy being locked behind Autocracy/Oligarchy. There are political systems where that wouldn't be the case (syndicalism comes to mind) and that would have (in theory) more decentralised power structure (parliamentary republic/council republic) even with universal suffrage, but still have an official (even elected!) government body that would do the central planning. "Ministry of Production" if you will.

I'm sure modders can fix that, but... eh. I think it was worth the mention.
 
  • 30Like
  • 19
  • 13
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!
Thank you very much for this!

Im very happy with the introduction of government shares, i do wish the base game did make use of it more for mixed-systems or allowed us to buy up ownership of certain buildings under certain circumstances.
 
  • 26
  • 7Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
781lsi.jpg
 
  • 11Haha
  • 8Like
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
These changes are nice. What is also needed to make game more enjoyable is making the world more alive and plausible, countries played by AI stronger. You already made some steps in this direction. Can we expect that this patch will have some more changes connected to world balance, AI, historical plausibility?
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Very nice DD. The thing i like most about it is your decesion to go with a open beta. Good choice. I image the out of hands part of the investpool will, as you correctly identified, cause some ruffled feathers here and there (even though theres a gamerule for it). Best if stuff like that can be tested by the interested parts of the community before its releast to the masses.
 
  • 19
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Looks very promising! Will the player be able to see the potential change to the investment pool contribution when they hover over another economic law, like the change in tax income with the taxation laws?
 
  • 8Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Good afternoon,a great dd and very happy about the open beta.However,as usual,i have a few questions:
1) About the autonomous investment pool changes,are what the pops build completely based on what pops invest or are there still some weights depending on the laws outside of what pop types invest ?
2)How moddable government shares will be?Is this possible to have a publicly traded industry with government shares in pm?Obviously not in vanilla but is it theoritically possible?This way,this could allow modders to represent things like the power industries being partially or completely owned by the government,which was an important thing in the era and even still today.
Thanks for any replies about this.
 
  • 4Like
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.
 
  • 63
  • 16Like
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Hmm this sounds very nice. I like the new economic laws.
Unfortunately I am limited to the council republic if I wanted to enact cooperative ownership.
I was hoping for a syndicalist monarchy.
But it is very nice that we are now even more able to recreate the world of Kaiserreich than before
 
  • 4
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).​

All sounds great stuff!

At present Oligarchy is quite Capitalist-favourable (I think it gives Aristos and Capis extra clout or something?) - which doesn't fit very well with this particular change. Will Oligarchy be getting some tweaks?
 
  • 13
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Great to see the new law and the changes overall, looks like a great patch is coming. The only gripe I have is the Command Economy being locked behind Autocracy/Oligarchy. There are political systems where that wouldn't be the case (syndicalism comes to mind) and that would have (in theory) more decentralised power structure (parliamentary republic/council republic) even with universal suffrage, but still have an official (even elected!) government body that would do the central planning. "Ministry of Production" if you will.

I'm sure modders can fix that, but... eh. I think it was worth the mention.
There has been a bit of internal debate about this but I do honestly have a hard time seeing how a fully centralized economy with everything being directly owned by the central government would work without a whole lot more power being vested into that central government than you would get under a system where power ultimately rests with the electorate. I would argue that the Cooperative law fits Syndicalism far better than Command Economy, though perhaps we could introduce some sort of hybrid model.
 
  • 44Like
  • 24
  • 15
  • 7
Reactions:
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.​
Will this be the case for all government run buildings (for example Railways), even when "Command Economy" is not eacted?
The answer should probably be yes but I still want to make sure.
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
Reactions:
All sounds great stuff!

At present Oligarchy is quite Capitalist-favourable (I think it gives Aristos and Capis extra clout or something?) - which doesn't fit very well with this particular change. Will Oligarchy be getting some tweaks?
It would probably make sense to boost the power of the Bureaucrats as well, at least, given Command Economy eliminates the traditional upper strata over time.
 
  • 33
  • 18Like
  • 5
Reactions:
All wonderfully changes again! I have two questions, the first is can other systems also have government shares (like if I want to nationalism the railroads I can also take their profits)?

The second is wether there will be a change to buildings in general, mostly wether or not products will be more seperated. I personally dislike that I cannot build a clothing factory that only makes luxury clothes, as it limits specialisation as an industry. As a small nations I wouldn't want my pops to make normal clothes those I can cheaply import but focus on large scale luxury goods to sell as an example.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
There has been a bit of internal debate about this but I do honestly have a hard time seeing how a fully centralized economy with everything being directly owned by the central government would work without a whole lot more power being vested into that central government than you would get under a system where power ultimately rests with the electorate. I would argue that the Cooperative law fits Syndicalism far better than Command Economy, though perhaps we could introduce some sort of hybrid model.

That's fair. Not a hill I'm willing to die on. And from gameplay perspective, I understand the wish to diversify the laws as much as possible.
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
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
Agreed, truth be told the confusion caused by these tooltips (and similar stuff) is one of the reasons as for why the UI/UX isn't that great.
 
  • 15
  • 5Like
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).
 
  • 6Like
Reactions: