• 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:
Maybe instead of eliminating aristocratic/capitalist jobs they should change into academic/ beauracratic jobs with a possibility to invest, which would nicely represent technocratic approach?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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.
 
  • 66Like
  • 23Love
  • 9
  • 6
Reactions:
It would be nice if command economies would have the downside of buildings increasing bureaucratic upkeep, this would represent the government manpower required to pull off a command economy. Plus this would be a way of balancing out command economies as well.
 
  • 18
  • 2Like
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)
Nope - you still keep Women Suffrage if you ban voting (anarchy, oligarchy, autocracy) for example
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
I guess I wasn't stating that there wouldn't be other patches with open beta. I just fear with comments like the one I quoted above that we would be seeing 'slap in the face' and 'but they promised' comments coming later if there was one without an open beta later.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
It would be nice if command economies would have the downside of buildings increasing bureaucratic upkeep, this would represent the government manpower required to pull off a command economy. Plus this would be a way of balancing out command economies as well.
I think it's much simpler to have the production method add bureaucrat jobs to the managed industries. It's still wages spent on bureaucracy without having to tack on an additional system and they don't contribute to investment so it's really lost money.
 
  • 12
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I can see a fairly significant "indirect nerf" to Laissez Faire, which is that you can no longer reduce the number of buildings in your country and reduce pop fragmentation. Consolidating buildings of the same type in same state is as much about getting economies of scale as it is preventing you from having 50x the number of pop categories for the same output.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
For Laisseze - Fair:
  1. Sometimes you build hefty amount of Railroads to maintain infrastructure in the region. However as soon as you enable Electric Railway and steel train in the Railroad PM you get boosted instantly in terms of infrastructure in the region. So who needs then 2K infrastructure in the region with 0 or tiny population? Well, no one. In this case I reduce the amount of Railroads because why you spend a lot of money on the infr. that not used.
  2. By the way Transportation abondanance is also might be issue in the late game. If you dont subsidize Railroads no one wants to work. Why? Because transportation is so abondant in the country and cheap that its not profitable at all
 
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.
This is a really good idea. Or, to make it more clear: an autocracy has an autocrat. This can be a monarch or a dictator or a party / church leader (aka IG). Autocracy should give power to the group that rules. Not always the aristocrats or industrialists.

The planned economy needs high authority I think. But not an autocracy. Please just let it cost authority. So instead of an dictatorship I may also have a nationalist church state with a president or even a soviet / council. Soviet literally means council. Even though they got rid of it fast (because of lack of authority I guess).
 
  • 6
  • 3Like
Reactions:
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​
Is it really inherent when I have +5.0k Bureaucracy? Shouldn't this whole efficiency modifier be tied to your administrative capacity?
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
 
  • 34
  • 16Like
  • 6
  • 4
Reactions:
This seems like it will make the differences between the different economy laws clearer.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I hoped that government shares are indicator how many levels of factory was built by government compared to autonomous investment pool to split profits accordingly.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
If we are not able to reduce the size of production in the state by non-intervention due to the law. Can pops autonomously reduce it if it is unproductive, not filled with workers, but consumes infrastructure?
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 1
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.
*enacts Fine Art consumption tax*
Here's your "investment fund" from general population I guess :D

on a more serious note, shouldn't cooperative economies be able to subsidize?
Yes, they will, screenshot is WIP
 
  • 4Like
Reactions: