• 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:
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 go a step further and add a question mark at the end of these "rule modifiers": Yes Can Subsidize Infrastructure?
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Why laborers and machinists can not invest in cooperative ownership? There are no shopkeepers in factories when council repiblic is active.
They are here - for example refinement PM, or base primary PM as you would make too much of base good anyway.
 
  • 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 find the game fun for now, but totally agree with your first statement
 
  • 7
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Open beta is fantastic news, I hope that will become the norm for all major Vicky3 patches.

A bit worried about laissez-faire not being able to downsize private buildings at all, it makes sense but I've been in situations where I've essentially built myself into an infrastructure hole and the only solution is to get rid of empty buildings. Preferably the "private interests" should be downsizing empty buildings if there is a lack of infrastructure for an extended period of time.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
 
  • 43Like
  • 15
  • 8
  • 2Love
  • 2
Reactions:
Open beta is fantastic news, I hope that will become the norm for all major Vicky3 patches.

A bit worried about laissez-faire not being able to downsize private buildings at all, it makes sense but I've been in situations where I've essentially built myself into an infrastructure hole and the only solution is to get rid of empty buildings. Preferably the "private interests" should be downsizing empty buildings if there is a lack of infrastructure for an extended period of time.
was thinking this too. this is a real disadvantage in lassiez-faire economies. IRL socially important industries get shut down by private actors regardless of the social consequences since they are not profitable, to the frustration of governments and people. The only problem is, I could see it being real rough on players at times - like, you might build a synthetics plant you need to supply your textile mills only to watch it shut down in a month since they're rarely profitable, or you might build arms industries only to watch them close down since they're generally fairly unprofitable during peace time. So I think they'd need to add checks to prevent that from happening too easily
 
  • 6Like
  • 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.

Ok, that makes sense but then I think at least the Middle Strata Pops that either already have Ownership Shares (Clergymen) or will have with the Cooperative Ownership changes (Engineers) should contribute to the Investment Pool, too.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm glad for the Open Beta. I think it's a good fit for the sort of complex issues that can arise with changes in Vicky III.

That said, I'm a bit worried for the logic behind Autonomous Investment AI.

Forgive me for paraphrasing myself, but :
That being said, even if there are few drawbacks in Vicky III to have "useless" buildings appear, I still have some questions about the choices the AI could make :

  1. Are the local wages going to be taken into account ? While logical, it opens to some issues with colonial offshore manufacturing...
  2. Will the AIAI (heh) take into account local infrastructure when choosing where to build? It would be somewhat annoying to have our colonies infrastructure hogged up by industrial buildings which can be built anywhere else...
  3. Can the AIAI choose the best spot to build something based on the throughput bonus (both building wise and state-traits wise)? Concentration of industry is a powerful tool to maximize GDP (and productivity!), and besides my OCD would find it very annoying if all my states were to have 12 industry types (not to mention the UI nightmare of having to scroll through all of them)
  4. What about qualifications?
That seems like a potentially significant problem, especially when running Laissez-Faire, where you can't remove buildings. And even for other laws, if your pops inists on building factorties in the only state where you have Oil (and now not enough pop), it could put you in a situation where you have to "unbuild" all what is done by the AIAI. That does sounds frustrating, both in term of micromanagement, and could slowdown a country considerably. Is there a mechanic to take these cases into account?
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
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.
This plan would also have an interesting byproduct in empowering the PB, maintaining the potential for a powerful interest group which wants to move away from egalitarian ownership, where as on live once the capitalists/aristocrats are gone the trade unions don't really have any opposition.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
You could add shopkeepers to Privately Owned PMs too, so only Publicly Traded is capitalist only :D
 
  • 7
  • 2Like
Reactions:
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.
The shopkeeper solution seems to be fairly decent!
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The decision to release the patch in open beta is a good idea. It allows to use the community for testing while also making clear that imperfections are to be expected.
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So the "Investment Pool contribution effiency" is generating more money out of the blue, right?

Meh
Yes, but there are lots of places where money is not conserved

Ok, that makes sense but then I think at least the Middle Strata Pops that either already have Ownership Shares (Clergymen) or will have with the Cooperative Ownership changes (Engineers) should contribute to the Investment Pool, too.
So 2% - 5% to all middle pops. Also you can tax fine art too :p
 
  • 2Like
  • 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.
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
 
  • 5
Reactions:
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.
 
  • 35Like
  • 14
  • 6
  • 3Love
  • 1
Reactions: