What is the Victorian Era about? (Devastating criticism, but in a friendly tone)

[marmot01]

@delta180 thank you, that was very interesting. Once upon a time when people used to make strategy guides for games, this exploit would have made a great addition. It's unfortunate we don't keep such information in a systematized manner, because there is probably lots of such knowledge on the forum that's lost. Instead, there are paid chatbot/search engine services which index what we write, and offer the information for money, but that's another subject.

Your GDP-layer map in 1856 looks exactly like mine as well

It also illustrates what I see as a problem with the game balance. With regard to how I play, I doubt I would have found this exploit on my own in thousands of hours. My reasoning is - I've already broken the game enough in order to lose interest, so why look for an even more optimized strategy.

I feel like much of the intricacy of the systems, which is undoubtedly there, is lost when the player can succeed without having to know the systems. The devs wouldn't have designed all these layers of simulation and poured all the pops and province data, only for the game to be cheesed. In this example we have, you know of the exploit, I don't know of it, but the difference is only by how much we can break the game. This breaks the illusion of realism for me and ultimately makes me lose interest.

 

[delta180]

t also illustrates what I see as a problem with the game balance. With regard to how I play, I doubt I would have found this exploit on my own in thousands of hours. My reasoning is - I've already broken the game enough in order to lose interest, so why look for an even more optimized strategy.

I feel like much of the intricacy of the systems, which is undoubtedly there, is lost when the player can succeed without having to know the systems. The devs wouldn't have designed all these layers of simulation and poured all the pops and province data, only for the game to be cheesed. In this example we have, you know of the exploit, I don't know of it, but the difference is only by how much we can break the game. This breaks the illusion of realism for me and ultimately makes me lose interest.

I completely agree with this, the harder the game, the more it pushes you to learn it and be creative in ways to gain an advantage, which is why I think it is awful that the game released without any difficulty settings. Why should you learn how to maximize foreign investments if you can beat the Ottomans, and become a great power without that. In a game not about blobbing, the AI needs to compete with you into the late game, and it doesn't.

The infamy cap on expansion, doesn't make up for what should be a good political simulation but is sorely lacking in the difficulty that makes such a game fun. I don't ever feel like I am in competition with other great powers for resources or land, because even if I don't expand at all, they will slowly fall behind a player who knows what they are doing, even if that player is limited to a single province.

I am lucky enough that I enjoy the other part of Vic 3, which is the simulations and spreadsheets, maximizing my population, GDP and SoL by crunching numbers and engaging with all the different menus and choices and even the game code. But like you, I imagine most people are more interested in a simulation of a 19th century country, which the game just doesn't do as well.

 

[yurcick]

To be honest, providing advantageous options for investment (high returns, high safety), and as a result, getting a disproportionate share of investment shouldn’t be cheese. In fact, it should be one of the most important economy mechanics.

However, now it’s not natural and is a consequence of poor AI decision making regarding construction capacity and building queue (which was arguably a mistake to implement regardless of how well AI deals with it).

 

[marmot01]

The Ottoman Empire's government investing in its vassals Serbia, Wallachia, and Moldova is pure fantasy. Wallachia and Moldova actually both had a legal right to expulsate muslims and confiscate their property. This was granted to them in the Russian-Ottoman treaties which established the two principalities as formal Ottoman subjects under Russian protection. Not only would there be no investment, but what assets there were were being confiscated. The historical course is the opposite of what the game shows.

Nor did the Ottoman Empire have the means to build up industries in its formal subjects. It was suffering from being unable to enforce its authority over parts of its own territory at the time (1830s-1840s). In game terms - the OE player should be busy solving the Tanzimat JEs. Maybe they ought to be rebalanced to hit his investment pool contributions too.

 

[delta180]

The Ottoman Empire's government investing in its vassals Serbia, Wallachia, and Moldova is pure fantasy. Wallachia and Moldova actually both had a legal right to expulsate muslims and confiscate their property. This was granted to them in the Russian-Ottoman treaties which established the two principalities as formal Ottoman subjects under Russian protection. Not only would there be no investment, but what assets there were were being confiscated. The historical course is the opposite of what the game shows.

Nor did the Ottoman Empire have the means to build up industries in its formal subjects. It was suffering from being unable to enforce its authority over parts of its own territory at the time (1830s-1840s). In game terms - the OE player should be busy solving the Tanzimat JEs. Maybe they ought to be rebalanced to hit his investment pool contributions too.

Actully, the Wallachian princes were not only appointed by the Ottoman Empire often from within the Empire, but enjoyed sizable investment from a particular class of semi-noble Ottoman merchants, the Phanariots. The Phanariots were educated Greeks from noble Byzantine decent who acted as merchants, translators and officials for the Ottoman Empire, however many started to live in and trade within the Danubian Principalities because they were wealthy, had better commercial laws and gave opportunity for elevated status by marrying into the Boyar Nobility or even being appointed as Prince by the Ottoman Sultanate. Indeed the ruler of Wallachia at the game start is a Phanariot whose family originally had come from Albania, before making wealth as merchants and then marrying into the Boyar Nobility and settling in Wallachia.

The Russians moving in and setting up consulates, far from stifling investments, encouraged it as in an attempt to shore up control of Wallachia, Russian diplomats started granting merchants Romanian citizenship and immunity to the local law (Sudiți) to outcompete the local guilds, which was met in kind by Russia's rivals the Austrians and French doing the same thing to stop Russia from gaining control over the Danube.

 

[Byamarro]

This.
While I agree on most aspects you've diligently reported above, this 2nd point is my current grieve with Vic3 as a whole (and it's growing): immersion / the immersive depiction of the Victorian age, especially in regards to the different countries and cultures.
Just one example in regards to classical economic theory: the huge disparity of wealth and assets between old landlords (land) vs. the upcoming rich entrepreneurs (machines / tech) and the ...rest (labour) in Germany, leading to clashes (and deaths) between the classes but also to the (if I remember correctly) first social security system in Europe by law. After almost 3 years I still don't see this special focus (and yes, I know this is a game but still...).

Granted, the devs have introduced and seem to introduce additional mechanics in Charters of Commerce, where the disparity of wealth for rich strata and new corporations (with entrepreneurs) will hopefully play a more central role. But since v1.4 (my first playthrough) I'm still waiting for this immersion...and I don't think it will come in v1.9?

I think that a simple change of making radicalization increase due to income disparity should already massively improve this aspect.

 

[marmot01]

Actully, the Wallachian princes were not only appointed by the Ottoman Empire often from within the Empire, but enjoyed sizable investment from a particular class of semi-noble Ottoman merchants, the Phanariots. The Phanariots were educated Greeks from noble Byzantine decent who acted as merchants, translators and officials for the Ottoman Empire, however many started to live in and trade within the Danubian Principalities because they were wealthy, had better commercial laws and gave opportunity for elevated status by marrying into the Boyar Nobility or even being appointed as Prince by the Ottoman Sultanate. Indeed the ruler of Wallachia at the game start is a Phanariot whose family originally had come from Albania, before making wealth as merchants and then marrying into the Boyar Nobility and settling in Wallachia.

The Russians moving in and setting up consulates, far from stifling investments, encouraged it as in an attempt to shore up control of Wallachia, Russian diplomats started granting merchants Romanian citizenship and immunity to the local law (Sudiți) to outcompete the local guilds, which was met in kind by Russia's rivals the Austrians and French doing the same thing to stop Russia from gaining control over the Danube.

Mostly yes, I didn't go into much exposition regarding the Phanariots' role as a class, because it dates back to the early 18th century and by the mid-19th they are very much part of the landcape already and settled in the principalities. I don't know that they are much into investments, more into extraction from the principalities' estates.

 

[Arthasus]

One issue with comparing player driven Wallachia to historical Wallachia is the fact that in real life it wasn't controlled by omniscient immortal puppet master that, regardless of people "in charge", could execute plans spanning decades.

We as players can do so much more than people controlling the nations (even today) that I don't see it weird that we can make every single country wildly successful compared to its historical counterpart.

 

[delta180]

I don't know that they are much into investments, more into extraction from the principalities' estates.

that is what foreign investment is in Vic 3, all the profits go back to the investor, the investor only pays the cost of buying the building, in Vic 3 foreign investors don't even pay dividend taxes since that is collected from the place the investment comes from, so any profit a foreign owned business earns is completely worthless to the country the building is in.

 

[Arthasus]

that is what foreign investment is in Vic 3, all the profits go back to the investor, the investor only pays the cost of buying the building, in Vic 3 foreign investors don't even pay dividend taxes since that is collected from the place the investment comes from, so any profit a foreign owned business earns is completely worthless to the country the building is in.

I wouldn't say "completely worthless".

It still pays wages to the workers which are taxed and if there is worker shortage, but big profits it does increase wages to get workers.

 

[delta180]

It still pays wages to the workers which are taxed and if there is worker shortage, but big profits it does increase wages to get workers.

wages aren't profit, but they do make up the bulk of the tax income from any building (unless you use graduated taxation), which is why foreign investment is so powerful, especially if you still have lots of subsistence farmers.

 

[Hopciu]

View attachment 1301300
I would like to play a game with this bonus removed and see how easy it is to increase GPD, it is easy enough to change this number to a 0 in static modifiers and boot up the game with it removed, the issue is that there is no way to build a construction sector without this starting construction, so I can't really grow my economy at all.

The solution could be removing the base CP altogether, and tying CPs to Subsistence Buildings (or, better, Artisanal Workshops, instead). Let's say, every Subsistence Building produces a minuscule amount of CP along it's usual output. This way, "basic" (meaning not requiring Construction Sector) CP output would be effectively tied to Population. No more OPMs filled with variety of understaffed 1lvl Buildings.

A simpler solution, that could lay similar result, would be to tie base CPs directly to Population, with current 10CPs being a cap. For example, 1 CP per 1 Million Population, capped at 10 (so that Quing won't end up agistorically strong).

 

[delta180]

CP output would be effectively tied to Population

I am personally not a fan of anything being directly tied to population, too many games use a population = strength approach that doesn't reflect history well, many of the world's largest populations are also poor countries, especially during the Vic 3 time period. Also countries that start with less than 1 million pops would have no construction still.
This also doesn't solve the main problem with base construction, which is that the first 10 construction points are completely free, you don't pay any material costs, so your buildings are made of paradox magic and you don't pay worker costs, or even employ workers, so they are built by fairies.
I would much prefer a system that simply gives every country a starting construction sector that they can employ and use to build other factories.

 

[Hopciu]

I am personally not a fan of anything being directly tied to population

Me neither. That's why I find tying non-Construction Sector CPs to Artisanal Workshops better solution.

Also countries that start with less than 1 million pops would have no construction still.

They would receive a portion of CP. 500k country would have 0.5 CP. Also, the mumbers might be tweaked - instead of 1CP per 1MLN it could be 2:1 or any other ratio, that would give the best results.

I would much prefer a system that simply gives every country a starting construction sector that they can employ and use to build other factories.

Smaller countries would have problem with paying for their employment and input resources, even with basic PM, resulting in their bankruptcy spirals.

 

[yurcick]

The Ottoman Empire's government investing in its vassals Serbia, Wallachia, and Moldova is pure fantasy

The key word here is “government”.

The Ottoman public, while could have some patriotic bias, can very well be expected to mostly invest where the returns are better.

This doesn’t really excuse the current situation, as artificial limits to construction lead to almost no options for the Ottoman IP to invest domestically. But in principle, siphoning investment from the overlord by providing better investment opportunities should totally be a thing.

 

[marmot01]

The key word here is “government”.

The Ottoman public, while could have some patriotic bias, can very well be expected to mostly invest where the returns are better.

This doesn’t really excuse the current situation, as artificial limits to construction lead to almost no options for the Ottoman IP to invest domestically. But in principle, siphoning investment from the overlord by providing better investment opportunities should totally be a thing.

Both credit, i.e. money, and labor are more abundant ingame than was really the case.

Somewhat related, I was catching up on my modern Balkan history today with Baraba Jelavich's "History of the Balkans", where I came upon roughly the following:

In that period, the Romanian boyar won one more big boon. The end of the Ottoman Empire's right of primary buyer [regarding grain and agricultural produce, it seems the Empire had the top "Trade advantage" in game terms] opened up the Principalities for trade with the West just in the time when the demand for grain, to feed the growing population of the industrializing West, was growing ever greater

The bold-italic is from me, because this was my hint that this isn't represented in the game. In the game, hardly anyone needs Romanian grain (or anyone else's than maybe Russian and Chinese). If I'm France (which I have some experience with) there is simply too much free labor for de-peasanting until well into the game, and even then, there is no problem importing grain under the current trading system. Hopefully the new one will make things more interesting. The problem is reducing the "local price" even after you are importing a good, lol

This passage also hints at why there may have not been a great incentive to invest in Romanian industry - the profits were good enough on existing export deals, which didn't require the upfront cost of investment which manufacturing industry presupposes, plus that meant finding the financing first. Both labor and capital were in shorter supply IRL than they are in the game.

I'm still determined to continue listing issues with the gameplay experience, from the perspective of how samey it is, but I just can't find the time to write.

 

[KVPMD]

I read the post with pleasure and it fits my feelings very well (even though they come in a bit of a different flavour).

There are multiple thing that behave very ahistoric and break immersion. Missing authority issues, slow population growth (under the right circumstances it explodes and this is really bad for the wages, and with bad events added it causes hunger and unrest). Base prices are fixed, so oil or steel in 1920 has (nearly) the same relative price to food as in 1840 (which it doesn't have at all). The rise of the industry NEEDS the abundance of food, freeing up workers. And the same again with coal or iron mining efficiency. The impact of tech (machines, workflow, chemical processes, medicine) is massively underrepresented. Pickaxe mining vs dynamite and coal powered drills... come on. That's huge. HUGE!

The game shows it like private farms are just much more efficient than subsistence but that's not true per se. Subsistence farms also got a lot more efficient in this period. They were relevant far into the 20th century even in the industrial core (Germany for example), let alone Russia or India.

So I feel what is lacking most is more materialism (change is triggered by the economic status of the pops, economics is influenced by the pops and the land) compared to random bonuses from IGs or law, especially economic laws. State bonuses are a start, but we need this stronger and nuanced, including capital sinks (building canals, reservoirs, ports, improving rivers, building tunnels...).

 

[Cagliostro]

I couldn't follow the original post, but it's "plausibility", not "plausability".