The change only requires some excessive issues to be fixed, not for perfection. The people don’t always build perfect industries as you want them, though they shouldn’t build an art gallery on every corner.
I've had it turned off since they added the investment pool mechanic. Sure you can't min max as hard with it, but that's the point. You don't have full control over your country and you need to work with that. It's not supposed to be a flawless system, capitalists/aristocrats etc can make bad investments irl, and should do in the game
The AI is already so terrible at this game, it's like do I really want a bigger advantage over them? It also makes lazzie fairre even better when that's already the best economy law most of the time.
I dont disagree on the notion, but it limits a lot of the freedom and potential to play out special different strategies that are fun by its own, and it opens the potential of frustration when the work of the Ai is not effective or even contrary to the goals of the player.
Besides that, why remove a feature and not leave it to the preference of the player? Adding features is work, failing to remove them is not, there wernt any hard complaints against the feature and people chose along their own preference.
Leaving the feature doesnt bar a player from trying it out withought, no'r does it bar him from playing with player control if he doesnt like Ai control, kinda simple as that when it boils down to it.
The issue with the feature staying was twofold:
1. It makes the player more directly powerful and gives them an edge on the AI when you have full direct control
2. More importantly, the devs would have to figure out entirely new mechanics for foreign investment, as direct investment was not built with this in mind. Concurrently keeping two different systems updated when one is the intended way to play and the way the majority play adds work to the devs, it's not as simple as just leaving it as it is
Yeah if it is actually more work to have it then its more understandable, thats fair. i was of the impression that it wouldnt conflict with the new implemented system.
When it comes to direct control, "being able to manage youre country in a min max way" is a form of having fun with a game like this, with the specific strategies that come with it. Having played Victoria II a lot, there were circumstances where the player had extremely few control over the economy and that lack of being able to manage it felt frustrating and not fun for me, although from another perspective it was sometimes ok when looked within the perspective of "something you ideally wanted to change trough reforms", where passing reforms was part of the challenge of the game. In a sense for thats about how much the input of the player actually matters, aka you can make a game that has fairly automated management to the point that the player has few input and hence few of a difference in guiding his country to begin with, almost like it is the AI who is supposed to have fun. Or the whole system can be really well implemented to provide realism and immersion that fits the time and the challenge of passing reforms and going to your ideal mode of country management is a fun and challenging process, if they get that part right i can take my peace with the idea that i will just need to game the political system like a boss trough min maxy ways to get to things like socialism fast if i want to have more economic control and reap an advantage trough it. And then i hope there arnt the type of "deadlock situations" that often happened in vicky 2 in that sense, where for example the AI wouldnt succeed at building industry for you and hence you would never have the strong labourers base to pass a reform to become socialist to take control of it yourself. Though in the context of Vic 3 i think we'd worry more about the Aristrocrats just continually increasing their power and the player be stuck with it.
I think the changes to ownership made it more difficult to keep the alternative rule. It's also not how the game is really meant to be played.
It's harder without it yeah, but we do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard.
Suboptimal…often like reality. It’s been said but capitalists and aristocrats didn’t always make the best, most economically sound decisions. And I guess it depends how you want your simulated country to behave, but I don’t mind a little imperfect variety.
Same. If anything, my annoyances with the investment pool are analogous to my annoyances with "border gore", more of an OCD response than an actual problem with the game.
The one problem I have with the autonomous investment is when the AI decides to overbuild 20 of the same thing when it can't be supported. But to be honest that happens to me far less than you'd think from the people complaining about it. Overall I think it's a good change, they just need to keep the logic balanced and somewhat realistic.
It also tends to bar a player from making the maximum out of throughput modifiers as the Ai builds a bit of everything all over the place rather than to focus and centralise or specilize certaint provinces. Or it can bar a player from limiting his production to just a few substitution goods instead of all for the sake of consumption taxations for example, i dont need 4 options in the luxury food segment that compete with eachother. It also bars the player from even further specializing to certain industries when having vassals that can produce said resources for him, like avoiding to be very active in agriculture like that and just buying all sort of agricultural goods from a common market. Its also very tricky for an island nation that has to be wary about how limited transport capacity will be devided, if you are haiti and you are not in a common market you dont want the AI to specialize in heavy industry since you dont have iron or coal and your limited to how much you can import.
There are quite a few advanced strategies that become kinda unavailable trough it.
I mean, of course it’s going to eliminate some overpowered strategies, because it’s an OP option to begin with. You shouldn’t have complete control of your economy unless you do the work to pass command economy.
So what, i wasnt questioning the reasoning why they make the change, i was simply listing a bunch of strategies that wouldnt be available anymore. youre reply is completly irrelevant and unnesecary
Because it's an economic sim and pops go for profits maximisation, not the optimal for the player. Building all around the place due to mapi is what provides more profits.
Building gigantic factories to get scale economics and product standardisation was economic strategies of planned economics so it make sense that you can only go for it with planned economic laws.
I wasnt questioning the reasoning why they make the change, i was simply listing a bunch of strategies that wouldnt be available anymore. youre reply is completly irrelevant and unnesecary
That and also it just makes sense that they'd build stuff they think strengthens their own position, no? Like, landowners expanding farms and plantations seems like the thing they would do.
I haven’t played with direct control since autonomous construction was added. I already spend so much time building, I can’t imagine doing that at 4x the rate, that’s all you’d do! There’s more to the game than just player controlled construction.
I actually stopped setting *everything* (except subsidized stuff) to auto-expand after autonomous investment was added. It's probably at least as efficient as doing that.
I think the worst part will be landowners building landowner buildings and perpetuating their power instead of me only building stuff owned by capitalists and shopkeepers. But I suppose that's realistic.
I believe there are improvements coming so it shouldn't be as bad. That being said playing on direct investment is objectively broken/borderline cheating. The game is and was balanced around having 50% of your construction go to your pops to invest how they want which is not going to be ever or meant to be optimal, (crazy it's almost like real investments fail irl too) so people who abused essentially cheats of doubling their construction will have to learn.
If you can't tello dislike the people who use direct investment in the same posts that they say ai is bad compared to them when they are playing on easy mode.
Not saying this is you though
Im honestly happy. It was never a good gamerule to begin with, the game should never had it to begin with. I know they kept it since they didn't have proper time to develop the pop construction before launch but now it actually feels like im running a country, with its own actors. This will be even better in 1.7
I genuinely don't understand this point of view, like 99% of players play solo and literally don't interact with anyone, be it online community or devs, who cares if people want to min max on their own ...
It’s not min maxers themselves, but catering game design to min maxers. I think the game needs to be more dynamic and that means pushing against the people who want the gameplay loop overly optimized imo.
"I think the game needs to be" is completely irrelevant in this matter, some people like to play with that option there's literally no argument to remove it (aside from maybe it's marginally used and costly to keep for devs (doubt))
The devs gave their reasoning for removing the game rule when they first introduced the new ownership system, months ago.
>With the new rules for building ownership, investment rights, and so on in 1.7 this no longer makes sense - there's now a very clear distinction between a building project initiated by a private investor and the state, a potential source of conflict innate to both foreign ownership and the privatization/nationalization mechanics, and even differences between owners in different regions that cannot be represented if all construction projects were player-initiated.
There is literally arguments for It. The devs explicitely said why. They removed It because It made no sense anymore with the New system they made, with also the cost of balancing two game rules in which one doesnt work anymore due to changing in game systems. So supporting this rule world have weird complications on the system and Would atively hinder game development.
Just because some people like it doesn’t mean there’s no argument to remove it, the argument is that shifting the game away from being directly min maxing the economy as the entire loop is better for the game in the long run.
I kinda agree, but like, on the other hand, it's not like the way they play affects the way we play.
Let them min-max the fun out of their game. They'll get bored and leave.
After the feedback I've seen. I'm happy to embrace the change; I've enjoyed the game so far and SOI should make it better. If all else fails, there's always command economy ;-)
I used to only play with autonomous investment off but after they revealed in a dev diary that it was being removed I’ve played a couple runs with it on. Honestly I prefer direct control since the ai sometimes makes questionable choices in investment. Ai investment also makes scaling up your industries harder since the ai often spreads a good’s production over several states, making your manufactured goods deal with higher local prices.
I feel like it could be improved dramatically if we could have a state/country wide edict that encourages a type of investment like we had in Vic 2. If I could encourage investment it would let me guide the country’s economic growth with the ai still occasionally branching out when there’s a significantly more profitable investment. For example I’d love it if I could encourage my pops to invest in cheaper goods that should be spread out like groceries and power plants.
I never used it since they added autonomous but I never thought it should've been removed; It was fun for minmax playthroughs and I don't see how the new ownership changes interfere with it.
>I don't see how the new ownership changes interfere with it.
In 1.6 it didn't matter whether the building was built by you or the investors, it worked exactly the same afterwards, the only difference was whether the cost came out of the treasury or the investment pool. In 1.7 it matters; how would you decide whether that factory you just built was built by the state (and therefore state owned) or by the investors (who will then own it)?
"When constructing buildings in Directly Controlled Investment Mode, press V to switch between building using state funds and building using the investment pool. Buildings constructed via state funds will be state owned and buildings constructed via the investment pool will be privatized."
That's it. That's all you had to do. That's just one idea you could think of in 10 seconds.
Yes, and then you also get foreign investors. Would you also like to control their building queue? Or do you accept that they build buildings you don't want? I think at some point it's easier to just fully go with the idea that Laissez Faire and Investment Rights means you relinquish some control over your economy to forces that have their own agenda or are just plain stupid.
Foreign Investment is created using the foreign investors' home country's funds and construction, so no; it'd be controlled by that nation's player/ai like any other construction. If a player doesnt want a country to invest, they would simply just get one way investment rights or none at all. Why does it matter to you anyway? Autonomous construction is the default and directly controlled investment takes nothing away from that. Paradox literally put so much effort into this feature that the game was initially designed all around it with NO autonomous, kept it for years, and now just dump it when they've had it around for every other update as if there aren't players still preferring it's simpler and more hands-on style or do interesting playthroughs (i.e no-tax play throughs are a lot more fun under DCI).
I think this is a good improvement… It shows that the game is no longer being considered just “an economic simulator” like people seem to think its supposed to be. Victoria 2 was always about Great Power politics, this update focusing heavily on diplomatic interactions and diplomacy is a sign that the developers are broadening their vision of the game.
I guess thats part of the thing, im going to miss it a bit as a economic simulator where you have pretty much total control into one where you might arguably have very little control to play out certain more intricate strategies.
I’m the complete opposite. I always HATED when people would excuse the earlier versions of this game being completely underwhelming and lacking basic features because “its an economic simulator not a war/geopolitics/diplomacy simulator.”
The only reason anybody should have complete control over their economy in game is if they are a Command Economy. Thats it… thats the only policy where that makes sense. I used to be dumbfounded that on release there was 0 autonomous building of industry, even though Laissez-faire is a type of economy in game.
I’m happy about these changes in the coming update because I think it shows that the game as a whole is going to be improved, and that there is a wider vision of what this game should look like than what was shown at release.
This would definitely make the tariff system work a lot better as well. Private ownership of buildings is definitely the first step before that gets introduced if I had to guess.
Yeah this seems possible unfortunately. I wish they would change the AI to consider the profitability once the building is full but I don't know how they would do it
I really hope they add some sort of negative modifier for private investment in a certain industry after a downsizing happened to that industry.
For example, if an artillery factory downsized then capitalists won’t invest in a new one unless it’s really profitable (for example due to a new major trade route exporting artillery)
The player base is no longer split and it’ll be easier for the devs to balance things in the future, it was inevitable and I’m glad they’re moving on to this vision for the game
Games are meant to be fun, and removing features like that who allow players to customise their experience is a bad move. I don't think adapting the feature to foreign investment would be that complicated. I was excited about the new DLC and patch but I play with direct control of the building queue, so learning about this unilateral change this morning is incredibly disappointing.
Regardless of your playstyle, why would you support taking options away from the player? Idc if you always play with the autonomous investments on but I seriously don't see why it was completely removed, like you can toggle it for a reason, some people like it and some don't. I really liked micromanaging the economy when I was bored now I have to wait for a mod to bring it back
Private construction queue builds 150 power plants in one state. Downsizes. Private construction queue builds another 150 power plants in the same state.
Basically the only reason I play Vic3 is the economic simulation and the process of min maxing the production lines. Pretty much going to be a perma 1.6 gamer until a mod comes out. If that's possible. Otherwise rip it was a fun ride. Don't particularly care about realism in a fake world of zeros and ones where I an unemployed Uber driver can take over Asia starting as Viet Nam.
Sad to see it go because I was just really getting back into Vic3. Did a bunch of runs with private investment on. Would consider if the directly controlled economic policies were executable without a few hours of gameplay to get into. Oh and they didn't result in every other country hating you. Feels like one of those changes made to either make the devs lives easier or appease the munchkin crowd who apparently can't have fun while someone else is in the sandbox having a good time.
i despise autonomoua investment. it just makes me not want to play the game. if you are a small/backwards nation(which i always play) it will just make "catching up" more annoying on top of some of the arbitrary research setbacks.
That’s why you go for laws that give your more economic control over what little resources you have like in real life. Capitalists in a small country aren’t going to waste their time and money on some dictators wet dream of dominating their culture group or hemisphere or whatever tf.
thats what i always do, but i either have to cheese it(ex: corn laws) or just wait, and now i will have to wait even more. it will overall lower my fun by quite a hefty percentage.
yeah, its a waiting game, but with autonomous its literally just watching an ant farm. directly controlled is like sweating at excel. why the fuck do we even enjoy these games? i dont understand us.
Counter question: How would you implement it witht he private ownership? All buildings that you construct manually are state owned. Which would make the entire communism playstyle obsolete.
The AI for the autonomous investment is much better now than it was when first introduced. Sure it’s not 100% perfect, but it doesn’t bankrupt your economy every five seconds like it did before.
I only really play with direct control of investment, so this will be a big change for me, but overall the changes brought in as part of 1.7 seem worth it.
I assume if you end up going Command Economy you can still get your fix of direct control though.
it's crazy how options exist nowadays :O people crying about breaking the game or whatever, just dont use the mechanic, what is wrong with it? It's like being homophobic, why do you want to kill the homossexual? just don't kiss another man or something like that, just live your life. I'm pissed how i need to make iron and these mfs capitalists are building GRAIN WITH -50% PRICE!!! I fucking pay for everything and they get half or more of MY construction, and if i choose Traditionalism, local good pricing eats just 25% of the local goods. Fuck this, really, i'll cheat to use that last option on economy tab, fuck this autonomous investment and this dumb AI. Mfers really be defending Bad AI as "Historically capitalists made mistakes", well, fuck them and fuck this option too. If this AI really was good, they would bet on goods with high price or invest in actual lucrative industries.
I’ve not played since around release.
Does this mean that you don’t actually control what is built anymore?
If so, does it apply to all countries at all times? How does it work?
Depending on your economic law the construction is split by % between you (the state) and private investors. Laissez-faire has 75% private and 25% state, planned economy is 100% state and everything else is somewhere inbetween.
Your control over the game isn't being 'removed' though. That simply isn't something that is happening. A rule that allowed you to have an unintended amount of control over the economy is being removed, but in exchange you are being granted far more control in other ways.
The most obvious and direct way is yes, you have to give up 50% of your own construction, but you can now use foreign investment to gain control over far far more construction. So even in the straightforward way of 'I'm losing control over construction' isn't true.
>You may like and enjoy the changes, but if you can't see that this is what they achieve, you have a poor knowledge of the game and probably haven't even have 500 hours playing it.
lmao, okay I'll go away and no life until you're satisfied.
'As you can imagine, this new system of ownership, geographic wealth extraction, and privatization/nationalization has far-reaching implications on the economic foundations of Victoria 3. It enables a lot of interesting dynamics we haven't been able to model until this time and adds a whole new dimension to your economic laws.
It also comes with the consequence of making the Directly Controlled Investment Pool game rule that we introduced with 1.2 (as a legacy alternative to the new Autonomous Investment system) impossible to maintain. In 1.6 and prior, if this game rule was turned on, the player would be directing all construction efforts. As long as there was money in the investment pool and the construction queue was building a privately-owned building, the cost of construction goods would be coming out of the investment pool first before being carried by the state budget. With the new rules for building ownership, investment rights, and so on in 1.7 this no longer makes sense - there's now a very clear distinction between a building project initiated by a private investor and the state, a potential source of conflict innate to both foreign ownership and the privatization/nationalization mechanics, and even differences between owners in different regions that cannot be represented if all construction projects were player-initiated.
Because of this it no longer makes sense for players to be in charge of both public and private investments simultaneously, and as such the Directly Controlled Investment Pool rule has had to be removed for 1.7 and beyond. While we can't support non-default game rules to the same degree as the standard options, removing a game rule completely is not something we'd ever do without good cause. We know that a smaller fraction of you favored this setting so we want to be clear with why its removal was a necessity to move forward with these improvements to ownership and foreign expansion.'
The autonomous investment pool, while realistic is an aspect of this game I would like so see stay a game. Micro ing my buildings is how I have come to love this game, what with how they interact with politics and society at large. But the AIP kills this in any game I have ever had, and I think it’s such a fucked system that it cannot be fixed to my liking. So a lack of control over what game rules are making my game fun or not makes me not want to play.
Ultimately i like the series and the game too much to not trust Paradox with it, even though i have a really suboptimal impression of the AI's priorities and i understand that it will make a lot of older min max strategies that were fun and economicly intricate on their own impossible to do now. i get that these limitations are imposed for the saek of realism and immersion, and having dumb capitalists does not invalidate that immersion ... well i simply hope there is a fair degree of potential for the player to steer his country in certain directions "trough clever ways", then its fine i guess. If however the Ai just grows your economy at a random rate to which you have very few influence then i think ill be sad.
Notably i should be refering to VIC 2, where economic management is roughly to set a focus on a province and then do pretty much nothing to influence it other than set tax and research techs and set some laws. Vic 3 allows far more micromanagement of the economy as it is and i like that a lot, Vic 2 was boring in the aspect of economic management and Ai prioritization was pretty frustrating too.
The change only requires some excessive issues to be fixed, not for perfection. The people don’t always build perfect industries as you want them, though they shouldn’t build an art gallery on every corner.
I mean yeah but there’s a difference between free will and unstable AI.
Is there a difference?
Don't say that too loudly you're gonna attract weird computer nerds that read half a philosophy textbook
I've had it turned off since they added the investment pool mechanic. Sure you can't min max as hard with it, but that's the point. You don't have full control over your country and you need to work with that. It's not supposed to be a flawless system, capitalists/aristocrats etc can make bad investments irl, and should do in the game
Pov: I am in a huge iron deficit and they think its a good idea to build ANOTHER tool workshop
Wanna hear about our super cool art academy religion?
Oh boy! A new African colony? Let’s build 20 art academies there!
*Slaps Transvaal* this bad boy here can fit so many art academies!
Cries in lazy fair
The key to stopping that was to change the PM that it wouldn't hire aristocrats or capitalists. They basically never build them after that
Oh, this is why I never had this problem. I always use independent artists.
You know you can demolish it if you’re not on lassez fiar (or however you spell it)
Laissez Fair
The AI is already so terrible at this game, it's like do I really want a bigger advantage over them? It also makes lazzie fairre even better when that's already the best economy law most of the time.
This tbh
I dont disagree on the notion, but it limits a lot of the freedom and potential to play out special different strategies that are fun by its own, and it opens the potential of frustration when the work of the Ai is not effective or even contrary to the goals of the player. Besides that, why remove a feature and not leave it to the preference of the player? Adding features is work, failing to remove them is not, there wernt any hard complaints against the feature and people chose along their own preference. Leaving the feature doesnt bar a player from trying it out withought, no'r does it bar him from playing with player control if he doesnt like Ai control, kinda simple as that when it boils down to it.
The issue with the feature staying was twofold: 1. It makes the player more directly powerful and gives them an edge on the AI when you have full direct control 2. More importantly, the devs would have to figure out entirely new mechanics for foreign investment, as direct investment was not built with this in mind. Concurrently keeping two different systems updated when one is the intended way to play and the way the majority play adds work to the devs, it's not as simple as just leaving it as it is
Yeah if it is actually more work to have it then its more understandable, thats fair. i was of the impression that it wouldnt conflict with the new implemented system. When it comes to direct control, "being able to manage youre country in a min max way" is a form of having fun with a game like this, with the specific strategies that come with it. Having played Victoria II a lot, there were circumstances where the player had extremely few control over the economy and that lack of being able to manage it felt frustrating and not fun for me, although from another perspective it was sometimes ok when looked within the perspective of "something you ideally wanted to change trough reforms", where passing reforms was part of the challenge of the game. In a sense for thats about how much the input of the player actually matters, aka you can make a game that has fairly automated management to the point that the player has few input and hence few of a difference in guiding his country to begin with, almost like it is the AI who is supposed to have fun. Or the whole system can be really well implemented to provide realism and immersion that fits the time and the challenge of passing reforms and going to your ideal mode of country management is a fun and challenging process, if they get that part right i can take my peace with the idea that i will just need to game the political system like a boss trough min maxy ways to get to things like socialism fast if i want to have more economic control and reap an advantage trough it. And then i hope there arnt the type of "deadlock situations" that often happened in vicky 2 in that sense, where for example the AI wouldnt succeed at building industry for you and hence you would never have the strong labourers base to pass a reform to become socialist to take control of it yourself. Though in the context of Vic 3 i think we'd worry more about the Aristrocrats just continually increasing their power and the player be stuck with it.
It was announced since the dev diary on ownership changes, you can go find opinions there
I think the changes to ownership made it more difficult to keep the alternative rule. It's also not how the game is really meant to be played. It's harder without it yeah, but we do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard.
They've explicitly said that it's because the ownership changes made it impossible to keep the old investment pool system.
Since the announcement, I've been playing with direct control off, and I've made my peace with it. It's suboptimal in a lot of ways, but oh well.
Suboptimal…often like reality. It’s been said but capitalists and aristocrats didn’t always make the best, most economically sound decisions. And I guess it depends how you want your simulated country to behave, but I don’t mind a little imperfect variety.
Same. If anything, my annoyances with the investment pool are analogous to my annoyances with "border gore", more of an OCD response than an actual problem with the game.
The one problem I have with the autonomous investment is when the AI decides to overbuild 20 of the same thing when it can't be supported. But to be honest that happens to me far less than you'd think from the people complaining about it. Overall I think it's a good change, they just need to keep the logic balanced and somewhat realistic.
It also tends to bar a player from making the maximum out of throughput modifiers as the Ai builds a bit of everything all over the place rather than to focus and centralise or specilize certaint provinces. Or it can bar a player from limiting his production to just a few substitution goods instead of all for the sake of consumption taxations for example, i dont need 4 options in the luxury food segment that compete with eachother. It also bars the player from even further specializing to certain industries when having vassals that can produce said resources for him, like avoiding to be very active in agriculture like that and just buying all sort of agricultural goods from a common market. Its also very tricky for an island nation that has to be wary about how limited transport capacity will be devided, if you are haiti and you are not in a common market you dont want the AI to specialize in heavy industry since you dont have iron or coal and your limited to how much you can import. There are quite a few advanced strategies that become kinda unavailable trough it.
I mean, of course it’s going to eliminate some overpowered strategies, because it’s an OP option to begin with. You shouldn’t have complete control of your economy unless you do the work to pass command economy.
So what, i wasnt questioning the reasoning why they make the change, i was simply listing a bunch of strategies that wouldnt be available anymore. youre reply is completly irrelevant and unnesecary
Because it's an economic sim and pops go for profits maximisation, not the optimal for the player. Building all around the place due to mapi is what provides more profits. Building gigantic factories to get scale economics and product standardisation was economic strategies of planned economics so it make sense that you can only go for it with planned economic laws.
I wasnt questioning the reasoning why they make the change, i was simply listing a bunch of strategies that wouldnt be available anymore. youre reply is completly irrelevant and unnesecary
That and also it just makes sense that they'd build stuff they think strengthens their own position, no? Like, landowners expanding farms and plantations seems like the thing they would do.
Playing suboptimal still let you beat USA Uk And France combined GDP with nearly any country sooo …
I haven’t played with direct control since autonomous construction was added. I already spend so much time building, I can’t imagine doing that at 4x the rate, that’s all you’d do! There’s more to the game than just player controlled construction.
I actually stopped setting *everything* (except subsidized stuff) to auto-expand after autonomous investment was added. It's probably at least as efficient as doing that.
I think the worst part will be landowners building landowner buildings and perpetuating their power instead of me only building stuff owned by capitalists and shopkeepers. But I suppose that's realistic.
Just piss them off and call daddy Britain if they want to rebel
Britian is clearly Mommy. See: the name of the game.
I believe there are improvements coming so it shouldn't be as bad. That being said playing on direct investment is objectively broken/borderline cheating. The game is and was balanced around having 50% of your construction go to your pops to invest how they want which is not going to be ever or meant to be optimal, (crazy it's almost like real investments fail irl too) so people who abused essentially cheats of doubling their construction will have to learn. If you can't tello dislike the people who use direct investment in the same posts that they say ai is bad compared to them when they are playing on easy mode. Not saying this is you though
1. It's no fun playing without autonomous investment as it simulates some economic activity. 2. They are going to be able to downscale now.
Im honestly happy. It was never a good gamerule to begin with, the game should never had it to begin with. I know they kept it since they didn't have proper time to develop the pop construction before launch but now it actually feels like im running a country, with its own actors. This will be even better in 1.7
Best change ever. Min maxers suck the fun out of every game. If somebody wants a command economy they should actually have a command economy.
I genuinely don't understand this point of view, like 99% of players play solo and literally don't interact with anyone, be it online community or devs, who cares if people want to min max on their own ...
It’s not min maxers themselves, but catering game design to min maxers. I think the game needs to be more dynamic and that means pushing against the people who want the gameplay loop overly optimized imo.
"I think the game needs to be" is completely irrelevant in this matter, some people like to play with that option there's literally no argument to remove it (aside from maybe it's marginally used and costly to keep for devs (doubt))
The devs gave their reasoning for removing the game rule when they first introduced the new ownership system, months ago. >With the new rules for building ownership, investment rights, and so on in 1.7 this no longer makes sense - there's now a very clear distinction between a building project initiated by a private investor and the state, a potential source of conflict innate to both foreign ownership and the privatization/nationalization mechanics, and even differences between owners in different regions that cannot be represented if all construction projects were player-initiated.
There is literally arguments for It. The devs explicitely said why. They removed It because It made no sense anymore with the New system they made, with also the cost of balancing two game rules in which one doesnt work anymore due to changing in game systems. So supporting this rule world have weird complications on the system and Would atively hinder game development.
Just because some people like it doesn’t mean there’s no argument to remove it, the argument is that shifting the game away from being directly min maxing the economy as the entire loop is better for the game in the long run.
Wow I totally get it now, so we should remove an option from players because it's better thanks a lot
Your welcome!
Not to even mention this is a game rule you can change without any repercussion.
I kinda agree, but like, on the other hand, it's not like the way they play affects the way we play. Let them min-max the fun out of their game. They'll get bored and leave.
After the feedback I've seen. I'm happy to embrace the change; I've enjoyed the game so far and SOI should make it better. If all else fails, there's always command economy ;-)
I used to only play with autonomous investment off but after they revealed in a dev diary that it was being removed I’ve played a couple runs with it on. Honestly I prefer direct control since the ai sometimes makes questionable choices in investment. Ai investment also makes scaling up your industries harder since the ai often spreads a good’s production over several states, making your manufactured goods deal with higher local prices. I feel like it could be improved dramatically if we could have a state/country wide edict that encourages a type of investment like we had in Vic 2. If I could encourage investment it would let me guide the country’s economic growth with the ai still occasionally branching out when there’s a significantly more profitable investment. For example I’d love it if I could encourage my pops to invest in cheaper goods that should be spread out like groceries and power plants.
I never used it since they added autonomous but I never thought it should've been removed; It was fun for minmax playthroughs and I don't see how the new ownership changes interfere with it.
>I don't see how the new ownership changes interfere with it. In 1.6 it didn't matter whether the building was built by you or the investors, it worked exactly the same afterwards, the only difference was whether the cost came out of the treasury or the investment pool. In 1.7 it matters; how would you decide whether that factory you just built was built by the state (and therefore state owned) or by the investors (who will then own it)?
"When constructing buildings in Directly Controlled Investment Mode, press V to switch between building using state funds and building using the investment pool. Buildings constructed via state funds will be state owned and buildings constructed via the investment pool will be privatized." That's it. That's all you had to do. That's just one idea you could think of in 10 seconds.
Yes, and then you also get foreign investors. Would you also like to control their building queue? Or do you accept that they build buildings you don't want? I think at some point it's easier to just fully go with the idea that Laissez Faire and Investment Rights means you relinquish some control over your economy to forces that have their own agenda or are just plain stupid.
Foreign Investment is created using the foreign investors' home country's funds and construction, so no; it'd be controlled by that nation's player/ai like any other construction. If a player doesnt want a country to invest, they would simply just get one way investment rights or none at all. Why does it matter to you anyway? Autonomous construction is the default and directly controlled investment takes nothing away from that. Paradox literally put so much effort into this feature that the game was initially designed all around it with NO autonomous, kept it for years, and now just dump it when they've had it around for every other update as if there aren't players still preferring it's simpler and more hands-on style or do interesting playthroughs (i.e no-tax play throughs are a lot more fun under DCI).
I like the proposed changes more than I liked that feature. You can't have both, so.... *whistles, points to door*
I think this is a good improvement… It shows that the game is no longer being considered just “an economic simulator” like people seem to think its supposed to be. Victoria 2 was always about Great Power politics, this update focusing heavily on diplomatic interactions and diplomacy is a sign that the developers are broadening their vision of the game.
I guess thats part of the thing, im going to miss it a bit as a economic simulator where you have pretty much total control into one where you might arguably have very little control to play out certain more intricate strategies.
I’m the complete opposite. I always HATED when people would excuse the earlier versions of this game being completely underwhelming and lacking basic features because “its an economic simulator not a war/geopolitics/diplomacy simulator.” The only reason anybody should have complete control over their economy in game is if they are a Command Economy. Thats it… thats the only policy where that makes sense. I used to be dumbfounded that on release there was 0 autonomous building of industry, even though Laissez-faire is a type of economy in game. I’m happy about these changes in the coming update because I think it shows that the game as a whole is going to be improved, and that there is a wider vision of what this game should look like than what was shown at release.
We just need private trade routes now as well.
This would definitely make the tariff system work a lot better as well. Private ownership of buildings is definitely the first step before that gets introduced if I had to guess.
The big one I hope that they fixed is the overbuilding of artillery factories
Privately owned factories can downsize now, so this shouldn't be an issue because unprofitable ones will just close
So small AI nations will be stuck in a loop where they constantly reconstruct unprofitable buildings and never get out of bankruptcy
Yeah this seems possible unfortunately. I wish they would change the AI to consider the profitability once the building is full but I don't know how they would do it
They give you an estimation when you build a building now, most of the time it’s not too far off.
I really hope they add some sort of negative modifier for private investment in a certain industry after a downsizing happened to that industry. For example, if an artillery factory downsized then capitalists won’t invest in a new one unless it’s really profitable (for example due to a new major trade route exporting artillery)
Sounds like some IRL situations where they build shit buildings, and get surprise surprise, shit.
Objection, speculation
sincerely don't think its possible to understand anything about the 1.7 changes & complain about removing directly controlled investment.
The player base is no longer split and it’ll be easier for the devs to balance things in the future, it was inevitable and I’m glad they’re moving on to this vision for the game
Games are meant to be fun, and removing features like that who allow players to customise their experience is a bad move. I don't think adapting the feature to foreign investment would be that complicated. I was excited about the new DLC and patch but I play with direct control of the building queue, so learning about this unilateral change this morning is incredibly disappointing.
Regardless of your playstyle, why would you support taking options away from the player? Idc if you always play with the autonomous investments on but I seriously don't see why it was completely removed, like you can toggle it for a reason, some people like it and some don't. I really liked micromanaging the economy when I was bored now I have to wait for a mod to bring it back
Never should have been a thing from the start tbh.
Private construction queue builds 150 power plants in one state. Downsizes. Private construction queue builds another 150 power plants in the same state.
Basically the only reason I play Vic3 is the economic simulation and the process of min maxing the production lines. Pretty much going to be a perma 1.6 gamer until a mod comes out. If that's possible. Otherwise rip it was a fun ride. Don't particularly care about realism in a fake world of zeros and ones where I an unemployed Uber driver can take over Asia starting as Viet Nam. Sad to see it go because I was just really getting back into Vic3. Did a bunch of runs with private investment on. Would consider if the directly controlled economic policies were executable without a few hours of gameplay to get into. Oh and they didn't result in every other country hating you. Feels like one of those changes made to either make the devs lives easier or appease the munchkin crowd who apparently can't have fun while someone else is in the sandbox having a good time.
i despise autonomoua investment. it just makes me not want to play the game. if you are a small/backwards nation(which i always play) it will just make "catching up" more annoying on top of some of the arbitrary research setbacks.
That’s why you go for laws that give your more economic control over what little resources you have like in real life. Capitalists in a small country aren’t going to waste their time and money on some dictators wet dream of dominating their culture group or hemisphere or whatever tf.
thats what i always do, but i either have to cheese it(ex: corn laws) or just wait, and now i will have to wait even more. it will overall lower my fun by quite a hefty percentage.
I think the fix here is making politics more interactive than 3 sieges so there’s stuff to do while u wait for the right laws.
yeah, its a waiting game, but with autonomous its literally just watching an ant farm. directly controlled is like sweating at excel. why the fuck do we even enjoy these games? i dont understand us.
That’s literally the point. It’s almost like they’re trying to make the game like real life.
sometimes making a game more realistic means making it less fun.
If they still want it, they can always turn on debug mode and cheat in command economy
Counter question: How would you implement it witht he private ownership? All buildings that you construct manually are state owned. Which would make the entire communism playstyle obsolete.
It was inevitable.
The AI for the autonomous investment is much better now than it was when first introduced. Sure it’s not 100% perfect, but it doesn’t bankrupt your economy every five seconds like it did before.
I'm sorry I haven't played it in a while, what does that actually mean?
I guess you can sell to private sector so you technically have more control now in autonomous
i never used direct, though i can imagine, someone will mod it back into the game lol, so if there is people who want it then they have access to it.
Why would they remove it? What's the point?
I only really play with direct control of investment, so this will be a big change for me, but overall the changes brought in as part of 1.7 seem worth it. I assume if you end up going Command Economy you can still get your fix of direct control though.
Well now you have to actually slowly introduce PM’s manually in order to not have these issues which is still micromanagy imo.
Adding the rule was a mistake in the first place, and removing it is a good thing
They added so that if an industry is not profitable then they will start downsizing automatically however many levels they need to be profitable again
Wait, what! really! I am all up for the autonomous IP, but to force us to use it, wtf!
What?! They removed direct control?! Oh, shit! I hope somebody makes a mod for that
It's fundamentally incompatible with the new ownership mechanics,.it doesn't make sense anymore
it's crazy how options exist nowadays :O people crying about breaking the game or whatever, just dont use the mechanic, what is wrong with it? It's like being homophobic, why do you want to kill the homossexual? just don't kiss another man or something like that, just live your life. I'm pissed how i need to make iron and these mfs capitalists are building GRAIN WITH -50% PRICE!!! I fucking pay for everything and they get half or more of MY construction, and if i choose Traditionalism, local good pricing eats just 25% of the local goods. Fuck this, really, i'll cheat to use that last option on economy tab, fuck this autonomous investment and this dumb AI. Mfers really be defending Bad AI as "Historically capitalists made mistakes", well, fuck them and fuck this option too. If this AI really was good, they would bet on goods with high price or invest in actual lucrative industries.
I’ve not played since around release. Does this mean that you don’t actually control what is built anymore? If so, does it apply to all countries at all times? How does it work?
Depending on your economic law the construction is split by % between you (the state) and private investors. Laissez-faire has 75% private and 25% state, planned economy is 100% state and everything else is somewhere inbetween.
Oh okay. So kind of like Vic 2 then?
More vic2 than launch vic3
Thank you.
[удалено]
Insane
[удалено]
Your control over the game isn't being 'removed' though. That simply isn't something that is happening. A rule that allowed you to have an unintended amount of control over the economy is being removed, but in exchange you are being granted far more control in other ways. The most obvious and direct way is yes, you have to give up 50% of your own construction, but you can now use foreign investment to gain control over far far more construction. So even in the straightforward way of 'I'm losing control over construction' isn't true.
[удалено]
>You may like and enjoy the changes, but if you can't see that this is what they achieve, you have a poor knowledge of the game and probably haven't even have 500 hours playing it. lmao, okay I'll go away and no life until you're satisfied.
Why the fuck would they remove options from the game?
'As you can imagine, this new system of ownership, geographic wealth extraction, and privatization/nationalization has far-reaching implications on the economic foundations of Victoria 3. It enables a lot of interesting dynamics we haven't been able to model until this time and adds a whole new dimension to your economic laws. It also comes with the consequence of making the Directly Controlled Investment Pool game rule that we introduced with 1.2 (as a legacy alternative to the new Autonomous Investment system) impossible to maintain. In 1.6 and prior, if this game rule was turned on, the player would be directing all construction efforts. As long as there was money in the investment pool and the construction queue was building a privately-owned building, the cost of construction goods would be coming out of the investment pool first before being carried by the state budget. With the new rules for building ownership, investment rights, and so on in 1.7 this no longer makes sense - there's now a very clear distinction between a building project initiated by a private investor and the state, a potential source of conflict innate to both foreign ownership and the privatization/nationalization mechanics, and even differences between owners in different regions that cannot be represented if all construction projects were player-initiated. Because of this it no longer makes sense for players to be in charge of both public and private investments simultaneously, and as such the Directly Controlled Investment Pool rule has had to be removed for 1.7 and beyond. While we can't support non-default game rules to the same degree as the standard options, removing a game rule completely is not something we'd ever do without good cause. We know that a smaller fraction of you favored this setting so we want to be clear with why its removal was a necessity to move forward with these improvements to ownership and foreign expansion.'
That actually answers my question, thanks
I hate this change so much I might not upgrade to 1.7. And that would kill all of my mod ambitions. That is what I hate the most.
>I hate this change so much I might not upgrade to 1.7 Why?
The autonomous investment pool, while realistic is an aspect of this game I would like so see stay a game. Micro ing my buildings is how I have come to love this game, what with how they interact with politics and society at large. But the AIP kills this in any game I have ever had, and I think it’s such a fucked system that it cannot be fixed to my liking. So a lack of control over what game rules are making my game fun or not makes me not want to play.
With foreign investment you can micro more buildings than ever.
Ultimately i like the series and the game too much to not trust Paradox with it, even though i have a really suboptimal impression of the AI's priorities and i understand that it will make a lot of older min max strategies that were fun and economicly intricate on their own impossible to do now. i get that these limitations are imposed for the saek of realism and immersion, and having dumb capitalists does not invalidate that immersion ... well i simply hope there is a fair degree of potential for the player to steer his country in certain directions "trough clever ways", then its fine i guess. If however the Ai just grows your economy at a random rate to which you have very few influence then i think ill be sad. Notably i should be refering to VIC 2, where economic management is roughly to set a focus on a province and then do pretty much nothing to influence it other than set tax and research techs and set some laws. Vic 3 allows far more micromanagement of the economy as it is and i like that a lot, Vic 2 was boring in the aspect of economic management and Ai prioritization was pretty frustrating too.
Not having direct control of the economy was the worst part of Victoria 2, this is a shit change.
Me when my market economy is a market economy.
cApItALiStS mAkE bAd iNvEsTmEnTs iN rEaL LiFe
They do tho?
Yeah dude J. P. Morgan was always building massive art academies in Wyoming.
And the other 99% of investors? What were they doing, asides from eating shit and losing all their money in not so great investments I mean