5 ECONOMIC Mistakes NEW PLAYERS Make in Victoria 3

[@maksymilianczoo5010]

If you increase the profitability of tool workshops by raising tool prices, other buildings that use tools will be less profitable. This is a zero-sum game, and you are basically moving profits from one factory to another. Clothes and other finished consumer goods are better examples because you transfer money into the investment pool from pops. It's still not perfect, because the more your pops spend on clothes, the less they can spend in other buildings, making them less profitable. But in this case, at least you are transferring profits from mixed buildings to buildings owned exclusively by capitalists.

[@MegaBanane9]

Making buildings that use tools less profitable while increasing the profits of tool workshops should also have a small positive effect, at least when using production methods that require tools on farms and such, so less profit goes to Aristocrats

[@generalistgaming]

So there's a lot to unpack here, and I couldn't really give a complete description since I wanted to keep the video relatively superficial and under 20 mins. But, yes, you're passing profitability from one building to the next. I'll try to briefly give some reasons why tools make for a good export (though, in the video, I more so just picked one). Specifically luxury clothes might've been a better example re overall strategy, but I don't feel the same way about basic clothes. Tools are a good example of a good export because (in addition to their being an input on grain and livestock as @Banane9 notes) they are inputs for the resource industries primarily, and those are some of the most efficient PMs in the early game. You really want to blast them (resource industries) as much as possible, and they can tolerate expensive tools and still be wildly profitable. Resource industries fall off slightly because EoS is harder to achieve and they don't get as good throughput bonuses, but early they are best. This resource focus, combined w/ exports, makes a huge amount of buy orders for tools, letting you specialize in it faster to push EoS bonuses early on (while building to need w/ other industries). Passing money around emphasizing tools is passing profit around, yeah, but doing it in this way allows for faster EoS capping. I think specializing and exporting tools FIRST is pretty good, but that you branch out to other capitalist goods after. I think clothes is better as a second specialization, but it's important to note that there is a key difference in that tools only creates buy orders for iron/coal/wood/steel in terms of full chain, and clothes will create buy orders for fabric/dyes/silk as well. Tools are a closed loop of capitalist goods, which you can drive demand for via construction. It's easier to control and drive up price and profitability of construction goods first, before consumer goods, because consumption is in part dependant on pops having more money from nonconsumer jobs that also decrease sell orders for consumer goods by pulling pops from sub farms. Notably, steel tools (and steel itself) are pretty engineer heavy so this specialization can also help to make the Trade Unions demarginalized earlier. Edit: Just to be clear, I think a productive clothes route is better than a non, or even less, productive tools route and that eventually exporting one style of clothes and not the other can be EXTREMELY good and that exporting clothes in general is good and my point is more about timing (because eventually you want to be exporting ALL capitalist goods if its profitable, thus the question is less of which ones, and more of which ones first).

[@Fallout3131]

@@generalistgamingI love you 🥰

[@generalistgaming]

Corrections: I DEFINITELY should have mentioned that Laissez-Faire is waaaay better than Interventionism. (Edit: the mild level but high volume of pushback I got on this in the first 8 hrs seems to indicate that maybe I should make a video on this) Minting also does not extract money from the economy.

[@frzv12]

Capitalists building AI is quite bad

[@er5269]

But the AI doesn't understand that it should build high level buildings for the economies of scale throughput bonus

[@robert61011]

Maybe for late game when you already hit the scale throughput cap.

[@Unfluffykitty]

LF makes money appear out of nowhere….early game anyway. Which makes up for the AI building art academies. By the time your GDP is high enough that LF actually starts hurting you, the trade unions will be strong enough to install interventionism/cooperative ownership. Then you can fix the weird stuff capitalists build. Until then it’s net positive.

[@Unfluffykitty]

It’s a little harder to to LF these days though in select countries. USA has beefed up rural folk which will block it and corn law nerf makes it hard on undeveloped nations. Also been getting a lot of protectionist industrialists so I don’t know if that’s coincidence or a feature.

[@Imthefake]

one way i like to decide what to build is to look at the buildings tab and look what buildings make the most money

[@wow9279]

No but honestly, why isn't this optimal?

[@James_brandon1994]

​@@wow9279because it reduces the price of what is produced.

[@wow9279]

@@James_brandon1994 So you should only build things that are super expensive? What about buildings that produce construction goods? Should you try and get construction goods really cheap or should they also be middling in price? Are there products that you do want to be really expensive?

[@sealandbaron9447]

thank you! this was a genuinely useful video. a lot of these "hidden" mechanics make sense when you explained them in detail with examples and having them explained helped with a general understanding of a game

[@joestead346]

Thanks for this video, it is very useful! Regarding the use of taxes and consumption taxes in order to stimulate economic growth, at what point is this no longer viable? When do the benefits of a more happy population outweigh the negatives of not being able to build as much?

[@generalistgaming]

I don't have a hard and fast rule, but I think there are five inflection points that are important: First, IG approval ratings. If you've just demarginalized the Trade Unions, or are getting stuck at +9 w/ the industrialists (and to a lesser extent intelligentsia) then decreasing taxes to try and hit bonus break points is reasonable. I don't micro this that hard, but I think it's "correct." Legitimacy tier - it's almost always worth dropping taxes one notch if it bumps you up a legitimacy tier. Proportional and graduated taxation, and also approaching 800m GDP, represent points in the game where you become more GDP rather than IPT/balance oriented. Taxes lower GDP, so you get proportionally less money out of them when you raise them as a greater portion of your income becomes tied to GDP. Unemployment - eventually, after building out a lot of sub farms, massive unemployment can be a bit of a problem. Super low taxes increases the amount of pops that can get employed in borderline buildings, and a situation where they're employed because taxes are low is preferable to paying out welfare or w/e. Migration/SoL is also a concern, but that is pretty high variance in regards to when it becomes important. It's uncomfortable, but the moment you run out of peasants might be a good time to start dropping taxes, but you'll have to deal w/ decreased revenue from that and increased expenses from the normal wage shooting up simultaneously.

[@Kastratore]

Great guides, they really helped me understand game mechanics.

[@generalistgaming]

Glad I could help!

[@Koaligula]

Man this 20 minutes long (short) explanation's awesome Gen', thanks

[@Vix550]

Thank you for the guide. Are you planning (or do you have) any tips for superweak powers start? I.e. >100 place on the start of the game

[@generalistgaming]

Generally getting into a market early is soon, and I'm planning a playing in someone's market vid.

[@coffee_4437]

I think there are some good "rules of thumb" here, but like with everything, there are exceptions and more variables that can change how you approach things. For example, I love exporting grain. Building grain farms and keeping them profitable is a great way to establish a baseline for the poor to start getting their standard of living up. And while this creates market conditions that might encourage more aristocrats, it also creates more shopkeepers and/or capitalists. Partially because having more farms means more industry to support farms [tools/steel/fertilizer/iron/coal/sulfur], and partially because the trade center is going to employ capitalist or shopkeeper pops, depending on your trade law. I'm not sure if this was the case at the time this video came out, but the fact land reform and the option to implement homesteading has made expanding farms even more favorable to me. By implementing homesteading and giving 50% ownership of farms to farmers, you can establish a middle class decades before you can implement policies like minimum wage, graduated taxation, or cooperative ownership. Not to mention that I find the rural folk are a usual faction in lots of situations. They are a great alternative to landowners if I'm trying to maintain a more conservative playthrough, or they can spawn in anarchists if I want to go socialist. TL:DR; Building farms is great. They are cheap to build, greatly contribute to standard of living, and with the addition of homesteading they are the fast track to establishing a middle class which can buy all your other products. Don't be afraid of a few extra aristocrats, the industry and trade facilitated around them will render them obsolete regardless.

[@delphidelion]

The question I want to see covered is when it is best to focus on centralizing buildings that the ai has sprayed all over the place? I find myself being restricted by the ai using up all my workforce.

[@generalistgaming]

Kind of always, tbh. Finding buildings in the 30s and expanding them to 51 is almost always good. The running out of workforce though is a bit of a separate problem, but if you over construct buildings then they will just compete for employment and employ pops in a fairly efficient way anyway.

[@wscheets1600]

Interventionism is important for that. Being able to downsize buildings in states that aren't your 50 economy of scale helps. As you are competing with your own states and hurting your throughput. Interventism allows you to downside private buildings which is very nice early on. Late game normally, if great power. The odd 1 or 2 level buildings being unemployed because they aren't nearly as profitable as the 50 level with economy of scale, aren't as devastating as you have rediculous surplus as it is so you can switch off Interventionism if you want. But early on, it's important. Especially if they building things you don't want in those states. Like nothing worse then them building buildings that will never have qualifications or wage to employ workers. Also downsizing construction centers is key. I like to build max run deficit, then when it's time to return to positive (be a war I want to do or increase of government wage spending on barracks/naval/university/government administration) you delete them. Or if switching production methods from wood to iron to steel to arc. You may need to delete con centers because you can't sustain the increased cost of goods.

[@SmithsMuseum]

this man took economics 101

[@generalistgaming]

I did, in fact, take econ 101

[@richard1493]

Vickynomics

[@santiagobarreto9357]

the fuck? it's a sausage?? i thought the groceries icon was a donut, LOL!

[@generalistgaming]

I thought it was a croissant. We were both lied to (by our eyes)

[@dftp]

Please stop selling your populace donuts made out of meat and fish!

[@HungerFull]

Is there any way to play with a minor nation without entering in a market? Like with Argentina instead of entering in the british, spanish or french market, idk, building convoys and certain demanded goods and dedicate to trading

[@jamesstei1853]

"Chasing some tail in the Spanish Market"

[@Enigma457]

I'm still a little confused - I understand that you don't want to be hoarding gold all the time, but when I maintain a negative balance for a while I generally end up swimming in debt and defaulting. Is there some quick, reliable way to get back to a positive balance after being in the red for a while? Also, giving the capitalists a lot of money might be good for the economy, but doesn't it also give them a lot of political power too? What if you want to do reforms and stuff that the capitalists would be against?

[@generalistgaming]

So the context is suuuper important. You can deficit spend a little as a major power, a medium amount as a major w/ LF (Laissez Faire) or a GP, or a ton as a GP w/ LF. You never want to run a deficit as an unrecognized power. To clear the deficit, it's ideal if you have a big IP (investment pool) and just let private construction take over and not fill the queue as much yourself. The IP will only take over if it can build super profitable buildings, so this is generally only possible in the early game/sub 800m GDP. Otherwise I think slowly deleting construction centers (or unis first) is a good way to go. Taxes should probably already be maxed anyway. Notably, if you run out of peasants this can cause a big spike in wage costs for the gov as the normal wage rises, so proactively making sure you have a big labor pool is important too. Eventually profit margins diminish and they lose power, but increasing literacy/education is a really good way to bring the Trade Unions up. I think I have a video on specifically empowering the trade unions around here somewhere.

[@thenear1send]

You didnt talk about managing government expenses. Maybe you have a video on that I haven't seen yet. Im new to the game, starting to figure it out, havent been able to get the snowball taking off. I had a debt spiral my last game, and before it was too late noticed I had overexpanded my bureaucracy. I havent deleted buildings before because I figured the economy will eventually grow into them, but maybe the heuristic is to not maintain a positive balance on bureaucracy of more than 100 or so. This gets tricky when you do a lot of conquest and if you try to incorporate states. I had assumed a positive cost-benefit to incorportation. Im also trying to max out most institutions, at a decent bureaucracy cost. Is that plain wrong to do? The benefits seem pretty great (SoL increase from medicine, etc.).

[@OrangeNash]

The biggest economic mistake I made with Victoria 3 was buying it.

[@WhoAmIHmmm]

That's why I used piracy lol

[@Ninjasty47]

I literally clicked on the video just so i can write that lol

[@wertywerrtyson5529]

I used to love Vicky 1 and 2. Is this worse or do you guys just find it too complicated? I remember when I first played Victoria 1 how intimidating it was.

[@Ninjasty47]

@wertywerrtyson5529 Complicated? Quite the opposite, the game is so simplified and shallow it could be a mobile game.

[@Kriegseule]

Haha

[@jachthejoke3589]

One good video you could make, should it be relevant, is how unprofitable but preferred trades affect the Trade Center buildings. With Free Trade, this building is capitalist owned. Where would the threshold be for profitable/beneficial goods owned by Aristocrats?

[@generalistgaming]

I think the problem is that the short term tradeoff will affect your autoqueue - if you increase the price of grain, your queue will want to build more of it. If you increase the price in another country, that other country will build more of it. I think there is an argument that best practice would be initially trading it (let's say Portugal w/ dyes and UK w/ grain) and then paying very close attention to price and pulling back on the trades before a marginal building would be super profitable. But eventually, w/ a management that is going towards capitalist, you won't be able to export the arable goods throughout much of the early/mid game.

[@pstat]

Very valuable analysis, thanks!

[@Toumahitoedits]

I just hope that Paradox Devs make more best DLC's for Victoria 3!

[@muksimulmaad7413]

you WHAT!?!?!

[@nerdlingeeksly5192]

Even though the interest is very low for Britain due to them being #1, I still don't go into debt simply because any interest paid is revenue thrown into the void. I simply stop building once my reserves get low and get laissez-faire, the private sector can build while I rebuild my reserves.

[@generalistgaming]

It doesn't go to the void. It gets paid out to your ownership class, and they spend it on consumer goods.

[@nerdlingeeksly5192]

@@generalistgaming I thought your credit came from the games version of the IMF?

[@Kyrrim]

​@@nerdlingeeksly5192 IMF didnt exist until 1944.

[@Thunder103093]

do you have guides that work for unreconized? cause most guides i see tell me to play them like the gps when it comes to construction which is just unaffordable.

[@generalistgaming]

The strategy is pretty similar, but you just can't run any line of credit really, and so you have to be pretty aggressive about deleting construction centers while you try and keep your credit/balance between -10%/10% or so.

[@Thunder103093]

@@generalistgaming im doing a game as Korea after playing Japan & im trying a idea where after i got some stockpile, i built 5 extra construction & let my capitalist waste their money building stuff, it seemed to work for a few years until they ran out of money & no can only build 1-2 things at a time instead of the 5-6 they were doing so rip me, cause i can't afford building all that myself

[@jonbathurst4936]

This game is brilliant it hurts to see people talk shit about it

[@wscheets1600]

question, on super endgame, when i have 10k construction(amount i find that doesnt make game too slow, and still will be better than ai by a ton) im getting all my goods super cheap, because im just trying to keep con filled, its inevitiable that everything becomes super cheap. is there any specific trinity of items i should keep at high cost by microing the states with them to not produce the luxury item, in order to increase cost? do i need to focus more on increasing population, so that i have enough consumers? also, how do i keep up with oil demand? i feel like i conquer all oil places including whaling stations but still end up with not enough, i end up switching back to condensing pumps to save oil. i havent changed plastics because that production too much glass to oil imo, like it barely uses any even on several hundred glassworks, only 5/1 i believe which is nothing compared to the 186k demand lol

[@generalistgaming]

I don't think you increase cost by microing PMs because this is just killing sell orders. You want to increase demand by increasing buy orders. Unfortunately this means more gov spending. You gotta keep upping construction. Give in and feed the beast. It's not the pops, not really. You'll get depressed prices and unemployment eventually as a consequence of the IPT malus. You gotta swap to council republic and just keep blasting gov spending. Generally you only want to run oil on the PMs that absolutely require it (eg, tanks), glassworks, and food industries. Eventually, when grain prices become depressed by a combination of finally building out the agrarian stuff and rising SoL (grain is an inferior good) you can swap down the Grocers PM to use no oil, and more grain, and it will be more profitable. You can also do focus glass production to decrease the relative demand of houseware plastics or w/e it's called. Oh, and the mines PM - that's the absolute most important one to have oil for.

[@wscheets1600]

@@generalistgaming thank you for this information! Will help a ton!

[@FlyLikeATachyon]

Thank you good video have a nice day

[@wackyberry]

Such a good video!!

[@generalistgaming]

Thank you! You too!

[@BlackHawk2b]

I try to keep shopkeeper as much as possible to have a strong bourgeoisie

[@Wenkebach]

Love your vids, really help but have to listen at .75 speed and really wish there was a vic3 for dummies

[@generalistgaming]

You should see my Rap God cover

[@2912801821]

Great video. Thanks for your work

[@generalistgaming]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@Vekhh]

I have problems with developing the construction sector cause I don't wanna be on minus with my cash. When I build too much I am on minus. I also wanna say that I play minor faction, Poland and I wanna have a challange by not entering other's market. Do you have any kind of advice for me?

[@TimeDoggo]

Great video, very clear and informative!

[@generalistgaming]

Glad you enjoyed it! Also you seem like you're having a good time with the CK3 update

[@BiNumLi]

Only the taxes that are reinvested in non-productive items, e.g. military, decrease the economy. Taxes that are reinvested in government wages inject money back into the economy. So in the end taxes are not 100% a drain on the economy.

[@derekrobertson133]

Could you update your multiculturalism video? It seems almost impossible to pass it now. None of my interest groups support it

[@Sigmagnat650]

The last few patches have changed the requirements for it. You now need an agitator or IG leader with the humanist trait. That trait only starts popping up after you research Human Rights and Feminism iirc.

[@generalistgaming]

I think I want to try and struggle with it a little more, but I think the strat is to invite Anarchists/Humanitarians and then promote them to IG leader so that you can pass it. In the France run I just luck sacked a Humanitarian leader.

[@generalistgaming]

I probably won't play them again for a while - EIC is a possibility. Really want to take all USA land except for Oklahoma and have it be "Indian" territory.

[@Sigmagnat650]

I wonder if the strat for grain laws now is to scale back farms while doing exports and setting tarrifs to favoring exports so you can spike grain prices over 25%. I suppose it has the added benefit of shrinking the political power of landowners so you can get a nice surge on IG/law changes.

[@generalistgaming]

@@Sigmagnat650 I think this is one way to do it, yeah. If you have the fertilizer tech, just turning it off will also probably spike prices.

[@kfoelsch]

So keeping the good prices of what you are producing relatively high is good. How high though? +10%? +20%? What's a good heuristic for that? I would imagine early vs. midgame might be quite different.

[@maxhemmo4701]

Did some have already mentioned Construction = GDP Growth rate?

[@hey.3249]

What map mod is that?

[@kmielwezzelz]

Hi, little late maybe but you said protectionism is not optimal, but which law is? Free trade? Then it kinda feels like I’m missing out on so much money (from the tariffs)

[@generalistgaming]

Tariffs are bad - you'd rather pass value generation to you buildings in the form of improved prices

[@Aserox]

I'm not sure I understand the example - You want Groceries to be as expensive as possible in order to sell at a higher price to other nations, but selling a good that's expensive on your market is always marked as a loss for me when in the trade menu, whereas goods that are selling at low prices typically show greater profit when trading. It lowers the price in the target market, and further increases the price in your own market. Are you not just trading losing revenue for putting it into the investment pool? What am I missing here?

[@generalistgaming]

You sell (lower/middling) to increase the price to make stuff more profitable. You overproduce, and then sell to facilitate buy orders in your economy, but you don't run unprofitable routes to do so.

[@Dodo-td1pg]

Which states should I incorporate, and which should I not?

[@generalistgaming]

Generally fast incorporations you do, and then states where you know they're going to have a lot more pops later (like Bahrain, where you know there's a ton of oil). Other than that, some here and there when you're floating a TON of extra admin

[@Sonnia-dh8mr]

I still think the money is better off with the state. I would even like it if the investment fund only paid directly to the state. oh yes there is. planned economy. but then the entire upper class is missing. and in the game it's programmed in such a way that demand increases exponentially with prosperity. therefore only capitalists can generate the high demand needed for growth/demand. so the more capitalists the better! no question.

[@Komrad_Cybersyn]

But that's not the case though ? When going to planned or cooperative economy, the capitalists and aristocrats are fired and labourers take their place. Sure, they are less prosperous than the capitalists were for they are more numerous, but they get a bigger piece of the pie and, as such, get rucher. And you then have more "affluent" citizens on a bigger scale than if you stayed fully capitalist. I remember the average standard of living, once "cooperative ownership" was passed, jumping from 14 to 17 immediatly. And then it continued to rise steadily. As such, you become more prosperous, rendering your argument invalid. At least that's how i understand it.

[@generalistgaming]

I mean, construction is a form of injecting it back into the economy and taking it away from the state here - generally money is better in the state so the state can dump it into construction. The problem w/ Command Economy isn't the loss of demand from ownership class (if money is injected the other pops will eat more) its the negative modifier you get from GDP size - that modifier ERASES money so that nobody gets it, and instead of just erasing a portion of capitalist IPT contribution it is erasing a portion of the entire dividend pool.

[@theunkownape445]

"Overvaluing Positive Balance" is exactly what my real life government is doing

[@02Machiavelli]

I still don't understand why you want to have goods not be cheap. Cheap essential goods = better SOL?

[@generalistgaming]

It's because pop consumption doesn't exist inside a vacuum, outside of concern for buildings' profitability. A pair of absurd examples might help to illustrate this. Let's say that 100% of your buildings are producing clothes. It would be preferable that the price in the market be +75% (obviously this is impossible), because this would make all of your buildings extremely profitable. The increased money from income/dividend taxes and IPT would allow you to blast construction, and the extreme profitability of the buildings would allow them to employ infinite pops. Let's say that the price was -75% instead. You'd receive little income taxes and no dividend taxes (balance would be negative) and the buildings would not be profitable enough to employ anyone. A building's balance is determined by revenue (good price x volume sold) minus expenses. If the price is depressed, revenue goes down. If the balance is negative, the building fires pops - the pops would in turn be unemployed/return to sub farms. You'd have basically no economy. Okay, second example. Let's say you have 0% of your buildings as making clothing. It would be preferable that the price be -75%, because this would greatly increase SoL, and it would have no negative effect on your economy. Neither of these is the case, but it can be useful to think in this way to highlight the building side. If clothing is expensive you want to build Textile Mills, not because you want to improve SoL (although this is nice) but because you know the building will be extremely profitable. High prices are opportunities for extremely profitable buildings. If all prices are low, then that means you can't really profitably add buildings, and your GDP growth will slump dramatically. Back to the main sort of consideration - you know that (early) you want to be more capitalist oriented. You'd prefer to have a higher proportion of your buildings capitalist owned (ie, Textile Mills) because the IPT is better. Higher prices facilitate specialization, but specialization will pull prices down. So, you export in order to inflate buy orders in your market, driving up prices (increasing GDP/profitability, and thus allowing you to proportionately build more capitalist buildings). You want the price to be high, because you are disproportionately producing sell orders of clothes relative to other goods (like grain) - in other words you're closer to the "100% Textile Mills" scenario. Now, this doesn't mean you want ALL consumer goods expensive - just the capitalist owned ones. You want to import and depress the consumer goods produced in the agricultural sector (opium kind of being an exception, but that's too much to unpack here) and, in terms of representation, try and move them to the "0% grain production" scenario.

[@02Machiavelli]

@@generalistgaming Thanks for the in-depth response. Subbed.

[@DerFreiegedanke]

9:52 Ok you made your point but overall it's the best way of new players to determine what needs to be build. And Vici 3 is so laughable easy that even if they made the "mistake" or building based on demand hence the price, it will have little to no impact on their economic performance in a negative way.

[@Rat_8868]

L BOZO RATIO 😂😂😂😂

[@CSDragon]

what is going on with that map. why has eastern europe mingsploded?

[@alexandre588]

Question, why pick free trade over protectionism? It seems that with protectionism you can have the best of both worlds, making importing agricultural goods cheap, and exporting manufactured goods cheap too. With free trade other markets would be able to import agricultural goods from your economy and export manufactured goods to your economy. Protectionism would help prevent that.

[@Duncomrade]

I'm an old player, does that mean I can make these mistakes?

[@generalistgaming]

Yes! Or, as you get close to around 1 billion GDP, a lot of these related to being capitalist oriented will no longer really be mistakes.

[@grygry12345]

Can we print money in this game ?

[@generalistgaming]

Yeah, but you should burn it instead.

[@ChristianDall-p2j]

13:49 are you saying that tarrifing expensive good’s make Them cheaper, and tarrifing cheap goods makes Them expensive? How does terrifying expensive good’s make Them cheaper? HOW?

[@generalistgaming]

I'm saying that tariffing goods we're IMPORTING (aristocratic goods) is going to make the goods more expensive. If we didn't tariff then our trade routes would be bigger and there would be more sell orders in the market which would reduce price. The reverse is true for exports

[@dichebach]

Too much construction is not a good thing. You want the "right" amount for the size of your economy.

[@generalistgaming]

It depends on your goal, but if it's maximizing GDP then most of the time you want to max construction unless you're having pop problems

[@kagtkalem7115]

Not sure about having high prices for consumer goods. They are not supposed to be expensive so your low class pops can buy them. But obviously not too cheap so they are still profitable. Expensive staples cause radicalism. Luxury is what you want to be expensive so you can recirculate the wealth that capitalists have better.

[@dingus6317]

It's been one day in game and Austria, Prussia, Russia, and the Ottomans are all destroyed already lol

[@jachthejoke3589]

Me being a command economy enjoyer: None of this applies to me B)

[@Komrad_Cybersyn]

Command economy being the best system in victoria 2 and 3. ^^

[@generalistgaming]

@@Komrad_Cybersyn I've got some bad news for you guys...

[@jachthejoke3589]

@@generalistgaming I simply cannot trust the AI to not build 10 railways in a state with 6 people. Other than that I just don't like it when they build something else in my Economy of Scale specialized states

[@generalistgaming]

Yeah, but the GDP size malus applying to all dividends is particularly nasty and will deeply stagnate growth as you pull above 600m GDP or so. You can still blast construction pretty hard from the extra control, so I'm not sure the exact threshold that it becomes bad.

[@Komrad_Cybersyn]

@@generalistgaming i believe the maximum bonus output is at 50% thanks to planned economy so 51 buildings of the same in a state. Otherwise it stayed at 30%.

[@nusantaramapper7580]

Victoria 3 players brain: 🧠🧠

[@fabyamsalazar116]

Damn y'all hitting over 1 billion GDP regularly

[@generalistgaming]

More a question of "when" than "if"

[@connorthomas2667]

Hoi4 build more better take land go brrr ck3 Change colours make children Victoria university level socioeconomic system and learning 101

[@Anonymuskid]

For the algorithm lol

[@generalistgaming]

JUICE

[@technoincubus1736]

First economic mistake - buying this garbage of a game

[@karv9445]

Are you in a jail cell?

[@generalistgaming]

Yes.

[@ahmetsamet7428]

Can you make a guide for ottomans in new government system because its got 5x more harder to reform sick man,

[@generalistgaming]

I might have to - I've been getting a lot of requests for them.

[@Saw-th4uu]

Hi big boy love the videos,one thing i wanna ask,my private construction, is building everything, mostly not what I need in the market,is there anyways I can deal with this? They too rich , they just built 50+ power plant....🥲