How to Fix Victoria 3's Industrialization & Innovation

[@cyberrb25]

I still believe that Companies can be a factor for advancing tech. A company that makes Steel will want to research technologies that make them more productive at making Steel, and a Food company will want to make Food more productive.

[@ingni123456]

Maybe some kind of a global company ranking? (Though that has a sample size issue). A company with an effective monopoly on steel has no reason to innovate, but 2nd place definitely does

[@igoriane93]

No necesseraly. This is romanticize the system. But in reality people want to maximize profit, but invest in research to receive a POSSIBLE return in X years may not seem as profitable. So government tend to invest in it together with companies to minimize the loss of profit

[@igoriane93]

@@ingni123456 thats is also true. But, we may remember that some companies are confortable with the 2nd place as well. So we have olipolies

[@redtapecollection3363]

This could be tied to 'innovations', exactly what we had in Victoria 2. Companies have a % chance (tied to different modifiers like how much they produce, the profitability or the building level) where they could innovate different techniques/devices/whatever for bonuses. Moreover, these bonuses should stay even if you disband a company. Adding to that, it would be great if companies would be split into government owned and privately owned and the player should not have any say on what privately owned companies the pops would create. Laissez-faire should totally remove any ability of the player to create government owned companies. It's up to the market to decide what companies the nation would have and then innovate in said industries.

[@samuel.andermatt]

@@igoriane93 The thing is getting a technological edge is extremely important for profitability. Amazon will invest a lot in the technology to automatize the workforce, because it saves them money. People invest in self-driving cars, because either the are a tech company that wants to be the platform of software of future cars, or they want to sell cars that can drive themselves or they want to employ less drivers.

[@Alex-te1sn]

I really appreciate you grounding your critique of V3 in historical literature, in my opinion it is these sorts of texts, almost more than "real" history itself, which are the point of departure for a game like V3. Foregrounding history like this helps to make the historiography of V3 very clear and makes the project of game-ifying history more fun by being more responsible (and complicated)

[@theprotractor0379]

I like the broader ideas of technology and innovation coming from national focus rather than a simply the government spamming universities, although one thing this misses out on is sector-specific technological innovation. The game currently doesn't have any sort of "learning by doing" both in terms of qualifications and innovation. Research and development don't appear from thin air, people invent and discover them because they used them on the field (and this applies both to invention and actual implementation). If I have a lot of steel mills, then of course my steel industry should have higher "industriousness" and find it easier to get new PMs. Trying to integrate this into your system could be really interesting. What I've wanted for a long time was a sort of Vic2-esque "innovation" system where you could unlock sub-technologies based on how your economy was structured - so the Bessemer Process tech would have an "Acidic Bessemer Process" subtech, and every steel mill you had + the higher steel was as a % of GDP, you would gain more progress to it. With cultural values like industriousness you could honestly do this even more cleanly and organically.

[@Nopelessness]

Amazingly done, 'O bearded one! 😊 Constructive criticism based on both historical accuracy AND healthier gameplay makes for some strong arguments and was quite entertaining to listen to. Appreciated the video, friendo. Keep it up!

[@WildMarker]

One issue I see with the cost of upgrading PMs is that the entire state is on the same PM, thus for example you cannot build new mines on a newer PM until you've upgraded the old ones. it's a good idea but it really highlights the need for implementing a "split PMs" system.

[@l_ArAxus_l]

I would also suggest that upgrading pms might cost construction, not innovation. It fills more natural for me. And also building new building with higher pms should cost less then upgrading from old pm to new. And difference might be higher the later the pm Also I don't really know how easy it will be to correctly implement *edited. I just pause 1 min before generalist talk about construction cost for upgrading pms

[@noble7608]

I have to say, when you started to connect culture/state with technology I knew you cooked something, great video! Hopefully someone at paradox listens to you because it would absolutely help a ton with the problem of countries feeling same-ish. I would love to see this connected with some sort of representation of characters in your government, like what if you have x character as head of your police or military, and then some event happens related to his ideology, of course different characters could give different bonuses as a way of encouraging different sorts of playstyles, replayability & flavour. Nations could fight for these characters, also republics would have sooo much more actual representation with this.

[@sotiriosdimitriadis9442]

Keep in mind that (unless you probably covered all that in the other videos in this playlist) - Very few countries were doing "research" during the 19th century. Most technology was leased, imported, or arrived through direct foreign investment. E.g. the Ottomans, in game terms, never "researched" railways until the early 20th century - almost all railroads in the empire were commissioned to foreign companies who imported the know-how, virtually all equipment (from engines down to the rails themselves), even most of the labor. - Few countries actually industrialized in the 19th century. Even fewer countries bothered to develop heavy industry before the interwar period. They entered the global market as importers of industrial goods and exporters of agricultural crops and minerals. Industrialization, when it happened, largely focused on consumer products. And that only when the Europeans, who had been flooding their markets, put their economies to war footing in 1914. Vic 3 instead opts for a world where every country is an autarchy - or tries to be. Most countries have access to iron and/or coal at game start. Most countries build the same few industries, with global prices converging and trade remaining limited. Every time you conquer a minor power in Africa or Indonesia, you find the same understaffed small arms and artillery factories just there (and since you're probably LF, they don't go anywhere either).

[@blazeburner303]

It’s ironic that most inventions of practicality come from people with no credential integrity (university or collage) but every game treats innovation as exclusively a credential thing….

[@truedarklander]

"credential integrity" 🤨 "Collage"

[@blazeburner303]

@ exactly

[@truedarklander]

​@@blazeburner303The fuck is credential integrity, and uh, it's spelled "College. You certainly aren't a producer of innovation

[@simoncolin5939]

That's true at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution where everyone who works on the ground could learn by experience on how a steam machine works and how to improve some movements etc.. but as time passes and the innovations become more and more specific, an actual accute study of a field became more and more necessary in order to understand it, a phenomenon who kept going until this day who led to our hyperspecialized world where one person with credentials become suddenly more useless than the average dude outside of the specific field he studied.

[@simoncolin5939]

Also don't forget that the most impactful innovation since the Gutenberg press is probably the Haber-Bosch Process who shaped almost everything in the world we live in today and was done by people with credentials. Idk if your comment i's just an interesting critic in this case I agreed with your point in the early days of the IR, or if it's blatant anti intellectualism, arguing for the fact that credentials are useless while in fact there are by any means in today's world and later stage IR very important and necessary. PS : Pasteurization, penicilline and antibiotics, germ theory, vaccines, synthetic fertilizers, all were done by people with credentials and you can't say they weren't beneficial to the common man, eliminating most diseases and famines.

[@vitormuchinelli6654]

They need to add corruption as a game mechanic to victoria 3.

[@martincvikl5321]

vic 3 definetly needs to reduce sandboxiness of nations and make them more diverse

[@hunterwotruba774]

Build buildings much faster but all yields are lesser. Tech spread should be buffed and pegged directly to literacy. Innovation cap should be universities.

[@igoriane93]

Goddam, he mentioned a british marxist. Guys, this comment section will be interesting.

[@romon3989]

It's nice to find Victoria content that isn't just insufferable memes. This is Interesting stuff.

[@brandonzzz9924]

I have wanted to make an espionage mod for a while now, and I think this system would work great with it. Currently I just have GPs getting negative tech spread modifiers to simulate the historic trend of keeping tech from other GPs through IP and licensing. Historically, corporate espionage was a huge deal in this time period, with major intellectual theft dating back to the start of the Industrial Revolution and American spies drafting blueprints and schematics of English factories and equipment during the Revolutionary War. Military espionage is obviously much older and more straightforward, though I do not have nearly enough skill to add things like fog of war to make strategic espionage possible. Cultural movements like the spread of radicalism already in the game are great and could be expanded. The main idea would be that spies could infiltrate other countries' companies in order to gain boosts to the techs they use for their PM's (also companies would boost tech spread to their PM's). This could lead to diplomatic repercussions when caught, and boosting straight through short chain PM techs like mining and explosives to immediately implement a more advanced PM. This wouldn't be a big effect for most of the game, but could have a moderate impact when timed well; plus this would make use of the agitator system to be something fun to use. It would also be cool to have great scientists like Alfred Nobel developing dynamite (boosting the tech), then having a special interaction to sell the patent to other countries with the profits going to his company in Sweden. This could also allow for a cool event chain for establishing Nobel Prizes for prestige and attracting top scientists around the world. Other countries could host technological exhibitions like the World's Fair to attract Scientists (a new type of agitator). Countries that join the fair could boost techs researched by other countries and gain rewards like prestige and even ownership of buildings in other countries through their companies if the are part of the new IP diplomatic agreements with other countries, which protect international ownership of new PM's through foreign ownership in exchange for use of the PM. Countries that do not uphold international IP would be able to "steal" the tech to use freely, though at the cost of relations and potential trade sanctions. I can make about half of this work currently, though it kind of needs everything to feel good. Plus making the AI competent (yeah right, lol) at using these mechanics is really frickin tough.

[@cesaryanez3309]

Loved this kind of video

[@KalininSecuritySolutions-fz4vh]

Please add titles of the books to the description or pinned comment that you base your videos off of or think maybe we'll related to the subject of a video or nation, that would be super awesome to get reading suggestion this way cause otherwise I have to come back and run through the video where you mentioned the title😅. I know you have a reading channel too but it's good to have relevant literature sources at hand when you get interested in the subject because of a vic3 video

[@apacslol]

im so happy, that i talked with you aabout peasants on the stream. :D (cause of PMs)

[@benoithudson7235]

I feel that privately-held industries should use the best PM for their own industry, greedily. That's for realism, but also for some game reasons: on the one hand, newbies don't understand PMs, on the other, it's a lot of micromanagement, and on the gripping hand, it adds an industrial policy game goal. Namely, right now you just say "use this PM" and that's it. But now you'd need to figure out how to enable the supply chain for the new PM.

[@clmdcc]

I think construction should be a good/service that buildings and well off pops buy to maintain there Estate, as well as for construction and building conversion.

[@KatzeArtemis]

I agree with this, good criticism. it would be really fun to play china with the changes you propose. however, imo this economic system is pretty okay and fun to play already. the devs should not get distracted from fixing the main issues the game has. the things you suggest would ofc be good to have, but imo they need to focus on diploplays and WARS. *frontline-micro for example should have some more quick-buttons like "put all generals on defense". *naval invasions shouldnt be so slow, that my country ticks from 0 war-score to -100 before the invasion ends. *90% frontlines shouldnt need a year to push to the capital. *fleets shouldnt PASS(!!!) each other when they are moving. *AI-behavior prediction in diplo-plays should be (atleast more) correct. *fixed wargoals from diploplays impact wars TOO MUCH. they are more important than the war/battles/frontlines themselves!! why do i lose the intire war, if i cant siege the 5th wargoal? why cant i take the 4 OTHER wargoals? instead you just LOSE if the enemies dont have wargoals in the war. wtf? *generals dont even have stats.a defensive general enables you to use another frontline-option, which also costs more, but they arent better at DEFENDING than normie-generals... *sometimes super weird travel-times when frontlines split. *oh, and STILL teleporting units on army-delete and enemy-defeat. the employees they have that program the patches/DLCs should focus on the core issues that make people quit the game, or not even buy it at the first place, instead of reworking stuff that people are mostly okay with. yes, the economic abstractions arent really realistic and allow players to cheese, when playing e.g. china, but wars currently consist of ONLY CHEESE, as soon as coastal-warfare is involved, where the meta is to use 1 boat fleets and spam invasions on coasts that are undefended, sometimes with 50k units on 1 boat. sorry for talking about wars here, since it isnt really the topic. i just wanted to make clear, how much work there is to be done on this aspect of the game. the issues you talk about, are only realized by players, when they have a deep understanding of the game (and also a deep understanding of real-life economics). adding these features sounds easy at first, but after the implementation of these mechanics, the entire economic system needs re-balancing again. if changing production-methods costs construction for example, the production-methods themselves might have to have stronger impacts than in the current state. specialized innovation could slow down or speed up certain techs and cause less (or more) GDP-snowball. this would need lots of playtesting after implementation. If wars were okay right now, i would definitely agree that this would be a great next DLC, but we desperately need the long awaited diplo-play/war DLC, before anything else! that "war prediction screen" and mobilisation-options are a joke. wars are still 99% the same as when the game was released.

[@hound8382]

@Generalist Gaming Touching topic of innovation upkeep as a fix. Little big indie game called Songs of Syx is also kinda industrial revolution sim of single city state and innovation there is handled in a way that is similar to how trade convoys work in Vic 3 - you need innovation (convoy) to keep researched tech (trade route) active and if you want more innovation points (convoys) you need to make more unis (ports) to unlock more tech (routes) - - i think having innovation in similar system as convoys wouldmake it more interesting with some balancing like unlocked tech is cheaper to upkeep further down the tree it is ie. atmosperic engine pump is cheaper to upkeep after you unlock condensing engine and even more after diesel. ---- also what songs of syx have in tech tree is more of bonuses to production than better PM with every tech unclock - like you need to unlock 5 times flat bonus upgrade to tools production before you can unlock actual better toolshops once ie. PM (and you need to pay price of that upgrade individualy to every shop after that) and than again many times just flat bonus upgrade before another PM..

[@planespottermerijn]

Hell yeah brother

[@IcyCrab]

How has paradox not hired bro in a product owner type role

[@BlackMage11]

you had me at hobsbawm

[@MatheusMicadeiMarzo]

can you give a try in my mod? I made a mod to help playing tall possible

[@MiguelSantos-rv1tw]

What´s the name of the book?

[@generalistgaming]

Industry and Empire

[@thebestdamager7400]

Algo Stuff

[@meatharbor]

I'mma have to disagree on the historical context for the development of capitalism and industrialization in both GB specifically and Europe in general (starting at ~14th century) because this is the internet and I am both a Marxist and an insufferable pedant. And, yes. I know those are essentially the same thing. Just let me be annoying about 19th century political economy. - Conditions for the transition from the feudal to the capitalist mode of production necessitated a sufficient class of easily exploitable laborer without land of their own to fall back on. The driving of the feudal peasant from his lands (in GB, this was effected principally by the growth of enclosures and 'sheep walks': "The rapid rise of the Flemish wool manufactures, and the corresponding rise in the price of wool in England, gave the direct impulse to these evictions." - Karl Marx) created this "proletarianization" of the old peasant class, uprooting the mass of the people from their lands and placing them at the mercy of those who could justify their "property rights" (see: do the biggest violence). No longer able to produce what they needed to survive, the mass of the people had no choice but to submit to the exploitation of whoever held the means to employ them. "If the old records of euerie manour be sought... it will soon appear that in some manour seventeene, eighteene, or twentie houses are shrunk... that England was neuer less furnished with people than at the present... Of cities and townes either utterly decaied or more than a quarter or half diminished, though some one be a little increased here or there; of townes pulled downe for sheepe-walks, and no more but the lordships now standing in them... I could saie somewhat.” - William Harrison, "Description of England, prefixed to Holinshed’s Chronicles" This (along with the Reformation depriving the Church of the vast majority of it's sizable holdings, divvying them up amongst those who could afford to foist the largest wads of gold on the crown) led to the capitalist division of labor, encouraging "innovation" in the form of reducing production from something a single master and a few journeymen/apprentices would be required to do to something a far larger number of unskilled laborers could do on a much larger scale, both eliminating the need for and the power of the skilled workshops, guilds and artisans, one of the last vestiges of feudal society that had not been vanished by the rapidly developing relations of production. Displaced by the sea of -maiden- landless peasants-turned-laborers, the guilds were reduced to fashioning the literal tools for their own obsolescence until such time as their skilled work could be reduced to discrete, unskilled tasks with the assistance of the same tools and machines many of them had to produce themselves to get by. It was these masses of peasant-laborers who formed the first real "local markets," making them the predecessors of the "consumers" we still see today. Of course that's definitely not to say foreign markets didn't exist, but the integration of foreign markets wasn't really possible until after the development of a local market of proletarians capable of producing cheap goods for export while earning wages to pay for those same goods locally and fund the purchase of bulk materials from less developed/more easily exploitable foreign entities and, eventually, colonial holdings, setting the stage for the imperialist stage of capitalism. For more on that, I'd (obviously) recommend "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" by V.I. Lenin. And for my primary source for most of this: "Capital - A Critique of Political Economy - Volume I - Book One: The Process of Production of Capital, Ch. 27: Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from the Land" by Karl Marx Thank you for coming to my whatever the pedantic communist equivalent of a TED Talk would be.

[@llama878]

First

[@lordmaur180]

You played Japan latelly? It is terrible... one of the worse countryes in the game by far

[@pelayla]

he stole his ideas from gilded destiny smh

[@generalistgaming]

#notlikethis

[@dank42069]

Second

[@guahlg2834]

third

[@michawiktor9592]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y5umdomPZs95jtU# please join the challenge and make Warsaw the most populous state in the world beating Connor :D