In my experiance, i prefer to do worker coops through council republic instead of government run through command economy. I just feel that the standard of living increase from coops are better than the forced subsidies and powerful beurocrats.
I think gov run should give some of the dividends directly into your budget, it kind of makes sense and it makes it actually worth going for then Because right now worker coop is just infinitely better
you'd think that government run buildings would give their profits to the government... and not just some random government workers... at the very least, government run should have a much higer taxation rate on dividends. also seems like this whole save could boiled down to "fix your urban centers, fix your railroads"
yes, that's the problem here, it should work that way : benefits goes into the bank balance, just to allox us to pay for the losses... i guess Paradox tried to make a realistic soviet runned economy over a more viable communist one...
Because council republic is what a "soviet republic" is! People are so brainwashed with propaganda in the West that they believe anything without reading things. It's pathetic that even when you play political strategy games, people don't study the fine nuance which is kind of available in the instructions. Like you don't need a political science degree for this.
@@42ArthurDent42 if anything, simulating lacking bureaucratic capacity leading to corruption of bureaucrats in their respective industries is a much greater representation
@@42ArthurDent42 The thing is worker run would be more communist like while gov run is more state capitalism / soviet socialism like. The gov run is just not done right to be plain. The dividents need to go to the state (maybe 90%, model it by taxes?), rest may go to burocrats as corruption and losses. But you can't just give it to the burocrats as wages. That's just not how this type of economy works (and I was born in the GDR, we had this...).
It's weird that Paradox chose to tax dividends at higher rates than wages with "graduated taxation". I mean "graduated taxation" is pretty much what we have all around the world nowadays (even if the effective taxation rate actually goes down when going from the moderately rich to the super rich) but taxation on dividends is pretty much always much lower than on wages. If I take France for instance, the example I know best, the theoretical maximum taxation rate on dividends is 12.8% (but in practice it's often 0%) while the theoretical maximum taxation rate on wages (income tax only) is 45% (I don't really know what is the effective rate for the income tax alone, but I'm confident it gets above 12.8%). So Paradox's version of graduated taxation sounds like some kind of radical social-democracy, in a very tiny space between liberalism and communism. Or otherwise we might have to consider that this law only makes sense under communism (but then the concept of dividend doesn't really apply strictly speaking).
I think it is because for the most part dividends go to wealthy pops like industrialists so if you tax them more it is a reasonable way to simulate taxing higher wages more.
Now that I think about it, I've never played an autocracy game before. Like, each time I decide to play a regressive autocratic state, I somehow end up with a market socialist economy instead. So like, interventionism + council republic. The main issues that I have to deal with is that by the 1890s is, a) the entire game slowing down drastically, b) when I outgrow my economy that I outgrow available resources. Like, oil really is hard to come by to get from the AI.
which is weird, cuz even super cheap oil makes for fairly profitable buildings, so the AI should be picking up on that.... but yeah the AI basically goddamn useless at producing oil, so you have to break all immersion and consistently, and invade persia and arabia as like brazil... it doesnt make any sense to be doing that. maybe if we could get resources rights (as a war goal), or i was thinking of a system, where you could buy a single building tile in country if they consent (or not if they have laissez faire, or market access) and then your own capitalists and aristocrats would collect the dividends, and the home country would collect the tax on that.
Seems the AI is reluctant to develop new industries overall. This can even include building navy for what I have seen. Like in my Japan game where I got fed up with RNG delaying laws for decades and when in addition to Russia the usually big France decided to pop up on Sahalin, I deleted their navy, hoping it will at least remove their interest in the region, but they didn`t rebuild it at all.
If oil in your country is expensive, just start importing it from everywhere as that will drive up the price of Oil in everyone's markets which should encourage them to expand the industry. And/or play with Anbeeld's AI mod if you aren't already. I love it so much.
Weird that government run gives the money to the bureaucrats rather than mostly to the government and instead increasing the needed wages because you pay the bureaucrats as well. Could be a decent alternative such that you get a lot of money to invest into the rest of your economy rather than having those specific workers just be v. rich that gives you a portion of it. So essentially you'd get more money but less standard of living, so it would probably benefit the 5 year plan push for industrialisation and development style of playing even more.
I've noticed many people saying Communism is unreasonably good, because it works "perfectly", aka there's no corruption or inefficiency, etc. Also all Profits actually get redistributed to the people, instead of the state. But honestly the same is true for capitalism to a certain extent. Because capitalism in game gets a "perfect market", where every sell- and buy-order is considered equally by every market participant allowing them to create perfect prices.
No, the market system is flawed in that everyone gets something of every single good even if there's not enough of it - they just pay the price and have it anyway. IRL they wouldn't be able to get it so the price would still be high for those that can get it, but after the actual supply has run out, nobody else can get it. Try importing a single piece of Luxury Furniture and you'll see this in effect. It's a good system, but it doesn't run like the real thing.
Chances are when you are constructing, you are not building the EXACT same amount that you need to EXACTLY cover the needs of your economy. Once you are rich and powerful, you will probably slightly overbuild. Normally, this is not a big issue, because the building will just stop hiring when it is no longer profitable. Command economy forces you to fully staff every single building, which means that you need to plan your buildings much better. After passing it check out your largest expenses under subsidies and look at the individual buildings: you will see a lot of them are massively overproducing and so are not profitable. You will need to fix this.
@@winzyl9546 As of right now, yes. You can make it _work_ but it's never actually _better._ The reason being that all other economic laws already give you absolute planning power. To balance it, I would give it powerful throughput and economy of scale level cap bonuses, and it would also be cool to have a new "cronies" mechanic, where you can assign either individual buildings or sectors to specific IGs or people, which would make them very wealthy and loyal.
Worker coops could reduce or even remove economies of scale bonuses, because as a coop can become more difficult to manage as it grows, this might check the insane growth potential of them
@@planets9102eah if anything I’d think that worker coops should have a greater interaction with employee mortality and throughout. Perhaps something in the spirit of lowering throughout by a proportional amount but buffing against mortality.
I would say that in this specific playthrough the use of Command Economy and Worker Protections worked out because it was Russia. Doing something like this in e.g. Japan is nowhere near as simple, because the whole growth strategy in this game was "use the huge amount of oil that this land has", and not every nation is a Russia or a USA sitting on huge oil reserves. If you don't have the natural resources to balance your production then you can't get things anywhere near this even. I also saw that the institution behind the minimum wage was at a low level, which is a lot more manageable because market mechanisms mostly keep wages from going that low regardless. A fully levelled institution with this law can create an absurd amount of pressure, and the only way I found to survive clearing the "council power" journal entry was to adopt the law for this last and then immediately defund the institution. Finally, if you're not going for a dictatorship then building up the Trade Union clout (which happens naturally with prosperous co-ops) lets the Communist Party slam-dunk elections and keep a high legitimacy, flooding even a stagnant economy with loyalists.
The pressure gets especially ridiculous when you need to pay unproductive pops (read: peasants) money to make them happy because what they normally earn is way below minimum. I think w(&)e also mentioned that level 1/2 is all you need for that institution, as you pay more and get less for the other levels.
Both railways and urban centers will become incredibly unprofitable in the late-game, since both services as well as transportation tend to be massively overproduced. This means that production methods which produce more goods are less productive than older methods, since the goods they produce become far too cheap and the wages the employees demand will be much higher. You can counteract this by not using any passenger carriages for your railways and using the lowest possible settings for your urban centers except for transportation, so they will convert transportation (and a bit of wood) into services. While they will produce less services, their cost to produce them will also be far lower, while the prices for both transportation as well as services increase, making all of them profitable again. It's likely that simply making this change would have already been sufficient to salvage this disaster.
Ooh boy, this video looks interesting, it might be useful for my next game. *39 minutes and 52 seconds later* Союз нерушимый республик свободных Сплотила навеки Великая Русь. Да здравствует созданный волей народов Единый, могучий Советский Союз!
14:35 If you're going for the RP value of being a closed society (no migration in/out/within at all) then yes, it does seem rather pointless. If you're going with Migration Controls (allows internal migration) then the increased migration attraction does actually do something useful for you in that it speeds up the rate at which internal migration happens. This can be very beneficial as it moves pops around much more quickly and thus improves radicals/loyalists management.
19:55 You do have to be careful with basing your income on the dividends taxes as at some point you may reach market saturation and then the profits of your factories collapses and suddenly your tax income also collapses.
tbh, i (as a commie) felt that the capitalist system in vic3 was abt as unintuitive as the eco in vic2 was, the communist system feels... homey, understandable and the plans actually have grip (less leeway to fuck up, greater peak efficiency) leave your preconcieved notions at the councils doorstep, rethink the economy as you now are a company of companies instead of a cog within the company of interests... well said opb, well said!
It seems as though government run should confer benefits regarding supply and cost of goods, as this would keep their inefficiencies while showing their real strength of being the best way for the state to maintain surplus capacity for significant strategic projects.
Wait, money in a government owned buildings go to bureaucrats? That doesn't make sense. Government is the owner, so government has to get the money. Bureaucrats are only hired to run it and should just get their salary for it. Also in a cooperative why would it discriminate against engineers? The tooltips only say there'll be more of bureaucrats or more workers employed, they don't say anything about who would get the money. So I've assumed in a government owned building the government would get the money and in a cooperative everyone employed would get their share. But if what you're saying is correct, then the game is even more broken than I thought.
@@monad_tcp if they want to simulate corruption they should make it its own mechanic, right now it's not a working simulation of corruption, it's a broken simulation of ownership
@@monad_tcp But how do massive global corporations run without planning? Amazon, Wal-Mart, eg, exert a massive of amount of pressure on their suppliers and control almost every aspect of their production ( believe me, I know, I work in this sector). They command that x amount of junk is produced, and it is produced. If a problem arises, they solve it. As OPB said in the video, he's turning the country into a giant corporation. The only difference is that Wal-Mart works to profit it's shareholders. The "corporation" of a communist state works to profit it's worker/owners and raise everyone's standard of living. The central planning apparatus dictates to the suppliers what needs to be made based on forecasts of demands. The suppliers in turn meet those quotas.
There is actually one more thing to consider: Worker cooperatives are actually more profitable for a building as well. This is due to two reasons 1. Laborers and Machinists actually require less wages than the small amount of capitalists employed by privately owned (More on that later) 2. Less money is allocated towards paying shares upfront because instead of the "5" shares that capitalists get by default laborers and machinists get "1" each, totaling to "2" \\\Explanation Below/// Explanation to some of the mechanics: 1. Wage calculation isn't entirely clear to me, but what I can gather from it is this: People need money to sustain their wealth. (if their weekly balance isn't zero they switch wealth levels and adjust their consumption) The money needed for each pop is averaged, then this average is set as the base wage. (You must pay base wage if you subsidise otherwise it's dynamic) Now the important part: Each profession has a "wage weight" Laborers have 1, Machinists 1.5, Engineers 3, Capitalists 6! This is basically a ratio that CANNOT be influenced, and is ever present The production method that defines worker amounts for food industry as an example has 100 capitalists at privately owned, while worker cooperative has 100 laborers and 100 machinists per level. Meaning privately owned based on wages alone is 2.4 TIMES as expensive as worker cooperative ([6x100]/[100+1.5x100]) (mind you, if you look at the whole wage situation this is a lot less impactful, but a building that is struggling to keep being profitable will flip to definitely being such) 2. Share amounts are not referenced in the game itself whatsoever, (neither are wage weights) but what they essentially seem to do, is allocate a percentage of the profits to be paid out before flowing into cash reserves. Judging by this worker cooperative is 60% less money preallocated by the building to its owners before filling its reserves. Now this simply means that a (barely) struggling building won't empty it's reserves, to then fire its pops while lowering the wage, (I'm not sure what order this happens in the current patch, but firing seemed to happen first before 1.1) Instead it will stay profitable, fill its cash reserves and THEN start paying its owners the extra. This is especially impactful for auto expansion because it will happen faster and buildings can grow larger making the goods cheaper, and employing (and thus enriching) more workers tl;dr: Worker Cooperatives are not only better for the reasons outlined in the video, but will also let your buildings be bigger while still turning a profit before market imbalance makes them unprofitable.
The flip side of this is also why I used to not change from Privately Owned to Public Trading - I figured that at some point the building would become unprofitable but if the wages for my buildings are lower because they're employing fewer rich pops then mine will remain profitable for longer. Turns out that by the time you reach this point you should basically never have a situation where this will actually hurt you.
My brother in Christ, the Russian oligarchs were a result of capitalism influencing the Union and eventually forcing the government to disband against the will of the people. I know it's hard for capitalists to understand, but communism works very well when not attacked by capitalists.
You can get Lavish pretty easily if you don't change every building from Privately Owned to Public Trading. The highest SoL I've seen was over 70 when I first started playing and didn't want to make that change.
Not related vic 3 but just wanted to ask when is the third season of your ck3 campaing going to be released. No pressure just eager to see it continue. Amazing video as always!
Hm it would be cool to have a bit more options to modify your economy laws. For example why can you not choose that worker cooperatives have to give a certain amount as investment money? Or why does all the money from a state managed industry into the pockets of bureaucrats? Is that a way to represent corruption? Or is there an historical president? I heared about the soviet apparatchiks and it makes sense to simulate that, but did they really got all the money from the industries they owned?
Well You need (both domestic & especially foreign) migration since one of the laws that the interest groups under a Communist government will support is public schools which gives You +12.5% assimilation in addition to +10% education access. This is important since pops who came from foreign lands & accepted but aren't apart of the primary culture's homeland will adopt the primary culture which allowed the pops of the primary culture to grow without the need of discrimination. That's why the Intelligentsia's +25% state migration attraction is still need it
29:55 It should be noted that you may have to micro Engine Manufactories a little as changing every single factory that produces Engines to also produce Automobiles will almost certainly cause them to become unprofitable. But that is an exception to what OPB is saying, not the rule.
I've trouble implementing communism in small nations, since i usually run out of workers very fast... For example, i tried to do something in columbia, but i'm stuck with 3 M people, with 100% employed ones, i can't build anything more... If someone do have an advice, i'll take it...
Try multiculturalism + total separation + open borders, as well as bolstering intelligentsia for propagandists and joining a pop-rich but poor market, such as the British
The one thing I really don’t get is when they switch to being communists randomly. I’ve had a few saves where standard of living was going up, the economy was strong, and all of a sudden after multiple elections in government with the industrialists the Intelligentsia randomly become communist and I can’t figure out why. If the number of radicals was going up or the standard of living for the poor was headed down, or there were lots of other communist nations I’d get it but there usually aren’t. It just happens all of a sudden and is quite strange. Communist revolutions and support popping up makes sense; having it happen without any gradual rise in support doesn’t.
Railways and urban centers are the biggest holes in budget. Them them profitable and you'll do fine. Service production goes through roof in late game so downgrade production methods. You can downgrade production methods of railways too.
The problems with games like Victoria 3 is that they have to balance important and often incompatible ideas: 1. It should be possible to play the game in different ways. Different ways of authoritarian playstyles should be possible. 2. The game should be historically accurate. 3. The game should accurately portray ideologies. Someone might want to create a authoritarian ultraconservative USA. But being very conservative has objectively had not the best track record in history. A government planned economy has shown a positive effect on building an early economy (like in the Soviet Union), but over time loose their effect compared to market economies. Similar with protectionism (used to build up Singapores industries, just to then open to the international market). That either forces developers to boost ideologies/laws artifically or make playstyle harder of even impossible.
good video as usual. it looks as though Vic2 still is better when it comes to showing the differences of both systems. laissez faire is essentially having your economy on autopilot vs. direct interventions in a socialist state. they should bring this back ASAP.
Is the massive steps of 5 years plan a command economy specific strategy or is it also the strategy for capitalist laissez-faire economy? Because if so i find it very interesting that both styles requires very different mindset of playing
Impressive. But I have a conundrum I am not sure even you can fix. My game made it so that the industrialists, intelligentsia, armed forces, rural folk AND the worker unions (not sure they are called that) - well they all made ONE PARTY! Now this party gets 90 % of votes, but it makes for illegitimate government with a score of about 15-20. The alternative is the illegitimate government of the opposition with the score of about 5-10. And I cannot even change the laws, since the government is not legit. The game cursed me. :P
Big mistake keeping taxes on very high all the game. You should never do it. Always on mid or lower taxes . - the less taxation the more money you make This happens when your pops are not taxed high they will contribute to your construction sector( forgot the word) And you build things for free . It's very powerful way to make a billion GDP with ease
If you have barely any buildings compared to population, I don't think there is much to gain from lower taxes. Although maybe the biggest offenders in this regard, China and India, also start out with terrible taxation efficiency, where a lot of taxes just go into the void. Since 1.1.2 however, I often go for rather lower taxes due to legitimacy, as almost everyone that doesn't have Beijing (+20 extra legitimacy if the head of state's interest group is in government) will have a harder time from now on.
I guess you could max out secret police, encourage PB and discourage Intelligentsia in a full on planned economy and have a ton of wealthy PB making majority of the clout. Not that they are any useful, but it's at least a way to have them be relevant
Import Oil from someone else and make sure you build up your ports on top of everything else to maintain enough convoys to bring in the incredible amount of oil that you'll need.
@@AmmonRRa only cost a few hundred thousand lives, slave labor, horrible living conditions, requiring every worker to be utterly loyal to the communist party with threat of death. stop whitewashing how absolutely horrible and bloody the soviet/Chinese communist industrializations were because you think communism is cool
@@cakecwkecake7479 STFU, no one here is talking about soviet autoritarism, and wherever they were "good or evil". Its about command economy and the inegable massive economic development it brought to the people of USSR in almost every index.
There’s no such thing as a “Soviet dictatorship” there can be no socialism without democracy. He Soviet Union was a democracy and more so than the bourgeoisie republics of the west
I was with ya on the first half. There indeed can't be socialism without democracy. Which is why the Soviet Union wasn't a democracy nor socialist. If one man can issue directives on his own initiative, what kind of democracy is that!? The premiers were little more than the head oligarchs of an oligarchy as corrupt as the capitalist ones.
@Arthur Cadeira no actually,democracy is when you either vote for the somewhat socially progressive though economically Conservative right wing party and the fascist adjacent party Both bomb the middle east
@@trompell0 If you mean speeches that Putin has held, then yes there are several ones where he talks about how the Soviet Union should be reformed. Very unfortunate...
Putin is a neo-liberal. The last thing he'd want is a communist state. If anything, all he wants is to restore the *borders* of the USSR, not the system of goverment.
To be frank, that would be ridiculously stupid. "Communism" has failed for various complex reasons. The USSR's planned economy fell behind western market economies and was hit by low oil prices. That's somewhat represented by the the cumbersome nature of government run economies in the game. Yugoslavia was largely due to ethnic/religious tensions and countless Latin American countries had their governments overthrown by the CIA (CIA dlc maybe...).
In the real world, they never tried worker co-ops. Only Yugoslavia did, and they did ok. Lenin went for command economies and declared that other types of communists were traitors, whom Stalin purged. So other countries that became communist had to follow in the USSR's footsteps or fight it or be alone and fight the anti-communist USA. This is why democratic socialists and libertarian socialists will tell you that "real communism hasnt been tried" as they usually HATE Leninists
I've seen people talk about how powerful Communism in V3 is and how terrible it is - It's actually both and neither!
Let's save this Soviet Union!
How about we don't save them and instead create a true communist state.
In my experiance, i prefer to do worker coops through council republic instead of government run through command economy. I just feel that the standard of living increase from coops are better than the forced subsidies and powerful beurocrats.
I definitely agree. Combined with anarchism it also makes great roleplay.
It's almost a joke honestly,you don't even get any benefits from command economy
and THAT is why Tito is the best and Stalin is the worst.
@@Kilitsuna taxation capacity and authority.
Kinda lays it out in the video. Command economy + council republic co-ops works.
If only Lenin and Stalin had played Victoria 3 they wouldnt have murdered the anarchists and do what they did
I think gov run should give some of the dividends directly into your budget, it kind of makes sense and it makes it actually worth going for then
Because right now worker coop is just infinitely better
Command economy only makes sense as a fascist country.
you'd think that government run buildings would give their profits to the government... and not just some random government workers... at the very least, government run should have a much higer taxation rate on dividends.
also seems like this whole save could boiled down to "fix your urban centers, fix your railroads"
yes, that's the problem here, it should work that way : benefits goes into the bank balance, just to allox us to pay for the losses...
i guess Paradox tried to make a realistic soviet runned economy over a more viable communist one...
Because council republic is what a "soviet republic" is! People are so brainwashed with propaganda in the West that they believe anything without reading things. It's pathetic that even when you play political strategy games, people don't study the fine nuance which is kind of available in the instructions. Like you don't need a political science degree for this.
@@swagatochatterjee7104 what does thiss have to do with what i was saying tho, or the other guy.
@@42ArthurDent42 if anything, simulating lacking bureaucratic capacity leading to corruption of bureaucrats in their respective industries is a much greater representation
@@42ArthurDent42 The thing is worker run would be more communist like while gov run is more state capitalism / soviet socialism like. The gov run is just not done right to be plain. The dividents need to go to the state (maybe 90%, model it by taxes?), rest may go to burocrats as corruption and losses. But you can't just give it to the burocrats as wages. That's just not how this type of economy works (and I was born in the GDR, we had this...).
It's weird that Paradox chose to tax dividends at higher rates than wages with "graduated taxation".
I mean "graduated taxation" is pretty much what we have all around the world nowadays (even if the effective taxation rate actually goes down when going from the moderately rich to the super rich) but taxation on dividends is pretty much always much lower than on wages.
If I take France for instance, the example I know best, the theoretical maximum taxation rate on dividends is 12.8% (but in practice it's often 0%) while the theoretical maximum taxation rate on wages (income tax only) is 45% (I don't really know what is the effective rate for the income tax alone, but I'm confident it gets above 12.8%).
So Paradox's version of graduated taxation sounds like some kind of radical social-democracy, in a very tiny space between liberalism and communism. Or otherwise we might have to consider that this law only makes sense under communism (but then the concept of dividend doesn't really apply strictly speaking).
I think it is because for the most part dividends go to wealthy pops like industrialists so if you tax them more it is a reasonable way to simulate taxing higher wages more.
Now that I think about it, I've never played an autocracy game before.
Like, each time I decide to play a regressive autocratic state, I somehow end up with a market socialist economy instead.
So like, interventionism + council republic.
The main issues that I have to deal with is that by the 1890s is, a) the entire game slowing down drastically, b) when I outgrow my economy that I outgrow available resources. Like, oil really is hard to come by to get from the AI.
which is weird, cuz even super cheap oil makes for fairly profitable buildings, so the AI should be picking up on that.... but yeah the AI basically goddamn useless at producing oil, so you have to break all immersion and consistently, and invade persia and arabia as like brazil... it doesnt make any sense to be doing that.
maybe if we could get resources rights (as a war goal), or i was thinking of a system, where you could buy a single building tile in country if they consent (or not if they have laissez faire, or market access) and then your own capitalists and aristocrats would collect the dividends, and the home country would collect the tax on that.
Seems the AI is reluctant to develop new industries overall. This can even include building navy for what I have seen. Like in my Japan game where I got fed up with RNG delaying laws for decades and when in addition to Russia the usually big France decided to pop up on Sahalin, I deleted their navy, hoping it will at least remove their interest in the region, but they didn`t rebuild it at all.
If oil in your country is expensive, just start importing it from everywhere as that will drive up the price of Oil in everyone's markets which should encourage them to expand the industry.
And/or play with Anbeeld's AI mod if you aren't already. I love it so much.
How to play autocracy but got high migrations
Weird that government run gives the money to the bureaucrats rather than mostly to the government and instead increasing the needed wages because you pay the bureaucrats as well. Could be a decent alternative such that you get a lot of money to invest into the rest of your economy rather than having those specific workers just be v. rich that gives you a portion of it.
So essentially you'd get more money but less standard of living, so it would probably benefit the 5 year plan push for industrialisation and development style of playing even more.
Corruption perhaps.
Something like 90% dividends tax could work
And we chalk up to corruption the remainder, which is taken by the bureaucrats
@@andresmartinezramos7513 Yeah government run should absolutely have bureacrats skim off the top, but the state not seeing the majority is just weird.
I've noticed many people saying Communism is unreasonably good, because it works "perfectly", aka there's no corruption or inefficiency, etc. Also all Profits actually get redistributed to the people, instead of the state.
But honestly the same is true for capitalism to a certain extent. Because capitalism in game gets a "perfect market", where every sell- and buy-order is considered equally by every market participant allowing them to create perfect prices.
No, the market system is flawed in that everyone gets something of every single good even if there's not enough of it - they just pay the price and have it anyway. IRL they wouldn't be able to get it so the price would still be high for those that can get it, but after the actual supply has run out, nobody else can get it. Try importing a single piece of Luxury Furniture and you'll see this in effect. It's a good system, but it doesn't run like the real thing.
Chances are when you are constructing, you are not building the EXACT same amount that you need to EXACTLY cover the needs of your economy. Once you are rich and powerful, you will probably slightly overbuild. Normally, this is not a big issue, because the building will just stop hiring when it is no longer profitable.
Command economy forces you to fully staff every single building, which means that you need to plan your buildings much better. After passing it check out your largest expenses under subsidies and look at the individual buildings: you will see a lot of them are massively overproducing and so are not profitable. You will need to fix this.
So command economy is basically just extra unnecessary micro.
@@winzyl9546 As of right now, yes. You can make it _work_ but it's never actually _better._ The reason being that all other economic laws already give you absolute planning power.
To balance it, I would give it powerful throughput and economy of scale level cap bonuses, and it would also be cool to have a new "cronies" mechanic, where you can assign either individual buildings or sectors to specific IGs or people, which would make them very wealthy and loyal.
Roleplays the Soviet Union.
> Administrative Clergy
Worker coops could reduce or even remove economies of scale bonuses, because as a coop can become more difficult to manage as it grows, this might check the insane growth potential of them
Well irl coops can and often do have elected managers so that wouldn't be very realistic. It could work as a balancing mechanic tho.
@@planets9102eah if anything I’d think that worker coops should have a greater interaction with employee mortality and throughout. Perhaps something in the spirit of lowering throughout by a proportional amount but buffing against mortality.
-So I have this run that is going poorly…
-OPB: Declare bankruptcy
Yes, but what OPB was saying was that staying in default was the actual problem, not declaring bankruptcy.
The economy dominated by a small nomenclatura of bureaucrats? To be honest our USSR had definitely a governement run economy ^^
Siberian oil in a less than 1 bil GDP economy is like Chad's protein shakes
I would say that in this specific playthrough the use of Command Economy and Worker Protections worked out because it was Russia. Doing something like this in e.g. Japan is nowhere near as simple, because the whole growth strategy in this game was "use the huge amount of oil that this land has", and not every nation is a Russia or a USA sitting on huge oil reserves. If you don't have the natural resources to balance your production then you can't get things anywhere near this even.
I also saw that the institution behind the minimum wage was at a low level, which is a lot more manageable because market mechanisms mostly keep wages from going that low regardless. A fully levelled institution with this law can create an absurd amount of pressure, and the only way I found to survive clearing the "council power" journal entry was to adopt the law for this last and then immediately defund the institution.
Finally, if you're not going for a dictatorship then building up the Trade Union clout (which happens naturally with prosperous co-ops) lets the Communist Party slam-dunk elections and keep a high legitimacy, flooding even a stagnant economy with loyalists.
The pressure gets especially ridiculous when you need to pay unproductive pops (read: peasants) money to make them happy because what they normally earn is way below minimum. I think w(&)e also mentioned that level 1/2 is all you need for that institution, as you pay more and get less for the other levels.
Have you seen Spiffing Brit's Communism gameplay?
Both railways and urban centers will become incredibly unprofitable in the late-game, since both services as well as transportation tend to be massively overproduced. This means that production methods which produce more goods are less productive than older methods, since the goods they produce become far too cheap and the wages the employees demand will be much higher. You can counteract this by not using any passenger carriages for your railways and using the lowest possible settings for your urban centers except for transportation, so they will convert transportation (and a bit of wood) into services. While they will produce less services, their cost to produce them will also be far lower, while the prices for both transportation as well as services increase, making all of them profitable again. It's likely that simply making this change would have already been sufficient to salvage this disaster.
Ooh boy, this video looks interesting, it might be useful for my next game.
*39 minutes and 52 seconds later*
Союз нерушимый республик свободных
Сплотила навеки Великая Русь.
Да здравствует созданный волей народов
Единый, могучий Советский Союз!
14:35 If you're going for the RP value of being a closed society (no migration in/out/within at all) then yes, it does seem rather pointless. If you're going with Migration Controls (allows internal migration) then the increased migration attraction does actually do something useful for you in that it speeds up the rate at which internal migration happens. This can be very beneficial as it moves pops around much more quickly and thus improves radicals/loyalists management.
19:55 You do have to be careful with basing your income on the dividends taxes as at some point you may reach market saturation and then the profits of your factories collapses and suddenly your tax income also collapses.
tbh, i (as a commie) felt that the capitalist system in vic3 was abt as unintuitive as the eco in vic2 was, the communist system feels... homey, understandable and the plans actually have grip (less leeway to fuck up, greater peak efficiency)
leave your preconcieved notions at the councils doorstep, rethink the economy as you now are a company of companies instead of a cog within the company of interests... well said opb, well said!
How’s middle school going for you?
It seems as though government run should confer benefits regarding supply and cost of goods, as this would keep their inefficiencies while showing their real strength of being the best way for the state to maintain surplus capacity for significant strategic projects.
With China and going communist you can get to 8billion GDP with like 1.2 billion pops.
Vorwärts und nicht vergessen,
Worin unsere Stärke besteht!
Beim Hungern und beim Essen,
Vorwärts und nie vergessen: die Solidarität!
Wait, money in a government owned buildings go to bureaucrats? That doesn't make sense. Government is the owner, so government has to get the money. Bureaucrats are only hired to run it and should just get their salary for it.
Also in a cooperative why would it discriminate against engineers?
The tooltips only say there'll be more of bureaucrats or more workers employed, they don't say anything about who would get the money. So I've assumed in a government owned building the government would get the money and in a cooperative everyone employed would get their share. But if what you're saying is correct, then the game is even more broken than I thought.
@Luiz or,and hear me out on this one,this game is not an accurate reflection of reality and instead is build with capitalist ideology in mind
@@monad_tcp if they want to simulate corruption they should make it its own mechanic, right now it's not a working simulation of corruption, it's a broken simulation of ownership
@@monad_tcp But how do massive global corporations run without planning? Amazon, Wal-Mart, eg, exert a massive of amount of pressure on their suppliers and control almost every aspect of their production ( believe me, I know, I work in this sector). They command that x amount of junk is produced, and it is produced. If a problem arises, they solve it. As OPB said in the video, he's turning the country into a giant corporation. The only difference is that Wal-Mart works to profit it's shareholders. The "corporation" of a communist state works to profit it's worker/owners and raise everyone's standard of living. The central planning apparatus dictates to the suppliers what needs to be made based on forecasts of demands. The suppliers in turn meet those quotas.
@@HanakoSeishin There is something of an art by adding corruption to your game without calling it corruption.
I’d like to see a Hoi4 mod based on this save game at the start.
Hey, we have market stalls here still today! Clearly the superior workmode🗿🍷
Based Communism, as always
There is actually one more thing to consider: Worker cooperatives are actually more profitable for a building as well. This is due to two reasons
1. Laborers and Machinists actually require less wages than the small amount of capitalists employed by privately owned (More on that later)
2. Less money is allocated towards paying shares upfront because instead of the "5" shares that capitalists get by default laborers and machinists get "1" each, totaling to "2"
\\\Explanation Below///
Explanation to some of the mechanics:
1. Wage calculation isn't entirely clear to me, but what I can gather from it is this: People need money to sustain their wealth. (if their weekly balance isn't zero they switch wealth levels and adjust their consumption) The money needed for each pop is averaged, then this average is set as the base wage. (You must pay base wage if you subsidise otherwise it's dynamic)
Now the important part: Each profession has a "wage weight" Laborers have 1, Machinists 1.5, Engineers 3, Capitalists 6! This is basically a ratio that CANNOT be influenced, and is ever present
The production method that defines worker amounts for food industry as an example has 100 capitalists at privately owned, while worker cooperative has 100 laborers and 100 machinists per level. Meaning privately owned based on wages alone is 2.4 TIMES as expensive as worker cooperative ([6x100]/[100+1.5x100])
(mind you, if you look at the whole wage situation this is a lot less impactful, but a building that is struggling to keep being profitable will flip to definitely being such)
2. Share amounts are not referenced in the game itself whatsoever, (neither are wage weights) but what they essentially seem to do, is allocate a percentage of the profits to be paid out before flowing into cash reserves. Judging by this worker cooperative is 60% less money preallocated by the building to its owners before filling its reserves.
Now this simply means that a (barely) struggling building won't empty it's reserves, to then fire its pops while lowering the wage, (I'm not sure what order this happens in the current patch, but firing seemed to happen first before 1.1) Instead it will stay profitable, fill its cash reserves and THEN start paying its owners the extra.
This is especially impactful for auto expansion because it will happen faster and buildings can grow larger making the goods cheaper, and employing (and thus enriching) more workers
tl;dr: Worker Cooperatives are not only better for the reasons outlined in the video, but will also let your buildings be bigger while still turning a profit before market imbalance makes them unprofitable.
The flip side of this is also why I used to not change from Privately Owned to Public Trading - I figured that at some point the building would become unprofitable but if the wages for my buildings are lower because they're employing fewer rich pops then mine will remain profitable for longer.
Turns out that by the time you reach this point you should basically never have a situation where this will actually hurt you.
My guy was really roleplaying. He created Russian oligarchs like 60 years early.
My brother in Christ, the Russian oligarchs were a result of capitalism influencing the Union and eventually forcing the government to disband against the will of the people.
I know it's hard for capitalists to understand, but communism works very well when not attacked by capitalists.
That's the first time I see a lavish level of SoL in Vic3.
You can get Lavish pretty easily if you don't change every building from Privately Owned to Public Trading. The highest SoL I've seen was over 70 when I first started playing and didn't want to make that change.
Not related vic 3 but just wanted to ask when is the third season of your ck3 campaing going to be released. No pressure just eager to see it continue. Amazing video as always!
Yeah same, it is my favourite series on yt
The economy is fine but something like constant sabotage from capitalist nations would be a good balancing factor
Hm it would be cool to have a bit more options to modify your economy laws. For example why can you not choose that worker cooperatives have to give a certain amount as investment money? Or why does all the money from a state managed industry into the pockets of bureaucrats? Is that a way to represent corruption? Or is there an historical president? I heared about the soviet apparatchiks and it makes sense to simulate that, but did they really got all the money from the industries they owned?
Well You need (both domestic & especially foreign) migration since one of the laws that the interest groups under a Communist government will support is public schools which gives You +12.5% assimilation in addition to +10% education access. This is important since pops who came from foreign lands & accepted but aren't apart of the primary culture's homeland will adopt the primary culture which allowed the pops of the primary culture to grow without the need of discrimination. That's why the Intelligentsia's +25% state migration attraction is still need it
Your knowledge of this game is just fascinating.
The issue is 377mln gdp in 1928... It doesn't matter if you go command economy or not, that is a disaster economy to begin with...
29:55 It should be noted that you may have to micro Engine Manufactories a little as changing every single factory that produces Engines to also produce Automobiles will almost certainly cause them to become unprofitable. But that is an exception to what OPB is saying, not the rule.
I love how in-depth you go, really helps me get better at the game.
I've trouble implementing communism in small nations, since i usually run out of workers very fast...
For example, i tried to do something in columbia, but i'm stuck with 3 M people, with 100% employed ones, i can't build anything more...
If someone do have an advice, i'll take it...
Try multiculturalism + total separation + open borders, as well as bolstering intelligentsia for propagandists and joining a pop-rich but poor market, such as the British
The one thing I really don’t get is when they switch to being communists randomly. I’ve had a few saves where standard of living was going up, the economy was strong, and all of a sudden after multiple elections in government with the industrialists the Intelligentsia randomly become communist and I can’t figure out why. If the number of radicals was going up or the standard of living for the poor was headed down, or there were lots of other communist nations I’d get it but there usually aren’t. It just happens all of a sudden and is quite strange. Communist revolutions and support popping up makes sense; having it happen without any gradual rise in support doesn’t.
This game made me realize I'm dumb af that i can't understand wtf is going on :D
Just don't go for Planned Economy then and you'll be fine.
6:27 we guarantee you liberty to keep your mouth shut and do as party says
Railways and urban centers are the biggest holes in budget. Them them profitable and you'll do fine. Service production goes through roof in late game so downgrade production methods. You can downgrade production methods of railways too.
Bro explains why the soviet's economy is collapsing and have an alternative. Truly a great economist.
Thank you! I've been struggling with this exact experience!
The problems with games like Victoria 3 is that they have to balance important and often incompatible ideas:
1. It should be possible to play the game in different ways. Different ways of authoritarian playstyles should be possible.
2. The game should be historically accurate.
3. The game should accurately portray ideologies.
Someone might want to create a authoritarian ultraconservative USA. But being very conservative has objectively had not the best track record in history. A government planned economy has shown a positive effect on building an early economy (like in the Soviet Union), but over time loose their effect compared to market economies. Similar with protectionism (used to build up Singapores industries, just to then open to the international market).
That either forces developers to boost ideologies/laws artifically or make playstyle harder of even impossible.
good video as usual. it looks as though Vic2 still is better when it comes to showing the differences of both systems. laissez faire is essentially having your economy on autopilot vs. direct interventions in a socialist state. they should bring this back ASAP.
Is the massive steps of 5 years plan a command economy specific strategy or is it also the strategy for capitalist laissez-faire economy? Because if so i find it very interesting that both styles requires very different mindset of playing
Impressive. But I have a conundrum I am not sure even you can fix. My game made it so that the industrialists, intelligentsia, armed forces, rural folk AND the worker unions (not sure they are called that) - well they all made ONE PARTY! Now this party gets 90 % of votes, but it makes for illegitimate government with a score of about 15-20. The alternative is the illegitimate government of the opposition with the score of about 5-10. And I cannot even change the laws, since the government is not legit. The game cursed me. :P
Just keep building more stuff and eventually one of those IGs will change their leader ideology and the party will collapse.
"They have no idea how to deal with it and weren't prepared at all"
Don't worry Chad, neither did the communists lmao
His majesty's economy
Big mistake keeping taxes on very high all the game.
You should never do it. Always on mid or lower taxes .
- the less taxation the more money you make
This happens when your pops are not taxed high they will contribute to your construction sector( forgot the word)
And you build things for free . It's very powerful way to make a billion GDP with ease
If you have barely any buildings compared to population, I don't think there is much to gain from lower taxes.
Although maybe the biggest offenders in this regard, China and India, also start out with terrible taxation efficiency, where a lot of taxes just go into the void.
Since 1.1.2 however, I often go for rather lower taxes due to legitimacy, as almost everyone that doesn't have Beijing (+20 extra legitimacy if the head of state's interest group is in government) will have a harder time from now on.
That's a thick Soviet Onion 🧅
1.2 changed everything right?
I guess you could max out secret police, encourage PB and discourage Intelligentsia in a full on planned economy and have a ton of wealthy PB making majority of the clout. Not that they are any useful, but it's at least a way to have them be relevant
Doesn't separating church and state increase migration?
It increases migration from other countries into your own, but he already had Closed Borders so migration wasn't allowed anyway.
Every single Communist Run I’ve seen in Victoria 3 is just *THICC **_____*
38:34-38:49 This feels like what the US is doing in real life. But they can’t possibly keep it up forever, can they?
Governments can keep their scams going almost ad infinitum unfortunately.
why does this look like ludis recent comunist russia campain?
incredible video
What if you are playing a country without its own oilfields?
Import Oil from someone else and make sure you build up your ports on top of everything else to maintain enough convoys to bring in the incredible amount of oil that you'll need.
Communism should be OP but it shouldn't be so easy to get to
Whats the difference, its all the same gameplay anyway, just depends on you
great video ! i learned a lot !
Thanks
chad = Ludy i belive
"No one is prepared for how to handle the Command Economy" Yeah neither was the real Soviet Union...
They industrialized in 10 years though
Sure bro, they got transformed from a medieval state into the 2nd world super power
@@AmmonRRa only cost a few hundred thousand lives, slave labor, horrible living conditions, requiring every worker to be utterly loyal to the communist party with threat of death.
stop whitewashing how absolutely horrible and bloody the soviet/Chinese communist industrializations were because you think communism is cool
@@cakecwkecake7479 STFU, no one here is talking about soviet autoritarism, and wherever they were "good or evil". Its about command economy and the inegable massive economic development it brought to the people of USSR in almost every index.
@@AmmonRRa ... and collapsed from an oil crisis, lol
another fantastic video
wow, thatțs a cursed Romania
Hello comrade
Not the right Chad btw lmao
Day 1 of asking for unifying Germany as Baden
✌️
Thank you OPB!
This guy is DEFINITELY not a roleplayer. Because a roleplayer would've let a communist dictatorship collapse.
Also would have purged all the worker councils and worker co-ops and focus on the bureaucrat elite
Ludi?
There’s no such thing as a “Soviet dictatorship” there can be no socialism without democracy. He Soviet Union was a democracy and more so than the bourgeoisie republics of the west
I was with ya on the first half. There indeed can't be socialism without democracy. Which is why the Soviet Union wasn't a democracy nor socialist. If one man can issue directives on his own initiative, what kind of democracy is that!? The premiers were little more than the head oligarchs of an oligarchy as corrupt as the capitalist ones.
@@lexingtonbrython1897 the Soviet Union literally had workers councils and free and fair election. What your saying is western propaganda
@Lexington Brython oh boy,western leftists at it again,never failing to besmirch socialist revolutions that actually managed to accomplish something
@Arthur Cadeira no actually,democracy is when you either vote for the somewhat socially progressive though economically Conservative right wing party and the fascist adjacent party
Both bomb the middle east
Man I love communism.
just dont do command economy and communism is op
worker co-operatives op
≠~ D
The theme of this video is really distasteful considering that there's an authoritarian ruler out there right now trying to remake the soviet union.
I mean... Is he really? Lol. Is there like some despot podcast where he let's everyone know?
@@trompell0 If you mean speeches that Putin has held, then yes there are several ones where he talks about how the Soviet Union should be reformed. Very unfortunate...
Putin is a neo-liberal. The last thing he'd want is a communist state.
If anything, all he wants is to restore the *borders* of the USSR, not the system of goverment.
to be frank it should just always fail as it would in the real world.
To be frank, that would be ridiculously stupid. "Communism" has failed for various complex reasons. The USSR's planned economy fell behind western market economies and was hit by low oil prices. That's somewhat represented by the the cumbersome nature of government run economies in the game. Yugoslavia was largely due to ethnic/religious tensions and countless Latin American countries had their governments overthrown by the CIA (CIA dlc maybe...).
In the real world, they never tried worker co-ops. Only Yugoslavia did, and they did ok.
Lenin went for command economies and declared that other types of communists were traitors, whom Stalin purged. So other countries that became communist had to follow in the USSR's footsteps or fight it or be alone and fight the anti-communist USA.
This is why democratic socialists and libertarian socialists will tell you that "real communism hasnt been tried" as they usually HATE Leninists
@@Rb39-ej5hh Lmfao, CIA DLC.
comunism is not sigma
A nice science fiction where communism actual worked ! 😄
It's the timeline where Lenin chose worker co-ops instead of command economy
Chad!