Having played the game for about 200 hours now, I am going to say this: The people saying that Communism is OP in the game is very much a self-report rather than a genuine take on the game.
I have had runs where I deliberately try to become Communist just for RP purposes, and I never have it work out. Either I almost get there and have a revolt to take the government back to an older Capitalist stance, or I just dont have any momentum to pull it off. Because why would my people do it? If anything, the games I have had CAPITALISM is the OP one. My people have frankly absurd standards of living, have been making tons of money, and have been living reasonable lives, and therefore are not open to radical changes in government (sometimes to the point that I cant even change minor laws because "Its fine as is").
The only way these people can get Communism probably means they are keeping their people in low conditions so they demand radical change, or they just got lucky.
Also, it probably also means they are keeping the price of products high, because other people I have seen on the forums say that Communism worked great...right up until prices started falling and their command economy crashed with it because their government lost income. I have had no such issue with Capitalist runs, and in fact have managed to get to a point where people could buy everything they wanted for reasonable prices while I still had significant export.
Haven't had Victoria 3 yet, but any time I try Communism on Tropico 3, it requires me to start a police state and deport all of my political enemies to keep the bloated welfare state afloat.
I've said it before, but it's worth repeating. The game doesn't allow for free-floating wages, so wage controls are defacto. I've nearly blown up my own economy because I forgot to manually give raises on occasion. The effort to desperately maintain universal healthcare, universal housing, and wage equality, requires me to intentionally destroy all but the most profitable industries, and have them run the entire economy. Anyone who is not profitable, needs to be removed.
This actually meant I had to bulldoze farms because farmers were way over-paid and had a cushy lifestyle compared to my oil industry, but if I did that, I'd get a revolution, so I had to round up the peasants and "deport" them first. Depopulating my island was a great idea in order to preserve the welfare state that had built up, since it was the only thing maintaining my political security. Wage equality required me to round up and kill dissidents and depopulate the island to keep my political security in check.
Victoria at least has some advantage in that regard as it does have free-floating wages (although like I said, it is currently unoptimized and due to be patched in the near future). But you as the government can institute wage controls and welfare....which I usually see as the moment people cite as their economies beginning to die, as wages get so high its virtually impossible to keep business profitable without subsides, which further eats into their profits and gold reserves.
So they have to start raising their taxes. And when that is not enough, they have to start taxing goods. And when that still isnt enough, they have to go get colonies, which pay taxes without using your institutions. And when that still isnt enough, you start looking at your neighbors to try and bring them into the fold, and....oh wait, this is all starting to sound very familiar.
Meanwhile, my Capitalist, Liberal society has profitable business, my workers are making just as much, if not more, money even without wage laws, welfare exist for a very select few of the population that deserve it (like the elderly), and even with taxes minimized I am still collecting more than I know what to do with because my Capitalist are funding everything due to their profits meaning I dont need to pay for construction. And of course, I am making a killing selling excess items for export, and importing what I lack.
Actually, I'd say it was either Cities Skylines or Democracy 3.
Cities Skylines can be pretty rough because it kind of ushers you towards a NeoLiberal Corporatist hellscape, especially with it's industries mod (where you, as the state, run entire industrial corporate colonies). Additionally, there's a lot of crazy controls over movement you have, and a lot of subtle mechanisms that make your horrific infrastructure plans profitable. This includes bulldozing all the roads and making literally everyone cycle from home to work, without anyone getting super pissed off. Or the fact that people will actively go hours out of their way to go to overly expensive parks.
Democracy 3 is a ridiculous game because of so many Neoliberal pre-suppositions. Increasing Armed Police doesn't decrease crime; it actually increases ARMED ROBBERIES. You know what increased armed robberies at a 1:1 scale? Lax gun control. Get this straight: unarmed police reduce all crime including armed robberies, but armed police and gun ownership causes them.
I got the Africa expansion to try out, and I took over some former communist, currently islamist, hellscape. In 7 years, I went from having coup threats, extreme crime, active race riots and sectarian murders, total poverty, and an AIDS crisis to: no crime, riots, sectarianism, or coups, but a continuing problem with AIDS... in Africa. Literally no crime. In 7 years, my approval rating went from 0% to... 0%. I SOLVED CRIME AND TURNED YOU INTO A MIDDLE-CLASS COUNTRY AND YOU WANT TO ASSASSINATE ME?!!
Fucking Duterte became massively popular with his "kill all the drug dealers in the street" program. Fucking Idi Aminate people and had support from at least 20% of the country!!!
Now I understand why Neo-Liberals are like "oh just let out all the criminals out!" It's because they literally can't imagine that rampant crime would effect their popularity.
On the other hand, it can be fun to go full gremlin mode and create a city in such a way that it would make your average Modernist NeoLiberal city planner want to pull his hair out (as much as the game will let you anyway).
My typical cities consist of:
Almost everywhere that can be accessed by mass transit can also be accessed by car. And any that cant will at least let you get close. And of course, the road network will not be hostile to motorist (multiple lanes, highways, good access, no reserved lanes, etc).
Extensive suburban and single-family housing for those who dont want to live in downtown apartments with the Bugmen.
Manufacturing jobs available in abundance for those who dont want to be an office drone downtown.
Power provided by reliable means, which means a mix of both "traditional" power (coal and oil), as well as reasonable renewables. This then goes out the window once Nuclear is unlocked and the grid becomes 100% nuclear.
Harsh enforcement of laws by an aggressive police force to keep the criminals in the slammer where they belong.
The main funded and endorsed universities are a Research University and a Trade School, because they are actually important.
If any of the above offends you, you can either live downtown with the Bugmen, or live in the district I dubbed the "Hippie Ghetto", where non-electric vehicles are banned, roads are hostile to motorist (take the tram you smelly Hippie!), housing is "eco-friendly", businesses are organic and social justice-minded, and its also where we dumped the Liberal Arts college. Oh, and I hope you like the additional 2% tax on your business and home for the trouble of stinking up my city, assmunch.
= literal libtard delusion simulator. The developers of that "game" are open about their left wing politics and rig their game so that unless you play it like you're AOC or Bernie, you'll fail.
I have to agree with you on this. Dealing with AIDS is the only time I got close to having any amount of popular support. Race riots, ethnic violence, and poverty were utterly rampant, but as long as I funded The Science enough, my approval went up. Nonsense.
includes bulldozing all the roads and making literally everyone cycle from home to work
I never actually played the Pete Buttigieg DLC.
Get this straight: unarmed police reduce all crime including armed robberies, but armed police and gun ownership causes them.
Guns cause crimes. What's so hard to understand? That's almost the entirety of the argument I get from anyone saying we need more gun laws. Guns kill people.
Fucking Idi Amin ate people and had support from at least 20% of the country!!!
Well... they say 20% of any population will always be cannibals. Give or take.
Yeah, the game literally has mechanisms to allow you to do that without destroying the city. It has to make everyone retarded to do it, but it does do it.
Get this straight: unarmed police reduce all crime including armed robberies, but armed police and gun ownership causes them.
They probably looked at some countries that have unarmed police, probably due to a traditional lack of armed crime, and then said "hah, these have less violence. Lack of guns must be the cause; not the effect."
This is interesting to me. I've never played a political simulator, but it sounds interesting. I've been playing Crusader Kings 3 which I'm led to believe is along those lines. I've been enjoying it which is funny because CK3 is a terrible combat game which is more along the lines of what I usually play.
Political simulators can be good, but this kind of thing is exactly why it's a problem. You actually need to have an honest understanding of politics in order for it to be fair. I wouldn't have a problem if the game said "your national political capital is weakened due to the formation of militias which may not conform with the government's demands", I get that. But you can't make a 1:1 claim that guns cause crime.
Haven't had Victoria 3 yet, but any time I try Communism on Tropico 3
I love tropico except the combat systems always suck. Tropico 6 is the current game.
I always smash the fuck out of my communist faction. I make my capitalists super happy, and shit all over the communists.
Stick their leaders and hard core followers into the Asylum to brainwash their communism away.
Drone strike their leaders and hard core followers after your Asylum is full.
Pick every choice that the communists hate and the capitalists love in terms of your government policies, which usually includes no free education or health care, you gotta pay for everything.
Build prisons and set them to Convict Labor then fill them with communists.
When you try to eliminate shacks & get everyone into cheap housing, this actually makes the communists super happy, so instead, try to focus on higher end housing and make sure higher paid citizens don't have to share housing types with the plebs.
"love it or leave it" so the commies you keep oppressing stay unhappy and emigrate.
The game doesn't allow for free-floating wages, so wage controls are defacto.
The game is literal socialism where you, El Presidente, have totalitarian control over everything. It isn't so much wage "controls" as you set the salary for the job offer. Citizens will take whatever job looks the best, so the pay grade is more of a priority slider. Critical jobs need higher pay to make sure they are filled. Less important jobs can be set to the minimum as an overflow.
I build tons of guard towers and leave them unstaffed, then when I'm attacked, I suddenly pump them up to max pay so everyone jumps into them and fights. It's an instant army. Worked great in T5 IIRC but in T6 guard towers are pretty shit.
This actually meant I had to bulldoze farms because farmers were way over-paid and had a cushy lifestyle compared to my oil industry, but if I did that, I'd get a revolution, so I had to round up the peasants and "deport" them first.
Well, farms can input into high profit supply chains, [sugar -> rum being a common early example] but in the late game its usually more efficient to have shit tons of ports and to simply import the raw materials so you can skip the farms entirely. Late game tropico economies = surrounding every square inch of your coastline with docks and importing MASSIVE amounts of raw materials, then using high profit factories to make weapons and cars and pharma and shit, then export that.
Depopulating my island was a great idea in order to preserve the welfare state that had built up, since it was the only thing maintaining my political security. Wage equality required me to round up and kill dissidents and depopulate the island to keep my political security in check.
Simply build for-profit prisons and stick all your excess population there. At one point on one of my islands I had like 12 full prisons with prison slave labor to absorb all the excess population.
Yeah, Tropico's combat is always pretty silly, but I'll deal with it as it's not the main mechanism of the game.
When you try to eliminate shacks & get everyone into cheap housing, this actually makes the communists super happy, so instead, try to focus on higher end housing and make sure higher paid citizens don't have to share housing types with the plebs.
Balancing housing out was always a difficult mechanism in the game. It needs to be close to their work, but it also needs to be cheap enough for them to live. I always kinda over-build housing because some people just don't want to pay (slightly) more money and live in a cheap nice place, and will instead demand to sleep in squalor. Making people not live in shacks is a real hassle.
The only cited one guy saying it's OP and his explanation is this:
Capitalist countries work in 3 layers. Capitalists get around 25-30 pounds pay, clerks and middle managere get around 10-20 while workers around 3-5.
After council republic enacted, a special "workers cooperative" ownership is made where the capitalists get nothing and all the excess wealth turned for the workers, making them overall richer.
Their PP (purchasing power) is used to buy more basic need,. Making higher demands.
Higher pay also make them have higher living standards, so higher immigration.
Its just so easy
Haven't played this one yet, only Vic2, can that actually be done or is he making stuff up? Or maybe he posted that just before the collapse, like you explained.
If it happened that way, it was either a glitch or they had taken some sort of deliberate action. Council Republic just makes it so that the building owners is redefined as "All employees" instead of "Private Ownership" (which can either mean Capitalist or Aristocrats depending on other laws and building type).
The way it works is that any excess profit of the building is paid as dividends to all owners, which means under a capitalist system the owners will make stupid amounts of money (which can then boost your Investment Pool for construction), but under Council Republic since everyone is the owner everyone gets a [much smaller] slice of the profits.
If I had to guess, if the Capitalist are making no money and have low standard of living, it is because they have excessive taxes on them and then have consumption taxes on the goods they buy, as well as making those goods deliberately expensive (ie: not producing or importing things like Porcelain and Luxury Clothes because "Eat the Rich!"). But since the people I see on Reddit showing off their starving Rich never show the SoL tab, I am just guessing at what they are doing since I know the mechanics.
As for the pay hikes and immigration they talked about: Immigration happens if you have a higher SoL than where they are coming from, but how fast it happens depends on what your border control policy is, so I imagine they have Open Borders (which is a policy favored by the Industrialist, by the by).
Wages is the only thing that actually matches what they are talking about, and that is only because it was unoptimized at launch to where businesses would always raise their wages when they had excess profit, until you had people making such high wages that your entire economy collapses because its literally impossible to make enough money. Which is getting changed in the upcoming patch to make it so wages only go up when businesses have to compete for workers, to make it more in line with actual IRL economics. So its an exploit that can only be used for about another week.
Having played the game for about 200 hours now, I am going to say this: The people saying that Communism is OP in the game is very much a self-report rather than a genuine take on the game.
Thank you for a real report on the game. I never played Victoria 3, but I've played other paradox games like the HoI series.
I have had runs where I deliberately try to become Communist just for RP purposes, and I never have it work out. Either I almost get there and have a revolt to take the government back to an older Capitalist stance, or I just dont have any momentum to pull it off. Because why would my people do it? If anything, the games I have had CAPITALISM is the OP one. My people have frankly absurd standards of living, have been making tons of money, and have been living reasonable lives, and therefore are not open to radical changes in government (sometimes to the point that I cant even change minor laws because "Its fine as is").
You probably have to plan for communism from the very beginning, and orient your "build" towards it from day 1, and it probably doesn't actually start to steamroll until later on once you get all the exploity parts into place.
communism killed like 10x more people than nazis did in the holocust. 7 million people versus 70million.. hell probably more. 50-100mill dead in china. another 20-50 mill dead in soviet union. then you have vietnam and cambodia..
more people than the christian vs islamic crusades that lasted a few hundred years.
"I hate landowners," wrote(opens in new tab) one player just after release. "I hate these inbred, backass backwards, slave owning, tax stealing, progress blocking, head in the sand, law hating, stupid hat wearing, anachronistic assholes, I hate Landowners."
At the same time, it's not like successful communism is incredibly easy to implement.
There are also alternatives to more liberal communism, like command economies and authoritarian, state-run socialism, but players aren't using them as much—nor are they complaining about them. --- He's almost using the F-word! So close yet so far...
If a video game makes communists OP, when we have 100 years of historical proof of the opposite, then it just means the game is unrealistic.
Players are also finding that a properly implemented communist economy can lead them to become not just a dominant world power, but one in which the average standard of living for the lower and middle classes is as high, or higher, than that of the upper strata in other nations.
And yet this is so clearly untrue in real life, that the Chinese Communist Party had to turn to extreme unregulated capitalism to have any hope of developing its economy.
It's pretty clear that the developers here simply have a poor understanding of basic economics and internal political power such that you could easily refute how their game works by pointing out real life examples that contradict it.
Welfare states are good for the societal losers, and bad for societal winners, as well as society as a whole, since the primary goal of a welfare state is to subsidize poor people who make bad decisions. The far superior choice from a 'whole society" perspective, is to let the poor suffer, since that's what they deserve, and take all the money that would have otherwise been wasted on the poor, and use it to promote GDP growth instead. After a few decades of this, trickle down economics - which actually works despite being bad mouthed by libtards - would result in the "poor" looking like "American poor" as in: walking around with $1,000 iphones, getting morbidly obese off of highly processed foods, and sitting their fat asses at home watching their 75 inch OLED flat screen TVs.
The only good commie is a dead commie.
Commies are great.
For target practice.
Assuming they last that long of course. Historically the leading cause of death of Commies is /checks notes: Communism.
I wonder how helicopter rides stack up against commie purges and starvation when it comes to killing commies.
You'll need a logarithmic scale to put them on the same graph.
Communism is a cancer on the human race.
Having played the game for about 200 hours now, I am going to say this: The people saying that Communism is OP in the game is very much a self-report rather than a genuine take on the game.
I have had runs where I deliberately try to become Communist just for RP purposes, and I never have it work out. Either I almost get there and have a revolt to take the government back to an older Capitalist stance, or I just dont have any momentum to pull it off. Because why would my people do it? If anything, the games I have had CAPITALISM is the OP one. My people have frankly absurd standards of living, have been making tons of money, and have been living reasonable lives, and therefore are not open to radical changes in government (sometimes to the point that I cant even change minor laws because "Its fine as is").
The only way these people can get Communism probably means they are keeping their people in low conditions so they demand radical change, or they just got lucky.
Also, it probably also means they are keeping the price of products high, because other people I have seen on the forums say that Communism worked great...right up until prices started falling and their command economy crashed with it because their government lost income. I have had no such issue with Capitalist runs, and in fact have managed to get to a point where people could buy everything they wanted for reasonable prices while I still had significant export.
Haven't had Victoria 3 yet, but any time I try Communism on Tropico 3, it requires me to start a police state and deport all of my political enemies to keep the bloated welfare state afloat.
Raz0rfist was right
I've said it before, but it's worth repeating. The game doesn't allow for free-floating wages, so wage controls are defacto. I've nearly blown up my own economy because I forgot to manually give raises on occasion. The effort to desperately maintain universal healthcare, universal housing, and wage equality, requires me to intentionally destroy all but the most profitable industries, and have them run the entire economy. Anyone who is not profitable, needs to be removed.
This actually meant I had to bulldoze farms because farmers were way over-paid and had a cushy lifestyle compared to my oil industry, but if I did that, I'd get a revolution, so I had to round up the peasants and "deport" them first. Depopulating my island was a great idea in order to preserve the welfare state that had built up, since it was the only thing maintaining my political security. Wage equality required me to round up and kill dissidents and depopulate the island to keep my political security in check.
Victoria at least has some advantage in that regard as it does have free-floating wages (although like I said, it is currently unoptimized and due to be patched in the near future). But you as the government can institute wage controls and welfare....which I usually see as the moment people cite as their economies beginning to die, as wages get so high its virtually impossible to keep business profitable without subsides, which further eats into their profits and gold reserves.
So they have to start raising their taxes. And when that is not enough, they have to start taxing goods. And when that still isnt enough, they have to go get colonies, which pay taxes without using your institutions. And when that still isnt enough, you start looking at your neighbors to try and bring them into the fold, and....oh wait, this is all starting to sound very familiar.
Meanwhile, my Capitalist, Liberal society has profitable business, my workers are making just as much, if not more, money even without wage laws, welfare exist for a very select few of the population that deserve it (like the elderly), and even with taxes minimized I am still collecting more than I know what to do with because my Capitalist are funding everything due to their profits meaning I dont need to pay for construction. And of course, I am making a killing selling excess items for export, and importing what I lack.
TIL the proponents of the Great Reset honed their skills in Tropico 3.
Actually, I'd say it was either Cities Skylines or Democracy 3.
Cities Skylines can be pretty rough because it kind of ushers you towards a NeoLiberal Corporatist hellscape, especially with it's industries mod (where you, as the state, run entire industrial corporate colonies). Additionally, there's a lot of crazy controls over movement you have, and a lot of subtle mechanisms that make your horrific infrastructure plans profitable. This includes bulldozing all the roads and making literally everyone cycle from home to work, without anyone getting super pissed off. Or the fact that people will actively go hours out of their way to go to overly expensive parks.
Democracy 3 is a ridiculous game because of so many Neoliberal pre-suppositions. Increasing Armed Police doesn't decrease crime; it actually increases ARMED ROBBERIES. You know what increased armed robberies at a 1:1 scale? Lax gun control. Get this straight: unarmed police reduce all crime including armed robberies, but armed police and gun ownership causes them.
I got the Africa expansion to try out, and I took over some former communist, currently islamist, hellscape. In 7 years, I went from having coup threats, extreme crime, active race riots and sectarian murders, total poverty, and an AIDS crisis to: no crime, riots, sectarianism, or coups, but a continuing problem with AIDS... in Africa. Literally no crime. In 7 years, my approval rating went from 0% to... 0%. I SOLVED CRIME AND TURNED YOU INTO A MIDDLE-CLASS COUNTRY AND YOU WANT TO ASSASSINATE ME?!!
Fucking Duterte became massively popular with his "kill all the drug dealers in the street" program. Fucking Idi Amin ate people and had support from at least 20% of the country!!!
Now I understand why Neo-Liberals are like "oh just let out all the criminals out!" It's because they literally can't imagine that rampant crime would effect their popularity.
On the other hand, it can be fun to go full gremlin mode and create a city in such a way that it would make your average Modernist NeoLiberal city planner want to pull his hair out (as much as the game will let you anyway).
My typical cities consist of:
Almost everywhere that can be accessed by mass transit can also be accessed by car. And any that cant will at least let you get close. And of course, the road network will not be hostile to motorist (multiple lanes, highways, good access, no reserved lanes, etc).
Extensive suburban and single-family housing for those who dont want to live in downtown apartments with the Bugmen.
Manufacturing jobs available in abundance for those who dont want to be an office drone downtown.
Power provided by reliable means, which means a mix of both "traditional" power (coal and oil), as well as reasonable renewables. This then goes out the window once Nuclear is unlocked and the grid becomes 100% nuclear.
Harsh enforcement of laws by an aggressive police force to keep the criminals in the slammer where they belong.
The main funded and endorsed universities are a Research University and a Trade School, because they are actually important.
If any of the above offends you, you can either live downtown with the Bugmen, or live in the district I dubbed the "Hippie Ghetto", where non-electric vehicles are banned, roads are hostile to motorist (take the tram you smelly Hippie!), housing is "eco-friendly", businesses are organic and social justice-minded, and its also where we dumped the Liberal Arts college. Oh, and I hope you like the additional 2% tax on your business and home for the trouble of stinking up my city, assmunch.
= literal libtard delusion simulator. The developers of that "game" are open about their left wing politics and rig their game so that unless you play it like you're AOC or Bernie, you'll fail.
I have to agree with you on this. Dealing with AIDS is the only time I got close to having any amount of popular support. Race riots, ethnic violence, and poverty were utterly rampant, but as long as I funded The Science enough, my approval went up. Nonsense.
I never actually played the Pete Buttigieg DLC.
Guns cause crimes. What's so hard to understand? That's almost the entirety of the argument I get from anyone saying we need more gun laws. Guns kill people.
Well... they say 20% of any population will always be cannibals. Give or take.
Yeah, the game literally has mechanisms to allow you to do that without destroying the city. It has to make everyone retarded to do it, but it does do it.
They probably looked at some countries that have unarmed police, probably due to a traditional lack of armed crime, and then said "hah, these have less violence. Lack of guns must be the cause; not the effect."
This is interesting to me. I've never played a political simulator, but it sounds interesting. I've been playing Crusader Kings 3 which I'm led to believe is along those lines. I've been enjoying it which is funny because CK3 is a terrible combat game which is more along the lines of what I usually play.
Political simulators can be good, but this kind of thing is exactly why it's a problem. You actually need to have an honest understanding of politics in order for it to be fair. I wouldn't have a problem if the game said "your national political capital is weakened due to the formation of militias which may not conform with the government's demands", I get that. But you can't make a 1:1 claim that guns cause crime.
I love tropico except the combat systems always suck. Tropico 6 is the current game.
I always smash the fuck out of my communist faction. I make my capitalists super happy, and shit all over the communists.
Stick their leaders and hard core followers into the Asylum to brainwash their communism away.
Drone strike their leaders and hard core followers after your Asylum is full.
Pick every choice that the communists hate and the capitalists love in terms of your government policies, which usually includes no free education or health care, you gotta pay for everything.
Build prisons and set them to Convict Labor then fill them with communists.
When you try to eliminate shacks & get everyone into cheap housing, this actually makes the communists super happy, so instead, try to focus on higher end housing and make sure higher paid citizens don't have to share housing types with the plebs.
"love it or leave it" so the commies you keep oppressing stay unhappy and emigrate.
The game is literal socialism where you, El Presidente, have totalitarian control over everything. It isn't so much wage "controls" as you set the salary for the job offer. Citizens will take whatever job looks the best, so the pay grade is more of a priority slider. Critical jobs need higher pay to make sure they are filled. Less important jobs can be set to the minimum as an overflow.
I build tons of guard towers and leave them unstaffed, then when I'm attacked, I suddenly pump them up to max pay so everyone jumps into them and fights. It's an instant army. Worked great in T5 IIRC but in T6 guard towers are pretty shit.
Well, farms can input into high profit supply chains, [sugar -> rum being a common early example] but in the late game its usually more efficient to have shit tons of ports and to simply import the raw materials so you can skip the farms entirely. Late game tropico economies = surrounding every square inch of your coastline with docks and importing MASSIVE amounts of raw materials, then using high profit factories to make weapons and cars and pharma and shit, then export that.
Simply build for-profit prisons and stick all your excess population there. At one point on one of my islands I had like 12 full prisons with prison slave labor to absorb all the excess population.
Yeah, Tropico's combat is always pretty silly, but I'll deal with it as it's not the main mechanism of the game.
Balancing housing out was always a difficult mechanism in the game. It needs to be close to their work, but it also needs to be cheap enough for them to live. I always kinda over-build housing because some people just don't want to pay (slightly) more money and live in a cheap nice place, and will instead demand to sleep in squalor. Making people not live in shacks is a real hassle.
Damn, that's a realistic simulator.
The only cited one guy saying it's OP and his explanation is this:
Haven't played this one yet, only Vic2, can that actually be done or is he making stuff up? Or maybe he posted that just before the collapse, like you explained.
If it happened that way, it was either a glitch or they had taken some sort of deliberate action. Council Republic just makes it so that the building owners is redefined as "All employees" instead of "Private Ownership" (which can either mean Capitalist or Aristocrats depending on other laws and building type).
The way it works is that any excess profit of the building is paid as dividends to all owners, which means under a capitalist system the owners will make stupid amounts of money (which can then boost your Investment Pool for construction), but under Council Republic since everyone is the owner everyone gets a [much smaller] slice of the profits.
If I had to guess, if the Capitalist are making no money and have low standard of living, it is because they have excessive taxes on them and then have consumption taxes on the goods they buy, as well as making those goods deliberately expensive (ie: not producing or importing things like Porcelain and Luxury Clothes because "Eat the Rich!"). But since the people I see on Reddit showing off their starving Rich never show the SoL tab, I am just guessing at what they are doing since I know the mechanics.
As for the pay hikes and immigration they talked about: Immigration happens if you have a higher SoL than where they are coming from, but how fast it happens depends on what your border control policy is, so I imagine they have Open Borders (which is a policy favored by the Industrialist, by the by).
Wages is the only thing that actually matches what they are talking about, and that is only because it was unoptimized at launch to where businesses would always raise their wages when they had excess profit, until you had people making such high wages that your entire economy collapses because its literally impossible to make enough money. Which is getting changed in the upcoming patch to make it so wages only go up when businesses have to compete for workers, to make it more in line with actual IRL economics. So its an exploit that can only be used for about another week.
Thank you for a real report on the game. I never played Victoria 3, but I've played other paradox games like the HoI series.
You probably have to plan for communism from the very beginning, and orient your "build" towards it from day 1, and it probably doesn't actually start to steamroll until later on once you get all the exploity parts into place.
Thanks for this. PC Gamer has some horrible writers
INTO THE TRASH IT GOES
If you think historical materialism has merit, you are economically illiterate.
It's PCGamer, they are illiterate by default.
Good point, I gave them too much credit.
communism killed like 10x more people than nazis did in the holocust. 7 million people versus 70million.. hell probably more. 50-100mill dead in china. another 20-50 mill dead in soviet union. then you have vietnam and cambodia..
more people than the christian vs islamic crusades that lasted a few hundred years.
I'm surprised they posted anti-semitism.
politically correct "gamer"
Vicky3 is a Paradox game, isn't it? They added "Communism" to Stellaris a while ago and it's everything you would expect:
Actually works
Isn't bad in any way
Wholly unrealistic
If a video game makes communists OP, when we have 100 years of historical proof of the opposite, then it just means the game is unrealistic.
And yet this is so clearly untrue in real life, that the Chinese Communist Party had to turn to extreme unregulated capitalism to have any hope of developing its economy.
It's pretty clear that the developers here simply have a poor understanding of basic economics and internal political power such that you could easily refute how their game works by pointing out real life examples that contradict it.
Welfare states are good for the societal losers, and bad for societal winners, as well as society as a whole, since the primary goal of a welfare state is to subsidize poor people who make bad decisions. The far superior choice from a 'whole society" perspective, is to let the poor suffer, since that's what they deserve, and take all the money that would have otherwise been wasted on the poor, and use it to promote GDP growth instead. After a few decades of this, trickle down economics - which actually works despite being bad mouthed by libtards - would result in the "poor" looking like "American poor" as in: walking around with $1,000 iphones, getting morbidly obese off of highly processed foods, and sitting their fat asses at home watching their 75 inch OLED flat screen TVs.
So, let me get this right, this person thinks the 19th Century was characterised by resistance to abolishing slavery.
... Allow me to introduce you to the foremost organisation leading the charge to abolish slavery in the 19th Century: The British Empire
I guess real communism has finally been tried.