Vic3 is super materialist about trade and economy - but the political simulation is pure idealism. No matter what they do they will always be trying to strike a balance between "letting the player do stuff" and "restricting the player's choices based on [reasons]", and it's understandable that they lean more towards being permissive than restrictive since players will generally find that more fun.
The problem is ultimately that a materialist simulation makes a very obvious "correct" (most optimal) thing to do in every scenario which sort of railroads a player and takes away choices. It's not really a game if you aren't making choices it becomes a ride instead.
it can do that, which is why in Vic3 right now communism is "overpowered" because it's simply the best option
But the way you change how a player approaches a game is mostly through changing their objective. In Vic3 your objective is to take care of the nation as a whole - but what if your objective was just to see to the happiness and political control of a single class? Put the player in the role of the bourgeoisie and they'll make different decisions, which could be the next level of improving Vic3's political simulation (not that I think Paradox will actually go that route).
Put the player in the role of the bourgeoisie and they’ll make different decisions, which could be the next level of improving Vic3’s political simulation (not that I think Paradox will actually go that route).
Wouldn't this just be a railroad to fascism for the ultimate victory of the bourgeoisie and a railroad to communism for the ultimate victory of the prole?
My fear with this is encouraging accelerationism via game mechanic is not necessarily a good outcome for us other than forcing many of its players to ask themselves some questions about moralising.
Vic3 is super materialist about trade and economy - but the political simulation is pure idealism. No matter what they do they will always be trying to strike a balance between "letting the player do stuff" and "restricting the player's choices based on [reasons]", and it's understandable that they lean more towards being permissive than restrictive since players will generally find that more fun.
The problem is ultimately that a materialist simulation makes a very obvious "correct" (most optimal) thing to do in every scenario which sort of railroads a player and takes away choices. It's not really a game if you aren't making choices it becomes a ride instead.
it can do that, which is why in Vic3 right now communism is "overpowered" because it's simply the best option
But the way you change how a player approaches a game is mostly through changing their objective. In Vic3 your objective is to take care of the nation as a whole - but what if your objective was just to see to the happiness and political control of a single class? Put the player in the role of the bourgeoisie and they'll make different decisions, which could be the next level of improving Vic3's political simulation (not that I think Paradox will actually go that route).
Wouldn't this just be a railroad to fascism for the ultimate victory of the bourgeoisie and a railroad to communism for the ultimate victory of the prole?
My fear with this is encouraging accelerationism via game mechanic is not necessarily a good outcome for us other than forcing many of its players to ask themselves some questions about moralising.
Less a railroad than a maze.
You can go whichever direction you want, but only one path will get you out of the maze and award you for the accomplishment.
If you want to do Capitalism in Vic3, you absolutely can. But the skinner box won't reward you for it.
At least the only nice part is that fascists or monarchists can :pit: over why their ethno-state fucking sucks as they economically get roflstomped.