I find it weird that the moderate socialists are never full citizenship parties in this AAR. I don't really see why. I can't think of a single political system where the more moderate wing of the socialist party wasn't on the left side of the political debates on rights for immigrants and minorities. On the other hand it would be a severe understatement to say that the hard left communists left a lot to be desired regarding minority rights in the Soviet Union and Communist China. But in this AAR the socialists are always limited citizenship and the commies are always full citizenship, what's up with that?
The Marxists, Marxist-Leninists and Anarchists have throughout this AAR been the strongest proponents of internationalism. Non of them are at all comparable with the abominations of the Soviet Union of 'Communist' China.
The closest we have gotten to the 'bad' communists was Blanqui and I remind you the Centralists had residence as their policy.
Meanwhile the moderate factions are much more willing to accept the concept of nations and by extension nationalities.
I'm also not so sure about your claim that moderate socialists are better on minority rights than radicals.
How did you calculate it this time, out of interest? For example how do you split the votes of those who support reducing the working day between Marxists, Militarists, Indepedents and Moderates? Or State Capitalism, that's held in common too. It'd be interesting to see the breakdown compared to how you did it with ideology.
Did you see my question earlier? It was "How will you deal with coalitions where one faction wants political reform and the other social reform? If you just make the senior faction the ruling party then any compromise would be impossible, wouldn't it? "
For shared issues I divided them.
However I'll admit to being a little harsh on the Militarists. I gave them a big slice of pro miliatry and jingoism adn not much else. But they still come out as a big force. I just didn't want them running away with about 30 seats.
The Independents really did have very few issues in common with the people.
I've also thought of a nice way to explain the different faction's stances on the problems in Africa.
The Marxist-Leninsts and Anarchists ignore them.
The Militarists don't care.
The Moderates want to tackle them.
And the Independents accept the problems exist but are banking on things just sorting themselves out.
Yet these idealists seem to have impressed you guys so I guess their doing something right.