Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

A suggestion for how unhappy people let you know they are unhappy.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Victoria 2 17560 After Action Reports (AAR)
U

unmerged(127415)

Corporal
3 Badges
Nov 30, 2008
40
0
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
Instead of constant silly revolts, and the tedious clicking that results from them, why not simply give some kind of industrial (or other) penalty to provinces/states that have unhappy people in them?

This penalty would be commensurate to the size of the unhappy population, it's wealth, it's occupation, majority status, etc. This would simulate protests, sabotage, and work slow-downs.

Frankly, having rebellions where 30,000 people die followed by more rebellions where 30,000 people die is not realistic. People don't work that way. If one is terribly bloody and unsuccessful, more aren't going to follow it. Protests, however, are much less bloody, less dramatic, and thus more likely to be prevalent.

Ideas?
 
Cool idea. Worker strikes could also be something that happens before a rebellion. And when a worker strike etc. happens you could perhaps have an option to send in the military on a massacre, to lower the amount of potentional brigades that will rise, but the cost will be a bit more incerased militancy and lowered population in specific province.
 
I think if you could factor militancy into the worker productivity algorithm it would work.

There is a revolt indicator in the political area that glows when there are malcontents thinking bad thoughts.

Of course when they do revolt it's just a matter of moving your armies around and squishing them. They are all irregulars and they never develop any leadership or coordination or direction beyond move and occupy. Good way for your troops to get cheap experience.
 
I think this is a great idea. I think the instant decent into armed uprisings at present is silly. It would be great to see this increasing in severity, perhaps with decisions occuring as it becomes more serious, and the handling of those decisions leads to either solutions and a decrease in the problems or exasperates it leading to armed uprising. This would lend far more realism to it for me, rather than a sudden - 200,000 armed civilians from no where.
 
I'd love to see strikes in Vicky 2. Regional maluses for small things, but if you really mess up, or just before a revolution, a general strike giving -80% output on all factories, -50% on RGOs.
 
elder18 said:
Instead of constant silly revolts, and the tedious clicking that results from them, why not simply give some kind of industrial (or other) penalty to provinces/states that have unhappy people in them?

This penalty would be commensurate to the size of the unhappy population, it's wealth, it's occupation, majority status, etc. This would simulate protests, sabotage, and work slow-downs.

Frankly, having rebellions where 30,000 people die followed by more rebellions where 30,000 people die is not realistic. People don't work that way. If one is terribly bloody and unsuccessful, more aren't going to follow it. Protests, however, are much less bloody, less dramatic, and thus more likely to be prevalent.

Ideas?
Click to expand...



This is a very good idea, although revolutions should not be taken out.
 
There is one problem, though. Strike in a province will generally make life for its citizens more difficult, meaning less work, less money and more militancy. So actually it would make revolts even more frequent.
 
Yeah, I wish this would happen instead of the incessant revolts. I think revolts are the most UNFUN aspect of the entire game. It's like a mini-game of whack-a-mole that adds so little to gameplay.
 
Gantolandon said:
There is one problem, though. Strike in a province will generally make life for its citizens more difficult, meaning less work, less money and more militancy. So actually it would make revolts even more frequent.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but not necessarily. The point I'm trying to make here is that the number of revolts is completely unrealistic. Using what I've mentioned will still punish the player in a realistic manner when people are unhappy, and if this is widespread and chronic, yes, it could and should lead to revolts.

Look, people only stage large military revolts under tremendous conditions. It took how many years for the Civil War to start, for example, and even then, many Southerners didn't support it. For the same groups to revolt every few years is lame.
 
Actually, I find the current revolt system an improvement over the previous one (from EU3 and before) - where usually you got one or two stacks of rebels in various provinces. Their main problem is lack of sufficient negative feedback - each large revolt should dampen the militancy gain to prevent the game from immediate creation of new supporters in place of those who were just exterminated.
 
Gantolandon said:
Actually, I find the current revolt system an improvement over the previous one (from EU3 and before) - where usually you got one or two stacks of rebels in various provinces. Their main problem is lack of sufficient negative feedback - each large revolt should dampen the militancy gain to prevent the game from immediate creation of new supporters in place of those who were just exterminated.
Click to expand...

You think that 100s of brigades of rebels rising simultaneously is an improvement?
 
I don't want to have to respond to dozens of 'you have a strike at the donut factory' dialog boxes.

It accomplishes the same thing just to factor in militancy in the production.

For highly skilled jobs apathy (low consciousness) could reduce productivity.
 
elder18 said:
Instead of constant silly revolts, and the tedious clicking that results from them, why not simply give some kind of industrial (or other) penalty to provinces/states that have unhappy people in them?

This penalty would be commensurate to the size of the unhappy population, it's wealth, it's occupation, majority status, etc. This would simulate protests, sabotage, and work slow-downs.

Frankly, having rebellions where 30,000 people die followed by more rebellions where 30,000 people die is not realistic. People don't work that way. If one is terribly bloody and unsuccessful, more aren't going to follow it. Protests, however, are much less bloody, less dramatic, and thus more likely to be prevalent.

Ideas?
Click to expand...
Great Idea, total rebellions like the game has were actually quite rare and only happening one or twice every few decades at the most.
 
I agree that discontent should affect productivity - the PI parallel is the dissent effect in HoI series.

IMO pop demands for reforms should result in political activism in democracies (with strikes etc when not satisfied = higher militancy), and revolts primarily where the pops have no political avenue for expressing views (e.g. in absolute monarchies).
 
A more basic problem is that there is no mechanism to focus and direction militant and or conscious populace.

What is needed is political parties that actually act like political parties and that have leaders with goals and tools and which allow pops to invest their militancy and consciousness, and their money.

In fact the political screen should be set up like the diplomatic screen to direct the player's political interests and interact with those parties.

Right now the only thing driving politics are lots and lots of dialog boxs. Do it as suggested and then there is a means for the pops vent and act and also a reasonable mechanism for the player to influence political direction.
 
Last edited:
xxx
 
Gantolandon said:
There is one problem, though. Strike in a province will generally make life for its citizens more difficult, meaning less work, less money and more militancy. So actually it would make revolts even more frequent.
Click to expand...

That could be easily solved by severly reducing the life/everyday needs of the strikers. If you combine a -80% productivity with -90% needs for lower classes, the POPs will probably end up being able to buy their needs, thus reducing their militancy (while capitalists and aristocrats suffer fully from the reduced productivity).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back