Magna Mundi Developer Diary 28 - Government Mechanics and National Assemblies

[ubik]

what does the code in the governments.txt or whatever it is for this one look like?
is there a value for each box on the graph? so you can make a new form of government with this type of representation, these factions and etc?

Nope, nothing that evolved. You have a textfile where you can place many conditions and then can link it all through events/decisons/war aims/diplomacy/etc.

[husita]

Hi. I'm the one of the coders working on the renderer. The map dimensions are 6000x2469. I took as inspiration CK2 as it truly impressed us at all levels in Cologne.
The final result will make MM look much better than at present.

About 6000x2400 maybe more maybe less.

[Romtos]

I was mostly surprised that it was still possible to be changed, when the announcement was made.

[Alerion]

Very popular view, but false nonetheless.
Nobility taking absolute power was a very gradual process, that began not really that long before 1453.
The parliament system itself was shaped partially by Nieszawa privilege... which happened in 1454! That privilege also harmed the burghers position considerably, BTW.
Full noble domination in Poland at the game start would not be right.

I'd rather disagree with this view, while the Nieszawa statute(or whatever you decide to translate it as) did improve the nobilities position a lot it was just a continuation of the trends established 80 years earlier in the Kosice privilege. Of course I am not claiming the power of nobility in 1453 was even comparable to the power it had later on, still, compared to what would be encompassed by the "trader" faction they were simply unmatched. The problem that weakened the "trader faction" wasn't really the laws harming them(which started as early as the Warta statute and peaked in Piotrkowski privilege) but the lack of unity, with most cities trying to gain privileges for themselves only not for burghers as a whole. Technically, I think the best way would be for upper house to be nobility - clergy with lower being nobility - traders in the case of 1453 Poland.

[Zolotaya]

I'd rather disagree with this view, while the Nieszawa statute(or whatever you decide to translate it as) did improve the nobilities position a lot it was just a continuation of the trends established 80 years earlier in the Kosice privilege. Of course I am not claiming the power of nobility in 1453 was even comparable to the power it had later on, still, compared to what would be encompassed by the "trader" faction they were simply unmatched. The problem that weakened the "trader faction" wasn't really the laws harming them(which started as early as the Warta statute and peaked in Piotrkowski privilege) but the lack of unity, with most cities trying to gain privileges for themselves only not for burghers as a whole. Technically, I think the best way would be for upper house to be nobility - clergy with lower being nobility - traders in the case of 1453 Poland.

very astute - I do believe that the shift towards the noble faction began very gradually in the early feudal era. The trader faction ingame is a more generalization then the exact historical circumstance, but even with this being the case, they still represent a force (disunified as it may be) within the Union. Who is to say in your alternative timeline, they might have even united in their common needs sooner then later?

[Alerion]

very astute - I do believe that the shift towards the noble faction began very gradually in the early feudal era. The trader faction ingame is a more generalization then the exact historical circumstance, but even with this being the case, they still represent a force (disunified as it may be) within the Union. Who is to say in your alternative timeline, they might have even united in their common needs sooner then later?

By all means could they have done so, pretty much only the Piotrkowski Privilege was the point of no return for the traders. Maybe a way of representing the possible shifts would be(since I doubt the chances of clergy gaining enough power) making an event dropping nobility from the lower house in case their power lessens with traders one increasing? And vice-versa, if traders power goes low to an extreme level a decision/event could happen dropping them out of the lower house. Both events could actually be named after a hypothetical(nobel dropping out) or historical(traders dropping out) privilege for immersion value. As for the traders power, Gdansk should play an important role, just I am not sure how exactly so. Since it was in a way the forefront of the burghers(Historically the last powerful city left while in the hypothetical scenario would be the strongest of them, or maybe a leader in a way.)

Either way, hoping for the system to be made most out of when the time will be right ^^. And from past experiances with MMtM I have my hopes high.

[Creature]

@ Alerion:

Well, I kind of agree with all you post.

The only things I wanted to achieve with my post was to point out that:

• the nobles weren't already all powerful in 1453
• they were not predestined to become so in any way
• neither the traders were completely impoverished yet

Sure, the wheels were set in motion. And sure, the nobility had already a lot of control... But the situation was not very different from other feudal countries. I don't think it is reasonable to state that Poland was a very special case, at least then.

And concerning the parliament - the model is, of course, an approximation. The setup chosen by MMTG team doesn't strike me as the worst possible (on the other hand, it starts to look weirder and weirder the later the start date). I assume that there are already some mechanisms that would push for more powerful nobility with stronger yet presentation - of course the player should be able to work against them, if he wishes so).

[Chief of Staff]

Hmm I'm a bit late here but I have some questions specifically about Parliament in Constitutional Monarchy... we know that Great Britain in 18th century had House of Lords (nobles) and House of Commons (commoners). Since the table presented showed factions able to present laws in the Parliament in that form of government as nobles, clergy, and traders.... I'm assuming nobles and clergy are in the House of Lords or its equivalent and traders in the Commons or its equivalent. We know that House of Commons in 18th century Britain is not democratic nor is it representative of the commoners other than traders. It was never reformed until 1832 with Reform Act that enfranchised the middle class (although not the lower working class which would have to wait until 1867, IIRC). So to clear confusion, since commoners is not shown as a faction listed there, I'm assuming traders is representative of the old Commons.

Finally, in 18th century Great Britain, the prime minister is the head of government while the monarch is the head of state. While the prime minister usually (though not always in that time) must retain confidence of the Parliament in order to remain in office, the Sovereign at that time is still powerful and can dismiss the prime minster and his government (William IV, who reigned from 1830 to 1837, was the last British monarch to dismiss the prime minister and to appoint new one to the contrary of Parliament's wish), although his powers is much restrained compared to the absolute monarch. So the prime minister must also retain confidence of the monarch (meaning, in theory, you in game).

So, the question is, will prime minister and the cabinet figures into the constitutional monarchy or in the Parliament in general in this game? There has been no mention of this concept so it's curious how to account for missing prime minister. Is there something to represent that office or the cabinet?

[Lambert Simnel]

Hmm I'm a bit late here but I have some questions specifically about Parliament in Constitutional Monarchy... we know that Great Britain in 18th century had House of Lords (nobles) and House of Commons (commoners). Since the table presented showed factions able to present laws in the Parliament in that form of government as nobles, clergy, and traders.... I'm assuming nobles and clergy are in the House of Lords or its equivalent and traders in the Commons or its equivalent. We know that House of Commons in 18th century Britain is not democratic nor is it representative of the commoners other than traders. It was never reformed until 1832 with Reform Act that enfranchised the middle class (although not the lower working class which would have to wait until 1867, IIRC). So to clear confusion, since commoners is not shown as a faction listed there, I'm assuming traders is representative of the old Commons.

I don't know so much about the 18th century, but at the start of the game the Commons isn't just Traders. In addition to the borough representatives, there are the knights of the shires who are there to represent the wealthy non-noble landowners (although it was possible to for kings to stuff this body with placemen as in the Long Parliament of 1406). I don't see a Magna Mundi faction that fits this group, though.

[tuvix]

will hungary be an elective monarchy in a personal union with austria until 1687?
Why does feudal and elective monarchy have tricameral parliaments?
Is there going to be any changes in relations between countries in a personal union, more types of unions, or something else?

[Jlop985]

Universal male suffrage seems a bit anachronistic. Even in the US and France, it did not appear within the time period of the game.

[Featauril]

will hungary be an elective monarchy in a personal union with austria until 1687?
Why does feudal and elective monarchy have tricameral parliaments?
Is there going to be any changes in relations between countries in a personal union, more types of unions, or something else?

An elective monarchy is a monarchy where the nobles elect the king. I believe succession was passed down to the successors of the hapsburg dynasty in Hungary.

[LoK-y-Yo]

Universal male suffrage seems a bit anachronistic. Even in the US and France, it did not appear within the time period of the game.

Spanish Constitution of 1812 "La Pepa" stablished universal male suffrage in all the Spanish territories and all Spanish people...except the "mulatos".

[tuvix]

An elective monarchy is a monarchy where the nobles elect the king. I believe succession was passed down to the successors of the hapsburg dynasty in Hungary.

If you believe it doesnt mean that it is right.
It was passed down to the successors of the Hapsburg but from 1687, not before that.

[RhoDaZZ]

Spanish Constitution of 1812 "La Pepa" stablished universal male suffrage in all the Spanish territories and all Spanish people...except the "mulatos".

The Norweigian Constitution of 17th of May, 1814 was also relatively free for its time (not by ours, of course): http://www.stortinget.no/no/Storting...oven-fra-1814/

If you look at §50 you can see that in order to vote you need to:

0) Be a citizen of over 25 years of age and have lived in the country for over 5 years

And either of the 3 below:

1) Be or have been a civil servant

2) Own land or have leased land for more than 5 years

3) Own estate in a chartered town with a value of over 300 thaler (Which I assume mustn't have been too much at the time following the bankruptcy and devalued currency)

[k_merse]

If you believe it doesnt mean that it is right.
It was passed down to the successors of the Hapsburg but from 1687, not before that.

Actually it was from 1570. In the Treaty of Speyer János II gave up his claims on Hungary and accepted the Habsburg rule over Hungary in exchange for keeping sovereignty over Transylvania. From that date there were no question about the legal claims of the Habsburgs over Hungary, and any Hungarian attempt starting from there has to be considered as revolution and separatist movement. The nobles were no influence on the person of the ruler.

[tuvix]

Actually it was from 1570. In the Treaty of Speyer János II gave up his claims on Hungary and accepted the Habsburg rule over Hungary in exchange for keeping sovereignty over Transylvania. From that date there were no question about the legal claims of the Habsburgs over Hungary, and any Hungarian attempt starting from there has to be considered as revolution and separatist movement. The nobles were no influence on the person of the ruler.

For the game yes, i would like to see how are you going to deal with that. Because wastern parts of Hungary, including Croatia accepted Habsburgs in 1526./1527. But there was no rule of primogeniture until 1687. Until then Hungarian and Croatian parliaments had the right to elect (after the kings death) a new king that was memeber of house of Habsburg.

[Barón Rojo]

Universal male suffrage seems a bit anachronistic. Even in the US and France, it did not appear within the time period of the game.

I don't know about USA, but there was universal suffrage in France with the jacobins.

[k_merse]

For the game yes, i would like to see how are you going to deal with that. Because wastern parts of Hungary, including Croatia accepted Habsburgs in 1526./1527. But there was no rule of primogeniture until 1687. Until then Hungarian and Croatian parliaments had the right to elect (after the kings death) a new king that was memeber of house of Habsburg.

Parliaments had no rights to elect their rulers in Hungary. Even if they would have de jure the right, de facto they never had a choice but elect the actual Habsburg ruler.

In the game the Habsburg takeover happens like this:
After the death of Lajos II, the Hungarian Succession War begins (Austria vs. Hungary). In this war, Austria immediately gains Croatian and western Hungarian provinces (supporters of Ferdinand), and core on all provinces of Hungary. With several scenarios, Austria slowly annexes Hungarian provinces until 1541 when the Ottomans conquer Buda. At this part Hungary is separated to 3 parts: Ottoman occupation, Western Hungary (Austria in the game) and Eastern Hungary (IG: Hungary). This situation remains still until 1570 when Austria loses its cores on the remaining Hungarian regions and Hungary turns into Transylvania.

[MichaelM]

The U.S. Constitution originally did not specify who would have rights to vote. Some states did not even limit it to whites, though all of them restricted it to males. Most, if not all, states required ownership of land as a qualification; this was gradually phased out starting around 1800, but was not completed until at least the 1840s (see the Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island).