When do you suppress a faction?

[TorJado]

I'm just curious, because I've realized I've never really done it myself.

Do you suppress factions that are actually a threat to you? (or do you never do this, because the radicalization is worse?)

Do you suppress factions that want reforms that you want? (to get militancy to force the house to accept the reforms? Or no?)

Do you simply never suppress rebels? Suppress all rebels?

 

[Esben_DRK]

I mostly suppress if I can pass reforms but the reform I really want is #2 or #3 on my POPs wish list.
I sometimes suppress nationalists or patriots if I think a crisis might occur, but it doesn't seem to be that effective.

As Russia I tried suppressing everything, but no reforms, low consciousness (Due to low literacy) and slow tech progression meant that at some point I was falling behind faster than I would have liked... Maybe someone with more experience with authoritarian states knows if this works, but I had to either accept falling behind in tech or having my people demand all kinds of ludicrous things, like voting rights or the right to assemble, and getting angry as their desires went unfulfilled.

 

[Nirmara]

Highly literate pop should pose less of a problem as long as public meeting are not allowed, have order as your national value, press rights is state press, have their daily needs and you don't get the late game techs increasing consciousness. Enacting social reforms also help.

In the end, you won't have much of a choice since pops will eventually want political reforms or start constantly revolting. Considering the fact that you can always appoint the ruling partie under a HM government, granting them reforms is not that much of a problem.

As for suppressing faction, it's best to use it when the cause of the faction is temporary (like occupation, events, WE) or when you are about to pass an other reform.

If you do it too often to the same movement, their radicalisation level will get so high that they will instantly create a rebel faction so it's not very useful to delay eternally a reform.

 

[Ointagru]

I'm just curious, because I've realized I've never really done it myself.

Do you suppress factions that are actually a threat to you? (or do you never do this, because the radicalization is worse?)

Do you suppress factions that want reforms that you want? (to get militancy to force the house to accept the reforms? Or no?)

Do you simply never suppress rebels? Suppress all rebels?

I suppress only those rebels that are likely to provoke an international crisis by increasing the flashpoint tension. In that case, the suppression can be useful, as an urgent and temporary mean.

 

[austrianemporer]

I'm just curious, because I've realized I've never really done it myself.

Do you suppress factions that are actually a threat to you? (or do you never do this, because the radicalization is worse?)

Do you suppress factions that want reforms that you want? (to get militancy to force the house to accept the reforms? Or no?)

Do you simply never suppress rebels? Suppress all rebels?

I suppress large nationalist/ patriot factions to stop crises although sometimes they pop right back up.

I also suppress large movements that I can't satisfy since movements with a lot of radicalism creates a lot of militancy.

I mostly suppress if I can pass reforms but the reform I really want is #2 or #3 on my POPs wish list.
I sometimes suppress nationalists or patriots if I think a crisis might occur, but it doesn't seem to be that effective.

As Russia I tried suppressing everything, but no reforms, low consciousness (Due to low literacy) and slow tech progression meant that at some point I was falling behind faster than I would have liked... Maybe someone with more experience with authoritarian states knows if this works, but I had to either accept falling behind in tech or having my people demand all kinds of ludicrous things, like voting rights or the right to assemble, and getting angry as their desires went unfulfilled.

Raise literacy ASAP, suppress all nationalist factions, pass reforms (reforms are good unless you're RPing), focus on essential techs.

If you want to fight Europe as Russia though, be warned, juggling necessary techs and military techs is hard as Russia if your literacy is down.

Highly literate pop should pose less of a problem as long as public meeting are not allowed, have order as your national value, press rights is state press, have their daily needs and you don't get the late game techs increasing consciousness. Enacting social reforms also help.

In the end, you won't have much of a choice since pops will eventually want political reforms or start constantly revolting. Considering the fact that you can always appoint the ruling partie under a HM government, granting them reforms is not that much of a problem.

As for suppressing faction, it's best to use it when the cause of the faction is temporary (like occupation, events, WE) or when you are about to pass an other reform.

If you do it too often to the same movement, their radicalisation level will get so high that they will instantly create a rebel faction so it's not very useful to delay eternally a reform.

Highly literate pops have more consciousness and are more likely to join factions and the such. I feel like they pose more of a problem than illiterate pops. Otherwise, I agree with most of your post.

 

[General WVPM]

I often let them grow until they rise up and then butcher them, if they don't rise up, I laugh at their patheticness.

 

[Bella Gerant]

Rule of thumb generally goes as such:

Do you want them to gain militancy/revolt? (Y/N)

If yes, suppress.

If no, don't.

If they're too small to reform after you suppress them, well, no luck there.

 

[austrianemporer]

Rule of thumb generally goes as such:

Do you want them to gain militancy/revolt? (Y/N)

If yes, suppress.

If no, don't.

If they're too small to reform after you suppress them, well, no luck there.

What? Suppressing movements actually decrease militancy.

 

[Secret Master]

I mostly suppress if I can pass reforms but the reform I really want is #2 or #3 on my POPs wish list.

Yep. That's the ticket with reforms.

Once you understand how reforms work, you tailor the order you grant them to maximize your desired results.

I also suppress people who want work hours reforms if I'm never going to grant them.

I tend to just shoot nationalists. Although now that I think about it, most people angry about nationalism tend to veer into communism anyway, so I end up either suppressing them or granting a reform that makes them marginally happy.

 

[Kovax]

What? Suppressing movements actually decrease militancy.

Suppressing movements results in less total militancy due to less potential militants, but seems to create higher militancy within the smaller group of remaining pops.

So far, I've been doing fairly well with keeping Consciousness down while accepting the inevitable Militancy as a trade-off. The lower consciousness means less militants in the long run, even if you have to use the army to deal with the small knot of hard-core revolters that result in the shorter term.

 

[austrianemporer]

Suppressing movements results in less total militancy due to less potential militants, but seems to create higher militancy within the smaller group of remaining pops.

So far, I've been doing fairly well with keeping Consciousness down while accepting the inevitable Militancy as a trade-off. The lower consciousness means less militants in the long run, even if you have to use the army to deal with the small knot of hard-core revolters that result in the shorter term.

Movements cause militancy. When you suppress them, all sources of militancy from the movement disappears, thereby lowering militancy.

However, suppression also increases radicalism. If the faction reforms, and is more radical, than the members will gain more militancy.

 

[Bella Gerant]

What? Suppressing movements actually decrease militancy.

I was thinking more of along the lines of a faction large enough that it will reform and thus be more militant. For example, in a totally random scenario, if you have seized Ohio and New York, there will be millions of American Unification rebels. In that case, I was under the impression that suppressing them would be what to do if you want them to rebel or trigger a crisis rather than sit by and try to pass reforms.

As for smaller factions, that's the "no luck" part, since they'll just fizzle out regardless. Then again, of all the parts of Victoria 2, military score, AI relations, movement+rebel gain rates, and the US's tendency to sphere African nations have always been rather nebulous to me.

 

[austrianemporer]

I was thinking more of along the lines of a faction large enough that it will reform and thus be more militant. For example, in a totally random scenario, if you have seized Ohio and New York, there will be millions of American Unification rebels. In that case, I was under the impression that suppressing them would be what to do if you want them to rebel or trigger a crisis rather than sit by and try to pass reforms.

As for smaller factions, that's the "no luck" part, since they'll just fizzle out regardless. Then again, of all the parts of Victoria 2, military score, AI relations, movement+rebel gain rates, and the US's tendency to sphere African nations have always been rather nebulous to me.

What do you mean reform?

Nationalist movements don't increase willingness to reforms.

Suppressing movements causes militancy to drop.

Small movements will grow stronger over time unless consciouness drops like a rock.