Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #7 - Laws

[Leoreth]

The issue here is that we're now assuming the power to make laws and the power to block laws are identical. That's really not the case. A similar argument might be that we can abstract the ability of a battleship to attack and defend into a single number, since both simply reflect "combat ability". That level of abstraction misses some critical details about what makes different political systems tick.

I don't think so. The system simply abstracts the process of making and blocking laws into one process. You need both the power to advance a law and the power to prevent your law from being blocked to pass it. I don't think a differentiation of the two is essential to correctly represent the process.

I think you're strawmanning my argument a bit here. I'm not arguing that specific countries should have unique parlimentary mechanics that others don't have access to. I'm arguing that all countries should have the ability to access the same mechanics, but the player gets a chance to influence which sets of mechanics you set up (in countries that are doing constitutional reform), in a flexible way. I don't think that this would necessarily lead to "nation-locked" parliamentary setups in the way you fear. Aside from the US and the UK, nearly every other country had massive changes to the way their parliaments worked in the period (and you can argue that the US and UK systems changed in important ways too during the period). I feel like the system that's proposed is just too abstract and not representative of what was going on.

Sorry, I don't mean to strawman your position. I just think your position ignores what the implementation of your proposal would look like in practice. As I repeatedly stated (if we are already talking about not strawmanning each other), I am not worried about nation locking political systems. I am worried about only the political systems of certain nations being used for special rules, regardless of whether those are then made available to everyone. Because that still leaves everyone else, i.e. those nations whose historical political systems were not reflected with special rules, without "their" political system, in consequence still privileging a set of nations picked by the developers.

Most importantly, given the pressures of what historiography covers and also expectations of the player based and the resulting commercial incentives, I am particularly worried that such a specific system would turn out to be Eurocentric and would leave non-Western societies underrepresented.

I think the proposed system is perfectly representative of what is going on, in fact it is more powerful in that it can represent political processes in a greater number of political contexts than any specific system could. You seem to need the game mechanics to make certain political processes explicit for them to be "real" - I am content imagining whatever political processes are applicable to the nation in question as represented by the abstract system. I think you elide the fact that if certain processes are made explicit, you also set the expectation that things that are happening will be made explicit by the developers. In turn, there are actually less kinds of political systems and dynamics being represented by the system: those that the developers (for whatever reason) chose not to make explicit in the game.

 

[Shadowstrike]

I don't think so. The system simply abstracts the process of making and blocking laws into one process. You need both the power to advance a law and the power to prevent your law from being blocked to pass it. I don't think a differentiation of the two is essential to correctly represent the process.

But those aren't necessarily equal powers, depending on the specific way a parliament is organized. For instance, the current filibuster rule in the US allows just 40 Senators to block a law, whereas you would need 60 votes to pass a law. More broadly, any system other than a unicameral parliament without any other veto points (which I'm not really sure exists today, much less during the game's time period) makes it easier to block legislation than to pass legislation (and many bicameral bodies exist explicitly for that purpose). But beyond that, the ability to block legislation itself varies with the form and structure of the political system implemented in each country, so it wouldn't even be a matter of just making it harder to pass reforms than to block them.

Sorry, I don't mean to strawman your position. I just think your position ignores what the implementation of your proposal would look like in practice. As I repeatedly stated (if we are already talking about not strawmanning each other), I am not worried about nation locking political systems. I am worried about only the political systems of certain nations being used for special rules, regardless of whether those are then made available to everyone. Because that still leaves everyone else, i.e. those nations whose historical political systems were not reflected with special rules, without "their" political system, in consequence still privileging a set of nations picked by the developers.

Most importantly, given the pressures of what historiography covers and also expectations of the player based and the resulting commercial incentives, I am particularly worried that such a specific system would turn out to be Eurocentric and would leave non-Western societies underrepresented.

I think the proposed system is perfectly representative of what is going on, in fact it is more powerful in that it can represent political processes in a greater number of political contexts than any specific system could. You seem to need the game mechanics to make certain political processes explicit for them to be "real" - I am content imagining whatever political processes are applicable to the nation in question as represented by the abstract system. I think you elide the fact that if certain processes are made explicit, you also set the expectation that things that are happening will be made explicit by the developers. In turn, there are actually less kinds of political systems and dynamics being represented by the system: those that the developers (for whatever reason) chose not to make explicit in the game.

I appreciate your effort to debate in good faith, and I hope I can do the same to your positions.

I feel like there's a circularity to your logic here though - the way to represent more political systems is to make them all use the same single model. I do appreciate the concern that non-Western systems, which we might know less about, might be less represented. This is particularly true of societies where we understand little of their internal political arrangements at the time (moreso the African ones, the Asian monarchies are fairly well studied). But conversely, the cost of doing that is to not represent Western political systems accurately. The other side to this is that since Paradox has actually been pretty good with trying for better historic representation, they might also put more work into fleshing out political systems in countries the general public is less familiar with, and thus getting people to understand more about say, the internal politics of the late Ottoman empire.

 

[Shadowstrike]

In 1836: the Lords could stop a bill dead; some constituencies returned multiple MPs; parliament had to be dissolved on a Demise of the Crown; and one in five adult men had the vote.

In 1936: the Lords could be overruled on any Government bill that passed the Commons in three consecutive years; every constituency returned a single MP; the parliamentary session was not interrupted by a Demise of the Crown; and almost every adult over the age of 21 had the vote.

You're not wrong in that the UK had big changes in the way Parliament worked - the Reform Acts and the Parliament Act had huge impacts. The same could be argued about the US: Senators were appointed by state legislatures prior to the 17th Amendment, the franchise was extended massively, etc. My point was mostly that the constitutional changes were even larger in other countries.

 

[YoMomma123456]

Historically, all but a few countries that created public schools did not nationalize or shut down religious schools (except for some short-lived attempts such as Oregon’s in 1922, which was thrown out for violating the First Amendment to the US Constitution). Even Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey felt the need to allow some religious schools, solely for the purpose of training clergy. The exception to this, in the time period, was the Soviet Union.

I'm not saying that they should nationalize, I was asking what happens to religious schools in game

 

[666Alexander666]

REALLY hoping there is an option for wealth based taxation. Tax pops a % of their wealth savings.

Pro's : Poor love it, Middle class like it (much less burden than income tax), can raise significant revenues without causing poverty.
Con's : Wealthy HATE it, could cause wealthy emigration, could cause militancy amongst the upper classes, and require significant state apparatus to collect.

Wealth tax - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's been around as an idea since Ancient Athens btw

 

[SteveHopps]

View attachment 742122

After a couple weeks vacation, we’ve now returned to our usual weekly dev diary schedule! Today we will be diving deeper into Victoria’s politics to talk about Laws. Legal reform in your country creates different political, economic, and social conditions for your Pops, which over time changes the fabric of your society. This change can be slow and incremental, or fast and revolutionary - sometimes literally.

There are three major categories of Laws with seven sub-categories in each, which themselves contain up to half a dozen specific Law options. As always everything here is being heavily iterated upon, including these sub-categories, so the laws you see at release will not exactly match what we’re telling you here!

Power Structure
These Laws determine who is in control of different aspects of your country. It includes fundamental Governance Principles such as Monarchy and Parliamentary Republic, which determine who your Head of State is and what kind of powers they wield. Distribution of Power ranges from Autocracy and Oligarchy through various extensions of the voting franchise all the way to Universal Suffrage. Citizenship and Church and State Laws govern which Pops suffer legal discrimination in your country due to their culture or religion. The principles on which your Bureaucracy is run - such as hereditary or elected positions for bureaucrats - determine how expensive it is to keep track of each citizen and how much Institutions cost to run, but also directly benefit some groups over others. Conscription lets you raise a part of your civilian workforce as soldiers in times of war, and Internal Security governs how the Home Affairs anti-insurgent Institution works.

The Power Structure Laws of a typical European nation after having made a few strides towards liberalization. The numbers in green refers to the number of alternative Laws currently available to be enacted. This indicator is used throughout the UI to reveal how many options a sub-menu has without having to open it.
View attachment 742124
​

Economy
This set of Laws define where your treasury’s money comes from and how it can be spent. Your Economic System is crucial - this governs whether your country operates on principles of Mercantilism, Isolationism, or Free Trade, among others. Income Tax determines which Pops should be taxed and what range of tax burden is appropriate. No Income Tax at all is of course an option, and legislation to such effect will make some Pops both rich and happy! Poll Taxation, or levying a fixed tax per head, is another option primarily used in less industrialized societies. (There are other avenues of taxation as well, but these are the ones driven by legislation.) Finally, you can choose what form the Institutions of Colonization, Policing, Education System, and Health System will take in your country. For example, you can keep government spending under control by instituting Charity Hospitals, which have limited effect and boost the power of the clergy, or you could pass a Public Health Insurance Law which is costlier but can have a greater impact on the health of the masses.

Payroll Taxes require reasonable lower-class wages and a centralized population to pay off, but if so can form the economic basis for a budding welfare system as seen here. A tax system based on Levying might be more lucrative in countries with huge Peasant populations.
View attachment 742127
​

Human Rights
Enshrining the rights of the individual was a hallmark of the era. These Laws define how your Pops are treated and what manner of control you can enforce over their lives. Free Speech determines the degree of control you can enforce over your Interest Groups but restrictive rights throttle the spread of innovation. The Labor Rights Laws include outlawing serfdom, but extends all the way to establishing a Workplace Safety Institution to reduce the number of people literally crushed in the jaws of industry. Children’s Rights and the Rights of Women have a number of effects such as shifting the Workforce/Dependent demographics, affecting Dependent income, and extending the franchise. Welfare ensures the poor and disabled in your society are taken care of. Migration Laws can be used to influence Pop migration. Slavery Laws determine the legal status of owning people in your country. More details on that subject in a future dev diary.

Not a lot of concessions have been made here, but at least children may congregate freely after the factory whistle signals the end of their grueling workday.
View attachment 742128
​

Laws are almost always completely independent from one another. You can create a Constitutional Monarchy with hereditary succession but Universal Suffrage, or an Autocratic Presidential Republic with a strongman leader at the top of the food chain. You can have a Secret Police and still permit fully Protected Speech.

Our aim is to set all countries up with the best fitting Laws compared to what they actually had in 1836. This will vary wildly between countries, and will greatly influence what sorts of conditions and strategies are available to you at the start of the game. For example, the USA starts with Total Separation of Church and State, ensuring no Pops suffer legal discrimination on account of their religion, while Sardinia-Piedmont doesn’t take kindly to non-Catholic Pops. This will affect Pops who live in the country currently, but will also limit which Pops might migrate there - few Pops would make it their preference to move to a country where they’re mistreated by law.

As a result of these starting Laws Sardinia-Piedmont might have to look towards colonization or conquest if they start to run out of their native workforce, while North America is likely to get regular migration waves to help expand the frontier. By connecting these effects to starting Laws, many historically appropriate and recognizable aspects and behaviors of Victorian-era nations - such as their attractiveness to immigrants - are connected to a tangible property (e.g. poor or oppressed Pops emigrating to the USA both because of its demand for workforce and also its liberal Laws) rather than being arbitrarily encoded into the very fabric of the nation itself, the approach previous Victoria games took to encourage history in the a familiar direction.

However, these starting Laws are far from set in stone! You might want to reform your Laws to better suit the direction your society is going - for example, you might want to transition your Bureaucracy from a system of Appointees to Elected Bureaucrats in order to more effectively provide services from Government Institutions to all your incorporated territories (or maybe just because you want to disempower the otherwise powerful Intelligentsia.) Or your country’s Agrarian economy has plateaued on account of increased reliance on imports of manufactured goods, and you want to change course to the exciting opportunities provided by a Free Trade policy.

A common effect of Laws is to modify some parameter about your country, like give you more Authority or reduce certain Pops’ Mortality. But Laws can also permit or disallow the use of certain actions, such as Public Schools which permit the Compulsory Primary School Law; permit the Decree to Promote Social Mobility in a certain state; and even alter the effects of other parts of your society, like boost the efficacy of your Education System Institution. Without some degree of separation between Church and State, this form of secular school system is not possible.
View attachment 742130
​

Another reason to change Laws is because your people demand it. As we touched on in the previous dev diary, Interest Groups have Ideologies that lead them to favor some Laws over others - for example, the Industrialists have the Individualist Ideology that cause them to favor privately operated Education and Healthcare systems over publicly funded ones, to ensure best access is given to those of merit and morals (or in other words, Wealth). Reforming your current Laws to work more in accordance with your powerful Interest Groups’ Ideologies is a quick way to win their Approval, permitting you more leeway to go against their wishes in the future or as a quick pick-me-up in case their Standard of Living has recently taken a hit.

The inverse is also true. Introduce a bill to abolish the Monarchy in Great Britain and see how the Landed Gentry feel about that.

Even Trade Unionists have a hard time saying no to zero income taxes, but even that won’t make up for restricting the vote!
View attachment 742131
​

Enacting a Law is far from an instantaneous, one-click affair. First off, any reform must be supported by at least one Interest Group in your government who can champion the change. Once the reform has begun it can be a smooth process that’s over in a matter of months, or it can take years of gruelling debate in parliament or horsetrading between Interest Groups in order to pass. The amount of time it takes depends both on your government’s Legitimacy in the eyes of the people, and also on the Clout of the Interest Groups in your government that supports and opposes the new Law relative to the one it’s replacing. While broader coalitions of Interest Groups in government give you more options of Laws to enact, it also complicates getting them passed.

Changing your laws isn’t an entirely straightforward process in Victoria 3! In this case it’s just a matter of time before the Law is enacted, but if dissenting Interest Groups had also been part of this government there would be plenty of room for Debate and Stalling tactics that could cause this reform to take more effort than it’s worth.
View attachment 742133
​

Let me close out here by tying all this back to the Pops. As we have touched on in past dev diaries, Pops have a Profession, collect an income, and consume goods depending on the economic preconditions you have created in your country. These material concerns in combination with a few others, such as Literacy, determine which Interest Groups they support. Other aspects, such as your country’s Laws, influence how much Political Strength the Pops provide to those Interest Groups. The Interest Groups have an Approval score and favor certain Laws over others. As a result, different groups of Pops approve more or less of the society you have built depending on their economic well-being, and their demands for change is more or less intimidating depending on how many and strong they are. You may choose to placate an angry group, or further benefit an already content group for extra benefits. But in doing so, some other group will become displeased. Have you built your society resilient enough to navigate these ebbs and flows? And most importantly, which of the many, many routes will you take to move forward?

That is all for me this week! In this dev diary I mentioned Institutions a number of times, and next Thursday I will be back with more details on this powerful society-shaping tool. Until then!

I think it's really cool that they're gating certain laws behind having various interest groups as part of your government. I also like that depending on how your government is made up, passing new laws can be easy, or like pulling teeth if you're pitting interest groups against one another.

This seems pretty thorough, I wonder how they'll work in political parties?come out with me via fm whatsapp

 

[jr8825]

Great dev diaries so far! One little detail I noticed is that trade unionists are in favor of “no income tax” while at the same being against “per capita tax”. Taken at face value, this is nonsense considering income tax is a more progressive form of taxation than per capita taxation. In effect, under current conditions, labour unions would be in favor of a form of taxation which undermines their own influence and which benefits the wealthy. I understand this might be a balancing issue, but at a rate of +2 for no income tax to -1 for per capita tax, it would never be beneficial to go from per capita to income taxation. In reality, when other forms of taxation are present, there should be no positive modifier to trade union opinion for having no income tax.

I thought exactly the same thing. I hope your message gets noticed.