• 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.
I'm not even sure what Anarcho-Liberals are meant to be in Victoria 2. They are described as being Laissez Faire incarnate, and reflect that in their economic and social policies, but have a Dictatorship as their enforceable government type. I almost feel that a theoretical Victoria 3 should bar them from forming rebels but give them popularity in certain pops (such as capitalists) and modify their policies and government types to be able to be run as a state in some form while keeping their more anarchy-capitalist mentalities (smiler to how HOI4 Spain has tried to represent anarchists and a feasible government they could form).
Passing that, I love how many the rebels form and like with the frequency of 500k per year. (slight exagerration) But I also hate the dumb reasons rebels organize/spawn. Why does a republic have jacobin rebels? There isnt even any monarchy even a constitutional one.
 
Passing that, I love how many the rebels form and like with the frequency of 500k per year. (slight exagerration) But I also hate the dumb reasons rebels organize/spawn. Why does a republic have jacobin rebels? There isnt even any monarchy even a constitutional one.
And why some random Asian countries constantly pop up "Jacobin" rebels?

I suspect it may be a better notion to call them suffrage rebels or democratic rebels, since they are rebelling to install a more democratic government.
 
While uprising against a government that passes suffrage laws whenever it can.

Militant extremists are not militant extremists because they are level-headed, moderate, peaceful or patient. More likely these groups have a vision for the future and its "their way or the highway". No compromisses and no half-measures.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Militant extremists are not militant extremists because they are level-headed, moderate, peaceful or patient. More likely these groups have a vision for the future and its "their way or the highway". No compromisses and no half-measures.
I really dont remember an uprising in history where all population rebelled against an elected progressive government but ok.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I really dont remember an uprising in history where all population rebelled against an elected progressive government but ok.
except there are no half measures or compromises. While yes I believe too that under that conditions rebellions can happen but it should not be even remotely close to this scale.
 
I really dont remember an uprising in history where all population rebelled against an elected progressive government but ok.

except there are no half measures or compromises. While yes I believe too that under that conditions rebellions can happen but it should not be even remotely close to this scale.

Before I start to look for historical examples I hope you wouldn't mind to clarify mething for me.

What do you mean with "all population rebelled". Do you mean the entire population rebelled or that "all people should be involved in the democracy" kind of movements rebelled?
 
Before I start to look for historical examples I hope you wouldn't mind to clarify mething for me.

What do you mean with "all population rebelled". Do you mean the entire population rebelled or that "all people should be involved in the democracy" kind of movements rebelled?
if you've had any mid-late game rebellions, it should be pretty clear to you the amount of people uprising.
 
if you've had any mid-late game rebellions, it should be pretty clear to you the amount of people uprising.

Could be.

I have however become more adept with time at giving reforms and avoiding rebellions, not to mention being less stubborn, than I used to be. Better an unwanted reform or even a change in government form than be drowned in waves of rebels.

EDITED: Not to mention a bit better with using the police suppression to handle things.
 
The real killer is when you've got 1Million+ pops on the verge of revolution, but can't pass the demanded reform because actual Militancy is less than 1 point. First, why are a million people taking up arms against the government when there's no anger over the issue, and second, why isn't the government allowed to pass a reform it desperately WANTS to pass to defuse the situation? Nooooo, we have no choice but to kill off a million of our own people instead.

I can deal with Militancy; I cannot stand dealing with major revolts during LOW Militancy.
 
  • 3Haha
  • 2
Reactions:
I guess Vicky 2 conservatives and liberals are just plain suicidal

I'd say that many liberals and conservatives in the Victorian, and Edwardian, era were pretty suicidal. They could so easily in many places have done moderate reforms and kept in control of formulating the reform, enforcing it and so on. But a fair number of them just wouldn't give an inch, or a penny, to those pesky plebs.
 
With rebels, I'd say one way to help alleviate the giant doomstacks of rebels just endlessly rising up would be to give more options to interact with interest groups before they become rebels. Playing Russia in Victoria II, I often find that even when I do liberalise, I still have to send my army in to kill various rebels who rise up like clockwork almost every 10 years or so. I know with Russia that is also tied into nationalism from the various nations Russia occupies at game start (Poland, the baltic states, Ukraine) but I still get tonnes of socialist and anarchy liberal rebels rising up, among the sea of communist and fascist rebels that appear late game.

To help combat this, I suggest expanding on the interest groups that Victoria 2 has, which currently only have the choices to suppression, enacting their demands (if you can) or them becoming rebels at some point. Possibly being able to negotiate with them in order for them to drop their group support, such promising to enact a more minor reform then what they want (if government support is there) or to release their nation as a puppet within player selected states (e.g. Poland being released as a puppet of Russia with the Mazowieckie and Wielkopolskie states but not its other cores in Russia).
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't think the lack of interaction is the biggest problem (though I certainly wouldn't mind more), I think it's more a matter of lack of flavorful immersion. Sure, you can open up the menu and see how many rebels are mobilizing, but that doesn't really tell you a story. Imagine if you put a face on these rebels, maybe there's a leader with a specific origin and the game tells you what he's currently doing and shows him moving from agitator to revolutionary.

Overall, I think giving faces to mechanics (not only rebels, but political parties, POP leaders, etc) would go a long way.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't think the lack of interaction is the biggest problem (though I certainly wouldn't mind more), I think it's more a matter of lack of flavorful immersion. Sure, you can open up the menu and see how many rebels are mobilizing, but that doesn't really tell you a story. Imagine if you put a face on these rebels, maybe there's a leader with a specific origin and the game tells you what he's currently doing and shows him moving from agitator to revolutionary.

Overall, I think giving faces to mechanics (not only rebels, but political parties, POP leaders, etc) would go a long way.

I think you're correct on that but I'd argue that you need the additional mechanics to interact with those in the rebel/interest groups. No stories come from a face on a party if all your interactions are to press one button to give in or send them away, or them getting angry and setting up a rebel group. Stuff like "I negotiated with the Leaders of the Irish nationalists to release Ireland as a dominion of the UK with most of their cores " is interesting but this wouldn't be possible if the rebel system is the same from Victoria II, even if each rebel group have more visual representatives.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I've been thinking on politics and after a game as the Qing empire, I realised just how impossible it is to liberalise and move to Prussian constitutionalism or HM's government after westernising. This gave me a few ideas for improvements to the political system.

1. Autocratic rulers should be able to increase or decrease parties presence in the upper house, if you're not on Ruling Party only. This should have consequences (such as the possibility of reactionary rebels from pops disempowered by this action).

2. Parties should support policies that can be stepping stones to their idea policies, such as socialists supporting Landed Only Voting if a state is on No Voting as a step towards more universal voting.

3. For non-westernised nations, only the party support of the aristocrat pops should be taken into consideration for the upper house composition. This may be what is applicable at the moment but I've found it difficult to tell if this is the case when playing Victoria 2.

4. The option to form your own political party with desired policies (such as an interventionist Liberal party in the UK). Getting this party into power could be a struggle and would need limits based on party issues (no Planned economy, Moralistic Liberal parties) but could be an interesting option and seems to be in line with some of Paradox's more recent design ideas (such as the glut of customisation options CK3 offers).
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
2. Parties should support policies that can be stepping stones to their idea policies, such as socialists supporting Landed Only Voting if a state is on No Voting as a step towards more universal voting.
This. It's really awkward when you're penalized by revolts for a step toward something because the pops who want the end goal oppose the intermediate step. This is most noticeable in things like Pacifism to Jingoism, where the Pacifists will oppose a party that wants to move from Jingoism down to Pro-Military (or vice versa) because it's not their specific goal, so they'll keep the Jingoists in power. During the run-up to elections, favoring one ideology angers the ideology CLOSEST to it, rather than the most distant faction. It makes little sense. With MOST pop preferences, there should be at least some support for steps closer to their ideology, as opposed to those far from it.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think I've written about this before but I am not certain. Yet, I would ask that horses is made into a trade goods in Victoria III. The reason for this is the huge uses that horses played for transportation before motor vehicles became good and cheap enough to do it instead and also for the importance of finding horses and replaced lost mounts seems to have been a serious consideration for the cavalry all the way to the Boer War and probably into the Great War.

As such I would propose that "Horses" is a trade goods that's kind of necessary for both civilian and military uses.

*****

In fact I wonder if there shouldn't be a kind of window in the economy part of the UI about transportation. A window that details how much capacity your infrastructure as for roads, railroads and shipping and also how many horses for pulling wagons, trains, ships and later trucks you have for keeping things up to speed.

This could be unnecessary detail but it could also add a piece of details to help us organize our economy better so that for example we can use limited resources on specific parts we want to advance as opposed to having it all spread out, given the economical focus of the game. But I know this could develove into pointless minutia as well.
 
  • 2
Reactions: