AAR Thread

[cristofolmc]

Does having low legitimacy actually do anything besides making passing laws much slower?

No. Aparently people dont care you have carried out an effectively coup d'etat lol. In real history revolutions happen for way way less. In Victoria 3, the parties just make it harder for you to keep passing crazy laws lol

 

[Nikolai]

In Norway before parliamentarism was implemented in 1884, the king could appoint anyone he wanted to prime minister, regardless of election results. Then again, the first proper parties as we know it today formed the same year, but we had elections for decades prior.

 

[Spartakus]

I'm guessing it worked one of two ways.

Number one:
South German Confederation united most of Germany, could not form Germany because they didn't quite have enough states, and for the major unification Austria was still a competing unification candidate.

Austria, being the other unification candidate, launched a unification war against the SGC. Austria won, which knocked the SGC out of contention for unification. With only one unification candidate left, Austria can now unify Germany. They do so.

However, we are told that fellow Great Powers do not get annexed when a country does a major unification. But, for situations like this where the prospective major unification area is effectively divided between two Great Powers, the developers still wanted something more to happen than just Austria changing tag to Germany, since that's normally what would happen in this instance. So they maybe have Austria when unifying Germany get some amount of the SGC's land within the major unification area. But for whatever reason, maybe inherited claims or some such from Bavaria, Austria does not annex those states and the SGC is left with them after the unification occurs.

Number two:
Similar to number one, but instead of a unification war, Austria launches a Cut Down To Size play against the SGC. The SGC is likely very infamous after conquering all of this land in order to unify Germany, and Austria sees the change to reverse those gains. Now, when we heard about the Cut Down To Size wargoal in the Diplomatic Plays dev diary, it forces them to relinquish every state they did not possess 20 years prior. That, more than anything tweaked in the unification war case, would explain why the SGC still keeps Bavaria's state regions since it was formed by Bavaria. Then, once that play ended, again the unification mechanic kicks in. Austria is now able to unify Germany since enough countries in Germany support them as the unification candidate (or if they got all the land in the Cut Down To Size play, Austria now possesses 26 of the 30 state regions in Germany, which is over the 20 state region threshold). But, either since the SGC is still a Great Power in the major unification or Austria formed it by regular unification, the SGC did not get annexed into the new Germany.

None of those two could have happened in time and in the political situation. Remember that the SGC was in a cut-down-to-size war against France and the Ottomans.
Here is a screenshot from that war:

and here is one after the unification of Germany:

Notice the identical front lines in France and South of the Alpes. There hasn't been a lot of time between those two screenshots and Austria as an Ally of the SGC apparently. Which would also explain how it could have been formed in the first place.

Something else happened between those two screenshots that broke the SGC apart. My guess is a third party starting a cut-down-to size play or an independence movement that the SGC conceded because it had no power to fight two wars at once.

And then Austria absorbed the resulting collection of German minors because it was the only great power left and could start the major unification play uncontested.
And if the SGC did not support being annexed this is exatly the result I would expect. You can't declare a war against your co-belligerent in another war, you can't force the SGC to concede the play and you can't delay the unification play because someone is at war. The only solution left is let the unification appen without the SGC.

 

[unmerged(760025)]

Well yes Macron in France rules with like 15-20% of the votes only. But his party was the one who had the most votes still.

The argument would make sense if the game had a parliament mechanic with different voting and seat allocations systems.

But as it does t you'd think at least the party with the most votes would rule even if it doesnt have more than +50%.

Going back to the French example, itd as if "somebody" decided that after the election Le Pen should rule, when it doesnt even have the most votes out of all the parties. That is just called a Coup d'Etat.

If you want to take a french example why not take one that happened close to the time period ?
I mean the last Bourbon king of France, Charles X got overthroned doing exactly that. He didn't liked the moderate/liberal angle the government was going with so he replaced them with people that were more to his liking and well... Let's just say that I did called him the last Bourbon king for a reason.

 

[Nnorm]

None of those two could have happened in time and in the political situation. Remember that the SGC was in a cut-down-to-size war against France and the Ottomans.
Here is a screenshot from that war:
View attachment 871721

and here is one after the unification of Germany:
View attachment 871722

Notice the identical front lines in France and South of the Alpes. There hasn't been a lot of time between those two screenshots and Austria as an Ally of the SGC apparently. Which would also explain how it could have been formed in the first place.

Something else happened between those two screenshots that broke the SGC apart. My guess is a third party starting a cut-down-to size play or an independence movement that the SGC conceded because it had no power to fight two wars at once.

And then Austria absorbed the resulting collection of German minors because it was the only great power left and could start the major unification play uncontested.
And if the SGC did not support being annexed this is exatly the result I would expect. You can't declare a war against your co-belligerent in another war, you can't force the SGC to concede the play and you can't delay the unification play because someone is at war. The only solution left is let the unification appen without the SGC.

Jesus, i was wondering what those stains in Venetia and Dalmatia are until i saw crescent there...

 

[DM818]

I just want to write out the things that I think the early technology likely had a hand in.

1. The various unifications happening throughout the world. This is the easiest one, with clearer pan nationilst ideas during 1848 you would see unifications earlier, frankly I'm surprised they didn't happen by 1850.

2. Wales being released is most likely due to the same factors that allowed the Russian states to be released. Having nationilist/separatist sentiments during the more tumultuous early game is likely to result in some breakaway nations.

3. Siberian multicultural I think this is gated behind later techs. The other thing to consider is that by far the largest and most politically influential pops in Siberia are the wrong culture wrong religion Russian Orthodox pops. One would assume that makes passing more accepting laws much easier. I would be curious how things would be different if Russian and Orthodox were the primary culture and religion. My biggest gripe is that the nation should have basically immediately collapsed into civil war. There was basically no military or police force and the wealthy pops were basically all discriminated against, there is no way that nation should survive.

 

[cristofolmc]

If you want to take a french example why not take one that happened close to the time period ?
I mean the last Bourbon king of France, Charles X got overthroned doing exactly that. He didn't liked the moderate/liberal angle the government was going with so he replaced them with people that were more to his liking and well... Let's just say that I did called him the last Bourbon king for a reason.

And that was a monarchy. So in theory he still had some legitimacy to do that as it is the King's goverment.

The AAR is a universal suffrage presidential republic lol

 

[Shahanshah Khosrow]

Siberian multicultural I think this is gated behind later techs. The other thing to consider is that by far the largest and most politically influential pops in Siberia are the wrong culture wrong religion Russian Orthodox pops. One would assume that makes passing more accepting laws much easier. I would be curious how things would be different if Russian and Orthodox were the primary culture and religion. My biggest gripe is that the nation should have basically immediately collapsed into civil war. There was basically no military or police force and the wealthy pops were basically all discriminated against, there is no way that nation should survive.

There is really no reason why Siberia should default to discriminating against Russians and have an Animist state religion, especially when even at the start of the game it is already majority Russian Orthodox and this is only going to increase as the game progresses. Imagine Siberia is released in the 1900s.

 

[unmerged(760025)]

And that was a monarchy. So in theory he still had some legitimacy to do that as it is the King's goverment.

The AAR is a universal suffrage presidential republic lol

Yes and no. The Kingdom of France was in a weird place after the Bourbon Restauration, the king had extensive executive powers but it wasn't an absolute monarchy since there was a constitution called the Charter of 1814 and the kingdom had something ressembling a Parliament with two chambers and for a law to pass the agreement of both chambers was necessary. So in theory yes, the king could appoint whoever he wanted but in practice if he didn't follow the majority of the chambers then no law could get passed. I'm not going to go into details about what led to the July Revolution of 1830 but it was the king's decision to oppose the elected liberal majority in the chamber of deputies that started the whole situation that ended up costing him his throne.

My point was there are historical examples of regimes deciding to disregard electoral results and if these examples can be find inside nations that were neither republics nor democracies at the time then it makes it even more unbelievable that a country like Siberia that was a republic which had the universal suffrage could, without serious repercution, appointed a government from a different political party than the one that just obtained the absolute majority in the election.

 

[AccomplishedRate1]

Well yes Macron in France rules with like 15-20% of the votes only. But his party was the one who had the most votes still.

The argument would make sense if the game had a parliament mechanic with different voting and seat allocations systems.

But as it does t you'd think at least the party with the most votes would rule even if it doesnt have more than +50%.

Going back to the French example, itd as if "somebody" decided that after the election Le Pen should rule, when it doesnt even have the most votes out of all the parties. That is just called a Coup d'Etat.

It is called deep state /s

 

[osvaldopiazzolla]

If you want to take a french example why not take one that happened close to the time period ?
I mean the last Bourbon king of France, Charles X got overthroned doing exactly that. He didn't liked the moderate/liberal angle the government was going with so he replaced them with people that were more to his liking and well... Let's just say that I did called him the last Bourbon king for a reason.

Well, The "Chambre introuvable" example is even more relevant : Louis the XVIIIth chose a moderate government after an overwhelming (and surprising to all) ultraroyalist win in the elections. He did survive.

Now, there's only one way to keep this thread on topic : Post another AAR ASAP !

 

[Zhetone]

it seems to me like some systems should allow picking a winner and others shouldn't, similar to Victoria 2. in the U.S. for example, it seems absurd that you could just pick a 10% votewinning party as the winner (yes, I know, "first past the post" and presidents winning without popular vote majority, but it's never to that extent)

there definitely seems to have been countries where heads of state picked parties without majority support to head governments, but in other countries, this makes no sense

 

[cristofolmc]

it seems to me like some systems should allow picking a winner and others shouldn't, similar to Victoria 2. in the U.S. for example, it seems absurd that you could just pick a 10% votewinning party as the winner (yes, I know, "first past the post" and presidents winning without popular vote majority, but it's never to that extent)

there definitely seems to have been countries where heads of state picked parties without majority support to head governments, but in other countries, this makes no sense

This. HMs goverment should allow to choose goverment regardless of the results, a presidential republic with universal suffrage shouldnt..

 

[shoebird]

This. HMs goverment should allow to choose goverment regardless of the results, a presidential republic with universal suffrage shouldnt..

It would be nice to have a sovereignty politic. If the sovereignty is partially on the hands of the King, then it should be possible to decide the government, although with consequences, if sovereignty is only on the hands of the nation, even if there’s a King, then it shouldn’t be possible.

The problem with this is that for republics or monarchies with national sovereignty, the player would be losing a political lever without anything in return.

 

[DM818]

It would be nice to have a sovereignty politic. If the sovereignty is partially on the hands of the King, then it should be possible to decide the government, although with consequences, if sovereignty is only on the hands of the nation, even if there’s a King, then it shouldn’t be possible.

The problem with this is that for republics or monarchies with national sovereignty, the player would be losing a political lever without anything in return.

The obvious answer there is a reduction in radicalism, if the people are better represented they will be less likely to revolt. There could probably be some other benefits worked in as well.

 

[shoebird]

The obvious answer there is a reduction in radicalism, if the people are better represented they will be less likely to revolt. There could probably be some other benefits worked in as well.

But that advantage would be present also in Monarchies with shared sovereignty between the king and the nation as long as electoral results are respected. But in those cases the player can choose to respect it or not, while in the cases of exclusive national sovereignty can’t.

And I’m not sure a reduction of militance makes up for the lost of political maneuverability.

 

[JesterInYellow]

(yes, I know, "first past the post" and presidents winning without popular vote majority, but it's never to that extent)

The funny thing is, you do need a majority of votes to win the presidency in the United States. You literally can't have a minority president; you need either 51% of the electoral college, or failing that, 51% of the House of Representatives. But since the game only very vaguely models electoral systems at all, it's not like that intricacy can be accounted for. Plus, as far as I know, we haven't actually been told what selects the president exactly. The elections seem to be for the interest groups in and out of government, but I don't think it's been stated how presidents or prime ministers are picked. Correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Parzival02]

The funny thing is, you do need a majority of votes to win the presidency in the United States. You literally can't have a minority president; you need either 51% of the electoral college, or failing that, 51% of the House of Representatives. But since the game only very vaguely models electoral systems at all, it's not like that intricacy can be accounted for. Plus, as far as I know, we haven't actually been told what selects the president exactly. The elections seem to be for the interest groups in and out of government, but I don't think it's been stated how presidents or prime ministers are picked. Correct me if I'm wrong

You do realize that electoral college votes don't always line up with the popular vote, right?

 

[JesterInYellow]

You do realize that electoral college votes don't always line up with the popular vote, right?

Yes, obviously, but the federal system of electing the president of America doesn't account for the popular vote. In a game with multiple electoral systems, this would make a difference, but oddly enough Victoria 3 decided to go with no particular electoral system, with the only levers of control on democracy being who can vote, which even then is only represented in the broadest brush (landed voting means only aristocrats and military officers can vote? The original voting systems of most of the USA are impossible to model because of that.) and then decided that that doesn't matter either and you can just decide who wins anyways, making the whole thing redundant.

The point of my post was that in just about every way of interpreting what the game tells us are "votes", it makes no sense, and also to ask if anyone actually knows how presidents are decided on.

 

[BotherMe]

Yes, obviously, but the federal system of electing the president of America doesn't account for the popular vote. In a game with multiple electoral systems, this would make a difference, but oddly enough Victoria 3 decided to go with no particular electoral system, with the only levers of control on democracy being who can vote, which even then is only represented in the broadest brush (landed voting means only aristocrats and military officers can vote? The original voting systems of most of the USA are impossible to model because of that.) and then decided that that doesn't matter either and you can just decide who wins anyways, making the whole thing redundant.

The point of my post was that in just about every way of interpreting what the game tells us are "votes", it makes no sense, and also to ask if anyone actually knows how presidents are decided on.

But the president can be a member of a completely different party than the majority in congress. Not to mention we’re talking about interest groups, not political parties. The U.S. is actually a perfect example of how this could work in real life, because Democrats (who you might argue are a combo of Labor Unions and Intelligentia) are in the majority but they can’t pass a bunch of laws because some of their members (Manchin, Sinema) are listening to the lobbyists (industrialists) and blocking some laws. You could say that the “spirit of the nation” put the industrialists in charge of the government against the wishes of the voters, who voted for the labor union+intelligentia combo.