Actual effect of elections?

[Lifthrasil]

Podcat wrote:

"Elections & Public support
The nations in Hearts of Iron which hold democratic elections will find themselves in some special situations. If the public is concerned that the administration doesn't handle the current situation adequately, they may voice their dissent, making the rulers choose between facing lower public support and a nation that stands less unified against outside threats or making changes to policies or the administration to appease the voters. Although exceptions can be made in times of war, an administration that handles conflict poorly may see itself replaced.

Additionally, democracies are not immune to the effects of communist and fascist movements that defined much of the politics of the era. If the popularity of either grows strong enough, the ruling democratic party may find it necessary to form coalition governments with these parties. Such arrangements come with their own strengths and weaknesses, as these partners may use international ties among the communist or fascist empires abroad to open up new opportunities and risks for the nation."

But is there any more Info on HOW elections actually work and what those ominous "strenght and weaknesses" of coalitions are? Or was this feature removed, since the DD is very old now.

 

[Damiani]

The only Democratic country we've seen really is Johan as the UK in the first WWW, and we didn't see anything about elections there. Forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but the only political parties we've seen are Democratic, Fascist, Communist, and Neutral and therefore there are no different parties in a pure Democracy (like Democrats vs. Republicans, Conservatives vs. Labor, etc). If that is the case elections can't work the way they did in HOI3 where there was a very abstract and hard to influence party system.

 

[PlayerHOI]

Yes it seems like all democratic parties will now be labelled as democratic, all communist under communist and so on... Not sure I like this change but I understand why Paradox did it. The politics portion of HOI3 was a disaster and I assume they didn't want to make a system not so related with war in a game which is purely about war.

What interest me is will civil wars have more than two sides fighting? For example a war between communists and Fascists with a democratic side thrown in as well or are they going to be restricted to only two ideologies fighting in a single civil war.

 

[Lifthrasil]

What interest me is will civil wars have more than two sides fighting? For example a war between communists and Fascists with a democratic side thrown in as well or are they going to be restricted to only two ideologies fighting in a single civil war.

Nope, they said in a DD that a Civil War will only be between 2 parties (no exceptions).

 

[Nelfe]

I remember once seeing Landon at the head of the USA in the first multiplayer WWW. So I think that there is one "democratic" party, encompassing every party (except fascists and communists), with a lot of possible head of states, each one for the non represented parties (for example, in the USA, Roosevelt for the Democratic Party and Landon for the Republican. And when the election events pops, you have to chose between those two).

 

[Lifthrasil]

when the election events pops, you have to chose between those two).

Ah, but podcat wrote that the population reacted to how the current government handles affairs. So the player should actually not have a choice which head of state he has to work with, I think.

 

[Nelfe]

Ah, but podcat wrote that the population reacted to how the current government handles affairs. So the player should actually not have a choice which head of state he has to work with, I think.

It's possible too, what I said is pure speculation (excepted that I really saw Landon at the head of the USA in one of the WWW )

 

[xtfoster]

Forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but the only political parties we've seen are Democratic, Fascist, Communist, and Neutral and therefore there are no different parties in a pure Democracy (like Democrats vs. Republicans, Conservatives vs. Labor, etc).

Yes it seems like all democratic parties will now be labelled as democratic, all communist under communist and so on...

This is not 100% accurate. The Democratic/Fascist/Communist/Neutral* are NOT parties, they are ideologies/tendencies.

The pie chart shows only the dominant party within that ideology. So as long as FDR (and the Democrats) are in power, it will be labeled as the Democratic Party, but if the Republicans win the election then it probably changes to the Republican Party as the new dominant party.

*Neutral can also be called unaligned or none-of-the-above.

 

[Damiani]

This is not 100% accurate. The Democratic/Fascist/Communist/Neutral* are NOT parties, they are ideologies/tendencies.

The pie chart shows only the dominant party within that ideology. So as long as FDR (and the Democrats) are in power, it will be labeled as the Democratic Party, but if the Republicans win the election then it probably changes to the Republican Party as the new dominant party.

*Neutral can also be called unaligned or none-of-the-above.

Yes, but what determines if one Democratic party is in the majority over another if we never get to see but one Democratic party in the pie chart?

 

[Tus3]

There is also the possibility that the Republicans are used as a neutral party because they were more isolationist (but possibly only in European affairs) then the Democrats.
However this wikipage seems to agree with xtfoster's suggestion that there might be multiple parties per ideology but that the pie chart only shows the dominant one.

 

[kviiri]

There is also the possibility that the Republicans are used as a neutral party because they were more isolationist (but possibly only in European affairs) then the Democrats.
However this wikipage seems to agree with xtfoster's suggestion that there might be multiple parties per ideology but that the pie chart only shows the dominant one.

The "Neutral" ideology in HoI 4 has little to do with foreign neutrality. It's more like "autocracy, but not quite evil enough to qualify as Fascist" or something like that.

 

[potski]

Like Switzerland and Sweden? Sorry, it has everything to do with neutrality and nothing to do with their government type.

 

[kviiri]

Like Switzerland and Sweden? Sorry, it has everything to do with neutrality and nothing to do with their government type.

As far as I know, both are Democracies in HoI 4. Feel free to show me otherwise.

(edit: Neutral, or "Non-Aligned" as it's been renamed to in later streams, is a really poor name because it sounds like a foreign stance instead of an internal political structure)

 

[Tarroque]

Could be that democracy is a work in progress thing. Would be awkward if during the demonstrations of the game that filthy sans-culottes broke down the door and carried Johan off on account of unfinished coding.

 

[PlayerHOI]

As far as I know, both are Democracies in HoI 4. Feel free to show me otherwise.

(edit: Neutral, or "Non-Aligned" as it's been renamed to in later streams, is a really poor name because it sounds like a foreign stance instead of an internal political structure)

I agree, it is too confusing as it is right now.

It should perhaps be changed to "Independent" since there are many politicians running as independents.

 

[kviiri]

Could be that democracy is a work in progress thing. Would be awkward if during the demonstrations of the game that filthy sans-culottes broke down the door and carried Johan off on account of unfinished coding.

I think the problem with democracies is that they're pretty much all limitations and no bonuses - which is somewhat appropriate given that the democratic majors USA and UK are already quite strong enough! However I'd like to see some economic or military benefit for having a free society as well, not just WT caps. That way it wouldn't just be a bad move to reform a country like Japan or Italy into a democracy.

 

[Tarroque]

I think the problem with democracies is that they're pretty much all limitations and no bonuses - which is somewhat appropriate given that the democratic majors USA and UK are already quite strong enough! However I'd like to see some economic or military benefit for having a free society as well, not just WT caps. That way it wouldn't just be a bad move to reform a country like Japan or Italy into a democracy.

It's hard to phrase the fruits of liberty into game mechanics in a game set in this era. When most of the world is mired in civil war or catastrophic economic depression, and "benefits" in this context are measured in how much power is placed into the hands of the player (dictator) it is difficult to see where these benefits would come from.

 

[kviiri]

It's hard to phrase the fruits of liberty into game mechanics in a game set in this era. When most of the world is mired in civil war or catastrophic economic depression, and "benefits" in this context are measured in how much power is placed into the hands of the player (dictator) it is difficult to see where these benefits would come from.

Aye, I agree it's kinda difficult. The only easy, sensible solutions I can think of would be something like "cheaper/more efficient civilian factories" (reaping the fruit of capitalism).

 

[ArcandSpark]

Aye, I agree it's kinda difficult. The only easy, sensible solutions I can think of would be something like "cheaper/more efficient civilian factories" (reaping the fruit of capitalism).

The problem is that there was still capitalism in fascist governments like Germany. It wasn't a command economy like the Soviet Union. The national socialists did put restrictions on foreign investment to stop foreign companies from owning too much of Germany but that's about it.

 

[Denkt]

Democracies have a very hard time declearing war on other democracies which can be an advantage for being a democracy.