Are all ideologies equally playable?

[FmrPFCBob]

I ask here since experienced Vicky players can probably comment on the potential of Vicky2. I've been reading the dev diaries and it seems the game is biased towards implementing Socialism and Liberalism* as the game progresses. Is it possible to play the game successfully using free market, capitalistic, small governmant ideas or do the mechanics eventually make it un-workable?



* the newer conceptualization thereof as opposed to the older views of liberalism, as discussed in Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition (LF ed.) [1962], which seems more akin to the stance of recent Libertarianism.

 

[King]

I ask here since experienced Vicky players can probably comment on the potential of Vicky2. I've been reading the dev diaries and it seems the game is biased towards implementing Socialism and Liberalism* as the game progresses. Is it possible to play the game successfully using free market, capitalistic, small governmant ideas or do the mechanics eventually make it un-workable?



* the newer conceptualization thereof as opposed to the older views of liberalism, as discussed in Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition (LF ed.) [1962], which seems more akin to the stance of recent Libertarianism.

No definately not, and I will explain this in detail in a later developer diary.

Edit: just to clarify I mean there are ways to prevent your POPs agitating for large scale sweeping social reforms.

 

[FmrPFCBob]

Ah, thank you. I'm looking forward to this release.

 

[Alexander Seil]

I ask here since experienced Vicky players can probably comment on the potential of Vicky2. I've been reading the dev diaries and it seems the game is biased towards implementing Socialism and Liberalism* as the game progresses. Is it possible to play the game successfully using free market, capitalistic, small governmant ideas or do the mechanics eventually make it un-workable?

Well, as you've noticed, we just had a huge debate about that, complaining that "liberalism" in Vicky II terms was too close to libertarianism, which is essentially a 20th century invention. A view I agreed with, although I disagree that it creates a gameplay issue.

That said, I don't really see why all ideologies have to be equally playable. This isn't like Starcraft - you don't pick an ideology to win. An ideology is a reflection of what happens. An absolute monarchy in 1900 usually happens either when your country is sitting on a powderkeg owing to political development not keeping up with social changes (Russia) or is hopelessly backward (like Turkey). The game isn't about ideologies competing (for that, see Hearts of Iron ), it's about countries. So whether all ideologies are equally playable (and, by playable, I assume you mean not just interesting, but also capable of dominating the game) is the wrong question to ask.

There is also the issue that the game, being set in the 19th century, requires an ideological narrative to frame the game. The 19th century is the triumph of liberalism, yet ending with a huge conflagration that spawns fascism. No matter what the Great War in this game looks like, this basic narrative should be followed. Otherwise, it wouldn't really feel like the 19th century.

 

[unmerged(22834)]

I hope it's like v1 so I can abuse the crap out of con mon. Start of with liberalism and let the capitalists do all the work with free health care. Then plaster the country with factories, convert all non national pops to craftsmen and clerks with a socialist party in one week, and finally, a conservative party with zero taxes, full tariffs and factory expansion spam!

Ideology is fun!

 

[unmerged(181726)]

That said, I don't really see why all ideologies have to be equally playable. This isn't like Starcraft - you don't pick an ideology to win. An ideology is a reflection of what happens. An absolute monarchy in 1900 usually happens either when your country is sitting on a powderkeg owing to political development not keeping up with social changes (Russia) or is hopelessly backward (like Turkey). The game isn't about ideologies competing (for that, see Hearts of Iron ), it's about countries. So whether all ideologies are equally playable (and, by playable, I assume you mean not just interesting, but also capable of dominating the game) is the wrong question to ask.

I think you are confusing the issue: absolute monarchy isn't an ideology, its a form of government. The fact is that there are successful examples of both Conservative, Liberal and Socialist governments within the Vic time-frame. And while I wouldn't call them successful, there are enduring examples of Communist and Fascist governments (Reactionaries as well during the early part of the game).

These ideologies where all clearly viable governments in that they could achieve and maintain power for long periods while advancing their programs. And this should be reflected in the game.

Moreover, if you forget about the extreme ideologies, and focus on the moderates, it isn't clear to me that any of those three systems was intrinsically superior for state building. Germany and the US both managed incredible modernizations in spite of being governed by different types of parties. In VIC1 however, you almost never wanted a Conservative government. LF Liberals where superior for developing your country early on, while State Capitalism socialists where a superior choice in the late game, which is why Japan (which was able to freely switch from one to the other if it got lucky with the Meiji event) was so powerful.

And lets not forget about immigration: strategies for any American nation generally began with "Switch to a Liberal party to attract immigrants and then...". I see what this is trying to model, people did escape European autocracies for the greater freedom of the US or Argentina. But it would be MUCH better if they came not because you have a Liberal party, but rather because you have Universal Suffrage, Public Meetings, and very lucrative job opportunities.

Making the game interesting requires that Liberals not be intrinsically better than Conservatives (or Socialists for that matter). But rather that the best choice be contingent on you country and on the situation.

But to come back to your example, was Russian autocracy destroyed because Reactionary Absolute Monarchy is intrinsically doomed to destruction? Or because it refused to grant political and social reforms, mis-handled economic modernization, and got mauled in an unpopular great war that it was unwilling to quit?

 

[Garek Maxwell]

I'm very certain this can be done, since there were numerous countries that leaned that way because of how many liberal leaning pops there were when you industrialized.

The new mechanics will probably shake that up and make it less of a "no brainer" to go this route.
Also, as eiderdown somewhat mentioned, the reason why many players when socialist towards the end was because of the ability to convert non-nationals to push up your industry juuust a little more. It was also nice because you could finally get that plane factory instead of the 20th glass factory. Not only that, but socialist parties tended to be full citizenship which is good for both messing with non-nationals but also for immigration.
So, just because some players liked to use those parties for squeezing out as much potential as they could from their country, you don't have to and likely the new mechanics will also make this not so simple.

I, however, hope that monarchies are not entirely doomed. Also, that extremists are not an uphill battle to keep in power.

 

[FmrPFCBob]

Perhaps ideology was the wrong term to use. I just don't want to be playing a country and have to choose all the social welfare, anti-capitalism programs because the mechanics are biased since the developer thinks they're the only ideas that work.

edit* Not saying that's how Paradox is, it's just what I want to avoid. I've played some games where the ideas I support are nerfed and those I oppose are buffed due to bias like that.

 

[unmerged(22834)]

Perhaps ideology was the wrong term to use. I just don't want to be playing a country and have to choose all the social welfare, anti-capitalism programs because the mechanics are biased since the developer thinks they're the only ideas that work.

To allay your concerns, you could easily play Victoria 1 without enacting a single reform or having "state control" of the economy. I doubt it will be different in Victoria 2.

But understand that because it is a game, if you're a power gamer, you will generally be more successful if you use the right policies at the right times etc. But this is about min-maxing for global domination. You can always "win" the game sticking with some ideology/political system.

And again, judging by Victoria 1, playing a liberal game from start to finish would not only be possible, but one of the easier routes to take.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Perhaps ideology was the wrong term to use. I just don't want to be playing a country and have to choose all the social welfare, anti-capitalism programs because the mechanics are biased since the developer thinks they're the only ideas that work.

edit* Not saying that's how Paradox is, it's just what I want to avoid. I've played some games where the ideas I support are nerfed and those I oppose are buffed due to bias like that.

It's not biased because the game developers are necessarily in on an evil conspiracy to oppress the libertarians, it's your POPs who are in on that conspiracy. Think about it - the reason you want these anti-capitalist social reforms is because POPs want them, although a few of them have incidental benefits. So maybe your issue is with your people, not Paradox

But to come back to your example, was Russian autocracy destroyed because Reactionary Absolute Monarchy is intrinsically doomed to destruction? Or because it refused to grant political and social reforms, mis-handled economic modernization, and got mauled in an unpopular great war that it was unwilling to quit?

Sorry, but I believe that you are elevating the notion of ideology to the level of political aether. Your form of government + reforms = ideology, as far as I'm concerned. So, yeah, the Russian monarchy in its pre-1905 form was doomed to destruction. Incidentally, you couldn't find a simple example to the contrary anywhere in Europe. A traditional autocracy couldn't survive industrialization. Even Germany, despite largely neutering the Kaiser, fell in a social revolution (sure, the war helped, but there are historians who hint that Germany had to wage a war externally so it wouldn't have to wage one internally).

 

[Garek Maxwell]

Well, you certainly didn't have to do that at all in victoria 1. As the US you could remove the minimum wage from the start and leave it all off for those social programs. However, you wouldn't get as much immigration and pop growth as you could. A bit logical since if a country offered a bunch of poor europeans the opportunity for good/free(?) healthcare, high minimum wages, and pensions on top of that, I would think they would flock to that country in droves.

In the new mechanics, if I understand them right, liberals just want political freedoms while conservatives want to hold them back but will cave in when there's pressure. Socialists want social welfare programs, and liberals will cave in to being in favor of these if there's enough pressure. So you'll either have to keep your pops happy, or cave in and give into pressures for minimum wages or offering people something so they don't revolt and turn you commie.

Edit: I'm always too slow to reply.

 

[FmrPFCBob]

Okay, this sounds good, I'm definitely not a min-maxer so I don't mind some negative effects as long as I get the chance to use my own methods.

I'll just have to convinve those POPs they're better off without welfare.

 

[OHgamer]

Okay, this sounds good, I'm definitely not a min-maxer so I don't mind some negative effects as long as I get the chance to use my own methods.

I'll just have to convinve those POPs they're better off without welfare.

keep your economy humming along strongly so that all POPs fill their life and everyday needs, and the demand for social reforms should remain fairly low, even at full plurality.

At least that is how it works in V1.

 

[Surgünoglu]

Just like real life: if you want people to have no desire for a welfare state, make sure they have no need for a safety net. And hope that a crash never happens.

 

[Wulfram]

I'd say that at least some of the social reforms should be more likely to be asked for when the economy is going well than when it's going poorly.

If you're struggling for basic needs, you're probably not going to be demanding shorter work hours, or safety regulations.

Really, only unemployment benefit is something I'd directly connect as something demanded in bad times

 

[telesien]

I'd say that at least some of the social reforms should be more likely to be asked for when the economy is going well than when it's going poorly.

If you're struggling for basic needs, you're probably not going to be demanding shorter work hours, or safety regulations.

Really, only unemployment benefit is something I'd directly connect as something demanded in bad times

But when you don't have enough money, wouldn't it be logical to demand minimum wage, free doctors, pension funds for when you grow old, safer workplace so you don't get hurt or the voting right, so you can elect someone who will give this to you?

 

[Mr. Domino]

I think at least part of the problem was the taxation/pluralism system and the lack of counterrevolutionaries in the upper classes.

I played a fair amount as Austria. One way to survive the revolts of the 1840s was to set an abysmally low tax rate (10-15%), high police budget, no tarrifs, and stationing troops in many areas. This made it very hard to make money for a couple years but militancy and consciousness would plummet. You probably could stumble through the 19th century, never reforming, if you kept taxes that low.

The problem IMO is most Vicky players feel thats kind of unnatural and are used to taxing the lower classes at 66%, middle classes at 49%, and the rich at virtually 0%. In essence to squeeze your pops for every pound you could.
The only way you could get away with these astronomic tax rates was to give your POPs lots of social/political reforms. That makes complete sense-if I am paying 66% tax rate I want a return. But I feel that a 66% tax rate itself is fairly unnatural and should not be so easy to institute.

Finally-nobles, and other upper classes should get much angrier at reforms. In victoria overtaxing the lower classes and not giving them rights means there are a bunch of riots in the streets and irregular divisions. Angering nobles means you get a few riots and a few irregulars, since there are far fewer nobles than farmers. But thats somewhat strange. If you angered a noble he didn't form a irregular militia division-he took his massive cash reserves or social capital and left, or raised a bunch of intrigues. You should worry if all your wealthy influential people are against the status quo-maybe they would block it more via the upper houses? More random events for high militancy capitalists/aristocrats?

 

[Alexander Seil]

Well, I think that the combination of an appointed Upper House and reactionary rich POPs should more or less block reforms, which is a lot more realistic than the Vicky 1 alternative of the court aristocrats taking to the hills to fight against autocratic oppression :rofl:

 

[Pablius]

A conservative and monarchic Prussia was able to field a modern army in 1866 and 1870, while conservative and monarchic Austria couldn´t.

This was not modeled well in V1, going almost full LF was a no brainer but wasn´t always fun or proper if you wanted to rol play a little.

Maybe the Tzars shouldn´t be able to go for world domination, but it should be possible to keep up, not implode and keep your winter palace, thanks to a wiser foreign policy and a few internal compromises by the end of the game.

 

[unmerged(134218)]

Sorry, but I believe that you are elevating the notion of ideology to the level of political aether. Your form of government + reforms = ideology, as far as I'm concerned.

What would you call an absolute monarchy (or, even better, a Consitutional Monarchy, since it doesn't have to worry about militancy hits a lot for changing parties) who decided to appoint the Communist Party into office in order to take advantage of the Communist's Planned Economy?