Become a Democracy, Or Die

[unmerged(24586)]

In Vicky, democracies give major advantages that cannot be gained with any other government type. By the late game, militancy usually gets so high you have to become one in order to remain stable. For players who enjoy Vicky for the flavor and historical simulation, that's very hard to enjoy. Monarchy and Order are supposed to lower militancy, and it does but eventually plurality gets so high you can't do anything further to please your populace.

Others have brought this up before but no patch or hotfix has ever changed that. In Civilization the different government types are balanced depending on the approach. In Vicky democracy is hands down the best. Why?

 

[altrgamm]

In Vicky democracy is hands down the best. Why?

May be 'cause you don't have VR?

It was changed in VR - other govements now have they advantages and vuch more stable.

 

[OHgamer]

Do what most of the 19th C monarchies had to do in the end, reform first to Con Mon with say wealth voting, then to suffrage. You get the reduction in militancy by having suffrage, but the benefit of appointing govts you prefer if the vox populi does not go your way (granted with a one-off +1.00 MIL hit for changing governments outside of elections, but if you manage your pops to keep them calm, wealthy and complacent, a +1 MIL hit can be worked off fairly quickly.

Remember, Imperial Germany had a universal manhood suffrage Reichstag from the start in 1871, while in Prussia the parliament was based on election by the upper and middle classes starting in 1848 - the Prussians did not restore absolute monarchy in wake of the 1848 Revolutions so much as worked to ensure the elected parliament had little actual power, which would be inherited by the German state. The Cabinet may not have been responsible to Parliament, but at least the facade was provided that likely helped to convince reformers that the solution to further democratization in Germany was not overthrow of the entire system, but ensuring the Cabinets were responsible to the parliaments rather than the Kaiser alone. Germany did not preserve the form of absolute monarchy, though most of the content was preserved via manipulating elections.

 

[unmerged(24586)]

Do what most of the 19th C monarchies had to do in the end, reform first to Con Mon with say wealth voting, then to suffrage. You get the reduction in militancy by having suffrage, but the benefit of appointing govts you prefer if the vox populi does not go your way (granted with a one-off +1.00 MIL hit for changing governments outside of elections, but if you manage your pops to keep them calm, wealthy and complacent, a +1 MIL hit can be worked off fairly quickly.

Remember, Imperial Germany had a universal manhood suffrage Reichstag from the start in 1871, while in Prussia the parliament was based on election by the upper and middle classes starting in 1848 - the Prussians did not restore absolute monarchy in wake of the 1848 Revolutions so much as worked to ensure the elected parliament had little actual power, which would be inherited by the German state. The Cabinet may not have been responsible to Parliament, but at least the facade was provided that likely helped to convince reformers that the solution to further democratization in Germany was not overthrow of the entire system, but ensuring the Cabinets were responsible to the parliaments rather than the Kaiser alone. Germany did not preserve the form of absolute monarchy, though most of the content was preserved via manipulating elections.

Well yes, the King of Prussia served as President of the German Reich. In this capacity he had the title of German Emperor and not Emperor of the Germans. But this doesn't change the fact that democracies still make more money and have lower militancy than monarchies. Monarchies should have an edge up in maintaining order. The democratic order in France was never stable because Liberals and Socialists always fought each other. Likewise Britain was very much run by the Prime Minister but was still a free society. A democracy with the title of constitutional monarchy for all intents and purposes. For the history lovers in us, it kind of hurts to try to keep the Habsburgs in power when becoming a democracy gets us so many more points.

Also becoming a democracy is way too easy for other major powers while Austria gets a nasty Counterrevolution event. Prussia should too but it doesn't seem to be working, possibly the random trigger. Maybe con mons and democracies should give the same benefits? Maybe presidential dictatorships should be most effective at reducing militancy? Secret police, etc?

 

[Dysken]

From what I can discern you let the plurality get too high, I believe this is caused by high consciousness, you should try to lower the consciousness of your people. Try having clergy in all states (1 clergy pop per state is enough) don botch up tarriffs and taxes too much and try generally try to keep your people stupid and well fed, this will allow you to stick to your reactionary ways.

 

[Vladislav]

Does it matter how big the clergy POPs are, or can you just have a small number of clergy in each state and reap all the benefits?

 

[Merrick Chance']

I actually have to say that in Vicky it's too EASY to keep control over your pops.

 

[unmerged(57311)]

I'd say capitalist countries have a ahistorically large advantage economy wise over planned economies since the capitalists can industrialise and build railway so easily compared to the player in a planned economy. I know that the soviet union's great industrialization is at the end of the timeframe, but still it was the fastest and greatest/most rapid one in the history.

 

[shasla6]

From what I can discern you let the plurality get too high, I believe this is caused by high consciousness, you should try to lower the consciousness of your people. Try having clergy in all states (1 clergy pop per state is enough) don botch up tarriffs and taxes too much and try generally try to keep your people stupid and well fed, this will allow you to stick to your reactionary ways.

Unless you industrialize. Clergymen don't do a bit of good against craftsmen and clerks. And you can't realistically stay backward forever.

 

[Dietmar1982]

I'd say capitalist countries have a ahistorically large advantage economy wise over planned economies since the capitalists can industrialise and build railway so easily compared to the player in a planned economy. I know that the soviet union's great industrialization is at the end of the timeframe, but still it was the fastest and greatest/most rapid one in the history.

I don't think you would have any trouble replicating this. you just have to do it yourself. which IMO makes sence.

 

[unmerged(36774)]

Actually state capitalist and planned economies have huge advantage over laissez-faire systems. You can plan your industries far better than your capitalists do.

In the beginning laissez-faire might be good, because you don't have that much money to build factories and railroads, also it might be difficult to get enough machine parts. But later in the game you want to decide which factories to build and where. Capitalists also don't expand factories before you have every type of factory in a state.

 

[unmerged(86954)]

Capitalists also don't expand factories before you have every type of factory in a state.

I'm pretty sure that's not true as I've seen them expand factories without having one of every type in a province. I think they were stuff like wineries and cloth factories. I was playing Italy in the WWI scenario and after the war there was heavy LF industrialization, and the capis expanded some factories. My POPs had immense demand for those goods but apparently the tarfis were too high for them to get them off the world market.

 

[Dietmar1982]

I've seen them expand factories without having one of every type in a province.

I have seen this to.

 

[OHgamer]

Capis will expand existing factories before having one of each type allowed in a state, IF the calculations of the game engine dictate that it would be better for this nation to expand an existing factory rather than depend on imports from the World Market to make up any shortfalls.

In that sense, the game engine tries to ensure that the capitalist building does not encourage complete autarky unless global supply is low enough that a nation can not fill its own factory or consumer needs based on the World Market.

 

[unmerged(36774)]

Perhpas they sometimes expand a factorory before you have all factories in the state, but too seldom. I have seen that sometimes too, but that is not really worth to mention.

 

[Dysken]

Unless you industrialize. Clergymen don't do a bit of good against craftsmen and clerks. And you can't realistically stay backward forever.

True, but neither can an industrial nation which does not supply its people with abundant luxury or basic rights expect it to be complacent. In vicky industrialization is not required, you can live quite comfortably on your RGOs with some countries if you make some RRs.

 

[OHgamer]

Perhpas they sometimes expand a factorory before you have all factories in the state, but too seldom. I have seen that sometimes too, but that is not really worth to mention.

It does, though, make sense from an overall global market perspective.

Why build another factory for a good with a low amount of global demand that we can import in due to enough global supply given our overall rank when instead we could instead build a factory for a good that has a much larger market both internally and globally and be a guaranteed profit maket for the long haul.

Just because the State has certain geostrategic goals does not mean that the capitalists should not make the best judgement on what to build based on overall market demand. Hence the whole point of laissez-faire : market conditions determine the balance of say guns vs butter in the economy. If the state wants to take a hand in directing economic development, then turn to interventionism (which lets the player expand existing factories), state capitalism or command economy.