Changes to ideology system

[Secret Master]

This may seem like a silly question, but how does the current system of HOI3 not achieve the proper results?

Some folks keep saying that nationalist ideologies and countries led by leaders with those outlooks shouldn't gravitate towards each other without a common threat. Yet, in HOI3, raising threat on France is the recipe for early entry of Italy (and a few other countries) into the Axis.

Furthermore, ideological drift is only a supplement to diplomatic influence and threat. If you aren't influencing a nation to join your faction, they just aren't going to join by themselves... unless they are attacked by another faction you are already at war with.

What I'm getting at here is that despite the rather detailed domestic ideology and party mechanics, at the end of the day, realpolitik drives most of the alliance forming in HOI3, with a healthy dose of historical guidance in event choices for the AI. Axis threat, or if the Axis increases threat on the Allies, drives countries to join factions regardless of ideology.

 

[BBBD316]

That was my reaction earlier in the post.

I think this is more wanting to have correct labels, as opposed to actual changes within the game itself, though I stand to be corrected.

 

[Calders]

I agree this is not a big issue in the game and the current mechanic works ok, its more that its a subject I find interesting. Having said that what I would like to see are the following changes:

1) Ideologies should not be grouped into simple grouping that equate to the 'alignment' triangle (it is too simplistic to think ideologies relate so directly to factions, I did a mod that used 5 grouping where some would happily go in two of the factions but not the third)
2) I think political parties need to be separated from ideologies, as the current system creates far too many political parties for most countries and doesn't cope with the fact that some political parties have people with different ideologies. This is particular true in somewhere like England where there were two dominant parties at the time.
3) Political parties should be able to have a preferred 'form of government', so your belief in democracy, or not, is not directly related to ideology (this just allows for greater flexibility in the system)

I would actually say that threat and influencing were too powerful in HOI3, and I would like to see political parties being more important and spying being more effective at promoting particular political parties.

 

[Contravarius]

I would actually say that threat and influencing were too powerful in HOI3, and I would like to see political parties being more important and spying being more effective at promoting particular political parties.

Furthemore, I would like to see a system, where you could actually choose the party you support in both your own country or abroad, not just "the ruling party" or "our party". ...Or was that exactly what you just said?

Or if not that, then another way to change your own ruling party, maybe something like was promised in EvW?

 

[Calders]

Furthemore, I would like to see a system, where you could actually choose the party you support in both your own country or abroad, not just "the ruling party" or "our party". ...Or was that exactly what you just said?

Or if not that, then another way to change your own ruling party, maybe something like was promised in EvW?

I didn't say that specifically but I agree with it completely

(although I never actually looked at the way EvW did this)

 

[scroggin]

Furthemore, I would like to see a system, where you could actually choose the party you support in both your own country or abroad, not just "the ruling party" or "our party". ...Or was that exactly what you just said?

I would agree with this

One other thing about the diplomatic system is that being at war with a country belonging to one Ideology should have far more of an effect in driving you away from them diplomaticly. Often the country you are being attacked by is not shown as the greatest threat. You can even be dragged into your enemies diplomatic corner due to ideological similarities.

 

[scroggin]

This may seem like a silly question, but how does the current system of HOI3 not achieve the proper results?

Some folks keep saying that nationalist ideologies and countries led by leaders with those outlooks shouldn't gravitate towards each other without a common threat. Yet, in HOI3, raising threat on France is the recipe for early entry of Italy (and a few other countries) into the Axis.

Furthermore, ideological drift is only a supplement to diplomatic influence and threat. If you aren't influencing a nation to join your faction, they just aren't going to join by themselves... unless they are attacked by another faction you are already at war with.

What I'm getting at here is that despite the rather detailed domestic ideology and party mechanics, at the end of the day, realpolitik drives most of the alliance forming in HOI3, with a healthy dose of historical guidance in event choices for the AI. Axis threat, or if the Axis increases threat on the Allies, drives countries to join factions regardless of ideology.

Yes I agree with the 3 sided triangle, the original poster wanted a 4 sided diplomacy with liberal and conservative replacing democratic. The four sided diplomacy would be appropriate for some eras of history but during WWII countries were really divided into three main alliances. The significant blocks that were formed were allies, comintern and axis. There were of course a few exceptions where countries joined an alliance they weren't ideologically close to.

 

[Contravarius]

Yes I agree with the 3 sided triangle, the original poster wanted a 4 sided diplomacy with liberal and conservative replacing democratic. The four sided diplomacy would be appropriate for some eras of history but during WWII countries were really divided into three main alliances. The significant blocks that were formed were allies, comintern and axis. There were of course a few exceptions where countries joined an alliance they weren't ideologically close to.

Maybe this whole triangle-thing was a wrong step from the beginning? It killed all the other alliances.
...But maybe I just like HOI2 and its sandboxiness too much.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Well, does anybody have a better idea? Did the Hoi 2 system (or the lack of it) work better? What should they change?

I never played HOI2 so I don't know about that, but I thought maybe this could be shown on an x/y diagram, or even an x/y/z. An x/y plot would allow one more factor to be incorporated, and adding a z axis would enable further possibilities.

It's just that I don't see why, if I play as Portugal, I need to end up in the same camp as Hitler or even Franco, just because we're all "right wing autocracies" or somesuch.

 

[ClothCoat]

"Furthemore, I would like to see a system, where you could actually choose the party you support in both your own country or abroad, not just "the ruling party" or "our party". ...Or was that exactly what you just said?"

THIS! We really need this, I'm sick of having to use mods to change a parties popularity. Also, once an ideology is changed the countries ideology should change too after a while (social conservatism changes to social liberal if the social liberals win two elections)

Furthermore I think each ideology should give a different benefit. For instance:

Social conservatism- National unity bonus (due to appeals to national tradition).
Market liberal- More cash and supplies (due to freer markets).
Social liberal- Lower dissent (due to social programs).
Social Democrat- More energy and oil (due to government involvement in the economy) OR a small tech bonus (due to greater funding for government programs)

The anti-democratic ideologies already have benefits (being allowed to nationalize or enact repressive policies) so that doesn't need much changing. If we recognize that not all "left-wing radicals" (Democratic socialists) or "paternal autocrats" (reactionaries) aren't anti-democracy they can get their own benefits too.

Reactionary- Neutrality drops faster and a slight bonus to infantry moral. (due to hostility to foreign influences).
Democratic socialist- More metal and rare materials (due to promoting unions that work in these areas).

 

[BBBD316]

Clothcoat can't agree more, especially if I am trying to drive my country in a particular direction.

Also the point on supporting X party is extremely valid. As Germany I may not be able to get a Fascist government in the UK or the USA, but I should be able to try and get a government that would not interfere in continental, European affairs.
If I can get an isolationist President of the US it would be a great coup for the Axis nations to gain that neutrality and trading allowances.

 

[Vacceo]

I think naming the actual parties reduces inmersion but it´s still a decent mechanic. As Calders comments above, not all tories at the time belonged to a single ideology (some were socially conservative, some were not) just like laborists ranged from social democratic to close to leninsm.

The case I know the best from HoI3 is Republican Spain. It feels quite weird that Negrín is a left wing radical, along with Besteiro while Largo Caballero is a social democrat. They all belonged to the socialist party, the first was a quite pro-soviet president, the second was a social democrat and the third a somewhat independent leftish that propaganda labeled the "Spanish Lenin". Moreover, many relevant anarchists at the time are considered "leninist" (a denomination they would ardently hate) while a couple are left wing radicals.

I´d rather not see actual parties but ideologies. That allows to abstract and consider simply that an ideology regardless of actual party supporting them has the majority of the government.

 

[Calders]

Moreover, many relevant anarchists at the time are considered "leninist" (a denomination they would ardently hate) while a couple are left wing radicals.

Yeah this is a great point, there is no way to represent Anarchists at the moment. Of course this is much more significant in the Spanish Civil war because the Anarchists should really be a third faction, that was actually attacked by the left wing republicans. Of course it is Anarchists fate to be largely painted out of history.

Edit: Also several resistance groups were Anarchist, notably the Greeks who took power when the Germans withdrew (and who were then attcked by the British).

 

[asteris_]

Yeah this is a great point, there is no way to represent Anarchists at the moment. Of course this is much more significant in the Spanish Civil war because the Anarchists should really be a third faction, that was actually attacked by the left wing republicans. Of course it is Anarchists fate to be largely painted out of history.

Edit: Also several resistance groups were Anarchist, notably the Greeks who took power when the Germans withdrew (and who were then attcked by the British).

Nope, EAM (National Liberation Movement) was created by the Greek Communist party and was a coalition of anti-fascist, left-wing forces with Communism being the main ideology, something that was made pretty clear after the end of WW2. Anarchists were really few if none.
As for the topic, no offense but most of these ideologies examples are false. Also the game needs to make seperate mechanics for each state, depending on its social-economic system and which social class (or state perhaps) controls the means of production.
For example the Soviet Union worked differently while all factories were controlled by the state, Germany or USA had Capitalists on it and were depended on foreign Capital for their armies to grow (Ford, Bayern etc.) The advantage or difference is quite obvious. This needs to be expressed in the game.

 

[Calders]

So you have to be really careful with this... a lot of those people in the "left-wing" forces and even the communist party where anarchist. After all most anarchist movements are really anarcho-socialist (ignoring a modern trend for anarcho-capitalists, e.g. the extreme US Tea Party). The only real distinction is weather the power structure is top down or bottom up. Anarchism means 'no rulers' so any real democracy is anarchistic. I would suggest to you that the EAM largely organised itself with a bottom up power structure prior to the departure of the Nazi and the conflict with the British. After which it purged itself of anarchists thinkers and embarked on the civil war.

 

[Vacceo]

Yeah this is a great point, there is no way to represent Anarchists at the moment. Of course this is much more significant in the Spanish Civil war because the Anarchists should really be a third faction, that was actually attacked by the left wing republicans. Of course it is Anarchists fate to be largely painted out of history.

Edit: Also several resistance groups were Anarchist, notably the Greeks who took power when the Germans withdrew (and who were then attcked by the British).

The Italian Arditi (the ones like Argo Secondari) of the 20´s could be another example, but those are out of the timeframe. It is true, however, that many Italian anarchists (many former Arditi del Popolo) joined the partisans against Germans and Italian fascists. It can be factored.

I´m sure you have played a Republican Spain that has quickly won the Civil War and chances are that the guys in power were anarchists... So it could be a potential scenario where they´d "inspire" other countries to follow their path, especially if you liberate them during the course of the war. Weird? Indeed! But that´s exactly why HoI in general is exciting: you can make work ideas, nations and approaches that never happened in history; some of them as simple as a Kuomintang winning the Chinese Civil War or as complex as Mexico extending their revolution through all Latin America.

 

[asteris_]

So you have to be really careful with this... a lot of those people in the "left-wing" forces and even the communist party where anarchist. After all most anarchist movements are really anarcho-socialist (ignoring a modern trend for anarcho-capitalists, e.g. the extreme US Tea Party). The only real distinction is weather the power structure is top down or bottom up. Anarchism means 'no rulers' so any real democracy is anarchistic. I would suggest to you that the EAM largely organised itself with a bottom up power structure prior to the departure of the Nazi and the conflict with the British. After which it purged itself of anarchists thinkers and embarked on the civil war.

Well my friend I don't want to turn this into a political discussion as I would get banned probably
But trust me, anarchists in Greece were really few because of the influence of the Communist party and after some points the continued victories of the Red Army.
Anarchism means no state and class-less society. Pretty much like Communism without Socialism as a Labor State. So no democracy today, as a state, has anything to do with Anarchism or Communism, anarchists did not point the "prime minister" or the "president" as the ruler, but the Capitalist social class oppressing the rest. Besides Lenin himself stated that one will never be free if States exist, even in a Socialist one.
EAM was organised pretty much the way the Communist party was, in which I would suggest you to read the typical structure of a Leninist party, which was identical. Nevertheless a party cannot be described as anarchist only looking at its structure, it's pretty unrealistic.

Of course I applaud you for your research about the Greek Resistance and Civil War, in which you seem to know more compared to the Greeks, and I really encourage you to research more. It's a pretty interesting chapter of the so-called "Cold War" and Greece's history can really sum up nearly every social change. I am also glad you recognize the attack of December 1944 at Athens by the British.

 

[Calders]

These are all good points. Just for clarity I should say that when I mentioned a "real democracy" in relation to Anarchism I was referring to one where the people vote on the issues and not one where they elect leaders, so I agree that no current 'democracy' has anything to do with anarchism. I would define anarchism slightly differently to you, I don't think it precludes a state completely, it just precludes rulers, so you can still have state functions as long as they are controlled collectively. Of course this depends on what you mean by state

Of course you are right that communist doctrines propose removing the state at some point in the future, once the people are ready, but communist states never seem to achieve this. This is essentially Bakunin's criticism of Marx that once an all powerful state is built it will never destroy itself.

 

[The Andy-Man]

These are all good points. Just for clarity I should say that when I mentioned a "real democracy" in relation to Anarchism I was referring to one where the people vote on the issues and not one where they elect leaders, so I agree that no current 'democracy' has anything to do with anarchism. I would define anarchism slightly differently to you, I don't think it precludes a state completely, it just precludes rulers, so you can still have state functions as long as they are controlled collectively. Of course this depends on what you mean by state

Of course you are right that communist doctrines propose removing the state at some point in the future, once the people are ready, but communist states never seem to achieve this. This is essentially Bakunin's criticism of Marx that once an all powerful state is built it will never destroy itself.

To be somewhat pedantic, Anarchy in it's purest form is based on the non aggression principle, and that's it. The arguments amongst anarchists (mainly the Anarcho-Capitalist vs Anarcho-Socialist divide) are based alot on what constitutes aggression. An-Cap philosophy is heavily based on private property rights, where as an anarcho-syndicalist would say that private property is a form of aggression.

Non of this, of course, is particularly relevent to the game, as the idea of fighting a war as an anarchic state is ludicrous. Furthermore, the anarchic groups of the time tended to by of the syndicalist variety, so lumping them with leftist groups makes sense (even if I find it a bit annoying).

 

[Calders]

Non of this, of course, is particularly relevent to the game, as the idea of fighting a war as an anarchic state is ludicrous.

But the Spanish Anarchists did fight in a war... they fought the Nationalist for several months until the communists attacked them.

I'm not saying your wrong but I think its a case of focusing too much on Anarchist theory (which personally I think is an effort to make something extremely simple very complex). At its simplest anarchy means one thing: from the Greek 'anarchos' meaning "one without rulers", so any system where there are no leaders and people have an equal say in decisions can be described as Anarchic. They had some relevance in the game time because of the division caused in the republican side of the Spanish civil war, and because they could have been involved in taking power in both Italy and Greece had the Allies allowed it (although how influential they were is disputed - see above).

As a side note an Anarchist group also formed in the Ukraine in the Russian civil war, they twice aligned themselves with the Bolsheviks, but were ultimately attacked by them after the white Russians were defeated.

So to keep this vaguely on topic I would say that the game should represent Anarchist groups.