This system grew out of the problem of how PoPs pick ideologies. Now, British conservatism is of course all about Queen, Empire, etc. However, you do not see American conservatives going on about how much better it was when George III was in charge; if only the British would allow us back into the Empire... For gameplay purposes we needed the ideologies to mean the same thing for all countries; that way we could have generic scripts for ideology picking. This makes development easier, debugging quicker and those tweaks that make it feel right simpler to do. So, first we sat down and defined exactly what each ideology means.
Conservative: I am happy with the Status Quo
Reactionary: This government has failed to defend the Status Quo
Liberal: I want political reform
Anarcho-Liberal: This government will not give us political reform
Socialist: I want social reform
Communist: This government will not give us social reform
Fascist: I am angry about something but find it difficult to articulate exactly what it is.
Now, this may be a bit generic, but for our purposes it sets up a logical foundation for when POPs should strongly swing towards these ideologies and what they should do in the upper house.
We have divided reforms into two broad categories; social and political. Your ability to enact them also depends on two factors; the upper house composition and the average militancy in your country. Each ideology gives a different effect in the upper house and thus your ability to pass certain reforms depends on what ideologies hold sway in your upper house.
Conservative: Conservatives in the 19th century we see as those that tried to limit reforms to preserve the old order. When the threat of revolution got high enough, the conservatives would seek to give some ground in order to preserve the rest. This new Status Quo would be the one that the Conservatives would now seek to defend. The result is that conservative members of the upper house never support the removal of current reforms. However, they will not support the extension of reforms either. However, under conditions of high militancy some Conservative members of the upper house will break ranks and support either social or political reform.
Reactionary: Well, the name sums it up. Reactionaries don’t like the way things are and instead hanker for the good old days that probably never existed anyway. Reactionary members of the upper house never support the extension of existing reforms and instead support the removal of all reforms.
Liberal: We tie liberalism and political reform together. Liberalism as an ideology is all about seeking reform of the political system. Thus, members of the upper house who have a liberal ideology always support the extension of political reform. Like conservatism, some will support the extension of social reform but only under conditions of high average militancy.
Anarcho-Liberal: Anarcho-Liberals are angry liberals. They will actually seek to prevent the extension of political reforms, because they would much rather overthrow the government than reform it. They also support the rolling back of social reforms, because the government should be as small as possible.
Socialists: The socialists are the opposite of the liberals. Socialists, like their name implies, seek social reforms always. They never want to roll back reforms, and some will support political reform under conditions of high militancy.
Communists: The people who are dedicated to protecting the workers from everyone except the communists. They always support the removal of political reforms and always support the advancement of social reform.
Fascists: Do not support any move on reform unless there is a fascist government. Then they behave the same as communists. Essentially, in opposition the fascists are spoilers in the political system, seeking to force gridlock to allow a fascist revolution.
Thus the shifting dynamic of the upper house alters your options for reforming your country. How the upper house shifts depends in part on events - just to make sure you don’t get to complacent - and partly on your choice of political reform. You have 4 choices of upper house make up:
Ruling party only: Where 100% of the upper house is always the same as the ruling party. Representing things like the Supreme Soviet.
Appointed: The upper house reflects the ideologies of your rich strata. This is akin to the British House of Lords
State Equal Weight: Each state inside the country sends an equal number of representatives to the Upper House. The US senate model.
Population Weight: Each state sends representatives to the upper house based upon their population. Much like the German Bundesrat.
The last two are elected chambers (yes I know the German Bundesrat was not directly elected per se, but we have to make compromises here) and we have also added two additional voting options for your country. Between Wealth and Landed, we have Wealth Weighted; here both the rich and middle strata have the vote but the Rich votes count as double. We also have universal weighted voting. Everyone (except slaves) has the vote, but Rich POPs votes count as 3, middle as 2 and poor get one 1 vote. This allows additional flexibility in moulding your country.
All in all we have sought to add an additional dimension to the game. Political reform is not just a steady advancement toward some socialist utopia; it is much more driven by the internal factors inside your country. As your country’s ideological outlook changes, so too do your reform options.
Conservative: I am happy with the Status Quo
Reactionary: This government has failed to defend the Status Quo
Liberal: I want political reform
Anarcho-Liberal: This government will not give us political reform
Socialist: I want social reform
Communist: This government will not give us social reform
Fascist: I am angry about something but find it difficult to articulate exactly what it is.
Now, this may be a bit generic, but for our purposes it sets up a logical foundation for when POPs should strongly swing towards these ideologies and what they should do in the upper house.
We have divided reforms into two broad categories; social and political. Your ability to enact them also depends on two factors; the upper house composition and the average militancy in your country. Each ideology gives a different effect in the upper house and thus your ability to pass certain reforms depends on what ideologies hold sway in your upper house.
Conservative: Conservatives in the 19th century we see as those that tried to limit reforms to preserve the old order. When the threat of revolution got high enough, the conservatives would seek to give some ground in order to preserve the rest. This new Status Quo would be the one that the Conservatives would now seek to defend. The result is that conservative members of the upper house never support the removal of current reforms. However, they will not support the extension of reforms either. However, under conditions of high militancy some Conservative members of the upper house will break ranks and support either social or political reform.
Reactionary: Well, the name sums it up. Reactionaries don’t like the way things are and instead hanker for the good old days that probably never existed anyway. Reactionary members of the upper house never support the extension of existing reforms and instead support the removal of all reforms.
Liberal: We tie liberalism and political reform together. Liberalism as an ideology is all about seeking reform of the political system. Thus, members of the upper house who have a liberal ideology always support the extension of political reform. Like conservatism, some will support the extension of social reform but only under conditions of high average militancy.
Anarcho-Liberal: Anarcho-Liberals are angry liberals. They will actually seek to prevent the extension of political reforms, because they would much rather overthrow the government than reform it. They also support the rolling back of social reforms, because the government should be as small as possible.
Socialists: The socialists are the opposite of the liberals. Socialists, like their name implies, seek social reforms always. They never want to roll back reforms, and some will support political reform under conditions of high militancy.
Communists: The people who are dedicated to protecting the workers from everyone except the communists. They always support the removal of political reforms and always support the advancement of social reform.
Fascists: Do not support any move on reform unless there is a fascist government. Then they behave the same as communists. Essentially, in opposition the fascists are spoilers in the political system, seeking to force gridlock to allow a fascist revolution.
Thus the shifting dynamic of the upper house alters your options for reforming your country. How the upper house shifts depends in part on events - just to make sure you don’t get to complacent - and partly on your choice of political reform. You have 4 choices of upper house make up:
Ruling party only: Where 100% of the upper house is always the same as the ruling party. Representing things like the Supreme Soviet.
Appointed: The upper house reflects the ideologies of your rich strata. This is akin to the British House of Lords
State Equal Weight: Each state inside the country sends an equal number of representatives to the Upper House. The US senate model.
Population Weight: Each state sends representatives to the upper house based upon their population. Much like the German Bundesrat.
The last two are elected chambers (yes I know the German Bundesrat was not directly elected per se, but we have to make compromises here) and we have also added two additional voting options for your country. Between Wealth and Landed, we have Wealth Weighted; here both the rich and middle strata have the vote but the Rich votes count as double. We also have universal weighted voting. Everyone (except slaves) has the vote, but Rich POPs votes count as 3, middle as 2 and poor get one 1 vote. This allows additional flexibility in moulding your country.
All in all we have sought to add an additional dimension to the game. Political reform is not just a steady advancement toward some socialist utopia; it is much more driven by the internal factors inside your country. As your country’s ideological outlook changes, so too do your reform options.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
