Developer Diary 13 – Upper House and Reform

[unmerged(80814)]

Shouldn't it be the lower house for the British model?

Certainly before the parliament acts the House of Lords could block bills from getting passed but the House of Commons was always the pre eminent of the two after the civil war.

 

[Drakken]

I just hope that enabling Reforms will no more be a no-brainer to do as in Victoria 1, and that having a Conservative/Reactionary country, as much as a "savage capitalistic" country, will have some benefits as well and remain rather competitive in other venues, compared to Liberalized/Social-democratized countries.

At least, Reforms should make production more expensive and less competitive, while Capitalists should make less profit, because they are the one fronting the costs of economical reforms in their factories for their employees.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Shouldn't it be the lower house for the British model?

Certainly before the parliament acts the House of Lords could block bills from getting passed but the House of Commons was always the pre eminent of the two after the civil war.

The game does not model specific constitutions. Since it is typically the task of the upper house (including the House of Lords) to delay radical legislation coming from the landless rabble in the lower house, it makes sense to call it the "Upper House," although I hope that the names may be nation/government-type specific, so that we get House of Lords in Britain.

 

[Tormodius]

They'll just switch the party I guess. Although, technically speaking...parties don't have stances on reforms, so it's not really how it works. The entities in the upper house aren't parties.

Hey your into something here i think. What are they then? I am very anxious to find out how the game will work with this new upper house thing.

As we can see in the screenshot there are different policies like: Ruling Party Only, Appointed, Two per state, Based on population.

Then it might be, except for the first, many parties involved in this upper house thing. "Upper house" as general term then reflecting the elected/aristocracy/bureaucracy somehow I presume. So then, somehow the issues of the POPs (a few, or all of them) should come into play at some place here. When they make the game they will probably have to generalize the ideologies and use the most typical issues like in the old game, and thats fair enough as that part was logically designed, but how will it work in the end with the following system:
POPs -> issues -> election -> upper house -> ruling party? its still a bit unclear to me.

Cant wait to see!

 

[unmerged(134218)]

Consider the Chinese Communist Party, who pursue openly capitalist policies while keeping the Communist label. So, yeah, you can even have capitalist Communists :wacko: It's not a perfect example given what you said, of course. But the point is that nominal party ideology may long outlive its supporters and the actual policies pursued by the party. It's a weird world we live in. I think Nature got Communists wrong, I want a refund! :rofl:

The party ideology can't be nominal; fascist parties are the only parties that can stop fascists in the Upper House from becoming spoilers, for instance. o

You're also misunderstanding how the system works currently. See, the Upper House only deals with Reforms. The Lower House deals with actual government policies, like economic policies (from free market to central planning).

So, in your example, the Chinese Communist Party would be actually be classified as Communist Liberal (or at least, in free and fair elections, its strongest supporters would be seen as voting Communist in the Upper House and Liberal in the Lower House). The Communist Party is Communist in the Upper House because they want no political reforms and lots of social reforms. In day-to-day management of state affairs though, the Communist Party is Liberal in the Lower House due to the Party's support for the free market (and that liberalism=free market).

Personally, I'd just junk the system of using the names of Lower House ideologies to describe Upper House ideologies, and just rename the Upper House ideologies. A "Left Vanguard Liberal" reveals the exact ideological composition of the voter. It is certainly less bizarre to say that than it is to say "Conservative Reactionary" to describe the voter who votes Conservative in the Upper House and Reactionary in the Lower House, or a "Communist Liberal" who votes Communist in the Upper House and Liberal in the Lower House.

 

[Alexander Seil]

The party ideology can't be nominal; fascist parties are the only parties that can stop fascists in the Upper House from becoming spoilers, for instance. o

In that one case, yes.

You're also misunderstanding how the system works currently. See, the Upper House only deals with Reforms. The Lower House deals with actual government policies, like economic policies (from free market to central planning).

I fail to see how I'm misunderstanding anything, but go on.

So, in your example, the Chinese Communist Party would be actually be classified as Communist Liberal (or at least, in free and fair elections, its strongest supporters would be seen as voting Communist in the Upper House and Liberal in the Lower House). The Communist Party is Communist in the Upper House because they want no political reforms and lots of social reforms. In day-to-day management of state affairs though, the Communist Party is Liberal in the Lower House due to the Party's support for the free market (and that liberalism=free market).

You have entirely missed my point, which was not to engage in classification of the CCP according to Vicky II standards. That said, in Vicky II the Chinese system would amount to a Conservative Upper House with a party, possibly with a Communist label and state capitalist ideology, in charge of the lower house.

It is you who completely misunderstand the relationship of ideologies to policies. There is no relationship, the only relationship between policies and ideology exists at the level of the Upper House, and even that is relative to the current political situation.

Personally, I'd just junk the system of using the names of Lower House ideologies to describe Upper House ideologies, and just rename the Upper House ideologies. A "Left Vanguard Liberal" reveals the exact ideological composition of the voter. It is certainly less bizarre to say that than it is to say "Conservative Reactionary" to describe the voter who votes Conservative in the Upper House and Reactionary in the Lower House, or a "Communist Liberal" who votes Communist in the Upper House and Liberal in the Lower House.

There is no such thing as anything (reactionary/liberal/whatever) in the lower house (yes, there's the party label - read on). POP ideologies effectively only matter in the upper house. If you're going to remove anything, might as well remove party ideological labels - unfortunately, that will eliminate a useful tie-breaking mechanism...

 

[Cyclone231]

Serious question: has even one Communist Party in history gained political power via typical parliamentarian means and then used its political power to establish a one-party socialist state?

 

[telesien]

Serious question: has even one Communist Party in history gained political power via typical parliamentarian means and then used its political power to establish a one-party socialist state?

Czechoslovakia can be close example. Communists won democratic elections in 1946, but had to ally with other parties. That was the democratic part. Later they pushed those other politicians to the corner and they chose to resign and step out of the governement in 1948. Now comes the tricky part. It was enough of them and according to the constitution there should have been new elections, but president Edvard Beneš instead accepted their resignation and allowed communist party to appoint their people in the freed positions. So it was kind of democratic. At least it was without revolution and questionable step wasn't done by communist.

 

[Cyclone231]

Czechoslovakia can be close example. Communists won democratic elections in 1946, but had to ally with other parties. That was the democratic part. Later they pushed those other politicians to the corner and they chose to resign and step out of the governement in 1948. Now comes the tricky part. It was enough of them and according to the constitution there should have been new elections, but president Edvard Beneš instead accepted their resignation and allowed communist party to appoint their people in the freed positions. So it was kind of democratic. At least it was without revolution and questionable step wasn't done by communist.

Didn't military force play a vital role in forcing the other politicians out and getting Beneš to give them the country?

 

[telesien]

Didn't military force play a vital role in forcing the other politicians out and getting Beneš to give them the country?

Not directly and not military power itself. Communists prepared their own kind of civil paramilitary force, but it was established just 4 days before the final presidential decision and was nowhere near being decisive force. The head of military is basically president, but more likely minister of defence. In that time it was general Svoboda (ironically it means freedom), who fought against Germans on Eastern front. He was appointed as neutral expert, although much later it showed, that he was secret member of the communist party, but he didn't acted as such and noone new about it back then.

The decisive force was most likely the general strike with 2.5 millions people in it. All-in-all it was complicated situation with some arresting being made and such, but it wasn't classic revolution or military coup.

 

[Dreadlord]

Well, As I understand if you have a socialist upper house and give them social reforms they become conservatives to protect the status quo..
everything seems good here but what happent if this "social" status quo gets broken.The former socialist wotn wote for reactionary instead of communist i hope.

 

[unmerged(134218)]

You have entirely missed my point, which was not to engage in classification of the CCP according to Vicky II standards. That said, in Vicky II the Chinese system would amount to a Conservative Upper House with a party, possibly with a Communist label and state capitalist ideology, in charge of the lower house.

It is you who completely misunderstand the relationship of ideologies to policies. There is no relationship, the only relationship between policies and ideology exists at the level of the Upper House, and even that is relative to the current political situation.

In the Upper House, there is a relationship between reforms and ideologies. And reforms are divided into both political reform and social reform.

                                       Anti-Social Reform
        Reactionaries-Rollback All                   |           Liberal (regular)
        Anarcho-Liberals-Rollback Social      |        Anarcho-Liberals-Rollback
        (Want an AL revolution)              |           (After AL revolution) 
                                     Fascist (with no Lower House)
Anti-Political Reform -------------No Change:---------Pro-Political Reforms
                                    Conservative (regular)  
           Communist-Rollback                 |             Liberal (paranoid)
           Socialist (regular)                    |             Socialist (paranoid
    Fascist (with Lower House)             |              Conservative (paranoid)
     -Rollback                                   |
                                        Pro-Social Reform

Rollback means that the Ideology wants to remove those Reforms it doesn't like, rather just merely block new Reforms.

Voting in the Upper House is irrelevant to voting in the Lower House. In the Lower House, the voters vote based on political policies they prefer...which may be traditionally seen as part of a political ideology. The parties themselves have ideological labels, which are also the same as the ideological labels as above.

A person who voted Conservative in the Upper House likes the current status quo in respect to reforms. However, he must choose a political party to represent him in the Lower House. He might vote for an Interventionist party (making him a Conservative Conservative), he might vote for a Free Market party (making him a Conservative Liberal), he might prefer State Capitalism (making him a Conservative Reactionary), or he might prefer Planned Economy (Conservative Communist).

Everyone may be content at the status quo in the Upper House, but nobody is going to agree on every policy in the Lower House. Because these are important ideological divisions, It would make sense to refer to those voters based on what they voted in the upper House and what they voted in the Lower House, and one may have to do that if they wish to understand what their POPs are thinking...for purely noble purposes, of course.

I just think it's silly.

There is no such thing as anything (reactionary/liberal/whatever) in the lower house (yes, there's the party label - read on).

The party label may still matter. And it matters more than a stupid tie-breaker than can easily be replaced by a coin flip. For one, it's still a useful shorthand to refer to generic parties who support certain policies. When I say Communist, I conjure up an image both you and I recognize. Take that away, and I have to both list the name of the actual party and all its policies. Secondly, it impacts the views of Fascists and Anarcho-Liberals in the Upper House. Fascists need a Fascist Lower House to stop being spoilers. Anarcho-Liberals (presumably) need to know when the revolution has begun before they stop being spoilers.

Finally, we don't even know how revolutions work, or if there can be peaceful coups (a Fascist party comes into power in the Lower House and creates a Presidential Dictatorship). If there are peaceful coups or revolutions, it would make sense to tie them to party label, because I'm not going to be happy to see a Liberal cheerfully disbanding a democracy for giggles.

 

[unmerged(45977)]

I'm looking forward to the conservative liberal party .

 

[Vladislav]

This is all very complicated.

 

[Garak]

This is all very complicated.

Honestly, I think it's less complicated than all the arguing makes it sound. If we all sit here and pick it apart, we're going to find some inconsistancy. But at the end of the day, we just have to accept that it's a game and some things have to abstracted or simplified.

 

[Dragula]

If you want political reform you do not have to pick either Communist or Liberal, you pick Liberal. It makes the ideology scripts more obivous and the ideology effects on the shape of your country clearer.

So I can pick Fascist?

 

[Beamed]

This is all very complicated.

Not really. People are arguing about the nuances - whether or not commies should become conservative once The Revolution is successful, etc.

 

[Dark Knight]

That's rather accurate. That said, what is your opinion of the game's redefinition of the ideologies? I mean, King specifically invoked the notion of Brezhnevian communists as the conservatives of the Soviet Union.

No.

You're taking these words and deliberately using only one of the meanings given to them, while the game uses another. There is no Great Big Book of Game Design Dogma that says that it has to be that way.

If ideological terms are used in the game, then the names of ideologies should be used to refer to ideologies, not to something completely different. Communists are content in a communist government, but this doesn't turn them into conservatives. Others are unhappy under a communist government, but this doesn't turn all of them into liberals. There was bickering between communist factions in the Soviet Union from the 1920s onward, but they were still all communists. They didn't switch between being 'communist' and being 'conservative' depending on which faction was dominant. I suppose the Brezhnevite faction would be liberal under Stalin, conservative under Brezhnev, reactionary under Gorbachev, and communist under Yeltsin, without changing its positions.

 

[telesien]

I suppose the Brezhnevite faction would be liberal under Stalin, conservative under Brezhnev, reactionary under Gorbachev, and communist under Yeltsin, without changing its positions.

Which easily tells us of their preferences. While I understand the issue some people have with communists being conservative under communist government, I still don't see any other and so simple way to show how radical is each and every POP in the ways of communism (or other ideology). And I also sometimes here phrases like: "I am a conservative old school communist." So I really don't have any problem at all and see the logic here.

 

[Sid Meier]

Fascist: I am angry about something but find it difficult to articulate exactly what it is.

Hilarious.