In Vic1 revanchism was an invention and it lowered prestige loss when DoWing other nations that held a certain percentage of your cores. But was revanchism in Vic1 also a country specific value, like it will be in Vic2?
Developer Diary 13 – Upper House and Reform
- Thread starter King
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
ok, totally out of context, but I have to say that I very much love that system paradox wants to implement. It's more realistic than anything I could think of!
So what we have here is a simple, elegant system that provides a powerful way to model a wide range of political situations.
Oh, and incidentily people have two definitions for a term used, so we get 20+ pages of raging debate where both sides are arguing the same thing while furiously calling the other side wrong.
I love the internet.
If you think ideology is a person's attitude to reform:
The dev diary makes perfect sense. Liberals want to extend the vote, but don't want to fund the slackers with social reforms. Socialists don't like to see people left behind, conservatives are happy with the way things are. You elect the faction that will get you what you want into the upperhouse, and just like in real life the radicals of 50 years ago are the conservatives of today because the goal posts have shifted. The nitty-gritty details of running the country are a seperate issue, and you get the system you want by voting in the appropriate party.
If you think ideology is a set of policies, usually with an ideal end-goal in mind:
The world has gone mad. Liberals are those after small-government laissez-faire (not using the screwed-up US definitions here), so why are they suddenly called conservatives if they still want laissez-faire but have achieved the political reforms they want? Similarly, why do the triumphant socialists who have brought in the ideal state become conservatives? The key here is to recognise the game is using the other definition. If it helps you get it, rename the upperhouse factions to establishment etc, and think of your POPs upperhouse vote as support for factions rather than actual parties.
Coming in a week later, it's fairly plain to see that this is where all the confusion has come from. Some of those involved have even realised this, but not all. Take a step back and it should all be clear, and you can get back to focussing on how neat the system is.
Oh, and incidentily people have two definitions for a term used, so we get 20+ pages of raging debate where both sides are arguing the same thing while furiously calling the other side wrong.
I love the internet.
If you think ideology is a person's attitude to reform:
The dev diary makes perfect sense. Liberals want to extend the vote, but don't want to fund the slackers with social reforms. Socialists don't like to see people left behind, conservatives are happy with the way things are. You elect the faction that will get you what you want into the upperhouse, and just like in real life the radicals of 50 years ago are the conservatives of today because the goal posts have shifted. The nitty-gritty details of running the country are a seperate issue, and you get the system you want by voting in the appropriate party.
If you think ideology is a set of policies, usually with an ideal end-goal in mind:
The world has gone mad. Liberals are those after small-government laissez-faire (not using the screwed-up US definitions here), so why are they suddenly called conservatives if they still want laissez-faire but have achieved the political reforms they want? Similarly, why do the triumphant socialists who have brought in the ideal state become conservatives? The key here is to recognise the game is using the other definition. If it helps you get it, rename the upperhouse factions to establishment etc, and think of your POPs upperhouse vote as support for factions rather than actual parties.
Coming in a week later, it's fairly plain to see that this is where all the confusion has come from. Some of those involved have even realised this, but not all. Take a step back and it should all be clear, and you can get back to focussing on how neat the system is.
Sorry this is a noob question. But as the player can you dissolve parliament and call for new elections, or are the elections set in stone? 
Sorry for the dumb question.
Sorry for the dumb question.
Sorry this is a noob question. But as the player can you dissolve parliament and call for new elections, or are the elections set in stone?
Sorry for the dumb question.
depends on your government form.
Is Revanchism supplies the facist? if yes i think it can have a range of affects like
low revan => low support bonus for conservatives and reactionary
med revan => med support for conservatives and reactionary
high revan => med support for facist
low revan +high threat from commies(election or invasion) => med support for facist
med revan +high threat from commies =>high facist support
high revan +high threat from commies => Hail mein führer
well at least its my idea couse i dont remember anything about a facist movement in france for alsace-lorrain so facist dont strom in when you lose a core ore two but thing go wrong they came to restore the state(like italy and germany) or just kick the comm/sociallist(like spain)
low revan => low support bonus for conservatives and reactionary
med revan => med support for conservatives and reactionary
high revan => med support for facist
low revan +high threat from commies(election or invasion) => med support for facist
med revan +high threat from commies =>high facist support
high revan +high threat from commies => Hail mein führer
well at least its my idea couse i dont remember anything about a facist movement in france for alsace-lorrain so facist dont strom in when you lose a core ore two but thing go wrong they came to restore the state(like italy and germany) or just kick the comm/sociallist(like spain)
Is there any limit to how much reform or repealing you can do in one go, or could you go the whole way as soon as you got a socialist, liberal or reactionary government?
I'm so glad you have opened our eyes, what would we do without you?
In fact, both sides were quite aware of the different definitions, and the argument was about which definition was more appropriate for the game, a nuance you didn't pick up on. Moreover, you have just demonstrated the very sort of attitude you haughtily condemn with your statement concerning the difference between political labels used in Europe and the United States.
So that's why the argument consisted of "upperhouse labels are wrong and confusing", "no, lowerhouse labels are confusing but give useful benefits", "you're wrong", "no you're wrong", for twenty pages? Meh :shrugs shoulders: Just so you know, you were one of the ones I was referring to when I said some had got it, there was a post of yours on about the 18th page where you can see the lights going on. Others hadn't though, and it was more for their benefit.
Not putting a clarification on my definition of liberal would have been demonstrating how to do things wrong, since I was commenting on a miscommunication of definitions. Admittedly it may have come off as a bit snide, but it was given in the fine antipodean tradition of a light-hearted ribbing. Besides, conversion factors and abominations like "color" or "encyclopedia" aren't exactly endearing whent it comes to those upstart americans
Not putting a clarification on my definition of liberal would have been demonstrating how to do things wrong, since I was commenting on a miscommunication of definitions. Admittedly it may have come off as a bit snide, but it was given in the fine antipodean tradition of a light-hearted ribbing. Besides, conversion factors and abominations like "color" or "encyclopedia" aren't exactly endearing whent it comes to those upstart americans
That's correct.
Anyway, I found the post where King mentioned the second dev diary about the Lower House...on page 2.
telesien said:
I'll suspend judgement on the (re)naming of Upper House ideologies until I see this Dev Diary, pending its plausiblity and what-not. This latest Dev Diary has shown that the devs are using the Upper House Ideologies to impact militancy and CON...which does indicate that the Upper House Ideologies may play a major role in shaping a country.
EDIT: Um...er......Dev Diary 11:
King said:
King...by leaning Conservative, do you mean that an Aristocrat, at the start of the game, assuming all things are equal, would lean towards supporting a Conservative Upper House? Or did you mean just that an Aristocrat would take up what we see as 'conservative' issues?
Last edited:
He will oppose reform and support the status quo.
What is a 'conservative' issue in game? Issues are handled seperately from ideology, afaik. Better to ask how Aristocrats feel about the military, slavery, trade laws, social spending, government intervention, etc.
An Aristocrat, with no other factors in play, will be naturally more conservative in ideology.
Artisocrats give RGO production boosts. It really make a communists dictatorship uncompetative if we decided that now you are there you can spend your time killing all your Artistocrats to stop the reactionary idiots from revolting. So the answer is no, game balance demands it.
That's an interesting sacrifice. So how about capitalists? They're worth a lot too; are there going to be communist capitalists or do I misunderstand their purpose vs. that of aristocrats? I always saw them as equivalents, only one of RGO and the other of industry.
Correct. PoPs represent all sorts of things, so with enough immagination you can come with whole host of things. We have artiscrats in the USA (espeically in the South) representing old money. We can have capitalists in the USSR, representing the factory managers and senior members of the party machine. All that is required is a willingness to suspend a enough disbelief.
Correct. PoPs represent all sorts of things, so with enough immagination you can come with whole host of things. We have artiscrats in the USA (espeically in the South) representing old money. We can have capitalists in the USSR, representing the factory managers and senior members of the party machine. All that is required is a willingness to suspend a enough disbelief.
The planned economy would simply have less efficient capitalists right? You can't totally eliminate them... still need some efficiency bonus and also if a new government arises you shouldn't have to wait for years for new capitalist to rise. Just looking at privatization in Russia... many of the people who became capitalists were members or associated with the old managers/committees under communism.
Non interventionist governments get full capitalists functioning... interventionists get nearly full and actually might be able to tax higher safely since the capitalists won't be using their savings as quickly to reinvest and then in planned economies capitalists due a minimum because depending on the correct planning or not the whole point is centralized production controls allows more long term growth by not wasting capitalist investment in non-essential/useless projects.
Looking at the kinds of efficiency and productivity gains that the USSR made in our time frame I am not 100% certain there should be a serious efficiency penalty for a planned economy. If we had a post war game, then yes.
The efficiency gains were made by cutting out the consumer market though and reinvesting in durables and military goods. I am not sure the game would be able to model that difference or not... so a drop in efficiency would simulate it close enough since the idea is a planned economy can jump a few levels that capitalists would go through. In other words, capitalists might build lumber mills, furniture, then luxury furniture whereas planned economy could go right the most profitable step and stay there or expand other directions in a focused way and not the semi random wandering way capitalists do.