The choice is yours to do so politically. Rebels on the other hand have a nasty habit of doing that on their own.
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.
The choice is yours to do so politically. Rebels on the other hand have a nasty habit of doing that on their own.
So a Nazi-style seizure of power is possible, i.e. can fascist POPs rebel and change the form of state even if the fascists are in control of the lower house?
You're saying that if the same ideology controls both the upper house and lower house - the ruling party now has leave to do certain things on its own - like changing the constitutional form of your country?
EDIT: already answered above
Decisions replace major events, for example in EU3:IN the formation of Spain is now a decision taken by the player if he meets the conditions. Like events decisions have a trigger block that determines when they can be taken and an effect block which determines what they do. There are two difference between decisions and events. Firstly deicision are taken when the player decides rather than when the event engine fires it. Secondly decisions have a two part trigger block, a potential and an allow. The potential block tellls the game engine when to display the decision and the allow block when it can taken. When a decision is displayed as a potential, the tool tips tell you what conditions need to be met for the decision to be taken. If we go back to the formation of Spain example, the player can see at a glance, that yes he/she/sujectotchange can form Spain and exactly what they must do to achieve this.
I have some questions regardin the screenshot (just to be safe they are all focused on upper house part of it 
)
1. what in game means "can appoint ruling party"?
2.what is the meaning of those 2 icons with 0% next to them?
3.what means that "can not do social reforms" and "can do social reforms" ? Does the tick and X reffer to something? Because I can't relate it to anything on the screenshot.
4. I can't see the reform to change how the upper house is selected anywhere. Or does the fist icon has anything to do with this?
)1. what in game means "can appoint ruling party"?
2.what is the meaning of those 2 icons with 0% next to them?
3.what means that "can not do social reforms" and "can do social reforms" ? Does the tick and X reffer to something? Because I can't relate it to anything on the screenshot.
4. I can't see the reform to change how the upper house is selected anywhere. Or does the fist icon has anything to do with this?
![Sute]{h](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/Stellaris_pre_order/s/stellaris_avatars_fungoid_12_special.png){kind=avatar}
All in all this model seems pretty good. I have a bone to grind with the "anarcho-liberal" ideology though. It has always been the bastard child of Victoria in my opinion, since it is very hard to explain exactly who the anarcho-liberals is. And more importantly nearly impossible to identify social movements within the timeframe expressing clear anarcho-liberal ideology.
Anarcho-liberals can be seen as ultra-capitalists or radicals. The difference between the two are quite striking though. I can't think of a single ultra-capitalist movement ever gaining popular support or managing to achieve their goals.
The radical movement tends to be militant in non-democratic regimes only, and often oppose social reforms far less than mainstream liberals. When they have a democratic outlet (as they had in Denmark) radicals rarely try to block the reforms in an attempt to topple the regime. Instead they use the established political channels.Also radicals often seek fra more wideranging political reforms than liberals. Reforms spearheaded by liberals often compromise with the conservative (against the socialist), while the radicals wants the total end of monarchy and a republican government.
How to translate this to Victoria II? Well either the behavior of anarch-liberals should be adjusted in some way, or the parties should undergo transitions as well. The radicals leading the French Revolution was surely anarcho-liberals, but the radical movements in democratic countries (like Denmark after 1848) behave far more like liberal movements (as defined by you). Just like liberals in democratic countries tend to behave like conservatives.
As I see it anarcho-liberalism should be relabeled radicalism and the behavior adjusted appropriately. Knowing your reluctance to rename stuff an alternative could be to introduce dynamic parties instead. Like having a .txt file causing parties to change ideology (and policies) depending on the context. The clear example being the Danish Social-Liberal Party (Radikale Venstre) going from Anarcho-Liberalism to Liberalism when Denmark becomes a Constitutional Monarchy?
Anarcho-liberals can be seen as ultra-capitalists or radicals. The difference between the two are quite striking though. I can't think of a single ultra-capitalist movement ever gaining popular support or managing to achieve their goals.
The radical movement tends to be militant in non-democratic regimes only, and often oppose social reforms far less than mainstream liberals. When they have a democratic outlet (as they had in Denmark) radicals rarely try to block the reforms in an attempt to topple the regime. Instead they use the established political channels.Also radicals often seek fra more wideranging political reforms than liberals. Reforms spearheaded by liberals often compromise with the conservative (against the socialist), while the radicals wants the total end of monarchy and a republican government.
How to translate this to Victoria II? Well either the behavior of anarch-liberals should be adjusted in some way, or the parties should undergo transitions as well. The radicals leading the French Revolution was surely anarcho-liberals, but the radical movements in democratic countries (like Denmark after 1848) behave far more like liberal movements (as defined by you). Just like liberals in democratic countries tend to behave like conservatives.
As I see it anarcho-liberalism should be relabeled radicalism and the behavior adjusted appropriately. Knowing your reluctance to rename stuff an alternative could be to introduce dynamic parties instead. Like having a .txt file causing parties to change ideology (and policies) depending on the context. The clear example being the Danish Social-Liberal Party (Radikale Venstre) going from Anarcho-Liberalism to Liberalism when Denmark becomes a Constitutional Monarchy?
Thanks for explanation. Btw: I really DO like todays diary and the entire concept of upperhouse. Just to clarify some things:
1. Lower house exist just virtually, is it right? In practice ruling party = lower house. Is it correct?
2. What about international decisions? Declaration of war for example? Can upper house or ruling party block it? If yes, what can we do about it?
3. How can we influence POPs to choose ruling party/upper house we would like to see in power?
everything sounds good except for socialists beeing anti political reform. you said that it was becouse of pop choosing ideology, so why not let the pops who only want political reforms vote liberal and those who want social votes socialist.
oh, can you reform from monarchy to a democratic republic?
oh, can you reform from monarchy to a democratic republic?
I have some questions regardin the screenshot (just to be safe they are all focused on upper house part of it
1. what in game means "can appoint ruling party"?
2.what is the meaning of those 2 icons with 0% next to them?
3.what means that "can not do social reforms" and "can do social reforms" ? Does the tick and X reffer to something? Because I can't relate it to anything on the screenshot.
4. I can't see the reform to change how the upper house is selected anywhere. Or does the fist icon has anything to do with this?
1. It means that under this form of government you can override the election result and pick from the list of valid parties.
2. Plurality and Revanchism
3. Your current upperhouse composition does not allow the extension of social reform but does allow the extension of political refrom
4. Second on the list of political refroms, between Slavery and Vote Franchise.
No, put slave holding POPs can emigrate and take their slaves with them.
So for example, say UK player enable slavery, could dixie slave holding pops emigrate to UK after the civil war? As an example.
but shoundn't a socialist upperhouse support political reforms? trade unions and voting rights was perhaps THE most important reforms for the socialists.
1. Yes
2. No Diplomacy is seperate, but for example your ability to maximise your gains out of war depend on how jingoistic your poulation is.
3. Yes the dreaded election events are back, but with the POPs only gradually changing issue and ideology they will actually have an effect on your election. Depending of course on which direction you seek to move your population in.
If they lost the war then they've had their slaves taken off them.