Would it help if I said that Thomas Jefferson spoke french but his party wasn't exactly full citizenship?
I know, 1700s don't count either and plenty of french men and women were probably welcome. Still!
Developer Diary 14 - POPs and issues part 1
- 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.
Would it help if I said that Thomas Jefferson spoke french but his party wasn't exactly full citizenship?
I know, 1700s don't count either and plenty of french men and women were probably welcome. Still!
So is it possible for a liberal dictatorship (like some of the ones that occurred in Latin America) to enjoy a modicum of stability? In Vicky 1, an anarcho-liberal or liberal dictatorship never lasted more than a year or two for me, simply because no matter how much more I was developing, the only people who were fine with a dictatorship were conservatives, and the anarcho liberals who supported the movement swiftly turned liberal.
Would it help if I said that Thomas Jefferson spoke french but his party wasn't exactly full citizenship?
I know, 1700s don't count either and plenty of french men and women were probably welcome. Still!
Nothing helps when I'm on a rant. You know that.
Oops...
I had no intention of opening up that to current world ideas...I was just trying to give examples of how parties might be described by putting parties we are familiar with into the framework.
I think it showcases that, even though a POP may support a party, it won't necessarily support all issues of the party. This is one of the rigidities of Vicky1 that I hope will be addressed...
Will our Anarcho-Liberal Pops always have a party to vote for? Or will they have to pick and choose among the various liberal and conservative parties that were historically available at the time?
I had no intention of opening up that to current world ideas...I was just trying to give examples of how parties might be described by putting parties we are familiar with into the framework.
I think it showcases that, even though a POP may support a party, it won't necessarily support all issues of the party. This is one of the rigidities of Vicky1 that I hope will be addressed...
Will our Anarcho-Liberal Pops always have a party to vote for? Or will they have to pick and choose among the various liberal and conservative parties that were historically available at the time?
I don't know if it may be anywhere elese in the forum, but here my question:
Certain issues evoke a gain in MIL right? So what if a pops major MIL-enhancing issue is universal suffrage p.ex. and they start revolting, will they acually stop, if you implement the reform they ask? Will there be something like revolters with a goal, will a revolter, once he has controlled you capital long enouth to force a new constitution, actually make the changes he was fighting for in the first place?
Certain issues evoke a gain in MIL right? So what if a pops major MIL-enhancing issue is universal suffrage p.ex. and they start revolting, will they acually stop, if you implement the reform they ask? Will there be something like revolters with a goal, will a revolter, once he has controlled you capital long enouth to force a new constitution, actually make the changes he was fighting for in the first place?
If you civilised an African tribe, would they change sprite to a uniformed version?
IIRC King stated that there should be used H3T system of rebels with cause.
Do you have the precise party you want to vote for?
I most certainly don't and it si normal to choose between more close but not perfect parties
Who knows - maybe the final interface won't be about the good ship HMS Government.
I actually wonder if parties will actually have different names in different governments. For example, if you control the Russia Monarchy, the Free-Market Party will call themselves the Kadets...but if you are the Soviet Union, then the Free-Market Party will call themselves the NEPites.
I would guess that this will occur. PI is pretty good about this kind of thing. Even HoI3 has unique party names (though, unfortunately, usually only as abbreviations).
I think it's been mentioned that parties will get flavor names for at least bigger countries.
And all the data likely in txt files so names should be editable to whatever the player may wish for their own personal use.
Some other pop questions
The game looks great! I've been so caught up with work and things the past few months that I didn't even know it was happening. But now I have a few questions.
I worry that this system could force you into some very odd ahistorical events. Not that many states have had a Socialist upper house, but it seems like passing reforms without one requires some militancy. This is an interesting idea but I hope the militancy required is relatively mild (say 4-5). Requiring revolt risk-level militancy actually seems hard to achieve in a well-run state.
So for example if you're the United States, most of your POPs are getting their needs met, and you want certain social reforms in order to prevent lots of MIL later (say, as insurance in case you lose a war), what do you do? The two major parties are non-socialist, so you basically have to pray for increased MIL for other reasons?
It might be nice to include relevant "flavor events" to push this kind of thing along. Like the US might have a "Haymarket Square" event if there are Socialist POPs Chicago, etc... Or just a general "Strike Increases Militancy" event might be ok too.
I'm also confused about the "conservative = status quo preserving" aspect. If that's the case then how does a conservative party ever get into power (short of implementing ALL social and political reforms)?
Or is it that upper house and lower house conservatives are just totally separate parties? So that Tories in the lower house would demand protectionism, limited citizenship, etc... while the ones in the upper house would retain the political reforms of earlier liberal governments? If that's the case will POPs have different ratings for upper and lower-house ideologies?
The game looks great! I've been so caught up with work and things the past few months that I didn't even know it was happening. But now I have a few questions.
I worry that this system could force you into some very odd ahistorical events. Not that many states have had a Socialist upper house, but it seems like passing reforms without one requires some militancy. This is an interesting idea but I hope the militancy required is relatively mild (say 4-5). Requiring revolt risk-level militancy actually seems hard to achieve in a well-run state.
So for example if you're the United States, most of your POPs are getting their needs met, and you want certain social reforms in order to prevent lots of MIL later (say, as insurance in case you lose a war), what do you do? The two major parties are non-socialist, so you basically have to pray for increased MIL for other reasons?
It might be nice to include relevant "flavor events" to push this kind of thing along. Like the US might have a "Haymarket Square" event if there are Socialist POPs Chicago, etc... Or just a general "Strike Increases Militancy" event might be ok too.
I'm also confused about the "conservative = status quo preserving" aspect. If that's the case then how does a conservative party ever get into power (short of implementing ALL social and political reforms)?
Or is it that upper house and lower house conservatives are just totally separate parties? So that Tories in the lower house would demand protectionism, limited citizenship, etc... while the ones in the upper house would retain the political reforms of earlier liberal governments? If that's the case will POPs have different ratings for upper and lower-house ideologies?
This. It's been confusing people left right and centre since the dev diary was first posted.
POPs will vote on their ideology for the upperhouse - so "conservative" POPs aren't aligned with the tories, rather they're happy with what reforms there are now. For the lower house they'll vote on issues, with ideology as a tie-breaker. So a conservative upperhouse and socialist lower house is entirely reasonable, representing a country with all the political and social reforms it wants, and which wants state capitalism etc for government policy.