Does anyone suppress movements?

[calvinhobbeslik]

I like passing ALL the reforms, so I only suppress large nationalist movements, but I suspect that it usually doesn't make much of a difference anyway...

I haven't seen a pro-slavery movement yet, but I'd gladly suppress them over and over just for having such an abhorrent idea...

 

[Secret Master]

I suppress nationalists all the time. I save suppression points just for them. But for reforms, I usually refrain from doing so. I can predict with 95% reliability what reform people want next anyway, so they never surprise me by wanting something weird at the wrong time.

 

[TheArchMede]

I suppress nationalists all the time. I save suppression points just for them. But for reforms, I usually refrain from doing so. I can predict with 95% reliability what reform people want next anyway, so they never surprise me by wanting something weird at the wrong time.

I once suppressed a movement. Shortly afterwards they were back in the same numbers only more pissed off due to having been suppressed. I haven't used it again.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Nationalists, and sometimes social reformists if the cost of the reform would be crippling

 

[Secret Master]

I've actually wondered if suppression should affect things besides the POPs that support the movement.

It occurs to me that conservatives and reactionaries should react favorably to suppression under certain circumstances. If conservatives in the UH respond with fear to high militancy and demands for reform (they don't cave on the issue of reform because they are suddenly happy with it), maybe they should be happy with the government for taking care of a problem that they don't like. This would make suppression decisions less of a no-brainer than they are now. Think of all the conservative POPs you have at various points in the game.....

 

[brycef]

I always look to suppress nationalist and rebel groups. I think of it as an early way to keep them from becoming a problem or reduce them before they rebel. I find in AHD that if I don't suppress them early, they become a bigger problem later. Playing even the US in AHD I get a lot more nationalist rebels than I did in Vanilla V2 before, so the need to use the new suppression tool is more important to nip them in the bud.

 

[medopu]

Yeah, usually just sufferage and nationalist movements. I don't even get much of any other movements.

I like to surpress the guys instead of having to kill them when the rebels form. I so much enjoy killing anarcho liberals though. I so do it feels amazing.

 

[calvinhobbeslik]

Yeah, usually just sufferage and nationalist movements. I don't even get much of any other movements.

I like to surpress the guys instead of having to kill them when the rebels form. I so much enjoy killing anarcho liberals though. I so do it feels amazing.

What do you have against expanding suffrage? I try to get those through ASAP since they distract a large portion of the people away from Jingoism, which I need to add wargoals.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I sometiems supress movements when I want to pass a certain reform that is #2 or #3 on the movement issue, but the #1 movement has a huge support advantage and would suffer a lot of radicalism.
Better disband them for +10 radical and have them reform within a few days than get +45 for passing a wrong reform.

Apart from that, supressing movements is rather useless. Even more since 100+ radicalisation rarely leads to dissent, since you can just pass ANY reform afterwards that will pacify the pissed of masses.

 

[Mythtern5]

I had a pro enslavement league as the USA. Was rather amusing, as they got extremely pissed whenever I passed a reform, and I wasnt able to give them what they wanted. Instead, they just kept upping MIL, so I ended up passing all the social reforms with a 20% socialist upper house

 

[KPJ]

Nice to see how this is used, was kind of wondering myself.

If my armies just got creamed I might suppress a revolt until I can get back on my feet, that's all I've used it for so far. Seems to me the really nasty rebels just start out violent anyway, I've only played a couple unciv games since AHD was patched so it's always Reactionaries I have to contend with, hardly ever reformists.

 

[Trin Tragula]

I've never suppressed any movements. The reform ones I want to stay as I want to enact the reforms. The nationalist ones I usually also ignore and I've never had a nationalist revolt as a result (even in very big multi-ethnic empires), I have had large communist, liberal or reactionary uprisings though.
Too bad really, I'd really like to have to consider nationalist rebels when playing Austria or the Ottomans.

 

[JoelCab]

I like passing ALL the reforms, so I only suppress large nationalist movements, but I suspect that it usually doesn't make much of a difference anyway...

I haven't seen a pro-slavery movement yet, but I'd gladly suppress them over and over just for having such an abhorrent idea...

You'd be surprised I'm playing as Brazil right now abolished slavery in the 1850's and it is now 1890's and there is a pro-enslavement movement...like that'll ever pass

 

[Secret Master]

You'd be surprised I'm playing as Brazil right now abolished slavery in the 1850's and it is now 1890's and there is a pro-enslavement movement...like that'll ever pass

I've seen the same in the USA, with African Americans in New England demanding a return to slavery. :wacko:

I think the beta patch has fixed it, though.