IG starts revolt in state with no clout

[Swinehog]

Okay, I need an explanation/fix to this.

There is a movement in my country to enact Homesteading, supported by the Farmers and Trade Unions.
Now they want to start a revolution (because the Farmers petitioned the government to enact Homesteading and when I did do that, not it gave them the -20 failed petition malus, which is something I already hate). The revolution would automatically get the majority of my country and ALL of my industrial base.

Now, here's the kicker: my industrial base is deliberately centralized, so that this doesn't happen.
My most productive state is New York.
Farmers have 0% clout in New York. Trade Unions have 9%.
The most powerful IG in New York is the Industrialists at 41% - and they are a group who love my current farmland law: Commercialized Agriculture.

So why is New York (for example) automatically ceded to a revolution the overwhelming majority of the state does not support?
Why is a revolt that is supported by 25% of total clout in my country is getting about half my territory and most my GDP?
Why do revolutions gain control of states and troops that do not support them?
As it stands, this fringe group of literal peasants is holding me hostage and there's nothing I can do against them.

 

[Bisonmask]

At this point grant the PB guy leadership if you can then make sure they stay happy or make the trade unions happier. As for an explanation I have 0 idea how or why revolting provinces are chosen I could probably justify the idea they were going for but I think it's mostly a balancing thing it would be extremely easy to ignore revolutions if they couldn't pull provinces that other IGs dominate

 

[Bearjuden]

It's been a hot minute since I actually played, but unless this was changed recently, the game does not check IG strength at all, only the number of radicals. The goofy thing that makes this weird (and I agree it is non-sensical and needs serious review) is that radicals don't have a list of things they want when they radicalize. They just want anything. Radicals will back any revolution, even ones that the IGs they are part of oppose, and thus they are nominally against. So a state with more radicals than loyalists will rebel.

The included images don't include the loyalist/radical breakdown in NY specifically, but you have three times more radicals than loyalists, so just statistically speaking most states will have more radicals than loyalists - hence the current situation, where most of the states are rebelling. Yes, it's pretty stupid. But that's at least why it's happening.

 

[TitaniumMan91]

They've moved past voting or traditional political means of addressing their concerns and they're ready to do violence. Half your labor force are laborers who are more likely to join the Trade Unions under commercialized agriculture, so now they're angry and organized.

I have no idea if that's the mechanical reason, but it wouldn't be that unreasonable imo.

 

[ConstantineTheGreat]

It's been a hot minute since I actually played, but unless this was changed recently, the game does not check IG strength at all, only the number of radicals. The goofy thing that makes this weird (and I agree it is non-sensical and needs serious review) is that radicals don't have a list of things they want when they radicalize. They just want anything

I wonder why they didn't just copy the Victoria 2 system of radicals. That system was 100% understandable.

 

[DukeLeto42]

Radicals will back any revolution, even ones that the IGs they are part of oppose, and thus they are nominally against. So a state with more radicals than loyalists will rebel.

As a note on this, it's been regularly observed that, in the wake of a successful revolution, the counter-revolution will probably spawn in the same set of states.

 

[MaybeNever]

They've moved past voting or traditional political means of addressing their concerns and they're ready to do violence. Half your labor force are laborers who are more likely to join the Trade Unions under commercialized agriculture, so now they're angry and organized.

I have no idea if that's the mechanical reason, but it wouldn't be that unreasonable imo.

In game they're angry and organized but they don't have "concerns", just anger. That's a useful type of radical to model because such people do exist, but should not be the only kind we see. I'm sure that the reasoning behind it is an abstraction to simplify calculations and will probably be refined in the future, but right now it feels like the game's worldview is that of a Victorian-era aristocrat who thinks that anyone who wants even small reforms is just an anarchist out to burn it all down.

 

[TitaniumMan91]

The radicals in the OP do have a concern, they don't like commercialized agriculture and want to go back to homesteading. I'm sure the communists would prefer collectivized, but they're at worst neutral on homesteading while actively disliking commercialized.

 

[PedroLuiz]

Okay, I need an explanation/fix to this.

There is a movement in my country to enact Homesteading, supported by the Farmers and Trade Unions.
Now they want to start a revolution (because the Farmers petitioned the government to enact Homesteading and when I did do that, not it gave them the -20 failed petition malus, which is something I already hate). The revolution would automatically get the majority of my country and ALL of my industrial base.

Now, here's the kicker: my industrial base is deliberately centralized, so that this doesn't happen.
My most productive state is New York.
Farmers have 0% clout in New York. Trade Unions have 9%.
The most powerful IG in New York is the Industrialists at 41% - and they are a group who love my current farmland law: Commercialized Agriculture.

So why is New York (for example) automatically ceded to a revolution the overwhelming majority of the state does not support?
Why is a revolt that is supported by 25% of total clout in my country is getting about half my territory and most my GDP?
Why do revolutions gain control of states and troops that do not support them?
As it stands, this fringe group of literal peasants is holding me hostage and there's nothing I can do against them.



View attachment 1056831


View attachment 1056833

Do you have a radical map screenshot?

 

[Lys91]

I wonder why they didn't just copy the Victoria 2 system of radicals. That system was 100% understandable.

Sometimes I feel the game designer felt he was more clever than anyone and, instead of trying to understand what worked or not, came up with his own ideas for everything. Sometimes, it is an improvement; sometimes, it is not. This is not helped by most of the features not being fully implemented (there are things in the game that could be good if the vision was fully realized). The IG system, for example, could be a great abstraction to help understand political forces. However, its current implementation is so limited that it is a hindrance to the game when compared to V2. The topic of this thread is a result of this, the pops don't have an opinion on anything, just attractions to certain IG (and even that is buried down in the UI). There is nothing to tie the rebellion system to individual pop outside of radicalism.

 

[Ferrous Will]

A few things that might concern this

1) with 45 support a movement would have 67.5% of the states joining the revolution
2) unincorporated states doesn't seem to want to join revolutions, if ever
3) revolution has an adjacency bias

With these factors in mind it might be that New York is literally the only choice for the algorithm to pick for the revolution (once the picking process got there)

Item 3 is entirely sensible, and toning the factor down (for item 1) is entirely moddable/easily updated, but it seems item 2 is hardcoded and I would argue probably should be changed.

 

[Swinehog]

A few things that might concern this

1) with 45 support a movement would have 67.5% of the states joining the revolution
2) unincorporated states doesn't seem to want to join revolutions, if ever
3) revolution has an adjacency bias

With these factors in mind it might be that New York is literally the only choice for the algorithm to pick for the revolution (once the picking process got there)

Item 3 is entirely sensible, and toning the factor down (for item 1) is entirely moddable/easily updated, but it seems item 2 is hardcoded and I would argue probably should be changed.

Yes. This is the answer.

I've abandoned this game a long ago (I haven't played since 1.2 and was just learning the new mechanics, as well as playing the US for the first time), but this here is the anwer.

It's been a hot minute since I actually played, but unless this was changed recently, the game does not check IG strength at all, only the number of radicals. The goofy thing that makes this weird (and I agree it is non-sensical and needs serious review) is that radicals don't have a list of things they want when they radicalize. They just want anything. Radicals will back any revolution, even ones that the IGs they are part of oppose, and thus they are nominally against. So a state with more radicals than loyalists will rebel.

The included images don't include the loyalist/radical breakdown in NY specifically, but you have three times more radicals than loyalists, so just statistically speaking most states will have more radicals than loyalists - hence the current situation, where most of the states are rebelling. Yes, it's pretty stupid. But that's at least why it's happening.

Do you have a radical map screenshot?

Oh, the whole country was swimming in radicals, alright.
However, radicals aren't the answer here, and as far as I can tell, from the game and from reading some discussions online, it's the exact opposite to what Bearjuden said: Radicals don't matter at all, only IGs. What radicals do is that they reduce the approval of the IG they are in, and if that IG supports a movement its radical pops add to the Radicalism of the movement.

The issue is that the game first decides the number of states the uprising will take based on the supporting clout (iirc a reddit thread said 1.5% of your incorporated states per 1% of revolting clout), then picks the epicenter of the revolt (based on IG support, it seems like) and then arbitrarily gives the revolt the necessary number of states around its epicenter, keeping the revolt contiguous.

[...] I think it's mostly a balancing thing it would be extremely easy to ignore revolutions if they couldn't pull provinces that other IGs dominate

Fair, but such divide and conquer strategies are both historical and make sense in game.
Honestly, I'd like a rework of revolutions that take into account of who the armed forces (not the IG, but the pops in those jobs) support -which is realistically the most important factor in the success of the revolution.

As for cheese, there is actually a way to do it, I just did not do it in this one case:
You always retain your capital. So you can move your capital to the best state (usually with the largest population) and centralize there. In fact, if you have Professional Army, you can put all your troops in that one state and disband every other battalion. So when the revolution triggers it will literally have 0 troops. Quite hilarious.
Even without Professional Army, you can put your armies into states as far away as possible from the problematic IG's centers of power (since the revolution has a very strong contiguity bias, as well as a 75% hard cap of states it can take).

So, there is a solution around this, but it is a silly solution to a silly problem which is not clearly explained by the game.

Thanks, for the input, everyone!

 

[Bisonmask]

Yes. This is the answer.

I've abandoned this game a long ago (I haven't played since 1.2 and was just learning the new mechanics, as well as playing the US for the first time), but this here is the anwer.





Oh, the whole country was swimming in radicals, alright.
However, radicals aren't the answer here, and as far as I can tell, from the game and from reading some discussions online, it's the exact opposite to what Bearjuden said: Radicals don't matter at all, only IGs. What radicals do is that they reduce the approval of the IG they are in, and if that IG supports a movement its radical pops add to the Radicalism of the movement.

The issue is that the game first decides the number of states the uprising will take based on the supporting clout (iirc a reddit thread said 1.5% of your incorporated states per 1% of revolting clout), then picks the epicenter of the revolt (based on IG support, it seems like) and then arbitrarily gives the revolt the necessary number of states around its epicenter, keeping the revolt contiguous.


Fair, but such divide and conquer strategies are both historical and make sense in game.
Honestly, I'd like a rework of revolutions that take into account of who the armed forces (not the IG, but the pops in those jobs) support -which is realistically the most important factor in the success of the revolution.

As for cheese, there is actually a way to do it, I just did not do it in this one case:
You always retain your capital. So you can move your capital to the best state (usually with the largest population) and centralize there. In fact, if you have Professional Army, you can put all your troops in that one state and disband every other battalion. So when the revolution triggers it will literally have 0 troops. Quite hilarious.
Even without Professional Army, you can put your armies into states as far away as possible from the problematic IG's centers of power (since the revolution has a very strong contiguity bias, as well as a 75% hard cap of states it can take).

So, there is a solution around this, but it is a silly solution to a silly problem which is not clearly explained by the game.

Thanks, for the input, everyone!

Your solutions take 10x more effort than just solving the revolution or even fighting it. Just pass a law that makes one of them happy or drop taxes a little bit and start kicking people out

 

[PedroLuiz]

Oh, the whole country was swimming in radicals, alright.
However, radicals aren't the answer here, and as far as I can tell, from the game and from reading some discussions online, it's the exact opposite to what Bearjuden said: Radicals don't matter at all, only IGs. What radicals do is that they reduce the approval of the IG they are in, and if that IG supports a movement its radical pops add to the Radicalism of the movement.

You say that but about half of the support the movement has comes from pops (presumably radicals) so it is nonsensical