Maybe I worded it poorly, I think that anarchist societies have radically different forms of legitimacy than what is represented in game. Presumably, there wouldn't be a government and opposition, but rather local councils with delegates in some sort of society wide forum.
The second issue is practical, in game, the law is strictly worse than universal suffrage legitimacy wise and carries a quite heavy penalty.
I would like anarchist societies to be able to have high level of legitimacy, which is currently not the case, so it would be nice if they got a buff there at the expense of the speed of passing further laws, as presumably nationwide forum of delegates gets things done more slowly than a representative democracy. (The proposed numbers might be too much)
Legitimacy already controls the speed of passing laws, though, so you'd be raising one number and then creating an exception to lower a number back down that it was already upstream from?
I do agree that the game's structures are built to represent states, and it's an odd fit for
how decisions would be made in an anarchist society. But even still, I think the modifiers make a lot of sense as-is; without the tyranny of "ok, we've voted, we're done and the 49% or less losers have to stfu and move on," major disagreements on any policy would significantly impact all of the things that legitimacy does. The delegates that think we should have private property left or that think God made some people more important than others, in other words who fundamentally reject the existence and legitimacy (the normal definition not the game term) of the forum in the first place, are probably pretty mad.
And I mean, if you've managed to have an anarchic revolution (violent or non), how do you have kulaks left? Why do we let them into the forum to slow everything down? I'll bet there are a couple fellas in the local councils asking the same thing, and getting a little mad about it.
Sounds like low legitimacy to me. And of course, if the only IG with any clout
is the TUs, then your legitimacy is fine. I've had high-legitimacy anarchist governments in-game in 1.2.
As a follow-up... to get to anarchy, you must have a council republic. Between those two, without the leader changing things, every IG except the armed forces and rural folk either disapprove or strongly disapprove of what you're up to. At that point, how much clout do you really have in your country that isn't in the trade union + armed forces with an anarchist general you promoted to rank 5 the moment you rolled him IGs?
--- and as a result, those IGs are going to want anarchy over universal suffrage, and start getting mad when they don't get it. I think it's good that there are law choices that aren't you saying "I want this or that based on bonuses," but that are "well as a consequence of my actions, my pops want xyz even though it's worse, I can either manage the radicalism or eat the worse numbers." It's a decision to make that isn't where I drop 50 more coal mines and I appreciate it.
As a second follow-up.. the other thing I really don't like about the late game radical left paths is that the gameplay to choose between your country being a social democracy, vanguard party state and anarchy is literally a single event button click. It pops up when you have a certain amount of leftist laws, and it's just like "hey do you want the TU and/or Armed Forces to be which of these three," and then you click it and afterwards that IG will always get leaders that support that ideology. This was brought up before release but especially with radical politics where power gets really focused into one or two IGs, it leads to the truly questionable situation where the game simulation of Anarchy is that the entire nation's politics are determined by the opinions of two guys, which, uh, yeah.
Nah man, I am arguing that somehow is acceptable to play a decentralized nation that starts centralized but the opposite it’s not.
You were the one arguing that one of them has in our history experienced industrialization and the other had not. And I am then arguing that as a game for what-ifs why is that the what-if for the Ainu is not acceptable as game play.
As you mentioned that the USA experienced industrializations, I then brought the fact that well, Brazil in our timeline didn’t experience industrialization until after the end period of the game.
That’s okay, you do you. I am just saying that arguing that the Ainu can’t be played because in our timeline they never industrialized without having been conquered is a poor argument to say it’s acceptable to play as a decentralized USA (or Brazil, or GB, or Russia, or whatever).
Brazil = state without industrial rev -> makes sense to play
Ainu = no state and without industrial rev -> makes no sense to play
Anarchist USA = no state and with industrial rev-> makes sense to play
I spent a lot of time explaining why this chart makes sense I'd love it if you read it and engaged with it in any meaningful way.
.png){kind=avatar}
