Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Let the ruling classes tremble – an Interactive Revolutionary AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
Tommy4ever said:
I'm doing the assembly right now. Can anyone think what might have caused a massive upsurge in the POPs interest in military policy?

It had been declining in importance slowly since 1850 as I got more cores. But here the top 4 issues are jinogism, pro and anti mil and pacifism.:confused:

Together they account for about 65% of all POPs' issues. Wierd. :wacko:
Click to expand...

Well, you did mobilize the populace, right? That could explain why suddenly so many POPs have ideologies pertaining to the military. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a link between mobilization and the ideologies of those POPs that are mobilized. It certainly makes sense from a RL perspective; people go to war and when they come back, they suddenly care about the country's foreign policy when they may not have before.
 
Yeah, I appreciate that the war might have something to do with things. But there are more Jingos that there have ever been since I introduced POP voting. :wacko:

To avoid Trotsky getting like 60% of seats I decreased the value of Jingos and pro-mils who made up just under 50% of all POPs.
 
Communard said:
@Keynes, I was referring to the sum total, obviously no single war has been that bloody.
Click to expand...

So what, you want to let Trotsky keep killing people until his death toll is equal to all wars between nations combined? Are there enough people to kill on earth?
 
^ why not, seems like a fun plan if you ask me ^_^
 
keynes2.0 said:
So what, you want to let Trotsky keep killing people until his death toll is equal to all wars between nations combined? Are there enough people to kill on earth?
Click to expand...

No, I oppose more war, I was just pointing out the hypocricy of a nationalist dove.
 
@Tommy: Did you check a sample POP? If you click on its icon in the population window, you can see the factors that go into the important issues for the POP. Maybe you got a lot of Anti Military by being the biggest military power while bordering a bunch of other Great Powers, a lot of Jingoism during the early stages of the war while WE was still low, and some Pacifism after WE shot up after the bloody losses.

>>BTW, Democratic Anarchists
 
MMStingray said:
...
Click to expand...

The VSVR has existed for the better half of a century. It has humbled its enemies and become a force no one can challenge. And almost every step along this way saw an increase in laws, bureaucracy and centralization. Most of them necessary at the time, a few are regrettable.

If, as both anarchist factions believe, the threat from the outside is defeated, is it not the time to start walking the path towards a stateless society?
If the VSVR is still challenged by nations, would it not be more appropiate to arm for the inevitable conflict?

Only one of them can be true. I believe, and hope, that it is the former option. If the fear that it might be the latter is strong in many we will have to go down that path before turning towards reforming the society. Even if it should prove false the fear would impede any meaningful advancement.

And you might think of me as naive but i do not believe anyone within the party to be an enemy. They might assess the situation differently and choose different means but all share the same goal. I do not wish for Trotsky to be chairman but i do not dread it either.
 
Aicendur even if you are right and there is no threat now to achieving stateless society how, without a constitution, could it be expected to last. We are laying the foundations for the anarchist's ultimate goal.
 
BigBadBob said:
Good update, showing us anti-Trotskyists that you are listening, and the VSVR is indeed not the perfect place to live.
I especially like that you're letting the Americans get some glory with Oregon. 51st Stater approves.

Anyway: I'm starting to lean toward the group that says you should end the AAR with the collapse of the Comintern, and communism, in 1936. Leaving the VSVR as this nostalgic "good old days" phenomenon. A fever dream still remembered by those who saw it.
Click to expand...
I'd rather see a three-way war with Communsits, Capitalists, and Fascists completely destroy civilization.. Then start a CK1 AAR in the year 1088 APW (After Pointless War).
 
Hmmm... tough choice. I quite like some of the NC's ideas, but I can't abide by their nationalism. I would also like to continue supporting Goldman, but her colluding with bourgeois Dem Socs is nearly intolerable. Moreover, a constitution is bourgeois and against everything Anarchism stands for! We need a social contract, not a constitution! Therefore my vote must go to the Anarcho-Kadonists.
 
Xanthippus said:
Hmmm... tough choice. I quite like some of the NC's ideas, but I can't abide by their nationalism. I would also like to continue supporting Goldman, but her colluding with bourgeois Dem Socs is nearly intolerable. Moreover, a constitution is bourgeois and against everything Anarchism stands for! We need a social contract, not a constitution! Therefore my vote must go to the Anarcho-Kadonists.
Click to expand...

You do realise the Kadonists advocate the immediate overthrow of a democratically elected government in the event Trotsky wins, I hope? I was under the impression Anarchism stood for freedom and democracy. A coup sounds like neither.
 
keynes2.0 said:
These folks can explain better then I; WARNING TVTROPES LINK! CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue
Click to expand...

The interesting thing about TV Tropes is that its much more expansive than Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, you look up Gustav Eiffel and you get "Gustav Eiffel was one of the most talented engineers to ever live. He made some bridges, the Eiffel Tower, a few buildings, and a statue. Then he died." On TV tropes you click 3 links to an obscure term and you still have 80 pages describing what differentiates "Fixer Sue" from the general "Mary Sue".


Anyway..

National Communists

Tommy4ever said:
Yeah, I appreciate that the war might have something to do with things. But there are more Jingos that there have ever been since I introduced POP voting. :wacko:

To avoid Trotsky getting like 60% of seats I decreased the value of Jingos and pro-mils who made up just under 50% of all POPs.
Click to expand...
If you're not careful with the pops, you'll have a Soldier's Paradise.
 
Even when the victory of the common man is so visible, the defeatists, the "peace-loving" groups, cowards as the bourgeoisies they defend, don't stop their attack against the comrade Trotsky. Anyway, although the strategy of the Marxist-Leninist proven to be useful, we must isolate Britain and the United States now and don't go frontally against them. We must force a revolution in these countries, depriving them of their colonial markets in Asia and the Americas. I must say that I also don't concur with this paternalist approach with the peoples of Poland, Wallonia, Flanders or Africa. The fight of the world proletariat is international in nature but national in essence. Because of that and the propositions for the extension of the revolution to the Middle East my vote go with the National-Communist.
 
Just wanted to interject that OMOV when combines with first past the post system has one major draw back. I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'm not voting until polls come out. Then if the faction I most want has a chance, I'll vote for it, if not then I'll vote for my second choice. This system has the dissadvantage of giving more power to the factions that get votes early, while forcing later voters to flock to the largest two (or sometimes three) factions, if they want their votes to matter in determining the election outcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back