Megathread : Ideologies in Victoria 2

[Fulbert]

Conservative: Keep Vicky 2 largely the equal to the first, while improving on most features and adding new concepts.

Liberal: Make Victoria a tad more sandbox like EU3, but keep the victoria feel and POP system

Anarcho-Liberal: Make this Europa Universalis 3 : Victorian Age

Reactionary : This should be only Victoria 1 bugfixed!

Fascist : The devs shouldn't hear suggestions like those of the liberal rabble that plague this forum, they must maximize profits and ban anyone against that

Socialist : The devs should hear the community and work alongside it

Communist : The devs should obey the community and work for it

I'm at a loss here. I believe the Paradopx guys are free to do what they please since they know about game development millions times better than I do. I'll be happy though if they listen to the community now and then. But anyways, God save the Paradox!;-)
What am I now? A monarchist?

 

[Barón Rojo]

Modern anarchism is mainly based on the teachings of Mikhail Bakunin, is not too far from the nineteenth century anarchism. And of course was one of the political positions in the First International.

 

[Orinsul]

but the english Anarchists, the Dynamiter, who were in the first game as Bomb-Throwers, they were the important papers making ones of the era. 'Modern' anarchists or socialist anarchism were really only a spanish civil war thing, yes every country has a couple clubs of them but they never came to anything excpet in spain and there they are too easily forgotten by history or atleast common history by being surrounded by louder sorts.
My point is no matter what anarchists are meant they are too small a group of people and the socialist anarchists would do just as well as communists in terms of how the game treats them than they would on their own, possibly better even.

 

[Barón Rojo]

Yes, I'm not saying that anarchism was a mass movement but it was an important political ideology not only in Spain, also in the Russian Revolution. Moreover, if Victoria will have an open style of play as EU3, Why anarchism cannot become the majority view of the workers movement in the game?

 

[Orinsul]

Because by its very nature it lacks the organisation to overcome the competition of the branches of the socialist movement. But consider this, Conservative ideology covers ten thousand differing versions of Conservatism and the same is true for all the other ideologies in the game, Luxemburgism and Leninism and purist Marxism are all covered by the word Communist, why should anarchism be raised above those movements. Have ideologies for the large 'umberellas' over the ideological groups if you go to the specifics then youll end up with more ideologies than provinces and still not be done and the game would be unworkable.

 

[Barón Rojo]

But anarchists and Communists were political enemies. Look at the Spanish Civil War or the Russian Revolution, the Nestor Makhno anarchists for example. 'Anarchism' itself is an umbrella ideology, covers from the early anarchist movement of the beginning of the game to the anarcho-syndicalism.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I think nationalism and seperatism should be far stronger forces in V2 than they were, but they arent really ideology per se, but issues.

 

[unmerged(56465)]

I think nationalism and seperatism should be far stronger forces in V2 than they were, but they arent really ideology per se, but issues.

But please, have it manifest itself as something other than annoying "revolts" for my armies to run about swatting constantly. All they ever accomplish is raising my blood pressure and getting people killed before they can be united with their mother nation-state.

 

[unmerged(91061)]

An overhall of rebels would go a long way. A similar system to Rome could work (albeit imperfectly) in that various POPs have loyalty to you (or militancy against you) and if a critical mass of POPs reach such a low point of loyalty then they split the country into a rebel and a loyal half, each functioning as a seperate nation like in Rome. This allows rebellions to take place along different lines, so if all the clerks have low Loyalty (or high militancy) then regions with high clerk levels will rebel along anarchist/liberal lines, whereas low loyalty minorities will rebel along nationalist lines.

 

[jrocks84]

An overhall of rebels would go a long way. A similar system to Rome could work (albeit imperfectly) in that various POPs have loyalty to you (or militancy against you) and if a critical mass of POPs reach such a low point of loyalty then they split the country into a rebel and a loyal half, each functioning as a seperate nation like in Rome. This allows rebellions to take place along different lines, so if all the clerks have low Loyalty (or high militancy) then regions with high clerk levels will rebel along anarchist/liberal lines, whereas low loyalty minorities will rebel along nationalist lines.

That sounds like a good idea. Vicky 1 and EU3 rebellions were just whack-a-mole(rebel), but if many revolted at once, you could see more serious rebellions like the Revolutions of 1848 without needing to hard-code them. If people are seemingly successfully revolting in one country, it would spread like wildfire around Europe.

 

[unmerged(91061)]

For lack of a Politics Megathread, I'll post here.
A little nag I had in Ricky was the difficulty getting opposition parties elected. I was playing as the USA and couldn't get the republicans in for 50 year, nothing but democrat after democrat. A remedy to this would be for a POP to lose plurality/conscientiousness when their ideology/policy wins an election, while everyone else gains plurality/conscientiousness.

And as for my rebellion post. Rebellions in nearby regions could alter the loyalty/militancy of other pops.

 

[LeVraiBleh]

Oh please, we need a libertarian ideology for the century of Stuart Mill, Molinari, Lord Acton, Popper, Lysander Spooner, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Frédéric Bastiat. Something that advocates both economic and individual freedom, and limits state power down to Military and Diplomacy.

 

[Orinsul]

For lack of a Politics Megathread, I'll post here.
A little nag I had in Ricky was the difficulty getting opposition parties elected. I was playing as the USA and couldn't get the republicans in for 50 year, nothing but democrat after democrat. A remedy to this would be for a POP to lose plurality/conscientiousness when their ideology/policy wins an election, while everyone else gains plurality/conscientiousness.

And as for my rebellion post. Rebellions in nearby regions could alter the loyalty/militancy of other pops.

with america, individual presidential strengths in a hearts of Irons style ministers sort of way could have some effect {Hopefully with randomly generated ministers alongside the historicals.] on that and somewhere there was a discussion about a system for opposition or tiring of government the theirve been in power for three terms so we'll vote the other side just because its not the government sort of thing.
Both organised and organised revolters ought to included by lord knows how.

 

[Orinsul]

Oh please, we need a libertarian ideology for the century of Stuart Mill, Molinari, Lord Acton, Popper, Lysander Spooner, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Frédéric Bastiat. Something that advocates both economic and individual freedom, and limits state power down to Military and Diplomacy.

isnt that kinda anarcho-liberalism?

 

[unmerged(96639)]

Oh please, we need a libertarian ideology for the century of Stuart Mill, Molinari, Lord Acton, Popper, Lysander Spooner, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Frédéric Bastiat. Something that advocates both economic and individual freedom, and limits state power down to Military and Diplomacy.

A 19th century ideology advocating economic and individual freedom, and limits state power to the maximum extent possible? I do believe that's already in, as Liberalism.

 

[Orinsul]

Liberalism is the centre-liberal posistion, conservative centre-right, anarcho-liberal and reactionary the extremes atleast before revolutions came along, or atleast how ive always taken it to mean.

 

[Nilmerf]

I'd say Conservative/Reactionary, but I want it to be even more historically straightjacketed. No more Britain owning pieces of Finland every time after the Crimean War! Of course, for every scripted war the historical loser should still have the option of winning, but it will produce a different and plausible circumstance. Something like VIP did with the Franco-Austrian War if the Habsburgs win in 1866 (although I never played much VIP myself).

 

[Mathias Rex]

Nationalism. We can see many examples In the 19th century for tath. For example the unification movements in Germany or in Italy. Or the minoritys independence movements in Austria or in the Balkan region.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Nationalism. We can see many examples In the 19th century for tath. For example the unification movements in Germany or in Italy. Or the minoritys independence movements in Austria or in the Balkan region.

I think that should be represented more as an issue than an ideology. so you could have conservative naitonalists, liberal ones, reactionary ones etc

 

[Orinsul]

Im still saying that Nationalism should be a national value not a POP one, that rises and lowers with time and events. I reckon thatd be the best way to represent the century in question, especially in france.