Megathread : Politics, Government and Elections in V2

[unity100]

More power to the senate !

currently its a bit lame in vic - regardless of what kind of party you have or what sentiment you have in your population, you can just declare war against any country, you can do anything you wantand it doesnt do anything than lowering your prestige (and that is if it happens).

in vic 2 senate can have power over and effect on what decisions can be made in the manner that rome has. and ie, war declaration can require a warmongering party (or, a jingoistic policy having party etc) to have 60% seat in the senate or something. or, colonization should have an imperialistic party in power etc. other examples can be given i think, but i will expand on those as examples here.

senate shouldnt have fixed factions tho. we already have political parties. rather, we can distribute the seats to the parties according to their vote percentages in elections. certain stuff can require certain majority to have it passed - ie war declarations etc.

AND, doing something in lieu of public opinion should affect militancy of population. for example, if the dominant issue for your population is pacifism and you declare war, your pop's militancy should increase.

this would put much more realism into the game. ie, lets say you are a constitutional monarchy, and you banned some party or did some other political tricks to let a party with the policies you like win enough seats in the senate somehow. it still wouldnt be an easy walk in the park because it would affect the militancy of your population when you push decisions that are in lieu of public opinion due to increased militancy.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I said this in another thread already, it makes perfect sense. Issues should actually have a bearing on how you govern. If most of your country is pacifist, you shouldnt be able to attack other nations without serious internal strife. If loads of your pops are revanchist, you should cop serious grief for not trying to take back that core province.

 

[unmerged(91061)]

Parliaments have long been demanded in Vicky.
I think they'd be great. Ideally they'd work just like in Rome (a nice little testing ground for the gameplay). Though I would suggest a bit of party negotiation. For example, I'm USA and I want to declare war on Canada, I'm a Republican president with a Democrat congress. I have a 45% hold in the senate and require a majority vote to declare war. When I go to click declare war and it's blanked out because I don't have the support, if I click a button to the side it brings up an overview of the senate (like in EU:Rome) and I can "bargain" with senate Democrats that may swing enough of them to vote for the war. I will click from a list of actions (increase health care, repeal child labour laws, increase education spending...) and the more of these I select that Democrats like, the more will cross the floor and vote for war with Canada. Each voting bloc within a senate would have a discipline rating that effects how easily you can have a senator cross the floor. When I have a majority, I can select "Declare War" as an option.

 

[Red_Communist]

Parliaments have long been demanded in Vicky.
I think they'd be great. Ideally they'd work just like in Rome (a nice little testing ground for the gameplay). Though I would suggest a bit of party negotiation. For example, I'm USA and I want to declare war on Canada, I'm a Republican president with a Democrat congress. I have a 45% hold in the senate and require a majority vote to declare war. When I go to click declare war and it's blanked out because I don't have the support, if I click a button to the side it brings up an overview of the senate (like in EU:Rome) and I can "bargain" with senate Democrats that may swing enough of them to vote for the war. I will click from a list of actions (increase health care, repeal child labour laws, increase education spending...) and the more of these I select that Democrats like, the more will cross the floor and vote for war with Canada. Each voting bloc within a senate would have a discipline rating that effects how easily you can have a senator cross the floor. When I have a majority, I can select "Declare War" as an option.

That sounds like a great idea! Not the invading Canada thing though.

 

[unity100]

Parliaments have long been demanded in Vicky.
I think they'd be great. Ideally they'd work just like in Rome (a nice little testing ground for the gameplay). Though I would suggest a bit of party negotiation. For example, I'm USA and I want to declare war on Canada, I'm a Republican president with a Democrat congress. I have a 45% hold in the senate and require a majority vote to declare war. When I go to click declare war and it's blanked out because I don't have the support, if I click a button to the side it brings up an overview of the senate (like in EU:Rome) and I can "bargain" with senate Democrats that may swing enough of them to vote for the war. I will click from a list of actions (increase health care, repeal child labour laws, increase education spending...) and the more of these I select that Democrats like, the more will cross the floor and vote for war with Canada. Each voting bloc within a senate would have a discipline rating that effects how easily you can have a senator cross the floor. When I have a majority, I can select "Declare War" as an option.

that can work with 2 party systems tho. for multi parties, it would be more complex. ie, if you distribute the seats in parliament according to the vote percentages the parties got in last elections, there can be more than one.

no wait, actually still viable. the negotiation button can be per party in the interface, and clicking on the negotiation can bring up the demands of that particular party.

 

[Autonomous]

Guys, it's in the feature list.

• New election system with coalition governments and an upper house/senate.

 

[unity100]

Guys, it's in the feature list.

• New election system with coalition governments and an upper house/senate.

great, but does the parliament hold any clout over what happens ?

 

[Autonomous]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10013112&postcount=45

"Block reforms".

 

[unity100]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10013112&postcount=45

"Block reforms".

but that's rather a lame duck situation. the current ruling party already can block reforms if they have certain characteristics. they dont interfere with anything else you do in the game.

 

[Red_Communist]

I think this is a good idea.

But about your question I'm really no help with that.

 

[HMS Enterprize]

Take the US. During its expansion in the 19th and 20th century, states first were territories. In V1, that's not modelled.

Err, yes it is. All provinces/territories/whatever are as such until you grant it statehood.

Granted, game-wise this doesnt translate well or into hardly any discernable differences between the two but the system is there...in its hollow shell of a form.

But in principle, I agree with the sentiment of your post. Ive made suggestions in other threads about making this system more dynamic but I fear it will clash with the historical realities of the period...eg- making a colony a state-how do you do this if the majority of the POPs are not national culture?

Do you go ahistorical and have a feature where colonys can be granted statehood whenever? How? By granting the colony POPs full citizenship/accepted culture status...there would be penalties for this- increased militancy for existing national POPs for starters.

Or does this go too far and should colonies remain in the large the rather useless bits of land (with the odd exception) many of them are at present?

 

[unmerged(36774)]

Great idea perhaps, but might lead to a situation where you can't do a thing. Many of these ideas which are supposed to add more realism in the game can have the same effect, if not done well.

 

[unmerged(91061)]

Very true, I recall in Rome when I wanted to invade Illyria but the senate was against it. But then that's why I suggested you ought to be able to negotiate with the senate on certain things, so you can do those things, for a price.

 

[Nikolai]

No, that was not such a distiction. Not what I was thinking of anyway. You has to use VIP to get something of a political difference, and that was a) not tied to that function anyway and b) not good enough IMHO. The statehood feature in Vic1 is just unneccessary in it's current state.

As for your colony to state question. I don't think it should be a state if it has no or too little of your national culture. Not in the Vic1 kind of way at least. Something in between. And not just one layer in between, I want lots of possible solutions, dynamic according to the actual game situation.

 

[The BadgerUK]

Perhaps a player should have less direct control over a colony until a certain number people of the accepted cultures live there, or X number of military units are stationed there.

 

[unity100]

after going immigration magnet with peru and industrializing the hell out with the flowing population, i really feel the need for the senate to have more power.

despite i built the entire country on liberal, democratic values, free trade, laissez faire, literacy etc, i am able to declare on whomever i want like a maniac. leave aside no problem with the parliament, despite my countrymen dont share my values, i can do whatever i want without risking anything with them either.

we really should factor in the senate in these stuff.

senate should allow us to declare war on other nations according to various criteria :

- if in the senate an aggressive party (jingoistic, pro military etc) has majority (eg 60%), it should allow us to declare war on nations with some criteria. ie, having cores or claims on the nation.
- if the nation is parliamentarian (constitutional or democratic), senate should make it very hard on us to declare war on another democratic nation. if we do, we should risk huge militancy in our liberal population. this way liberal-conservative-radical can have real meaning
- if the nation is monarchy, laws by decree, the population is conservative, only then we should be able to play a warmonger easily.

the criteria can be various though. for example if a country has huge need for resource x, and a minor nation has that resource and has bad relations, senate should be more accommodating, but still shouldnt allow a democratic nation to invade rather than trade.

this is also important in terms of realism that it portrays the political situation in 19th century better. democratic, enlightened nations were not able to attack and invade anyone like a maniac. even the usa expansion stopped after a point. they could have easily invaded and occupied huge chunks of mexico. or, britain could have easily dominated a lot of countries in europe, same for france. the only nations that did as such were the absolutist monarchies, like austria, russia. even prussia (and later germany) didnt go on an invasion-occupation spree against denmark, sweden, finland etc.

 

[unity100]

Perhaps a player should have less direct control over a colony until a certain number people of the accepted cultures live there, or X number of military units are stationed there.

or rather, he should have less direct control if there are more educated elite of native population in a colony, and country doesnt have full citizenship. this can be mitigated with the number of soldiers deployed there. still soldiers should not totally mitigate it.

 

[unity100]

the sad part is, i cant go the other way either -> if i play a country that is absolutist monarchy, and keep population conservative and go warmongering to play it more realistic, i know that i will be in total disadvantage against other countries which adapt liberal policies and i will have nothing to show for it. they will be always more powerful and be warmongering as much as i am without losing anything considerable in the process.

 

[unmerged(9065)]

There is a difference

Well first as others have mentioned, there is a system whereby colonies move from territories to states. Second there is definitely a difference between territories and states.

For instance if you have a limited citizenship or full citizenship government states will convert current and incoming pops to your state culture, while in a territory they will retain their current culture. So in one of my current games (as Texas) I have Colorado as a territory and there were about 30 pops in the entire territory. The pops were of many different cultures and religions (North German Protestants, Russian Orthodox, Polish Catholics, et al), but none were from my primary cultures (Texan, Mexican, Dixie). The moment I granted Colorado statehood all of my Protestant pops started converting to Texans and within a few months the majority of the state had become Texan Protestants.

I have also used territorial status to guide immigration. By keeping areas in territorial status and not expanding their RGOs I can limit the amount of immigration they get and thus increase the amount of immigration my states get.

Then there is the fact that you can’t even grant statehood to territories off of your home continent until one of the provinces has your national culture as a majority.

There are also different costs involved between territories and states. If I remember correctly states provide a manpower boost and a slight increase in taxes, but also drive up your crime-fighting costs.

Last, but not least, you can not create regular units in territories only native units can be made.

Perhaps the system needs to be refined, but I would never say there is no difference between territories and states. Nor would it be accurate to say that each does not present their own set of advantages and disadvantages.

 

[JimmyCos]

nooo hahaha, it's just like Rome

i'll be forced to take a big army and march into the capital, i'm the one that takes all the decisions, i'm the state!