Passing laws, all the fun of watching an EU4 siege that can tick backwards
- Thread starter Less2
- Start date
-
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.
Anyone who presents Autocracy Czarist Russia as a model of political or bureaucratic efficiency with a straight face demonstrates why zero credibility should be given to their opinion.
- 7
- 3
- 1
- 1
I like the system in general, not being in total control over how a law proposal fares in public debates seem appropriate, and even today parliamentiary machinations can lead to strange or unpopular outcomes. There will always be edge cases and instances of particularly bad rng.
Perhaps we can let certain government types spend authority, legitimacy or other goverment resources to force a law through if it meets certain criteria, like having been through 6+ ticks, 70%+ support, no radical opposition etc. This could alleviate the most egregious cases. while retaining the core elements of uncertainty.
Perhaps we can let certain government types spend authority, legitimacy or other goverment resources to force a law through if it meets certain criteria, like having been through 6+ ticks, 70%+ support, no radical opposition etc. This could alleviate the most egregious cases. while retaining the core elements of uncertainty.
- 1
- 1
The Bureaucracy can't be inefficient tough if you won't have a Bureaucracy.
I totaly agree with you, this would be a mechanic easily to game. But this is also why I wrote major wars. Wars where the outcome is not entirly certain. But how to make this into a mechanic... I do not know.
- 2
- 1
Yeah. I really do find it not really interesting, it is too easy to create the right coalition, to suppress the group, or to lock the opposition in a way that prevent revolutions. For now, this is really not the best in my opinion too.
I didn't give a thought about a better alternative tho, if somebody has an idea, it would at least provide something to discuss on I think !
I didn't give a thought about a better alternative tho, if somebody has an idea, it would at least provide something to discuss on I think !
- 1
I don't want to be the Russian Czar trying free the serfs, I want to be Chairman Mao telling everyone in china to kill all the sparrows.
- 1
- 1
You should be able to use authority to force through laws, at the risk of radicalising IGs.
- 4
- 3
- 1
In the same time authoritarian regimes shouldn't become the easiest to reform, since historically they are often the more conservative ones (in the original sense, keeping things as they are). The first goal of any kind of established institution is to preserve itself.
- 4
- 1
Several things:
- People who think dictatorships should be able to force through laws are absolutely right. All that's needed are restrictions on which laws they can pass. If your autocrat supports a law, then, by definition, he should be able to pass it. This speaks to a much broader issue that also affects revolutions, which is that if a particular interest group has seized power it should, obviously, be able to make sweeping changes. IGs should also be able to protect themselves constitutionally, keeping them in government, based on the type of government the nation has.
- The game stacks RNG on top of RNG, with leader traits (which you have very little influence over) that can randomly make passing laws easier or harder. In addition, it also has a few stupid mechanics that utterly stump the player for no reason, like China's intelligentsia IG having no interest in changing "State Religion" (cutting the player off from an "egalitarian" victory).
- Despite adding in "characters" (the vast majority of which spend their entire lives without the player paying the slightest attention to them), the developers decided to completely cut functioning legislatures from the game. Wouldn't the push-and-pull of political drama be a good role for these mostly useless 3D models? You could have pork barrel, corruption, actually consequential elections, constitutional barriers (like Senate apportionment and the EC) that would add an extra layer to "incorporating" states and so on.
- 7
- 7
- 1
There's always that weird event that can fire where the ruler can force a law success chance to go up at the cost of pissing off the intelligensia.
I love that one, especially since for me, it usually fires when the law strips the monarch who's advocating for it of a lot of power.......it helps a lot with immersion, when the Shogun or the Kaiser advocates for parliamentary anything in 1840.
Otherwise, with properly coded defines for WHEN an event like that would fire, you're getting dangerously close to suggesting a more rational approach to their design...I'd love to see it done.
- 2
- 1
I'd like to see a system where you need a majority of the clout/votes to be able to pass a bill and the length of time it takes is proportional to the amount below 100% clout/votes. I'd rather not have arbitrary event popups at all.
- 4
- 2
- 1
That's also getting dangerously close to how the real world works.......but it would get in the way of the power trip this game offers, to liberalize a country early, with ZERO diplomatic implications from the rest of the GPs.
GPs: "well...looks like Belgium fell to the Jacobins by vote....and more than half of the population supports this communism thing. Probably no big deal though...Leopold is in favor of it, he JUST gave a speech. Now about that opium....." (some Austrian diplomat, circa January, 1849)
- 6
- 4
If that was how things worked, then Westernization and modernization would not have been a problem. In fact, if that were the case, enlightened despotism would have outflanked electoral democracy.
- 6
- 1
I think the game is trying to abstract the idea that yes, the Tzar can say "The serfs are free," and officially they are. But then there may be a few years of back and forth over exactly how and when and what free means, and meanwhile everyone and his mother is planning a coup. Maybe the serfs end up free, maybe the Tzar reads the tea leaves and backpedals to keep his rear on the throne, or maybe you get a new Tzar. This is all represented in the system, but it's pretty vague about exactly what's happening. I suspect very much by design since exactly how this plays out is going to vary quite a bit and it has to fit every setting on earth for 100 years of enormous change.
- 2
- 1
This is kinda what happend in Austria (only Austria, because Hungary was autonomous in this issues) in 1907. The Emperor and his Heir pushed for an election reform from wealth based voting right (Kurienwahlrecht) to the universal suffrage for men. They thought this would fix the ethnicity problem in the empire, they were wrong.
- 4
- 1
- 1
"Enlightened despotism" is a theoretical thing. In the same way that communism working is a theoretical thing.
- 7
Did you actually read what I wrote? In an autocracy, the autocrat's preferences should be paramount.
For example, a reformer should definitely be able to make positive changes; they'd just run the risk of pissing reactionaries off.
Otherwise, if they're a traditionalist or a generic landowner (most of them), then they could stymie the player.
Pretending the idea is contrary to history is weird when the game currently allows you to reform even the most backwards of states by the 1840s on a handful of lucky rolls.
- 6
- 2
The system is a pure rng mechanic, that lacks any kind of player agency and needs a rework. Also it needs a solution to the player constantly trying to enact low percent chance laws, they don't want to go through just to reap the IG opinion bonus. Often it's the military one for the combat bonus, but other IG effects are good too. If there is no law you want to pass anymore the mechanic becomes clunky IG opinion boost button. Whenever your law reaches a point it could pass you abort it and restart it. That's no fun either and highlighs yet again the weak design of the system.
- 6
- 3
- 1