Political reforms system

[Voss]

Don't you think that current political reforms system is rather strange? For example, if the Liberal Party is the rulling party at the moment, with Laissez Faire, why, right after the elections, on the next day, the whole economy becomes state-controlled because of reactionary party wining?

Don't you think that the form of government (or economy) should be chosen via reforms? And that the winning parties should try to reform the system by their political agendas?

 

[Colon]

Don't you think that current political reforms system is rather strange? For example, if the Liberal Party is the rulling party at the moment, with Laissez Faire, why, right after the elections, on the next day, the whole economy becomes state-controlled because of reactionary party wining?

Don't you think that the form of government (or economy) should be chosen via reforms? And that the winning parties should try to reform the system by their political agendas?

I've been having the same thought as you. It's also strange that minority policy has an effects on who can vote, like vote franchise, yet isn't a reform. Perhaps a 3rd set of reforms could be created, next to social and political, which would be socio-economic (social reforms perhaps could be renamed to welfare reforms to avoid confusion) and includes economic and minority policy.

However, that's a matter for a possible expansion. Vic2 is too close to release for such a major change.

 

[telesien]

It is logical and I agree with you. There is only one problem. That would make upper house even more important and government even less. So while it makes sense it can potentionally disrupt the political balance of the game.

 

[Colon]

The 3rd set of reforms perhaps could be set by the lower house/government, rather than the upper house. But yes, you'd need to overhaul political model of the game.

PS: where such a 3rd set of reforms to be created, I'd also place the trade unions reform there.

 

[Orinsul]

King has said NO to this, and in a recent DD too, and it was brought up very early, first couple weeks into the Victoria II forum existance and alot of times since, so its not that no-ones thought of it until to late to do anything about it.
Its that the devolopers have decieded they like it this way so whether or not we all think its mental, thats the way its going to stay and probably forever.

the country changes entirelly the night of the election, because in the Victoria II game universe political parties have magic, or something

 

[naggy]

Think of it this way:

Your nation has Laissez Faire, and a party wins elections making it state controlled. The state doesn't really have control yet, but what capitalist in their right mind is going to start building factories or plopping down railroads immediately, knowing that the newly elected government is going to change everything?

In a perfect world, you'd see investment start to slow even if capitalists thought that a party threatening a state controlled economy was likely to win - before the elections.

 

[Orinsul]

i dont think anyone disagrees that these policies should have to be passed into law
but the fact that we have to live with
is that the people who are making the game
dont want it that way

 

[Alexander Seil]

What the OP seems to be asking for, without necessarily being aware of it, is a detailed lower house model.

Well, wait until the third expansion, or Vicky 3.

 

[Voss]

So, what is the whole lower/upper house thing? If they don't pass any laws?

It doesn't make much sense. System transitions take very long time(see post-communist or post-Soviet states).

I hope that they will model it somehow. I don't like throwing out negotiations option, and I did have a hope that political system would be made better than the previous one.

HoI 3 is disasterous in the dyplomatical matters (no way to improve relations between states?! No option to see the cabinet of another country?!), and I have they will make V2 better, maybe with an expansion.

The most stupid thing is the minorities policy- from tolerant state to some Nazi like nation over one night?!

 

[Alexander Seil]

The system transitions you're going on about are what the upper house does, at infrequent intervals, with the right arrangement of political factions. What the lower house (the government) does is day to day policy, which can change drastically from one election cycle to another.

 

[Voss]

As far as I was told, whole policies (minorities, econimic, war etc) change on the day of election. So I don't think so

 

[Lloyien]

As far as I was told, whole policies (minorities, econimic, war etc) change on the day of election. So I don't think so

Citizenship, military, economic, and trade policies are tied to governments, as you were told. The one difference (from Victoria I) is slavery, which is now a policy that the Upper House handles.

It's not really that big a deal; unless the mechanics have changed tremendously, the various military policies (pacifism, anti-military, pro-military, jingoism) don't change much more than recruitment and slider positions. Same can be said for most of them.

And to put the matter into context, before Revolutions came out, the player built all factories and railroads, anyway. The introduction of the AI building mechanic was nice, but it probably helps to consider that the player != the government. This should be pretty obvious when it takes a lot of skill to get the government you want into power without wrecking the economy or messing up in some other way, as it is, or playing a (constitutional) monarchy.