Surviving as a 100% plurality Pres. Dictatorship (Rev)

[Ambigore]

Presidential Dictatorships are GREAT. They are actually more effective at reducing militancy than democracy, even with 100% plurality.

Select a reactionary or anarcho-liberal party into power, enact Suffrage and Free Parties and next month you'll become a democracy with a one-off -1 reduction in liberal militancy. Let a month pass and you'll revert back to a presidential dictatorship, with a one-off -1 reduction in conservative militancy.

Rinse and repeat until the militancy of your liberals and conservatives is 0! If you want to reduce socialist militancy, use communists to form a prol. dictatorship instead (not tested but I assume the same logic works).

The great thing is that even with a Pres. Dictatorship, you can still keep Suffrage which provides a HUGE -militancy modifier at high plurality, as long as you keep "Right to Ban" party reforms enacted.

I think anarcho-libs are must suited for presidential dictatorships. Before becoming one, use another party to enact as many social reforms to the best quality possible. With a laissez-faire party in power, you get the full -MIL benefit at 0% funding.

I noticed that after a few decades with anarcho-libs in power, my POPs began to assume the same issues as the party, even with +10 conscience. Despite 100% plurality, my MIL modifier was still negative thanks to party support (average -0.2 MIL modifier).

Suffrage + social reforms + party support = enough -MIL to overcome the high +MIL modifier as you approach 100% plurality.

If your population is big enough, recruit enough divisions to have one in each province to provide another -0.20 MIL modifier. All this should be more than enough to handle 100% plurality. And even if you do see your MIL slowly rise, use the democracy/dictatorship conversion method mentioned at the beginning to reduce militancy.

 

[Talquin]

What about the loss of prestige every time you switch to a dictatorship?

 

[Ambigore]

I don't recall losing any prestige, at least under Revolutions. Might be different under vanilla.

 

[Xanthippus]

VIP:R certainly gives you a -20 prestige hit every time a dictatorship is proclaimed. And besides that, the methods you've described are the epitomy of gameyness. Do you really think that people living in a country where the government and constitution was being changed and reformed every month would become less militant?

 

[Taylor]

Ah! Someone else found out about this, too!

It's kind of an exploit, though, and in VIP, it is no longer useful because you get a prestige hit everytime you perform this trick.

 

[deadmeat1471]

this seems a bit too much of an 'abuse' rather than a strategy soo i wouldnt use it personally

 

[Waffen9999]

The way to survive as a Presidential Dictatorship sadly is through either very very low taxes, or clergy enough in key spots to reduce conciousness to 0. In the hopes that population will then become Anarcho-Liberal >since I think all PD's are Anarcho-Liberal< its harder then it should be I think. Plurality really does have a crushing effect on PD's and Communist states.

 

[ohms_law]

Anarcho-Liberal >since I think all PD's are Anarcho-Liberal<[/QUOTE
You know, that's an interesting thing to say. I'm not sure at all that you're right, but it brings up a really good question. What exactly does an Anarcho-Liberal party/state represent? I've heard of a French political party mentioned in the past, but as far as I know there's never been a real "Anarcho-Liberal" political group in power. If I'm wrong there, I'd love to know about it.

 

[varietygamer]

When playing brazil by the 1860-70's the game becomes unplayable due to constant rebellion and revolution. No matter what I do militancy just keep rising.

 

[deadmeat1471]

Try turning democracy, i have many times been brazil - if your long term strategy is sound you can rule easily.

Some have suggested ways - Clergy or low tax.

Personally i prefer low tax as i hate religion.

 

[Xanthippus]

Anarcho-Liberal >since I think all PD's are Anarcho-Liberal<[/QUOTE
You know, that's an interesting thing to say. I'm not sure at all that you're right, but it brings up a really good question. What exactly does an Anarcho-Liberal party/state represent? I've heard of a French political party mentioned in the past, but as far as I know there's never been a real "Anarcho-Liberal" political group in power. If I'm wrong there, I'd love to know about it.

Slightly off topic, but it is a really good question. The whole anarcho-liberal presidential dictatorship has never really made sense to me. I think the name is a misnomer, I believe it is supposed to represent something like a militant, radically revolutionary sect of liberals, rather than the anarcho-liberals that existed in this period of history.

There's an article on wikipedia about the anarcho movement that sprung out of the period. As you can see they advocated complete personal freedoms without any state or governmental intervention... so an anarcho dictatorship is kind of an oxymoron. The word dictatorship didn't have the same connotations then as it did now, it just meant an emergency government that was meant to be transitional... but the anarcho movement wanted to abolish the state, not transition to another one.

 

[truth is life]

Slightly off topic, but it is a really good question. The whole anarcho-liberal presidential dictatorship has never really made sense to me. I think the name is a misnomer, I believe it is supposed to represent something like a militant, radically revolutionary sect of liberals, rather than the anarcho-liberals that existed in this period of history.

From my (admittedly quite skimpy) knowledge of the parties that tend to be associated with this label in game, this seems to be more or less correct. Certainly it makes more sense than the 'obvious' interpretation of (European-style) liberals who are anarchistic. Why are they setting up Presidential Dictatorships, then? :wacko:

varietygamer: Unless you've triggered a revolution, you're probably a con mon since the anti-monarchist revolts didn't happen till the 1880s, IIRC, so you shouldn't be having all that many problems with militancy...try checking your POPs and seeing what's making them unhappy, then try to placate them.

 

[ohms_law]

I've always wanted to think of them as "Libertarians"... but then, I am a Liberatian myself, so I can never quite trust my judgement there.

 

[Waffen9999]

Whoops, forgot, the Fascists also make Presidential Dictatorships. I think that's it. I don't think any other type does, since Communists make you obviously Communist, and Reactionaries make you a Monarchy.

 

[Esben_DRK]

I am fairly sure that only reactionary *revolters* make you a monarchy, but that reactionaries elected makes you a PD.

And anarcho_liberals, at least as I've heard, are as the french jacobists.

 

[ohms_law]

Yes but, what exactly is a French Jacobist supposed to represent, outside of France?

 

[Xanthippus]

I am fairly sure that only reactionary *revolters* make you a monarchy, but that reactionaries elected makes you a PD.

And anarcho_liberals, at least as I've heard, are as the french jacobists.

If you're already a monarchy and you appoint reactionaries nothing happens. Con mon or democracy, whether appointed or voted in, reactionaries will declare a dictatorship. Doesn't make much sense to me with a con mon, back to a straight monarchy would... But that's the way it works.

 

[truth is life]

Reactionaries in a con mon don't do anything...just tested this with UK, 1836, Ricky w/ latest hotfixes. (And I'm pretty sure this is true for monarchies, whether constitutional or not, in general, that having the 'wrong' parties in power doesn't change the constitution, it's all about the political reforms.)

And Xanthippus, we seem to be getting such different results that it's like we're playing different games. What version are you playing?
EDIT: Maybe this is a Ricky thing? (Since you seem not to have it)

 

[varietygamer]

All my revolts are due to reactionaries, and because I'm brazil, I always end up with a constitutional monarchy, which raises revoltrisk even further, then when i go for a democracy, reactionaries are elected which causes a presidential dictatorship, once again raising revoltrisk. It's a vicious cycle I can't get out of unless I just declare war on someone and kill off most of my pops.

 

[CAG_007]

I've always wanted to think of them as "Libertarians"... but then, I am a Liberatian myself, so I can never quite trust my judgement there.

Anarchism never really reached the point of actual political parties (possibly because to create an organization of anarchist leaders would be glaringly self-refuting). The anarchist movement had a lot (relatively) of adherents in the nineteenth century, probably resulting from the extreme societal upheaval of the industrial revolution, and so for that movement to be represented in the game is realistic. However, like I said, there was never really a "Anarchist Party" as such, running for election.

Also, it's difficult to find a coherent "manifesto" of their beliefs, as they were very resistant to consensus and agreement (surprise, surprise). But they were not libertarians, in the sense that libertarians want a limited government, whereas the anarchists advocated the complete, and often violent, overthrow of government. But that was the common thread through all of these anarchists: the overthrow of the governments of the world, and thus somehow creating some sort of utopia. Individual anarchists, however, showed an array of political philosophies outside of this basic agreement, incorporating their anarchism into such varied systems as communism, capitalism, socialism, and workers' rights.

By the way, if you want a rolicking and bizarre good read from approximately this time period and subject, try a favorite of mine: G.K. Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday.