To what extent should the kinds of parties in power in a liberal democracy constrain the sort of policies a player is able to pursue?

[Bradley Hutson]

Suppose you're playing a game as a liberal democracy and you have a conservative party in power. Your country has laissez faire economic policies, in line with what that party stands for. That's all fine and dandy, but then a huge economic crisis hits that causes people to lose their faith those policies. An election then occurs, with a social democratic party gaining majorities in both houses of your country's legislature. This party promised to raise taxes on the rich, enact a bunch of labor laws, and build a welfare state. Now should you as a player be obligated to enact those sort of policies, or should you be able to continue to pursue laissez faire economic policies if you feel so inclined?

Now, of course, we could try to simulate the exact political processes that go on. Let's suppose your government is a parliamentary system, where the head of government requires the support of your country's legislature to stay in power. Your legislature supports social democratic policies, but you do everything you can to stymie said policies. As a result, the legislature decides to kick you out of office and install someone they (assume) would be more supportive of their policies. However, you as the player can (hypothetically) still continue to oppose your legislature's policies. This could hypothetically result in some sort of endless loop where the legislature keeps firing prime ministers but all the replacements keep doing everything their predecessors were fired for. This is obviously a rather absurd scenario, so it seems that there should be some sort of check on this sort of thing.

Basically, what I am trying to get at is to what extent should the kinds of parties in power in a liberal democracy constrain the sort of policies a player is able to pursue? I am not sure that the authority mechanic really addresses this exact issue, as that only is about ruling by decree.

 

[Lorehead]

I don’t have any idea what the Devs have planned. The first build they teased had no parties, only interest groups. They then told us they were going to revise that to add some kind of parties or factions on top.

I hope, though, that there’s no one dominant strategy where you can put the perfect coalition in power and pass all the reforms. If every interest group or faction supports some but not all of the things you need to do at some point in the game, the player has an organic reason to change the government about as often as happened in real life.

 

[alexti]

It's an interesting question, but very little has been revealed on this subject so far. Was there anything said about multiple houses in the legislature?

We know that there are IG instead of political parties, so presumably if the player ignores the wishes of IG they will be losing loyalty. This might mean that the player might need to make compromises to keep all sizeable IGs reasonably loyal. In the example above, the player might choose to keep LVT tax from laissez faire, since large IG supporting social democracy (such workers and peasants) are quite happy with that policy anyway and avoid introducing corporate taxes which would upset capitalists (presumably land owners were already kept reasonably loyal under the previous government). I hope that IGs aren't getting upset with policies due to ideological reasons and if the player manages to make workers and peasants financially secure (allowing them to meet their needs), they won't be particularly unhappy regardless of what policies the player choose to achieve that. So hopefully, the player will have different options with different tradeoffs.

 

[Buttons12345]

In my opinion a lot. There should be advantages to a liberal democracy, but from the perspective of an omnipotent overseer yeah, there should be disadvantages. Personally something I would like to see is limits to war declarations. Give parties platforms for when offensive wars are allowed (eg. containment, national pride, colonial expansion, local/civilized expansion, reclaiming rightful lands (taking cores you have)) and unless a majority of your legislator supports the cause of the war than you can't declare war. Like Victoria 2 the legislator could start leaning in support or opposition to war declarations depending on the (external instead of internal) situation. If Prussia just fell to a secondary power, has no major allies, and it had a war in recent memory where it humiliated France, the liberals might support a war to kick Prussia while they are down, while if Russia has the number one military and is nearly as industrialized as Germany, and controls Afghanistan and with it a land border with India the more nationalistic British parties may be opposed to war with Russia in part or in whole unless Britain can strengthen its possible alliance.

 

[alexti]

I hope, though, that there’s no one dominant strategy where you can put the perfect coalition in power and pass all the reforms. If every interest group or faction supports some but not all of the things you need to do at some point in the game, the player has an organic reason to change the government about as often as happened in real life.

I also hope that there is no single optimal set of reforms (like in Vic2) that everyone wants to pass in every game and that there will be different ways of achieving objectives.

 

[Lorehead]

I also hope that there is no single optimal set of reforms (like in Vic2) that everyone wants to pass in every game and that there will be different ways of achieving objectives.

A very good point! That was one of the flaws in a game with some conceptual similarities, Urban Empire. You won by passing edicts that the game designer personally agreed with.

 

[dragonluke]

They then told us they were going to revise that to add some kind of parties or factions on top.

they said they'll look into it, not that they'll add them

 

[Foke]

I don’t have any idea what the Devs have planned. The first build they teased had no parties, only interest groups. They then told us they were going to revise that to add some kind of parties or factions on top.

I hope, though, that there’s no one dominant strategy where you can put the perfect coalition in power and pass all the reforms. If every interest group or faction supports some but not all of the things you need to do at some point in the game, the player has an organic reason to change the government about as often as happened in real life.

I don't think they have actually said that they will add parties. I think they have said that they are thinking about it.

 

[Lorehead]

they said they'll look into it, not that they'll add them

Thanks for bringing this up. To prevent any further arguments, I’ll just quote Martin Anward’s exact words here. He did say “If we do add parties,” so you’re right.

We're actively discussing their [parties’] role in the politics system right now, and more details about this will be forthcoming in a dev diary sometime in the future

If we do add parties it wouldn't be as a replacement for interest groups, I can say that much. There are certainly numerous states where parties didn't exist in 1836.

So maybe call them “factions?”

 

[Varren]

One of the big drawbacks of democracy is that you can occasionally get radicals in power who do something drastic. Nations can try to limit the damage preemptively with separated powers and other institutions, but foresight is limited and you still occasionally get a Brexit or something.

It wouldn't do justice to the system if something like that weren't in the game. Maybe disloyal factions (parties, IGs, whatever they end up being) should be able to implement their own policies upon taking over. Maybe like one policy change per election or so, to represent institutional forces trying to preserve things.

 

[Lorehead]

Let’s say that, when the game ends in the mid-’30s, Germany goes Fascist and the leader of America (or perhaps the Spirit of the Nation) thinks that’s a threat he should prepare for. He might not be able to do much about it because most of his voters are isolationists. And he might personally want to advance civil rights, too, but not be able to take any steps toward that, because his immediate priority was a series of economic reforms to end a Depression, and to enact them, he needed Jim Crow segregationists in his governing coalition.

 

[Vernichtere]

Let’s say that, when the game ends in the mid-’30s, Germany goes Fascist and the leader of America (or perhaps the Spirit of the Nation) thinks that’s a threat he should prepare for. He might not be able to do much about it because most of his voters are isolationists. And he might personally want to advance civil rights, too, but not be able to take any steps toward that, because his immediate priority was a series of economic reforms to end a Depression, and to enact them, he needed Jim Crow segregationists in his governing coalition.

In reality there are several mechanisms that keep certain groups in power. In the previous game, the developers had only used the right to choose according to wealth.

In fact, the electoral system as such can also decide. Proportional suffrage, for example, is more suitable for promoting the rise of new movements. Majority voting, such as in Great Britain, blocks more. The majority vote in two ballots even more so. For example, the radical political right in France has around twenty percent approval. But you can only get a few MPs through: in the first ballot they get maybe 30% in an electoral district, making them the strongest group. In the second ballot, the other parties will gather around a centrist.

It would be nice if the game made the suffrage more complex-

 

[Muhu]

In my opinion a lot. There should be advantages to a liberal democracy, but from the perspective of an omnipotent overseer yeah, there should be disadvantages. Personally something I would like to see is limits to war declarations. Give parties platforms for when offensive wars are allowed (eg. containment, national pride, colonial expansion, local/civilized expansion, reclaiming rightful lands (taking cores you have)) and unless a majority of your legislator supports the cause of the war than you can't declare war. Like Victoria 2 the legislator could start leaning in support or opposition to war declarations depending on the (external instead of internal) situation. If Prussia just fell to a secondary power, has no major allies, and it had a war in recent memory where it humiliated France, the liberals might support a war to kick Prussia while they are down, while if Russia has the number one military and is nearly as industrialized as Germany, and controls Afghanistan and with it a land border with India the more nationalistic British parties may be opposed to war with Russia in part or in whole unless Britain can strengthen its possible alliance.

I would go even further, I think parties (or whatever factions we will end up with) should be able to control not just war, but peace too. Especially during the world wars there were pacifist movements in many countries with the explicit aim of ending the war. It would be very strange if one of these parties got elected and they would go on to continue the war as if nothing happened. Now I'm not saying that electing them should automatically end the war, but it should put huge pressure on the player to end the war as soon as possible.

 

[Somberg]

This is an interesting question even if the premise (refusing to follow through and even opposing the policies of a party in government) currently doesn't exist in game since parties are not a thing at this point in time.

I think this is a case where you would get the radicalization of relevant Interest Groups, so for example Trade Unions that were supportive of socialist policies would drift toward communism instead as a result of inaction and even defect to a communist party (assuming parties are coalitions of IGs if they were in the game). Possibly this would extend to POPs as well, so laborers would drift toward supporting the Trade Union IG over others at the same time that it is moving toward communism. It could breed unrest and lead to a communist revolution, in which case it would make it impossible to pursue any sort of laissez faire policies like the player originally intended.

So the player would either have to adapt to the situation to some degree, perhaps granting limited reforms to stave off some form of militancy, or risk destabilizing their country and possibly deal with a revolution or a civil war of some sort if too many POPs ended up radicalizing. Obviously this is an extreme example but I imagine there would have to be downsides to refusing to follow through with the platform of a party that won power in some form, assuming of course that if parties were implemented in game they would have some sort of platform and POPs would expect them to implement at least some of it.

This would of course limit player freedom to a degree, which is perhaps why the devs wanted to have Interest Groups as the basis of the political system instead of parties for this reason (also because it applies to more countries) because it doesn't force the player to change how they play the game if they get saddled with a party that won't let them do what they want to do. With IGs and parties on top of them though, which is likely what we would get if they were added to the game, there could be alternative ways to navigate this situation on than just inaction by messing around with party coalitions.

 

[ajokitty]

Here is how politics will work, to the best of my understanding so far. All the numbers are made up and have no relation to the game. Conjecture is in italics. These mechanics may be subject to change.

A nation is composed of POPs, or pieces of population, representing a group of people who share a single culture, religion, job, and workplace; For example, the Plantations in Alabama might be owned by a Dixie Protestant Aristocrat POP consisting of 6K people.

Every POP has some Political Strength, representing their influence in the government. It is currently unclear how Political Strength is calculated. Known factors include the POP's wealth, whether its state is incorporated or unincorporated, and the Laws and Institutions of the nation. Other factors likely include the number of politically enfranchised individuals, the social class of the POP, and whether their culture or religion is accepted. Each POP can support various Interest Groups (IGs). Not every individual in a POP will be politically enfranchised, depending on the laws. For example, there will likely be laws to enfranchised women, and adding a poll tax will likely decrease enfranchisement among the poorest POPs. Slaves will never be politically enfranchised. Politically enfranchised individuals within a POP may lend their support to different IGs, or not be politically active at all. Increased literacy makes people more likely to support IGs. Continuing our example, the Aristocrat POP might have 2.8K enfranchised people, who are allowed to participate in US democracy. Within the POP, 1.5K might support the Southern Planters IG, and another 5K might support the Devout IG. The other 8K will not support any IG. Individuals supporting an IG will lend their Political Strength to it.

The politics of a nation is represented by various Interest Groups, representing various factions within a nation. The primary characteristics of an IG are its Approval, Ideologies, Traits, and Clout. Approval represents how much an Interest Group approves of the government. If an IG has sufficiently low Approval, it can start a civil war. It is possible to side with the rebels during a civil war. The Ideologies of an IG represent its goals and desires. Some known Ideologies include: Monarchist - prefers monarchies; Individualist - opposed to welfare, social security, healthcare, and public education; Abolitionist - opposed to slavery; and Slavers - opposed to the abolition of slavery. Traits represent the abilities of an IG. Traits will give bonuses if the IG has sufficiently high Approval. The IGs that we have seen have 4-5 Ideologies and 3 Traits. Interest Groups will have different names depending on circumstances. For example, the Landowner IG is called the Landed Gentry in the UK, the Junkers in Prussia, and the Southern Planters in the US. IGs will also have different Ideologies and Traits depending on the nation. The Devout IG, representing religious people, is especially varied. IGs can change overtime, but will only do so rarely. The exact malleability is subject to change. Known IGs include Industrialists, Landowners, Intelligentsia, Devout, Armed Forces, Rural Folk, Petite Bourgeoisie, and Trade Unions. Nearly every nation will have these IGs.

Within a nation, IGs have varying amount of clout. Clout represents the influence of an IG within a nation. Holding an election will grant IGs additional clout proportional to the number of votes they received. Votes, in turn, are gained based off of the number of enfranchised supporters and the Laws of the nation. It is unclear how exactly Clout is calculated or what its mechanical effects are. Wealth, Status, and Workforce are known to be the primary factors. Political Strength will likely play a key role in determining Clout.

Interest Groups can be invited into the government. Those which are not become the Opposition. The Interest Groups currently in a government play an important role in what can be done. A Law can only be passed if an Interest Group within the government wants to pass it. Only one Law can be passed at a time. Based off an image from the Vickynomics slides, it appears that the Clout of the IGs within the government determine which Laws can be passed. There appear to be 3 IGs, with 6%, 8%, and 22% Clout respectively. It looks like only Laws which have majority approval, weighted by Clout, can be passed. Laws that have greater support in your government can be passed faster. Passing a law that an IG does not approve of will reduce its Approval. Governments possess Legitimacy. Legitimacy decreases when inviting additional IGs or when excluding the IG that the nation's leader belongs to. More democratic governments can invite more IGs into the government before losing Legitimacy. It is unknown what the effects of low Legitimacy are.

Going back to POPs, individuals within POPs can become either Loyalists or Radicals. Rising Standards of Living will turn people into Loyalists, while both falling Standards of Living and discrimination will make people become Radical. Higher classes are more likely to radicalize due to higher standards. Members of an IG who are Loyalists will increase its Approval, while members of an IG who are Radicals will decrease it. Radicals will also generate Turmoil within a state, causing various problems. Police can be used to reduce the negative effects of Turmoil. Radicals can be deradicalized by raising Standards of Living, passing laws ending discrimination, or will die off naturally as different generations go by.

Authority is one of the three government capacities, and relates to the personal power of the ruler to govern. Autocratic nations will have very high Authority, while Anarchic nations will lack Authority. If a nation produces more Authority than it consumes, it will have a boost to Law Enactment Rate. Authority can also be used to Promote or Surpress IGs.

The effects of Authority and Legitimacy help differentiate between despotism and democracy. Monarchs will have high Authority and find it easier to maintain a single consistent policy, regardless of the will of the people. Republics will have their strategy greatly influenced by Interest Groups, with a new leader with their own Interest Group every election, able to draw upon more diverse IGs but having to seek out more compromises.

 

[kviiri]

I don’t have any idea what the Devs have planned. The first build they teased had no parties, only interest groups. They then told us they were going to revise that to add some kind of parties or factions on top.

Fact check, did they actually say that? I recall a tweet by Wiz where he said they are thinking about it, but did not outright state that they had ready mechanics in mind or that it would make the release. Of course it might be something I just missed.

 

[ajokitty]

They have said that they are considering revising the political system in response to people requesting political parties, but haven't said what form that will take.

Are there no political parties in Vic III?

Based on this screenshot are there no political parties anymore (Conservative, Liberal etc)?. Is the new political system just vague interest groupings like rural folks?. Just curious as we only have a few screenshots to go on. Personally I would...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

He also tweeted his last comment in the thread, nearly word for word.

 

[Lorehead]

Fact check, did they actually say that? I recall a tweet by Wiz where he said they are thinking about it, but did not outright state that they had ready mechanics in mind or that it would make the release. Of course it might be something I just missed.

See the follow-up.