and my equally high-powered strategy of getting the landowners to absurd levels of power, and then use the legitimacy boost to pass whichever social movements i wanted
- 2
Twitter Teasers Thread
- Thread starter Fallofthepurple
- 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.
I've had it happen a few times. If your society is very polarized and have two active movements that you can't both appease on the short term
I'm pretty sure the American Dream flavour pack for EU4 does not have a single tangible effect left in the game.
- 9
- 1
Apr. 12 - Land Reform
This is nice.
Although I can't wait to see proper ownership (where aristocrats would just take the profits without having to "work" in the agriculture) instead of artificial political strength adjustments.
In the meantime (because untying the owners from the industries is a gigantic task) tailoring the PMs to redistribute less profits to peasants/farmers and more to aristocrats would do.
Although I can't wait to see proper ownership (where aristocrats would just take the profits without having to "work" in the agriculture) instead of artificial political strength adjustments.
In the meantime (because untying the owners from the industries is a gigantic task) tailoring the PMs to redistribute less profits to peasants/farmers and more to aristocrats would do.
- 9
- 2
- 2
As the first law in the list is more than likely serfdom, the listed PM that 'unlocks' and 'disables' could likely be those pertaining to serfdom and not new PMs.
I agree removing 'working at' from 'owning' let alone 'living near' is going to be a big (though I feel necessary) change. I can already imagine the confusing UX and PoP bloat from this.
If we assume that 'owning' pops don't also 'work', or if they do it is only at the place they own, then we can reuse the 'works at building' and 'works in state' PoP attributes as 'owns building' and 'owns in state' using some sort of flag attribute (Work, Own, Both). For example, we would go from "English Protestant Aristocrats working at Cotton Plantations in Gujarat" to "English Protestant Aristocrats owning Cotton Plantations in Gujarat". This only gets you where owners don't have to 'work' at the building but still need to live at the building. To remove that limit we need another location attribute. This gets us to "English Protestant Aristocrats living in Home Counties and owning Cotton Plantations in Gujarat". (Assuming for the moment the the EIC and Great Britain are the same thing or at least once we get to the point of foreign investment.)
- 6
- 3
They really need to make it so peasants under serfdom can't qualify for anything. Yes, even clerks.
- 15
100% agreed. Even with serfdom I almost never have issues with qualifications. Qualification need to be made more impactful in general.
- 13
- 1
Might be true, might be not. It wouldn't hurt to add another farm/plantation ownership PM.
Maybe land reform laws will entail new subsistence PMs which employ a ton a people. Asia really needs it.
- 6
Yeah, with how the wealth of ownership class affects clout, I don't really like the idea of artificial percentage modifiers to it on top. Like it can make sense, if the law really can't be well represented, but I don't feel that's it.
- 1
"Clout" isn't a real thing, it's just a vague approximation of how powerful certain groups / factions / ideologies are within government at a given time. I have no problem with representing things such as increased prestige of various social groups, or corruption within the government favouring certain types, etc. via "artificial" modifiers.
- 4
It's about institutional power on top of wealth. You can have wealthy capitalists trying to make themselves heard but if your entire country's politics go through a feudal structure then the aristocrats have disproportionate power. And so on.
Last edited:
- 11
- 1
Apr. 25 - 1.3 Stream tomorrow at 14:30 CEST!
Apr. 26 - Inviting Agitators
