Before anything about this is really discussed, I think it'd be much more fun to expand the timeline into the 1950s, or at least not have a timeline-cap. I know that you make HOI games for a reason – so you have a sort of continuation from Vic. II, but the game shouldn't just cut-off after 1936. Perhaps end all custom-made (not dynamic, just custom) events and decisions after this time, but don't force the player to finish the game by that time. Going through to edit all Party termination-dates and event-longevity to a much more distant future so I could play well into the 2000s was a serious pain – at least allow the possibility of continuation.
So here's my suggestions for a new game:
CLASSES/SOCIAL GROUPS
•Upper
>Capitalists
(This should represent the "upper" or "big" capitalists, and should be relatively few in number. I think it would be very immersive to have prominent families and/or companies included here – so you could have, say, Carnegie Steel actually being represented in-game, or other randomly generated ones in other countries. Either way, they should play a larger part in politics and development).
>Aristocrats
(The old guard – should include nobility, landowners, etc. A dying class.)
•Middle
>Bureaucrats
>Artisans
>Clergymen
(Should decrease with new scientific discoveries and SHOULDN'T play a prominent part in educating, at least initially. Perhaps at the beginning, but later on their role ought to be minuscule at best).
>Intelligentsia
(Educators, scientists and intellectuals – I can't stress enough how terrible it was to be leading a secular democratic regime and still having the clergy being the "educator class." Ought to increase with tech. advancements).
>Officers
>Clerks
(Just highly skilled workers/management(?))
>Small capitalists/Petty bourgeoisie
(Necessary because they do differentiate in needs and interests from larger capitalists – obviously countries will start out with a huge number of these guys, and their competition will lead many to gain more powerful and convert to big capitalists. This class will be an unstable one, because the labor movements and the big capitalists will both be crushing to them. As a class, they thus should be the main supporters of fascism and other reactionary tendencies looking to roll back to "better times.")
•Lower
>Farmers
(I think it would be a good idea to include a subcategory – maybe when highlighting the class it will display this – of subsistence farmers versus commercial farmers. In developing countries with high industries and competition, I think it would be historical to show the former decreasing proportional to the latter increasing. Perhaps it would be best to include this into two separate classes – i.e. between subsistence farmers and commercial farmers – I don't know. Regardless, what is necessary, I think, is the vast dynamic changes in this pop over time. Farmers in 1836 will be EXTRAORDINARILY different than those in 1936, and this should be represented. As a class, they should drastically shrink as fewer amounts can produce larger yields, and as the bulk convert to proles. Enclosing peasant land should also be an option for various countries; this would steer development rapidly towards industrialization as dispossessed peasants move to the cities and the countryside becomes more productive).
>Laborers
>Factory workers/Proletarians
(This should obviously grow in size relative to the amount of factories.. Dying peasant class ought to lead to massive amounts of people flocking to cities and enrolling in factory labor. Obviously historical).
>Soldiers
>Lumpenproletarians
(Includes prostitutes, beggars, criminals, etc. – slum workers/socially unproductive peoples. Obviously in need of representation in the Victorian era. Weighted towards extremes in general; from Fascism to Communism).
ECONOMICS
-Before any are listed, I'd like to propose this: that economy types are far more immersive. What I mean by this is that a planned economy shouldn't just be a capitalist economy with this or that limitation, or something of the sorts. Instead, I think there should be tremendous changes – and they shouldn't be immediate. So a planned economy, for an example, shouldn't just be one where "the government manages all the industries" while you still have capitalist pops – they should disappear as you NATIONALIZE their industries. This is what I mean by the families and their industries being represented in-game– you should have the option of messing with the interworkings of the economy if you have the right econ type. As an example, say you have a fully privately-managed economy. If a planned-economy party gains enough support in the upper house, then you should get the option of enacting their economic policies so long as they have a majority. In the US, if the socialists gain 55% of the upper house somehow, you should then have the option of nationalizing sectors of the economy. I know I'm getting very in-depth here, but adding to this, even this should be dynamic: obviously communists want an economy producing for-use while capitalists for-exchange, so types of nationalizations/state ownerships should be varied, if that makes sense. What I'm trying to get at is this: nationalized industries under a communist regime shouldn't just be capitalism without the capitalists. They may function like state-owned capitalist industries (state capitalism), but the ultimate goal is material calculation in-kind. And while that would be hard to put into the game, it wouldn't be impossible, and it would allow for a very different experience if communism actually wins-out in the global arena.
Conversely to nationalizations, privatizations should also exist – so if you have a liberal revolution topple a socialist regime, events should fire leading to the abolition of the state-run economy-sectors and mass privatization should ensue – you get the picture.
Without further ado, I think Econ policies should be:
>mercantilism
(Or something that represents the economy in the early 19th century/the type of economy in relatively underdeveloped Asia and Africa at this time – some sort of feudal system. Being history experts, I'd figure you at paradox would be better with naming this than I).
>Laissez-faire
(NO gov't intervention in the economy– parties of this type should try to privatize at all costs).
>Interventionism
(Bailing out businesses, building RR's, subsidies, etc.)
>Mixed-economy
(Replaced state-capitalism: the state should employ both planned and laissez-faire methods, and be able to nationalize or privatize. There would obviously be limitations, though, as you wouldn't be able to nationalize and plan the whole economy without having "planned economy" as a policy. Perhaps, if you nationalize all or most industries, the economy-policy of the party will dynamically change to "planned economy"?).
>Planned Economy
(As mentioned before, shouldn't just be capitalism without capitalists – and upon winning an election, parties of this type shouldn't immediately have the whole economy in state hands. Should be gradual. Revolutions with leading parties of this type should nationalize certain industries immediately at victory, but, just like in real life, not the whole economy at once. After all, the Bolsheviks didn't have a fully planned economy immediately – in fact, they even went backwards, a la NEP. Communist and Socialist Parties of this sort have the eventual goal of a classless and moneyless society based on production for need – I think that, after a certain amount of time and IF they internationally succeed, this should begin to develop via a series of events and decisions... This would add some interesting flavor to the game).
PARTIES and the POLITICAL SYSTEM
This is more of just a quick note or suggestion, but I think political parties and government should be completely dynamic.
Parties shouldn't just disappear at a given date no matter what – they should die out if they lose popularity and new ones should form if new dynamic, player-driven or custom-made events happen. I don't think this would be hard to do, either – if the Paris commune, for an example, doesn't end up happening because the Franco Prussian War doesn't trigger it, then that should have SERIOUS changes in the international scene for the left. Perhaps there will be a different type of this at a different time – for an example, a Manhattan Commune, etc. It should be totally dynamic.
Parties should also evolve over time, and should be able to split and change ideologies completely if internal changes lead up to it.
This, I think, is one of the most interesting things you all could add in – inter-party politics. Parties obviously were never monolithic, and this should reflect that – if, say, there's a party in the liberal group, and social liberals gain the majority because perhaps people are more in demand for social reform and liberal policies at the same time, then this should alienate the original liberals in the party, and over time – at an annual party congress or something – if the social liberals still dominate, the whole party should change ideologies to social liberal and reflect their values. Or, instead, maybe the original liberals get P.O.'d in an interparty debate and split from the party altogether, forming a new oppositionist party. This would be INCREDIBLY historical, especially for the infamously byzantine and secretarian left-wing parties throughout the 1800s and 1900s. As a real historical example, southern democrats may split off from the increasingly social liberal Democratic Party and formed the Dixiecrats, or the revolutionary communists should split off from the RSDLP and form the Bolsheviks (while those remaining form the Mensheviks).
Adding to all this, generic party stances should also change. Going off of the example just mentioned, as the Bolshevik Party in power, one might find internal right-wing factions supporting a mixed economy due to the need to mend the relationship with the battered peasantry due to war communism (this faction being lead by Bukharin), and this faction, gaining a majority, may cause the economic policy of their party change to Mixed-Economy. Or maybe later the Trotskyists, gaining power, could expel the Stalinist faction after 1924 if they gain a majority, thus leading to "Trotskyist policies" being reflected in the Party apparatus. This kind of dynamism is, again, a must-have.
Government-types should be equally dynamic. A democratic state should obviously be pluralistic by default, but should be able to actively decay without just turning into another government overnight — perhaps, for an example, authoritarian parties get enough support in the upper house to ban certain parties within the framework of the democratic state. This, certainly, would be interesting – maybe you see a gradual decay of democracy in the west due to civil unrest and strife? Similarly, single-party states should be able to gradually lose their monopoly on power – but not inevitably. If you have a horrible, civil-rights abusing single party state, that should obviously lead to increased support for underground parties that support pluralism – but if it's somehow a "benevolent dictatorship," like how many say Tito's Yugoslavia was, then there shouldn't be an inevitable decline in support.
Adding international groups for parties would also be interesting — such as some sort of international alliance of liberal parties or the manifold Communist Internationals. These should all bring support for different parties around the world – and I think internal politics should be present in these international associations, too (real life example: the Second International gradually giving way to the Comintern, which should support and gain a lot of control over CP's around the globe/change their policies. Take the Stalinization of the Communist Party of Italy for a reference – I think this should be included in-game; they'll be voluntary associations, and they'll have a lot of benefits if you stay in them, but perhaps you're sacrificing individual decision making to this international body. This would be incredibly useful in deciding whether or not to join or leave the League of Nations if such a decision were available.
Lastly, adding cabinet members (certain ones being randomly generated, other major characters should be pre programmed in-game) like in HOI III would be HUGE, and much more immersive. Perhaps you could do a nasty party-purge of cabinet-member dissenters to get your way?
POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES
(It would be cool, but not necessarily necessary, to add a political compass for parties in your country – if you don't know what I'm talking about, there's some images of it online.. Could give players more immersion when dealing with parties).
Anyways, here's what I think would be interesting for the political ideology choices:
>Fascism
(Should leech off xenophobia, hostility towards immigrants, revanchism, and nationalism. Shouldn't grow amongst non-accepted cultures of a country. Can support most [NOT ALL!!] social reforms both ways, but will always roll back political ones in power).
>Reactionism
(In the beginning of the game, and in monarchies, these should be staunch supporters of the crown – but it should dynamically change. In democratic countries without a monarchist tradition in the 20th century in game, maybe you'll see reactionaries representing ultranationalists/authoritarian conservatives?)
>Conservatism
(Just want to maintain the status quo or traditional values – naturally strongly supported by poor farmers/peasants and by everyone else when times are good).
>Liberalism
(At the forefront of social change within monarchies and despotic regimes – support free markets and democratic rights in most instances. Forward with political and most social reforms which don't deal with the intervention in the market – for example, they'll support free speech and legal equality, but not a minimum wage or public services. Very strong amongst big capitalists & intellectuals in the beginning).
>Social Liberalism
(Should emerge in the 1890s and quickly take over the liberal parties via internal politics if want for social change is high – moderate support for economic parts of social reform (min. wage, etc.) and the same liberal support for political reform.
>Socialism
(Should emerge in 1848 – and should be extremely diverse. Socialists shouldn't just represent reformists – this is terribly inaccurate. In fact, "factions" or "types" of socialists should initially be predominantly utopian socialists, and then revolutionary Marxists, and much later, reformist social democrats. This evolution of thought should exist, with more revolutionary socialists – but not all – leaving their parties to join the Communists, leaving the reformists behind in their original Social Democratic Parties.)
>Communism
(Although this is a type of socialism, I think referring to it as just "revolutionary socialism" is too simplistic – socialists should be able to become revolutionary without becoming communist, and communists should always be predominantly revolutionary but CAN campaign in democratic elections – except for the strictly abstentionist parties (like the one Bordiga led in Italy).
Communism could emerge in 1871 at the Paris Commune (or a substitute, given the circumstances) or in 1917/with the Bolshevik formal establishment of Communism as a political tendency again – either way, maybe these should reflect the most radical of socialists? Regardless, one thing that should be necessary is the inclusion of various factions that could universally exist within all or most countries (for example, there shouldn't just be one communist party in Germany by 1934 – if the Comintern has demanded certain things that one section of the KDP doesn't agree with, it would be best to include oppositionist Communist Parties. There should be a qualitative difference between how "Trotskyist" and "Stalinist"-dominated parties behave in-game. Also: I think "Trotskyist" should just be named "Leninist" for the sake of simplicity – they were almost uniform, after all).
>Anarchism
(Anarchists should certainly be represented in-game, for sure – not as parties, per se, but definitely as movements. Anarchists should essentially act as rebels permanently occupying territories until collapse or foreign intervention, and they should be triggered by regional populations supporting anarchism due to, maybe, repressed rights/an overlooming government.
What I think would also be pretty immersive in-game is an ideological infamy system – in other words, if the first fascist experiment pops up, and it turns out to be a disaster and this becomes publicized (or maybe they commit horrendous atrocities), then this should add a lot of ideological infamy to fascism and draw people away. Same with other ideologies: if communists enact a Red Terror after a revolution, then capitalist countries should get a "Red Scare!" event lasting for X amount of years, and should be renewed whenever Red Terror is renewed.
Also, similar to the aforementioned "industry system," where individual companies are actual represented in-game and can buy up certain parts of the economy OR be monopolized by the state in nationalization, there should also be a trade union system – one that shows active trade unions and their support. I think this is necessary because of their overwhelming influence in 19th and 20th century politics – unions like the AFL-CIO or the CNT-FAI should be represented and should back parties, and parties should similarly support or oppose them. High-member and militant unions might instigate revolutions if conditions are deplorable or if there's already civil war (like in Spain) and passive class-collaborationist ones should oppose revolutionary extremes while supporting higher benefits to the working classes. Political systems should play an effect here, too – trade unions being illegal should *literally* ban them, while non-socialist bans socialist and communist ones, state-controlled monopolizes them into a dynamically- or player-named national labor union that YOU the player dictate (determining benefits et al.), etc.
And overall, population needs should ultimately determine ideological preferences. This was already present in the in-game mechanics of Vic II, but it felt superficial or nonexistent.
Populations that are lacking in basic needs will obviously turn to more radical solutions, while content populations will grow more conservative. Or, even better, they will grow more of whatever-the-ruling-ideology is IF it's effective/has established an effective ideological hegemony. So if a laissez-faire economy is providing their needs very well as opposed to a previously terribly-managed planned one, expect populations to support laissez-faire economies. But this shouldn't be universal, per se – capitalists & aristocrats should NEVER support communism, even if it meets everyone's needs perfectly. What I'm basically saying is that if you have, say, a planned econ. that has raised living standards well into the point of complacency, then you shouldn't see people magically turning conservative or fascist or some ideology detached from what the current beneficial ideology is UNLESS they are a pop. that is predisposed to certain ideologically tendencies – like big capitalists and liberalism. Ideological preferences should reflect success, but within the paradigm of realism (e.g. clergymen shouldn't even have a single percent supporting openly state-atheist parties).
And speaking of class-preferences, classes in a Communist Regime should be constantly in-motion during their reign – you should expect to see capitalists disappearing (whether that be through in-game decisions that literally gives them the axe or if it's just from them demoting to working class pops as their factories and enterprises are expropriated). In fact, it should be possible to build a classless society if conditions meet it- this will of course be incredibly rare if not impossible. But I digress: It was terribly annoying to see Communist regimes having a growing number of capitalists and to switch to another country using TAG commands to see that they've been taxing the aristocracy at low rates while they tax the poor and middle classes at 90%+. As previously stated again and again, ideologies should feel real, not just different caps to how much you can tax with this-or-that bonus in the economy. Planned economies shouldn't play like capitalist ones, etc.
REFORMS
Reforms I felt were, like politics, kind of stale and superficial in Victoria II. It shouldn't just be that "this ideology can ONLY roll back reforms" or inflexible things of that sort – this was highly unrealistic.
Different parties of the same ideologies SHOULD BE ABLE to enact different reforms based on their dominant "factional ideology" (e.g., monarchist reactionaries as opposed to nationalist ones, or Leninist communists as opposed to Stalinist ones, Orthodox Marxists versus Bernsteinian Reformists in the SPD, etc.). Ideologies would obviously provide a sort of paradigm for the player to play through, but it shouldn't be absolutely concrete – as mentioned before, party policy should be able to change with internal changes. If I can provide an example, the Fascist Party in Italy was, like the NSDAP in Germany, fascist – but Germany featured a more robust program when it came to minimum wage and social reforms (only for their "volk," of course.. ). So these kinds of things should be reflected: while the fascists in Italy may be cutting minimum wage down, the German fascists might be increasing it. Similarly, it shouldn't be that certain ideologies *have* to enact all social reforms or all political reforms with no in-betweens. Maybe one party will be willing to enact press liberalizations, but will not allow universal suffrage – this should, again, be reflected.
Also: adding a ton of new reforms in all categories would be nice – and fixing it so all countries don't end up as social-democratic welfare states by 1900 would also be great.
GOVERNMENT
First and foremost, I think that the upper-house and interworkings of the government ought to change drastically according to different government types – if the cabinet idea from HOI is incorporated here, this would be probably one of the most noticeable changes.
But what I mean by this is that a single-party state shouldn't be always deterred from passing reforms super fast – in Vic. II it used to be, for an example, every reform turned a section of the upper house conservative to prevent annoyingly rapid reforming societies – but this shouldn't be the case. There should be no limit to how fast or slow they change societies, but the AI (and the player, obviously) should be aware of the impact in the pops that this will have – for an example, a country that passes an absurd amount of policies cutting social services may feel the backlash of a huge labor movement looming around the corner. Or, conversely, one that nationalizes or regulates the economy too rapidly may evoke the rapid emigration of capitalists/wealthy individuals in large-scale capital flight, which – if these industries are still in private hands at the time – can mean a detrimental loss in profits from taxes, technical expertise and income in general (a la Venezuela).
So single-party states, or states where the parties represented have the same goals here, should be able to reform and develop their ideal societies as rapidly as possible – but they should be naturally deterred from doing so too fast or too slow, given that it can have enormous consequences – in the general population and within the party itself (e.g., hardliners kicking out "revisionist" reformers and rolling back political rights recently gained). Backlash should exist, is what I'm saying.
Now, this should also be something that exists in multiparty democratic regimes too, but it would be impossible to pass the reforms advocated by the ruling party if a majority of the upper house doesn't want it – I'm pretty sure that's similar to Vic. II's setup, but some cleaning up would be good.
GOVERNMENT TYPES
•Absolute Monarchy
(Same as vanilla – monarch holds all power; cabinet-form represents this with the monarch – now the head of state and head of government – holding the final say irrespective of Party representations. These should become antiquated naturally)
•Semi-Constitutional Monarchy
(A monarch that is legally bound to a constitution, but still exercises a great deal of control – perhaps this constitution is simply ignored, or the semi-democratic organs in society granted have no real power? [e.g. the Duma under Tsar Nicholas II]).
•Constitutional Monarchy
(The monarch is likely just a figurehead; representative-democratic organs play the largest part here. Monarch is bound to the constitution; elections held and there is more plurality when it comes to electable political parties - but note that you may still limit certain ones if you get enough support, which may pave the way back to absolutist despotism).
•Constitutional Republic
(Replaces "democracy" in Vic. II – a democratic republic which is government first and foremost by its Constitution. All parties electable; again, like all types of government, this can decay into a more dictatorial-type form.)
•Semi-Constitutional Republic
(Same as previous, but with the head of state wielding a great deal more power by default. Constitution exists, but is subordinated to the state or is ignored. This type of government is supposed to just reflect more authoritarian constitutional republics, but perhaps that's unnecessary given the possibility of democratic decay).
•Bourgeois Dictatorship
(Or something oligopoly-like. Should be a form of government out of Jack London's Iron Heel; a government that acts in the interest of business, even if that means suppressing political rights for a time. Or, alternatively, this should be a Jacobin/Liberal Revolutionary-type single-party state – this, I think, would be far more interesting. It could be the result of liberals in, say, a oppressing monarchy turning revolutionary and establishing their own state to smash the old feudal apparatus to pieces).
•Fascist Dictatorship
(Only allows a fascist party in power – totalitarian by definition, and should be able to enact typically-fascist policies [like deportations of immigrants, putting Reds and liberals in work camps, etc.]).
•Proletarian Dictatorship
(Obviously more broad given different interpretations of what this means – overall should be extraordinarily flexible. Stalinists and Leninists will support a single party state, but perhaps other communists will reject this in favor of shared-power amongst the socialist/communist parties? This would be very interesting if, for an example, the Soviet Union never banned factions or outlawed opposition – this sort of alternate-history flexibility should be added in, and other proletarian dictatorships should be budged to mimic the Comintern's policy. So if the country in control of the Comintern in 1925 is despotic, other communist parties in the Comintern should act similar in their countries upon gaining power).
•Military Dictatorship/Junta
(A coup by the military or a nationalist faction should enact this – this sort of government is one like Santa Anna's in Mexico or, at a later time period, Pinochet's in Chile. Not fascism, but on the authoritarian right for certain. Should at least have a democratic façade – most of these dictatorships, besides fascism of course, do after all claim to be democratic and their official government-names should reflect that).
•Provisional Government
(A government which claims to be temporary – universally conservative. Take the identically-named one in Russia 1917 as an example. These governments should emerge only sometimes, and if the revolutionaries are too chaotic to really form a stable government themselves. These bring order and stability after a revolutionary period).
*(Failed State)
(A state with little to no power, which is destroyed and overrun by rebels, warlords, etc. – think Somalia. Perhaps if a country is 100% controlled by anarchists, the government will go into exile and be a "failed state" – what is necessary is, above all else here, to use this to designate those countries which are too chaotic to manage themselves. I don't just mean just any country with rebels.
So here's my suggestions for a new game:
CLASSES/SOCIAL GROUPS
•Upper
>Capitalists
(This should represent the "upper" or "big" capitalists, and should be relatively few in number. I think it would be very immersive to have prominent families and/or companies included here – so you could have, say, Carnegie Steel actually being represented in-game, or other randomly generated ones in other countries. Either way, they should play a larger part in politics and development).
>Aristocrats
(The old guard – should include nobility, landowners, etc. A dying class.)
•Middle
>Bureaucrats
>Artisans
>Clergymen
(Should decrease with new scientific discoveries and SHOULDN'T play a prominent part in educating, at least initially. Perhaps at the beginning, but later on their role ought to be minuscule at best).
>Intelligentsia
(Educators, scientists and intellectuals – I can't stress enough how terrible it was to be leading a secular democratic regime and still having the clergy being the "educator class." Ought to increase with tech. advancements).
>Officers
>Clerks
(Just highly skilled workers/management(?))
>Small capitalists/Petty bourgeoisie
(Necessary because they do differentiate in needs and interests from larger capitalists – obviously countries will start out with a huge number of these guys, and their competition will lead many to gain more powerful and convert to big capitalists. This class will be an unstable one, because the labor movements and the big capitalists will both be crushing to them. As a class, they thus should be the main supporters of fascism and other reactionary tendencies looking to roll back to "better times.")
•Lower
>Farmers
(I think it would be a good idea to include a subcategory – maybe when highlighting the class it will display this – of subsistence farmers versus commercial farmers. In developing countries with high industries and competition, I think it would be historical to show the former decreasing proportional to the latter increasing. Perhaps it would be best to include this into two separate classes – i.e. between subsistence farmers and commercial farmers – I don't know. Regardless, what is necessary, I think, is the vast dynamic changes in this pop over time. Farmers in 1836 will be EXTRAORDINARILY different than those in 1936, and this should be represented. As a class, they should drastically shrink as fewer amounts can produce larger yields, and as the bulk convert to proles. Enclosing peasant land should also be an option for various countries; this would steer development rapidly towards industrialization as dispossessed peasants move to the cities and the countryside becomes more productive).
>Laborers
>Factory workers/Proletarians
(This should obviously grow in size relative to the amount of factories.. Dying peasant class ought to lead to massive amounts of people flocking to cities and enrolling in factory labor. Obviously historical).
>Soldiers
>Lumpenproletarians
(Includes prostitutes, beggars, criminals, etc. – slum workers/socially unproductive peoples. Obviously in need of representation in the Victorian era. Weighted towards extremes in general; from Fascism to Communism).
ECONOMICS
-Before any are listed, I'd like to propose this: that economy types are far more immersive. What I mean by this is that a planned economy shouldn't just be a capitalist economy with this or that limitation, or something of the sorts. Instead, I think there should be tremendous changes – and they shouldn't be immediate. So a planned economy, for an example, shouldn't just be one where "the government manages all the industries" while you still have capitalist pops – they should disappear as you NATIONALIZE their industries. This is what I mean by the families and their industries being represented in-game– you should have the option of messing with the interworkings of the economy if you have the right econ type. As an example, say you have a fully privately-managed economy. If a planned-economy party gains enough support in the upper house, then you should get the option of enacting their economic policies so long as they have a majority. In the US, if the socialists gain 55% of the upper house somehow, you should then have the option of nationalizing sectors of the economy. I know I'm getting very in-depth here, but adding to this, even this should be dynamic: obviously communists want an economy producing for-use while capitalists for-exchange, so types of nationalizations/state ownerships should be varied, if that makes sense. What I'm trying to get at is this: nationalized industries under a communist regime shouldn't just be capitalism without the capitalists. They may function like state-owned capitalist industries (state capitalism), but the ultimate goal is material calculation in-kind. And while that would be hard to put into the game, it wouldn't be impossible, and it would allow for a very different experience if communism actually wins-out in the global arena.
Conversely to nationalizations, privatizations should also exist – so if you have a liberal revolution topple a socialist regime, events should fire leading to the abolition of the state-run economy-sectors and mass privatization should ensue – you get the picture.
Without further ado, I think Econ policies should be:
>mercantilism
(Or something that represents the economy in the early 19th century/the type of economy in relatively underdeveloped Asia and Africa at this time – some sort of feudal system. Being history experts, I'd figure you at paradox would be better with naming this than I).
>Laissez-faire
(NO gov't intervention in the economy– parties of this type should try to privatize at all costs).
>Interventionism
(Bailing out businesses, building RR's, subsidies, etc.)
>Mixed-economy
(Replaced state-capitalism: the state should employ both planned and laissez-faire methods, and be able to nationalize or privatize. There would obviously be limitations, though, as you wouldn't be able to nationalize and plan the whole economy without having "planned economy" as a policy. Perhaps, if you nationalize all or most industries, the economy-policy of the party will dynamically change to "planned economy"?).
>Planned Economy
(As mentioned before, shouldn't just be capitalism without capitalists – and upon winning an election, parties of this type shouldn't immediately have the whole economy in state hands. Should be gradual. Revolutions with leading parties of this type should nationalize certain industries immediately at victory, but, just like in real life, not the whole economy at once. After all, the Bolsheviks didn't have a fully planned economy immediately – in fact, they even went backwards, a la NEP. Communist and Socialist Parties of this sort have the eventual goal of a classless and moneyless society based on production for need – I think that, after a certain amount of time and IF they internationally succeed, this should begin to develop via a series of events and decisions... This would add some interesting flavor to the game).
PARTIES and the POLITICAL SYSTEM
This is more of just a quick note or suggestion, but I think political parties and government should be completely dynamic.
Parties shouldn't just disappear at a given date no matter what – they should die out if they lose popularity and new ones should form if new dynamic, player-driven or custom-made events happen. I don't think this would be hard to do, either – if the Paris commune, for an example, doesn't end up happening because the Franco Prussian War doesn't trigger it, then that should have SERIOUS changes in the international scene for the left. Perhaps there will be a different type of this at a different time – for an example, a Manhattan Commune, etc. It should be totally dynamic.
Parties should also evolve over time, and should be able to split and change ideologies completely if internal changes lead up to it.
This, I think, is one of the most interesting things you all could add in – inter-party politics. Parties obviously were never monolithic, and this should reflect that – if, say, there's a party in the liberal group, and social liberals gain the majority because perhaps people are more in demand for social reform and liberal policies at the same time, then this should alienate the original liberals in the party, and over time – at an annual party congress or something – if the social liberals still dominate, the whole party should change ideologies to social liberal and reflect their values. Or, instead, maybe the original liberals get P.O.'d in an interparty debate and split from the party altogether, forming a new oppositionist party. This would be INCREDIBLY historical, especially for the infamously byzantine and secretarian left-wing parties throughout the 1800s and 1900s. As a real historical example, southern democrats may split off from the increasingly social liberal Democratic Party and formed the Dixiecrats, or the revolutionary communists should split off from the RSDLP and form the Bolsheviks (while those remaining form the Mensheviks).
Adding to all this, generic party stances should also change. Going off of the example just mentioned, as the Bolshevik Party in power, one might find internal right-wing factions supporting a mixed economy due to the need to mend the relationship with the battered peasantry due to war communism (this faction being lead by Bukharin), and this faction, gaining a majority, may cause the economic policy of their party change to Mixed-Economy. Or maybe later the Trotskyists, gaining power, could expel the Stalinist faction after 1924 if they gain a majority, thus leading to "Trotskyist policies" being reflected in the Party apparatus. This kind of dynamism is, again, a must-have.
Government-types should be equally dynamic. A democratic state should obviously be pluralistic by default, but should be able to actively decay without just turning into another government overnight — perhaps, for an example, authoritarian parties get enough support in the upper house to ban certain parties within the framework of the democratic state. This, certainly, would be interesting – maybe you see a gradual decay of democracy in the west due to civil unrest and strife? Similarly, single-party states should be able to gradually lose their monopoly on power – but not inevitably. If you have a horrible, civil-rights abusing single party state, that should obviously lead to increased support for underground parties that support pluralism – but if it's somehow a "benevolent dictatorship," like how many say Tito's Yugoslavia was, then there shouldn't be an inevitable decline in support.
Adding international groups for parties would also be interesting — such as some sort of international alliance of liberal parties or the manifold Communist Internationals. These should all bring support for different parties around the world – and I think internal politics should be present in these international associations, too (real life example: the Second International gradually giving way to the Comintern, which should support and gain a lot of control over CP's around the globe/change their policies. Take the Stalinization of the Communist Party of Italy for a reference – I think this should be included in-game; they'll be voluntary associations, and they'll have a lot of benefits if you stay in them, but perhaps you're sacrificing individual decision making to this international body. This would be incredibly useful in deciding whether or not to join or leave the League of Nations if such a decision were available.
Lastly, adding cabinet members (certain ones being randomly generated, other major characters should be pre programmed in-game) like in HOI III would be HUGE, and much more immersive. Perhaps you could do a nasty party-purge of cabinet-member dissenters to get your way?
POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES
(It would be cool, but not necessarily necessary, to add a political compass for parties in your country – if you don't know what I'm talking about, there's some images of it online.. Could give players more immersion when dealing with parties).
Anyways, here's what I think would be interesting for the political ideology choices:
>Fascism
(Should leech off xenophobia, hostility towards immigrants, revanchism, and nationalism. Shouldn't grow amongst non-accepted cultures of a country. Can support most [NOT ALL!!] social reforms both ways, but will always roll back political ones in power).
>Reactionism
(In the beginning of the game, and in monarchies, these should be staunch supporters of the crown – but it should dynamically change. In democratic countries without a monarchist tradition in the 20th century in game, maybe you'll see reactionaries representing ultranationalists/authoritarian conservatives?)
>Conservatism
(Just want to maintain the status quo or traditional values – naturally strongly supported by poor farmers/peasants and by everyone else when times are good).
>Liberalism
(At the forefront of social change within monarchies and despotic regimes – support free markets and democratic rights in most instances. Forward with political and most social reforms which don't deal with the intervention in the market – for example, they'll support free speech and legal equality, but not a minimum wage or public services. Very strong amongst big capitalists & intellectuals in the beginning).
>Social Liberalism
(Should emerge in the 1890s and quickly take over the liberal parties via internal politics if want for social change is high – moderate support for economic parts of social reform (min. wage, etc.) and the same liberal support for political reform.
>Socialism
(Should emerge in 1848 – and should be extremely diverse. Socialists shouldn't just represent reformists – this is terribly inaccurate. In fact, "factions" or "types" of socialists should initially be predominantly utopian socialists, and then revolutionary Marxists, and much later, reformist social democrats. This evolution of thought should exist, with more revolutionary socialists – but not all – leaving their parties to join the Communists, leaving the reformists behind in their original Social Democratic Parties.)
>Communism
(Although this is a type of socialism, I think referring to it as just "revolutionary socialism" is too simplistic – socialists should be able to become revolutionary without becoming communist, and communists should always be predominantly revolutionary but CAN campaign in democratic elections – except for the strictly abstentionist parties (like the one Bordiga led in Italy).
Communism could emerge in 1871 at the Paris Commune (or a substitute, given the circumstances) or in 1917/with the Bolshevik formal establishment of Communism as a political tendency again – either way, maybe these should reflect the most radical of socialists? Regardless, one thing that should be necessary is the inclusion of various factions that could universally exist within all or most countries (for example, there shouldn't just be one communist party in Germany by 1934 – if the Comintern has demanded certain things that one section of the KDP doesn't agree with, it would be best to include oppositionist Communist Parties. There should be a qualitative difference between how "Trotskyist" and "Stalinist"-dominated parties behave in-game. Also: I think "Trotskyist" should just be named "Leninist" for the sake of simplicity – they were almost uniform, after all).
>Anarchism
(Anarchists should certainly be represented in-game, for sure – not as parties, per se, but definitely as movements. Anarchists should essentially act as rebels permanently occupying territories until collapse or foreign intervention, and they should be triggered by regional populations supporting anarchism due to, maybe, repressed rights/an overlooming government.
What I think would also be pretty immersive in-game is an ideological infamy system – in other words, if the first fascist experiment pops up, and it turns out to be a disaster and this becomes publicized (or maybe they commit horrendous atrocities), then this should add a lot of ideological infamy to fascism and draw people away. Same with other ideologies: if communists enact a Red Terror after a revolution, then capitalist countries should get a "Red Scare!" event lasting for X amount of years, and should be renewed whenever Red Terror is renewed.
Also, similar to the aforementioned "industry system," where individual companies are actual represented in-game and can buy up certain parts of the economy OR be monopolized by the state in nationalization, there should also be a trade union system – one that shows active trade unions and their support. I think this is necessary because of their overwhelming influence in 19th and 20th century politics – unions like the AFL-CIO or the CNT-FAI should be represented and should back parties, and parties should similarly support or oppose them. High-member and militant unions might instigate revolutions if conditions are deplorable or if there's already civil war (like in Spain) and passive class-collaborationist ones should oppose revolutionary extremes while supporting higher benefits to the working classes. Political systems should play an effect here, too – trade unions being illegal should *literally* ban them, while non-socialist bans socialist and communist ones, state-controlled monopolizes them into a dynamically- or player-named national labor union that YOU the player dictate (determining benefits et al.), etc.
And overall, population needs should ultimately determine ideological preferences. This was already present in the in-game mechanics of Vic II, but it felt superficial or nonexistent.
Populations that are lacking in basic needs will obviously turn to more radical solutions, while content populations will grow more conservative. Or, even better, they will grow more of whatever-the-ruling-ideology is IF it's effective/has established an effective ideological hegemony. So if a laissez-faire economy is providing their needs very well as opposed to a previously terribly-managed planned one, expect populations to support laissez-faire economies. But this shouldn't be universal, per se – capitalists & aristocrats should NEVER support communism, even if it meets everyone's needs perfectly. What I'm basically saying is that if you have, say, a planned econ. that has raised living standards well into the point of complacency, then you shouldn't see people magically turning conservative or fascist or some ideology detached from what the current beneficial ideology is UNLESS they are a pop. that is predisposed to certain ideologically tendencies – like big capitalists and liberalism. Ideological preferences should reflect success, but within the paradigm of realism (e.g. clergymen shouldn't even have a single percent supporting openly state-atheist parties).
And speaking of class-preferences, classes in a Communist Regime should be constantly in-motion during their reign – you should expect to see capitalists disappearing (whether that be through in-game decisions that literally gives them the axe or if it's just from them demoting to working class pops as their factories and enterprises are expropriated). In fact, it should be possible to build a classless society if conditions meet it- this will of course be incredibly rare if not impossible. But I digress: It was terribly annoying to see Communist regimes having a growing number of capitalists and to switch to another country using TAG commands to see that they've been taxing the aristocracy at low rates while they tax the poor and middle classes at 90%+. As previously stated again and again, ideologies should feel real, not just different caps to how much you can tax with this-or-that bonus in the economy. Planned economies shouldn't play like capitalist ones, etc.
REFORMS
Reforms I felt were, like politics, kind of stale and superficial in Victoria II. It shouldn't just be that "this ideology can ONLY roll back reforms" or inflexible things of that sort – this was highly unrealistic.
Different parties of the same ideologies SHOULD BE ABLE to enact different reforms based on their dominant "factional ideology" (e.g., monarchist reactionaries as opposed to nationalist ones, or Leninist communists as opposed to Stalinist ones, Orthodox Marxists versus Bernsteinian Reformists in the SPD, etc.). Ideologies would obviously provide a sort of paradigm for the player to play through, but it shouldn't be absolutely concrete – as mentioned before, party policy should be able to change with internal changes. If I can provide an example, the Fascist Party in Italy was, like the NSDAP in Germany, fascist – but Germany featured a more robust program when it came to minimum wage and social reforms (only for their "volk," of course.. ). So these kinds of things should be reflected: while the fascists in Italy may be cutting minimum wage down, the German fascists might be increasing it. Similarly, it shouldn't be that certain ideologies *have* to enact all social reforms or all political reforms with no in-betweens. Maybe one party will be willing to enact press liberalizations, but will not allow universal suffrage – this should, again, be reflected.
Also: adding a ton of new reforms in all categories would be nice – and fixing it so all countries don't end up as social-democratic welfare states by 1900 would also be great.
GOVERNMENT
First and foremost, I think that the upper-house and interworkings of the government ought to change drastically according to different government types – if the cabinet idea from HOI is incorporated here, this would be probably one of the most noticeable changes.
But what I mean by this is that a single-party state shouldn't be always deterred from passing reforms super fast – in Vic. II it used to be, for an example, every reform turned a section of the upper house conservative to prevent annoyingly rapid reforming societies – but this shouldn't be the case. There should be no limit to how fast or slow they change societies, but the AI (and the player, obviously) should be aware of the impact in the pops that this will have – for an example, a country that passes an absurd amount of policies cutting social services may feel the backlash of a huge labor movement looming around the corner. Or, conversely, one that nationalizes or regulates the economy too rapidly may evoke the rapid emigration of capitalists/wealthy individuals in large-scale capital flight, which – if these industries are still in private hands at the time – can mean a detrimental loss in profits from taxes, technical expertise and income in general (a la Venezuela).
So single-party states, or states where the parties represented have the same goals here, should be able to reform and develop their ideal societies as rapidly as possible – but they should be naturally deterred from doing so too fast or too slow, given that it can have enormous consequences – in the general population and within the party itself (e.g., hardliners kicking out "revisionist" reformers and rolling back political rights recently gained). Backlash should exist, is what I'm saying.
Now, this should also be something that exists in multiparty democratic regimes too, but it would be impossible to pass the reforms advocated by the ruling party if a majority of the upper house doesn't want it – I'm pretty sure that's similar to Vic. II's setup, but some cleaning up would be good.
GOVERNMENT TYPES
•Absolute Monarchy
(Same as vanilla – monarch holds all power; cabinet-form represents this with the monarch – now the head of state and head of government – holding the final say irrespective of Party representations. These should become antiquated naturally)
•Semi-Constitutional Monarchy
(A monarch that is legally bound to a constitution, but still exercises a great deal of control – perhaps this constitution is simply ignored, or the semi-democratic organs in society granted have no real power? [e.g. the Duma under Tsar Nicholas II]).
•Constitutional Monarchy
(The monarch is likely just a figurehead; representative-democratic organs play the largest part here. Monarch is bound to the constitution; elections held and there is more plurality when it comes to electable political parties - but note that you may still limit certain ones if you get enough support, which may pave the way back to absolutist despotism).
•Constitutional Republic
(Replaces "democracy" in Vic. II – a democratic republic which is government first and foremost by its Constitution. All parties electable; again, like all types of government, this can decay into a more dictatorial-type form.)
•Semi-Constitutional Republic
(Same as previous, but with the head of state wielding a great deal more power by default. Constitution exists, but is subordinated to the state or is ignored. This type of government is supposed to just reflect more authoritarian constitutional republics, but perhaps that's unnecessary given the possibility of democratic decay).
•Bourgeois Dictatorship
(Or something oligopoly-like. Should be a form of government out of Jack London's Iron Heel; a government that acts in the interest of business, even if that means suppressing political rights for a time. Or, alternatively, this should be a Jacobin/Liberal Revolutionary-type single-party state – this, I think, would be far more interesting. It could be the result of liberals in, say, a oppressing monarchy turning revolutionary and establishing their own state to smash the old feudal apparatus to pieces).
•Fascist Dictatorship
(Only allows a fascist party in power – totalitarian by definition, and should be able to enact typically-fascist policies [like deportations of immigrants, putting Reds and liberals in work camps, etc.]).
•Proletarian Dictatorship
(Obviously more broad given different interpretations of what this means – overall should be extraordinarily flexible. Stalinists and Leninists will support a single party state, but perhaps other communists will reject this in favor of shared-power amongst the socialist/communist parties? This would be very interesting if, for an example, the Soviet Union never banned factions or outlawed opposition – this sort of alternate-history flexibility should be added in, and other proletarian dictatorships should be budged to mimic the Comintern's policy. So if the country in control of the Comintern in 1925 is despotic, other communist parties in the Comintern should act similar in their countries upon gaining power).
•Military Dictatorship/Junta
(A coup by the military or a nationalist faction should enact this – this sort of government is one like Santa Anna's in Mexico or, at a later time period, Pinochet's in Chile. Not fascism, but on the authoritarian right for certain. Should at least have a democratic façade – most of these dictatorships, besides fascism of course, do after all claim to be democratic and their official government-names should reflect that).
•Provisional Government
(A government which claims to be temporary – universally conservative. Take the identically-named one in Russia 1917 as an example. These governments should emerge only sometimes, and if the revolutionaries are too chaotic to really form a stable government themselves. These bring order and stability after a revolutionary period).
*(Failed State)
(A state with little to no power, which is destroyed and overrun by rebels, warlords, etc. – think Somalia. Perhaps if a country is 100% controlled by anarchists, the government will go into exile and be a "failed state" – what is necessary is, above all else here, to use this to designate those countries which are too chaotic to manage themselves. I don't just mean just any country with rebels.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
