Victoria's (19th Century) liberal bias

[unmerged(72435)]

Victoria 1 had a liberal bias.
In the developer diaries, they speak always about "reducing gamey aspects" and "no brainier decisions" (like education always at 100%, try to get full citizenship parties)

But I eventually got used to this bias, that this is the price of progress, and it is the goal of every game to get a full citizenship party and industrialize.
Is this "liberal bias" inseparable from Victoria?

 

[Dark Knight]

Victoria 1 had a liberal bias.
In the developer diaries, they speak always about "reducing gamey aspects" and "no brainier decisions" (like education always at 100%, try to get full citizenship parties)

But I eventually got used to this bias, that this is the price of progress, and it is the goal of every game to get a full citizenship party and industrialize.
Is this "liberal bias" inseparable from Victoria?

That's really a bias in favor of modernization, in order to improve one's economy and strengthen one's military. Which makes sense, considering that nearly all players have the objective of making their country more powerful.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Victoria 1 had a liberal bias.
In the developer diaries, they speak always about "reducing gamey aspects" and "no brainier decisions" (like education always at 100%, try to get full citizenship parties)

But I eventually got used to this bias, that this is the price of progress, and it is the goal of every game to get a full citizenship party and industrialize.
Is this "liberal bias" inseparable from Victoria?

Well, it also has an imperialism bias. Comes with the period.

 

[HisMajestyBOB]

That's really a bias in favor of modernization, in order to improve one's economy and strengthen one's military. Which makes sense, considering that nearly all players have the objective of making their country more powerful.

Very true.
On the other hand, there's remarkably little resistance against this in Victoria. Conservatism and reactionism should be more significant obstacles to liberalizing/industrializing/modernizing, especially in more traditional societies like Russia and East Asia.

 

[Oerdin]

Victoria 1 had a liberal bias.

:rofl:

 

[Featauril]

:rofl:

Liberal parties are much better in Ricky than conservative ones.

Especially when, in late game when most of your pops are craftsmen, clerks and capitalists, only socialist and liberal parties get any votes.

 

[Vladislav]

The game is just simulating the historical processes operating at the time, and "reality has a well-known liberal bias."

 

[Alexander Seil]

Very true.
On the other hand, there's remarkably little resistance against this in Victoria. Conservatism and reactionism should be more significant obstacles to liberalizing/industrializing/modernizing, especially in more traditional societies like Russia and East Asia.

The problem is that there was no way to model the real obstacles this caused within the framework of Victoria 1, since you were always in complete control.

If Victoria 2 implements some kind of a Rome-style "split government," then perhaps it would be modeled better, especially in Russia.

 

[HisMajestyBOB]

The problem is that there was no way to model the real obstacles this caused within the framework of Victoria 1, since you were always in complete control.

If Victoria 2 implements some kind of a Rome-style "split government," then perhaps it would be modeled better, especially in Russia.

Even in Victoria 1, they could have at least revolted a little. Outside of major events, I don't think I've ever had much trouble with POP unhappiness.
I do think the Vic2 political model will improve this area, based on some of the comments made by the King and Johan.

 

[King]

the long 19th Century (1792-1914) is the triumph of liberalism. So from that point of view Victoria 2 will have a stronger bias towards liberalism than Victroia 1 (which I feel was strongly weighted towards socialism). However we are aiming for more blocks on you simply marching towards liberalism. some places will find it harder than others.

 

[JakopDalunde]

the long 19th Century (1792-1914) is the triumph of liberalism. So from that point of view Victoria 2 will have a stronger bias towards liberalism than Victroia 1 (which I feel was strongly weighted towards socialism). However we are aiming for more blocks on you simply marching towards liberalism. some places will find it harder than others.

Do you mean Victoria 1 was strongly weighted towards socialism in game mechanics and economic system, or as in socialist parties gaining power to often and having better policies?

 

[King]

Do you mean as in game mechanics and economic system, or as in socialist parties gaining power to often and having better policies?

A bit of all if you ask me. The only way to keep POPs happy in the late game was a scandavian style welfare state. To be honest that smacked of Socialism.

 

[Sute]{h]

A bit of all if you ask me. The only way to keep POPs happy in the late game was a scandavian style welfare state. To be honest that smacked of Socialism.

But we all know we have the most advanced type of state in the world King. (EDIT: I'm kidding btw.)

Anyways I agree that the mechanics of Vicky I felt more marxist in their conception than liberal or conservative. In Ricky it tipped more towards liberalism with capitalists now actually trying to make money. But still the state was quite dominant with every good manufactured having to go through the state for instance. However liberal parties did seem to have the "best" policies when it comes to game effects, and they had tremendous staying power once they got elected. In order to see a non-liberal party in power you had to grossly mismanage your country.

 

[JakopDalunde]

A bit of all if you ask me. The only way to keep POPs happy in the late game was a scandavian style welfare state. To be honest that smacked of Socialism.

/me tries really hard not to go off-topic.

 

[JakopDalunde]

But we all know we have the most advanced type of state in the world King.

Anyways I agree that the mechanics of Vicky I felt more marxist in their conception than liberal or conservative. In Ricky it tipped more towards liberalism with capitalists now actually trying to make money. But still the state was quite dominant with every good manufactured having to go through the state for instance. However liberal parties did seem to have the "best" policies when it comes to game effects, and they had tremendous staying power once they got elected. In order to see a non-liberal party in power you had to grossly mismanage your country.

I agree. The core game mechanics should more simulate the cold harsh market, and later in the game workers should try to counter with labour unions and parties.

It should also be really hard to liberalize and oppose the conservative establishment.

 

[Quarto]

A bit of all if you ask me. The only way to keep POPs happy in the late game was a scandavian style welfare state. To be honest that smacked of Socialism.

Wow - this one comment makes me look forward to Victoria 2 more than every single dev diary and preview so far (combined!). If you guys not only realise that Victoria was biased towards socialism (mind you, I'd put it more harshly - before the Revolutions addon, Victoria was just plain communist), but also want to actually do something about it, this is looking very promising indeed.

 

[King]

Wow - this one comment makes me look forward to Victoria 2 more than every single dev diary and preview so far (combined!). If you guys not only realise that Victoria was biased towards socialism (mind you, I'd put it more harshly - before the Revolutions addon, Victoria was just plain communist), but also want to actually do something about it, this is looking very promising indeed.

Well the thing about communism is that is very mechanistic, so from a programming point of view Marx is your friend. Let's face it Marx wasn't entirely wrong either so it was a nice thing to start with. However Marx wasn't entirely right either so we do want to move away from the hard core Marxist model.

 

[Orinsul]

Its not a liberal bias so much as a whig one, things that lead towards the present are rewarded. And modern false concepts about history, the denial of historic rights and liberties and in order that people to-day can think that our society is better than all those that came before it. pretending that people in the past had not rights so we dont have to admit they had more rights than us. But thats not the games fault and because the whole world for the last six hundred years has thought like that it cant go against it.

ON TOPIC however, the new POP allows for an end for this.
Its give the possibility that should conservative, reactionary and fascists hold the Great Powers and influence on the world for the bulk of the game itd be nice for the possibility of them winning in the end, the capitalists shut down, corporations and fianance broken and replaced with the resurrection of the independant shopkeeper and craftsman, the enclosers abolished and common land returned and all that deep and merry english ideological utopia dreams made flesh.
Capitalists, Craftsman and Clerks slowly changing to artisans maybe bureaucrats or soldiers and officers or into the clergy too depending on what direction the world and that particular country is going rather than the global trend towards the liberal and mass industrial occupations, mostly to artisans though as they make it work. Inventions only for the alt-lines that give technological advances that benefit the local and independent workforce, guild economics and politics, militarist societies or the new feudalisms. Progress, but not towards today, to other places, depending on the situation.
If Conservatives and especialy Reactionaries should hold influence over the world then rather the late game be the growth of the monopolies and the centre parties on both the right and the left adopting liberal positions if there could be some global value or modifier that decieds which ending the story will have, which road the world should follow, which ideology should become dominant and shape the policies of all those around it in the late years of the game before the break-out of the utopian ideologies after the war, or even including those where all the world heads to radicalism. Different Paths of History so that each game might not end up Liberal.

So That the Player can shape the course History, not just that of the nation he guides. Isnt that the point of the game after all.

 

[Subcomandante]

I agree. The core game mechanics should more simulate the cold harsh market, and later in the game workers should try to counter with labour unions and parties.

It should also be really hard to liberalize and oppose the conservative establishment.

The goal is probably to be able to create a reasonably successful and happy society with any political system, while each has its own challenges.

Given that there is no real game over (except when you're overrun by another state), you should be able to mismanage the country into the ground, no matter who suffers. I will surely try a game where I keep as much aristo and capitalist power and money as possible with an iron fist approach and rampant cronyism. You know, just like the real world.

 

[telesien]

Very true.
On the other hand, there's remarkably little resistance against this in Victoria. Conservatism and reactionism should be more significant obstacles to liberalizing/industrializing/modernizing, especially in more traditional societies like Russia and East Asia.

Many parties in 19th century were influenced by Edmund Burke, who was conservative liberal himself, but his work influenced more conservative based parties. It would be wrong to simply assume, that conservative parties are against change. That is not true. They only want those changes to be more spontaneous and achieved through evolution and not revolution. I've always seen conservative parties as best way to modernize without much tension and forces reforms.