Victoria's (19th Century) liberal bias

[HMS Enterprize]

For me the whole liberal bias issue boiled down to the simple fact that other regime's-particularly the dictatorships had so many negative aspects that it was simply easier to stick to a liberal regime. They get the immigrants, plurality bonuses late game etc etc.

Even a prosperous great power that elects! a dictatorship suddenly had mass rising miitancy to deal with. It was just hard work frankly.

Obviously, people will think twice before moving to a dictatorship and liberal bonuses are fine, its just that there did not really seem to be any real advantages for getting a far left/right party in power.

 

[King]

For me the whole liberal bias issue boiled down to the simple fact that other regime's-particularly the dictatorships had so many negative aspects that it was simply easier to stick to a liberal regime. They get the immigrants, plurality bonuses late game etc etc.

Even a prosperous great power that elects! a dictatorship suddenly had mass rising miitancy to deal with. It was just hard work frankly.

Obviously, people will think twice before moving to a dictatorship and liberal bonuses are fine, its just that there did not really seem to be any real advantages for getting a far left/right party in power.

That's changed

 

[Jolt]

For me the whole liberal bias issue boiled down to the simple fact that other regime's-particularly the dictatorships had so many negative aspects that it was simply easier to stick to a liberal regime. They get the immigrants, plurality bonuses late game etc etc.

Even a prosperous great power that elects! a dictatorship suddenly had mass rising miitancy to deal with. It was just hard work frankly.

Obviously, people will think twice before moving to a dictatorship and liberal bonuses are fine, its just that there did not really seem to be any real advantages for getting a far left/right party in power.

That's seems to be challenging from a Victoria point of view: Which bonuses/maluses do you think each ideology should give?

Liberal - Conservative - Anarcho-Liberal - Reactionary - Socialist - Communist - Fascist

 

[unmerged(2695)]

My experience is that it is difficult to follow the normal small European trajectory of democratization. The political party model is most to blame for this and it can easily be rectified by including the possibility to tinker with the elctoral system in the politics module.

 

[JoeGiavani]

Really? I could never get the buggers elected and never felt any reason to institute welfare state policies. Maybe because I played on normal difficulty, or a VIP thing?

Same here. POPs had a -.50 plurality malus and a massive ruling party bonus as well. I never really had revolts after I liberalised, and the socialists never got more than a few percent of the votes unless I tweaked it somehow.

 

[unmerged(67185)]

Same here. POPs had a -.50 plurality malus and a massive ruling party bonus as well. I never really had revolts after I liberalised, and the socialists never got more than a few percent of the votes unless I tweaked it somehow.

I have to agree with you aswell, I never needed to institute social reforms, people were happy anyways, unless I played a dictatorship, that was impossible to play late game.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I'm looking forwards very much to seeing how this has changed. I will have my communist Japan and Persia.

 

[unmerged(68110)]

So King, by your "that's changed", does that mean that I can play as the USSR without it being a time bomb because of the darned militancy going through the roof even when I am providing everything that they could possibly asking for?

Also, glad to know you are looking at different angles of political economy, including ye olde Marx. Looks like the game is shaping up somewhat well.

 

[King]

So King, by your "that's changed", does that mean that I can play as the USSR without it being a time bomb because of the darned militancy going through the roof even when I am providing everything that they could possibly asking for?

Also, glad to know you are looking at different angles of political economy, including ye olde Marx. Looks like the game is shaping up somewhat well.

I will get round to talking about this in a future developer diary. However the basic diea is a dictatorship is not sitting on a time bomb and screwed no matter what you do.

 

[unmerged(68110)]

Glad to hear, thank you for your attention.

(just a snippet - the dictatorship of the proletariat IS NOT a totalitarian dictatorship. )

 

[twinxor]

Unfortunatly there aren't really that many Japanese or Chinese game developers that try to emulate world history or other grand strategy simulators. Maybe it has something to do with culture + political climate?

You see plenty strategy games on historic singular events such as the Three Kingdoms + the Taiping Revolution but rather few on the scale of Victoria/Civ/Sim City.

Quite unfortunate in my opinion as it would be interesting to see how a game from an Eastern studio would depict imperialism...

Aren't several Paradox games banned outright in China for failing to depict history according to the censors' tastes? That probably has something to do with it.

 

[marshman]

Aren't several Paradox games banned outright in China for failing to depict history according to the censors' tastes? That probably has something to do with it.

i think hoi3 was.not sure tho.

 

[Waffen9999]

i think hoi3 was.not sure tho.

Well, if they kept China as it historically was, fractured that is. Then yes, it is most likely banned. The PRC doesn't like the thought of an independant Tibet or Manchukuo let alone the various warlords.

 

[clamp2004]

Well the depicttion of Tibet as a sovereign country is pretty straightforward in regards to the Chinese censorship.

It would be much more interesting to see what kind of take an eastern game studio would have to the effects of liberalism, religion and warfare and if said game would even appeal to a western audience.

 

[unmerged(162562)]

"the long 19th Century (1792-1914) is the triumph of liberalism" I believe that this is true to only to some extend since that new values and ideas such as popular liberalism, nationalism and socialism began to spring up , the Paris Commune of 1871 is an example.

 

[Sovereign]

It certainly is ... until it dies a slow death of suffocation due to bureaucracy

Modeled I think. There's probably a tendency for the ever expanding bureaucracy to constantly expand to meet the needs of the ever expanding bureaucracy. This may be true in the game for any government type.

 

[bbasgen]

How interesting, especially if PI can pull this off. In an ideal game, there should be good strategic reasons for different economic models depending on your national context, yet some models should never *really* make sense for some nations. At the end of the day, each nation should be able to be successful with a well managed implementation of that nation's most ideal form of government. This is far and away better from the Vicky model where the "ideal" was a universal constant.

I would love to write a strategy guide for Russia, for example, that would advise the noob: Your best options are a conservative government or a revolutionary dictatorship: each have pros/cons. A liberal government is very difficult to achieve with Russia due to POP composition, etc, etc.

It would be very interesting to see a matrix for how PI is modeling government types viz a viz POPs.

 

[unmerged(134218)]

Aren't several Paradox games banned outright in China for failing to depict history according to the censors' tastes?

I believed that Paradox Interactive created a seperate Hearts of Iron game to sell in China that fits the tastes of the Censors, for example, removing Tibet in HOI2.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

How interesting, especially if PI can pull this off. In an ideal game, there should be good strategic reasons for different economic models depending on your national context, yet some models should never *really* make sense for some nations. At the end of the day, each nation should be able to be successful with a well managed implementation of that nation's most ideal form of government. This is far and away better from the Vicky model where the "ideal" was a universal constant.

I would love to write a strategy guide for Russia, for example, that would advise the noob: Your best options are a conservative government or a revolutionary dictatorship: each have pros/cons. A liberal government is very difficult to achieve with Russia due to POP composition, etc, etc.

It would be very interesting to see a matrix for how PI is modeling government types viz a viz POPs.

I agree. Of what we know so far, my favorite aspect of this game is how each country will be a totally different challenege than any other. Individualised countries will increase an already high replayability aspect exponentially.

Which also means writing strategy guides will be much more challenging than it was previously, because there will be so many possible routes to take. What you can do internally might be really affected by the international situation too.

 

[Emperor Walter]

I am strongly opposed to a bias in favor of any ideology. Each idealogy has its own pros and cons, and this should be reflected in the game. Of course, countries that are strongly traditional (Russia, china) should be at a disadvantage, as this is definately Historical. But remember: the most industrialized power before world war I was Germany, a Constitutional Monarchy with strong Executive Power vested in the Kaiser. If I want to play as conservatives, I don't want to feel like I'm at a disadvantage because I'm not a liberal democracy. And for those who feel the Victorian Era was the Triumph of Liberalism, this is not nessecarily true. It was only a Liberal triumph in the sense of the end of Absolute Monarchy as a viable political system, and the secularisation of government.