Victoria's (19th Century) liberal bias

[Gorgo Primus]

Trickle Down Economics to the extreme is liberal now?

 

[Olaus Petrus]

I want to be able to follow the Sonderweg* and not be forced to turn my country into the Weimar Republic inorder to win the game (Except if I lose a World War. If that happens then turning my country into weak republic is all right).

*I use the word in it's original meaning, which means that the Kingdom of Prussia/the German Empire has developed a superior political system compared to decadent Western democracies or Eastern (Russian) despotism.

 

[Featauril]

Trickle Down Economics to the extreme is liberal now?

You got it backwards. Trickle down economics to the extreme was liberal back then.

For instance, at the turn of the 20th century, the liberal party of Canada insisted on trying to push it's agenda of free trade with the USA on a population that would have none of it, hence the conservatives staying in power for more than 20 years. The conservatives, on the other hand, ran a platform of heavy intervention of the government in the economy, such as the financing of various transcontinental railroads and protectionist taxes.

 

[eleinvisible]

Trickle Down Economics to the extreme is liberal now?

I suppose 'trickle down economics' is a euphemism for reducing progressive tax rates? I suppose that is very liberal... In this time period, liberal referred to liberal economic theory before it was smashed to bits by the Great Depression, and World War II. It only remains an afterthought now (in America anyways), with a few different schools of (economic) thought.

Edit: =[ emu'd

 

[Gorgo Primus]

Ahh I thought the OP was saying that the game had a modern Liberal bias, not a in game liberal bias.

Nevermind.

 

[rjf101]

Well it seems like in this time period there were plenty of successful conservative nations, such as Germany, the United States (which was liberal in its earliets years ut by the 1880s I'd say it was more conservative in nature than Europe), and of course Japan which, though still relatively backwards in this period, were certainly on a rise. Now of cours,e there were alos many successful liberal countries. THe Netherlands comes to mind.

Therefore, I think that the positives and negatives of different ideolgies should be weighted against each other, for example socialism should cure extreme poverty, and help yopu militarily, but piss off the religious and the conservative forces, also it should shrink your upper and middle classes. Reactionary should give you great contorl over the state's affairs, lower consciousness, please conservatives, etc. The only ideology I can think of that should be a complete failure is Anarcho-liberalism. I mean, it sucks so much that getting an Anarcho-liberal party into power should be game-over for the player. (Whereas, in Victoria I, I believe the Anarcho-liberal parties were actually quite good, for example Full Citixzenship)

Also, to the original poster, pleasde keep in mind that, although conservatism is good for moral values and such, that's not really something you can model in a game. Liberal's good points just have more effect when dealing with game mechanics.

 

[Sute]{h]

This whole issue would just be so much easier if someone in the US hadn't confused liberalism with socialism at some point.

 

[von_Manstein11]

Well it seems like in this time period there were plenty of successful conservative nations, such as Germany, the United States (which was liberal in its earliets years ut by the 1880s I'd say it was more conservative in nature than Europe), and of course Japan which, though still relatively backwards in this period, were certainly on a rise. Now of cours,e there were alos many successful liberal countries. THe Netherlands comes to mind.

Therefore, I think that the positives and negatives of different ideolgies should be weighted against each other, for example socialism should cure extreme poverty, and help yopu militarily, but piss off the religious and the conservative forces, also it should shrink your upper and middle classes. Reactionary should give you great contorl over the state's affairs, lower consciousness, please conservatives, etc. The only ideology I can think of that should be a complete failure is Anarcho-liberalism. I mean, it sucks so much that getting an Anarcho-liberal party into power should be game-over for the player. (Whereas, in Victoria I, I believe the Anarcho-liberal parties were actually quite good, for example Full Citixzenship)

Also, to the original poster, pleasde keep in mind that, although conservatism is good for moral values and such, that's not really something you can model in a game. Liberal's good points just have more effect when dealing with game mechanics.

keep in mind, there are more then 1 type of Conservatism

 

[von_Manstein11]

This whole issue would just be so much easier if someone in the US hadn't confused liberalism with socialism at some point.

the US didnt get to where it was giving money away

 

[OHgamer]

Folks, let's keep the discussion focused on the question of game mechanics and how best to deal with the issue raised by the OP, and not focus on modern day semantics.

 

[von_Manstein11]

Im not sure if this is discussed earlier in the thread or not

But what about an idea of evolving Political parties based on the Dominant and Secondary Issue's of the country? Have a system where you program Conservative/Socialist/Liberal Parties view's on each issue, that way as major issue's arise, the parties change with time.

 

[Sute]{h]

The only ideology I can think of that should be a complete failure is Anarcho-liberalism. I mean, it sucks so much that getting an Anarcho-liberal party into power should be game-over for the player.

I disagree. Anarcho-liberal is a mislabel. "Hardcore" liberals should be labeled Radicals. They actually managed to govern some countries without causing the collapse of state. In Denmark for instance the radical party governed in 1909-1910 and in 1913-1920 under Carl Theodor Zahle. This hardly caused much suffering to the state.

Anti-state anarchism never really had that many followers. Especially not among the liberals who to a large degree needed the state to insure that the rights of the individual wasn't going to be violated.

 

[unmerged(126297)]

This whole issue would just be so much easier if someone in the US hadn't confused liberalism with socialism at some point.

Just FYI, the mislabeling of liberalism in the US comes from after Woodrow Wilson. "Progressive" had become a bad word that that point, so they started to label themselves "liberals," even though they weren't.

 

[unmerged(48056)]

I don't think there was a bias rather that elections were so predictable and controllable.


Regardless there are advantages to being authoitarian in Victoria. Especially as a constitutional monarchy, you never need to worry about plurality and consciousness can be kept low through clergymen and industrial production should be focused on armanents.

 

[clamp2004]

Well it seems like in this time period there were plenty of successful conservative nations, such as Germany, the United States (which was liberal in its earliets years ut by the 1880s I'd say it was more conservative in nature than Europe), and of course Japan which, though still relatively backwards in this period, were certainly on a rise. Now of cours,e there were alos many successful liberal countries. THe Netherlands comes to mind.

Therefore, I think that the positives and negatives of different ideolgies should be weighted against each other, for example socialism should cure extreme poverty, and help yopu militarily, but piss off the religious and the conservative forces, also it should shrink your upper and middle classes. Reactionary should give you great contorl over the state's affairs, lower consciousness, please conservatives, etc. The only ideology I can think of that should be a complete failure is Anarcho-liberalism. I mean, it sucks so much that getting an Anarcho-liberal party into power should be game-over for the player. (Whereas, in Victoria I, I believe the Anarcho-liberal parties were actually quite good, for example Full Citixzenship)

Also, to the original poster, pleasde keep in mind that, although conservatism is good for moral values and such, that's not really something you can model in a game. Liberal's good points just have more effect when dealing with game mechanics.

After World War 2 and the Cold War there was a distinct notion that the liberal democracies of the West had risen victoriously over both fascism and communism. Now with the rise of Chinese style authoritarianism, we encounter the same ideological struggle about which society model is the best.

As I see it, it is some of the same old discussions with Sonderweg vs Russian authoritarianism vs liberal democracy of France/England.

So how to model it in game?

Well basically liberal democracies could get some militancy reduction factors in order for much less direct control on economy and production vice a gradual shift the closer you come to facism/communism.

Sure it resembles the old Victoria model but maybe make it easier for proletarian/presidential dictatorships to control militancy through defense spending/army units/social reforms/etc etc?

Obviously in Victoria, the 'best' government forms were con. mon and democracy and if you had any other government form, it would be rather simple to enact reforms that allowed a switch without that harsh penalties.

Best way would be to impose very harsh penalties to forced government switches, such as your military going revolting, outlier states declaring their independence, sattelites renouncing their vassalship (oh yeah make it so that there are very actual economical benefits of having a vassal), etc etc.

Also have it so that an educated population will be more inclined towards pluralism/democracy whilst an uneducated population would prefer authoritarianism (sure that is a liberal bias but one that would work quite well in regards to game mechanics for balancing out various gov. forms).

So maybe if the population have a literacy of 20%, they get a huge militancy penalty if you go democracy whereas a literacy of 80% would mean that the population would be really mad if you didn't become a democracy.

Couple it together with pop types as well (for instance the pop types most affected by literacy would be the lower classes). That would hopefully simulate the German dissatisfaction with liberal democracy despite having a relatively educated population.

 

[unmerged(28220)]

I definitely would like to see all govn't types be viable in Vicky 2 as opposed to Vicky 1 where I had my glorious Communist Revolution! in Columbia but then the entire country registered to become member of the Torches and Pitchforks Reactionary Party (seriously my pie chart went from dark red to dark blue in less than a month I think)...

 

[King]

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.

Really? No one told us.

 

[King]

I definitely would like to see all govn't types be viable in Vicky 2 as opposed to Vicky 1 where I had my glorious Communist Revolution! in Columbia but then the entire country registered to become member of the Torches and Pitchforks Reactionary Party (seriously my pie chart went from dark red to dark blue in less than a month I think)...

This won't happen.

 

[Quarto]

Really? No one told us.

Hehe, while in this case it's probably just a silly rumour, I would definitely not be surprised if it turned out that a special version of HoI was indeed released in China and indeed no one told you. It happened once to the company I worked for - some Chinese company forged a license agreement and started publishing our games in China without our knowledge.

The whole thing was revealed in an extraordinarily fun way - their tech support department didn't know the licensing agreement was a forgery, they thought they were entitled to our assistance. So, eventually they contacted us for help with some issue, and the lawyers went into action.

 

[HMS Enterprize]

Sure it resembles the old Victoria model but maybe make it easier for proletarian/presidential dictatorships to control militancy through defense spending/army units/social reforms/etc etc?

This is a sensible idea, easily implemented also. Also crime fighting expenses should directly reduce militancy not just the speed at which crime types are eradicated.

Also have it so that an educated population will be more inclined towards pluralism/democracy whilst an uneducated population would prefer authoritarianism (sure that is a liberal bias but one that would work quite well in regards to game mechanics for balancing out various gov. forms).

So maybe if the population have a literacy of 20%, they get a huge militancy penalty if you go democracy whereas a literacy of 80% would mean that the population would be really mad if you didn't become a democracy.

Couple it together with pop types as well (for instance the pop types most affected by literacy would be the lower classes). That would hopefully simulate the German dissatisfaction with liberal democracy despite having a relatively educated population.[/QUOTE]

I get the idea of where you are going with this but I dont think it would work well in game terms. It seems like this is basically tantamount to rising literacy being a bad thing-unless you want to play as a con-mon or democracy.

Regarding your point about German dissatisfaction, perhaps losing a war should trigger a large loss of support for the current ruling party and perhaps the government type as well.