The US is a democracy, and the Royal navy serves one as well both are pretty powerful so getting on their bad side is usually not a good idea.
Unless you're Germany
Unless you're Germany
What are reasons to be a democracy?
- Thread starter elessar90
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
For 150 political points communist and fascist can pick this economy law even while at peace:
War economy which give:
Civilian economy which give:
War economy which give:
- 15% Consumer goods needs
- +20% Military factory construction speed
- -20% conversion cost of factories
Civilian economy which give:
- 30% Consumer goods needs
- -30% Civilian factory construction speed
- -30% Military factory construction speed
- +30% conversion cost of factories
Isn't there a "CasusBeli" for democracies that if somebody generates a World Tension, democracies can attack the target then?
EDIT: From Dev diary:
"First of all, a democracy can not start a war against a democracy, so you need to switch to become fascist or communist. Democracies are also limited by the fact that they can’t justify against a nation that has not increased the World Tension."
So if you are playing a democratic nation, it seems u are not that limited and you can actually start a war before the world conflict
EDIT: From Dev diary:
"First of all, a democracy can not start a war against a democracy, so you need to switch to become fascist or communist. Democracies are also limited by the fact that they can’t justify against a nation that has not increased the World Tension."
So if you are playing a democratic nation, it seems u are not that limited and you can actually start a war before the world conflict
Isn't there a "CasusBeli" for democracies that if somebody generates a World Tension, democracies can attack the target then?
EDIT: From Dev diary:
"First of all, a democracy can not start a war against a democracy, so you need to switch to become fascist or communist. Democracies are also limited by the fact that they can’t justify against a nation that has not increased the World Tension."
So if you are playing a democratic nation, it seems u are not that limited and you can actually start a war before the world conflict
While nearby commies will start four wars
While nearby commies will start four wars
well yea but it is up to them. And I don't think that u can start so many wars so fast anyway
You would ruin urself
I'm just want to see any reason to switch to democracy while not thinking like I'm cutting my own leg just for "being free"
I do think there should be some sort of bonus for being a democracy and not just penalties. Some sort of "endurance" bonus that pays off as long as you stay alive as a nation. A sort of turtle bonus, that facists or communists can't get due to how their countries work. Like the Nazis just tanking their economy and living off conquered stuff, and the soviets with their planned economy that suffers eventually.
.png){kind=avatar}
Maybe they could make civilian economy give a bonus to factory construction speed instead and maybe have it increase industry research speed?
Yes, but I think having a similar effect for civilian economy would make sense (i.e. you have a strong economy that can give you lots of factories, but most of them can't be used by the government, because they are tied up for other things (consumer goods)).
And it still not be exclusive or something for democracy so it doesn't matter
- 2
As far as I understood (I might be completely wrong) major democracies have the strongest 1936 start, so they would be penalized in the early game so that they don't roll over everyone else. In other words, they have a slower start because they are stronger at the beginning.
It might be a problem if chosing a democracy and switching to fascism leaves you in a better position than the fascists themselves. But if fascists or communists have no incentive to switch to democracy, well, at least it fits with the time period.
It might be a problem if chosing a democracy and switching to fascism leaves you in a better position than the fascists themselves. But if fascists or communists have no incentive to switch to democracy, well, at least it fits with the time period.
democracy good in peace time, communism good in war time....fascism good all da time. nerf fascism
There is a lot of "no gameplay reason" arguments here.
But for me, it's not about gameplay, it's about ROLEplay. One cannot fight the "fight against tyranny" if one is a tyrant oneself. One should try to set an example (however flawed and imperfect). For me, that means democracy.
But for me, it's not about gameplay, it's about ROLEplay. One cannot fight the "fight against tyranny" if one is a tyrant oneself. One should try to set an example (however flawed and imperfect). For me, that means democracy.
- 4
Consider this: Being a democracy means you are on the same side as the USA, which means you'll probably get a bunch of free shit whenever you get in a war. (If you are the USA, you don't need any more advantages.)
- 1
IMO, if you're not USA, UK, USSR, or Germany, the major incentive for democracy is being with the allies by mid-game. Once the US steam-roller gets rolling, if you've lived this long your investment is about to pay off. I'm quite happy with it as a challenge and RP element: can I sustain a democratic country X until the tides of war turn? But there's also a rational element there: we all know those tides will turn and then I get my (considerable) pay-off.
That said, I really do like the suggestion, early on in the thread, of elections helping democracies. Authoritarian regimes end up stuck with idiots who are friends with the boss in position of power (looking your way, Goering). In theory, at least, democracies, and more transparent regimes where legitimacy is not based on brute force, have a much easier time removing the well-connected but incompetent. In practice, this manifested very handily in WWII in the anglophone armies with promotions/demotions based on merit. In the allied forces, over time, important decisions ended up being made by the most qualified. Contrast this to the Axis--I know very little about Japan, but in Germany it seems more and more was micro-managed by the Fuehrer to disastrous effect while in Italy... the corrupt incompetent mess that was Italy happened. So, perhaps democratic elections can have some kind of impact on the quality of leaders over time (obviously not the generals, the ones bought with political points), or elections can add political points, or something, so that they enable you to build up more and more competent leaders over time . But then.... perhaps they already do? I don't think we know how it works, right?
To contrast democracies with communist nations, I think there's an upfront cost to being communist. In the USSR, Stalin's paranoia, disregard for human life, and distaste for dissent eliminated any kind of army leadership just in time for the build-up to the war and this is already modelled in-game. If you're not the USSR, turning communist (because very few nations start out that way--is it just Mongolia and Tanu Tuva?) must come at some cost. It'll be interesting to see this play out in the France co-op game in WWW. But there's a potential for a civil war (huge cost!) or at the very least time & resources devoted to the transition. If the costs turn out to be very low, I'd suggest some kind of "purges" modifier that makes any new Communist nation start out at a leadership disadvantage, making the choice more difficult to the player. After all, without going into specifics, joining up with Stalin did seem to lead to purges in a number of satellite states and the leaders that came out of the processes were not always the most qualified to lead their country... to put it mildly. In short, I think the solution there is to impose an entry cost; but we don't know yet whether there is a real problem here.
That said, I really do like the suggestion, early on in the thread, of elections helping democracies. Authoritarian regimes end up stuck with idiots who are friends with the boss in position of power (looking your way, Goering). In theory, at least, democracies, and more transparent regimes where legitimacy is not based on brute force, have a much easier time removing the well-connected but incompetent. In practice, this manifested very handily in WWII in the anglophone armies with promotions/demotions based on merit. In the allied forces, over time, important decisions ended up being made by the most qualified. Contrast this to the Axis--I know very little about Japan, but in Germany it seems more and more was micro-managed by the Fuehrer to disastrous effect while in Italy... the corrupt incompetent mess that was Italy happened. So, perhaps democratic elections can have some kind of impact on the quality of leaders over time (obviously not the generals, the ones bought with political points), or elections can add political points, or something, so that they enable you to build up more and more competent leaders over time . But then.... perhaps they already do? I don't think we know how it works, right?
To contrast democracies with communist nations, I think there's an upfront cost to being communist. In the USSR, Stalin's paranoia, disregard for human life, and distaste for dissent eliminated any kind of army leadership just in time for the build-up to the war and this is already modelled in-game. If you're not the USSR, turning communist (because very few nations start out that way--is it just Mongolia and Tanu Tuva?) must come at some cost. It'll be interesting to see this play out in the France co-op game in WWW. But there's a potential for a civil war (huge cost!) or at the very least time & resources devoted to the transition. If the costs turn out to be very low, I'd suggest some kind of "purges" modifier that makes any new Communist nation start out at a leadership disadvantage, making the choice more difficult to the player. After all, without going into specifics, joining up with Stalin did seem to lead to purges in a number of satellite states and the leaders that came out of the processes were not always the most qualified to lead their country... to put it mildly. In short, I think the solution there is to impose an entry cost; but we don't know yet whether there is a real problem here.
- 1
So the farther we're talking, the more democracy looks like a terrible punishment for the country in HOI4
i don't really get why nations have to be balanced in a historical WW2 sandbox. Not to mention the most powerful democracy also happens to be the most powerful nation in the world anyway...
- 2
That's like saying "What is the reason to be a butterfly"? Democracy is not freedom but in a true democracy its about choice, and choice is what a lot of people seek, so choose or choose not, fate lies ahead no matter......