What world do the sliders build?

[Tabanese]

Hi. Newbie here. Downloaded EU3 off steam during Christmas. Have being trying to get Ireland to rule Europe since. As it happens, I'm not even close. But it is still nice to meet you guys. There, introduction complete. Sort of.

Anyway.

Was looking at the sliders wondering what to increase/decrease and understanding that I didn't yet have a good notion of what would be useful, I just figured I'd pick the option that had a good flavour to it. At the time, I was all for feudalism (I blame CK2 for this) so I reckoned I'd favour the Irish Aristocracy. Cool. Except, I wasn't too keen on Serfdom and wasn't planning on going that way. Which got me thinking about what these sliders said about nations combined. I had a bit of fun with it and figured, you guys might get a kick out of speculating with me. Thus far, I've decided that Aristocracy and Free Subjects meant my country placed a great deal of respect on hierarchy and tradition but from merited perspective. Ergo, I feel my Ireland is zealously nationalistic and furthermore, a little fascist.
I suppose the opposite (Plutocracy and Serfdom) would be a country where people don't have intrinsic worth; you are your net worth in terms of gold. Utilitarian moral frameworks are favoured, as a contrast with the duty ethic my Irish Aryans would likely feel.

Anyway, that is just something random I felt compelled to share. Maybe we'll use the ideas as inspirations for mods and what not but really, it doesn't need to go anywhere.

 

[Icendoan]

I think the scale and scope of the sliders changes based on the time period as you progress through the game, and is much greater for some sliders over others - for example, I consider early centralisation to be placing most primary offices of state in the monarch, as opposed to feudalism, which is something that affects the way society is built. However, quality seems to be an entirely internal government affair. Extra drilling of your troops is more a policy thing than something that your people will actually notice, I think.

I tend to go plutocratic, free subjects, innovative, so I suppose it builds into a sort of liberal capitalism that develops as the game comes to a close and is best seen in the Victorian era.

 

[Esben_DRK]

I tend to go fully centralised, fully aristocratic, fully free subjects, fully innovative and fully qualitive, primarily for gameplay reasons. Now I come to think about it, I wonder what kind of state would ever exhibit such a combination.
Centralised and aristocracy is uncommon together already, but combining it with free subjects it's pretty hard to find examples of it.

I'm actually asking myself if those states are more like contradictions of themselves than actually functioning political entities.

 

[ktx2skd]

To be honest I didn't read, but if you're asking about the best slider movements:

- Centralization, free subjects.
- If you're already western/latin tech group, e.g. Irish minor, then I find no reason to take innovative, I prefer narrow-minded in such a case.
- If you're not western, usually you will want to go innovative to westernize & modernize, then flip back to narrow-minded.
- Other sliders vary based on your situation & goals, although I tend to give a partial exception: Quality usually supercedes quantity for "force limits", "supply limits" and "max army line width" issues, those issues could never be absolutely resolved or retuned to work for quantity.

Sorry for not reading, too tired & shockingly lots of text.

Also, I'm almost always a world-conquerer, so part of my sliders style stem from my playstyle itself, but a good part of what I say still holds in general.

 

[unmerged(337549)]

I tend to go fully centralised, fully aristocratic, fully free subjects, fully innovative and fully qualitive, primarily for gameplay reasons. Now I come to think about it, I wonder what kind of state would ever exhibit such a combination.
Centralised and aristocracy is uncommon together already, but combining it with free subjects it's pretty hard to find examples of it.

I'm actually asking myself if those states are more like contradictions of themselves than actually functioning political entities.

Anarchy. Those sliders will take you a decade to recover stability.

 

[midget_roxx]

Anarchy. Those sliders will take you a decade to recover stability.

Probably around 70%+ stability costs, could get it down with Church attendance though

 

[Icendoan]

On the other hand, with CAD and lots and lots of Churches for my populace to attend, alongside generally booming economies, stability only takes around a year/point.

 

[Bakenellan]

Anarchy. Those sliders will take you a decade to recover stability.

Depends on economy and size. With a lot of trade even a huge empire can do a point in a few month. CAD surely helps as well.

As for sliders, it's better to consider them along with national ideas and government type and possibly in cultural aspect too even if it is practically absent from the game. The same slider combinations may have different flavor then. Full aristocracy, centralisation, free subjects may mean that titled nobility are directly serve the state and are the state, but anyone can get a title if he is worthy. For example with NI Battlefield Comissions. If you have a theocracy it would mean omnipowerful church and arictocrats would be church hierarchs, and again anyone can join the clergy. Of course, it's unlikely to be found in real world, but not much from EU3 is.

 

[tormos]

Also in terms of high aristocracy and centralization, in at least a few cases (Petrine Russia I believe) the nobles WERE the original bureaucrats (because they were educated). It didn't go over too well with them and they weren't particularly good at it, but it's a thought about what that society would look like

 

[Tabanese]

I never thought about the effects of other mechanics. I am inclined to believe -3 stability would be a state of chaos as oppose to any combination of policies. Political anarchy is likely best portrayed via free subjects, free trade and innovative as all these suggest freedom of movement, labour, exchange and thought. If decentralisation is the scope of government, then this should be included as well but it may just be unity and I don't see how a Unitarian political system is any more offensive to anarchy as a federalist approach. My problem with plutocracy is that economic freedom is judged as a separate slider, so plutocracy must represent something different. As it is contrasted with aristocracy, it suggests a different emphasis on what it means to be an elite of society. So plutocratic societies may value the materially powerful where as aristocracy values the qualitatively different. However, plutocracy is still more egalitarian in this regard so it is likely a better option to represent political anarchy. As for the two military sliders, I think quantity and defensive are more in tune with political anarchy. I think quantity suggests a total militia which means the army does not stand in apart from society. Leninism demands militias on this basis if I remember correctly. As for defensive, it focus energy on the locality and therefore not only represents more militia leanings but also a freedom from the taxes that fighting a war would require. As for what stability might mean; it seems to suggest a docility. I see no reason to assume why political anarchy can't eventually cease being the revolution. Lower costs to return stability could suggest a society better able to either deal with a crisis or rather repress the vocal elements.

As for the inclusion of national ideas: Awesome idea. I like to think that the cultural oddities are captured in the starting positions of sliders or at least should be as well. I would have to think a bit on how to incorporate national ideas but certainly a country that embraces bureaucracy should be different from the one that does not.

I tend to go fully centralised, fully aristocratic, fully free subjects, fully innovative and fully qualitive, primarily for gameplay reasons. Now I come to think about it, I wonder what kind of state would ever exhibit such a combination

I reckon (without including NIs) that your country has a powerful expansive government, which plays a role in shaping society. People are valued for their ideas or what they represent. Jobs are important not for the financial rewards but for its cultural significance. This means that the quality of the military is derived from its morale and sense of purpose; its wars are crusades. Additionally, the people focus on romantic expression and art, architecture, virtue and religion. The weakness of such a regime is it has a constrained economy in the same way feudal Japan may have (the nobles have a hard time dealing with merchant affairs). It isn't that you technically backwards; in fact you are flourishing in the social sciences and humanities but hard sciences gather less to its banner and some great minds may flee to places where their objectivity is favoured. Additionally, the society easily passes environmental and social regulation, choking businesses that demand greater disregard for stakeholder interests. If free trade, this is simply strong regulation (mixed economy/soft socialism), if merchantilism, then the government also controls much of the production of the nation (central planned/hard socialism). It has enough individualism to act as a check on the government. Ultimately, you're the land of the hipster, democrat and socialist.

P.S; Religion should mix with society so even if the state was Roman Catholic, the free subject and innovative sliders would have the effect of making the country more tolerant of those without said religion. However, spiritual consul would be sought as their perspective is culturally important and therefore the religious veto would have considerable weight.

P.P.S: Maybe, I wrote all of that as a knee jerk reflection. But currently, that is my best guess. What do you reckon?

Sorry for not reading, too tired & shockingly lots of text

Sorry, I'm a talker. Cheers for the advice all the same.

 

[Tabanese]

Oh and type of government would matter greatly: Same sliders in a theocracy suggest something completely different than in a revolutionary republic as Bakenellan pointed out.

 

[Ranger900]

I tend to go heavy Centralization, Free subjects, Innovative, Plutocracy (until recently when I finally realized how useful Aristocracy was), and Quantity vs Quality is always a toss up for me.

I ended up making a Huron nation that was hyper Centralized (atleast for its giant size I had to keep decentralizing it to avoid over extending) that was the leader of science, had a single super Center of Trade in Niagra that was the only place my traders went too (and no one else was allowed into it) which I kinda pictured as pretty much a giant market district that was hyper populated compared to the rest of my far flung North American Confederacy. Seeing as I had to deal with litterally a never ending embargo by every European nation in existance along with near constant wars with the same I pictured my nation being very anti-European (except to the Portugese till like 1802) and very isloationist. Its troops hyper trained to drive back the constant invasions with minimal casualties due to the rather underpopulated nature of my nation, and since the Europeans has such a naval domination they never attempted to out compete them. Wars were always for the defensive and the society had grown into one that was used to constant warfare and threat of invasion and as such it got to the point where it was nearly always running on war economy but its giant internal economy managed to keep it funded.
(Full Centralization to eventual Decentralization, Full Innovative, Free Subjects, Quantity, Land, Plutocracy, Noble Republic to Republican State)

(end of rant for now)

 

[gela1212]

My second or third game was as Japan (back then, it started unified, so it was a bit easier) and I maxed decentralization first because it was historical. I also moved sliders based on the effect events, didn't really pay attention to the stats as much. I figured decentralization made everything a little worse in exchange for being able to war more. (Now that I think about it, did it even used to have the WE benefits? I feel that was added in HTTT for some reason)

Needless to say, I don't max decentralization anymore....

 

[Borne2Run]

Mine always develop towards:

Centralization: Max
Plutocracy: Max or close to edge
Free Subjects: Max
Innovative: Max or close to edge
Defensive vs Offensive: Middle
Quality: Max

After westernizing Centralization goes back to the middle of the slider.

 

[calvinhobbeslik]

After westernizing Centralization goes back to the middle of the slider.

Why?

 

[gela1212]

Why?

I assume because westernizing actually moves your centralization slider back towards the center.

 

[calvinhobbeslik]

I assume because westernizing actually moves your centralization slider back towards the center.

I don't think it does...

 

[gela1212]

I don't think it does...

It doesn't, but military modernization does, which is usually considered part of westernizing.

 

[Ramidel]

I tend to go fully centralised, fully aristocratic, fully free subjects, fully innovative and fully qualitive, primarily for gameplay reasons. Now I come to think about it, I wonder what kind of state would ever exhibit such a combination.

I think that this sounds like a strong absolute monarchy with a very closed peerage and a lot of great landowners, but with low taxes and significant personal and religious freedoms and a very open and meritocratic public service. Informal methods of public pressure on the crown are probably more important than formal ones.

If it's a republic...uhm...Power is probably brokered between a few great landowning families who, again, don't meddle much in the lives of their citizens.

 

[fudd_bopo]

Is innovative really that good if you're already westernized? I've found myself go for narrowminded almost exclusively because the bonuses from the pope is so great (if you're catholic).