Will the authority mechanic railroad players into playing despotism?

[neusaap]

Unless there is indeed a straightforward alternative for authority-less democracies to achieve the same thing (but even then it should still cost money for the workers and the resources that are necessary for it), I really hope they'll remove road maintenance from authority altogether. It'd be rather dumb if democracies are somehow less capable of building infrastructure (or building anything really). A stronger executive should translate to being able to do things a weaker executive can do only to a lesser extent like limiting the spread of certain ideas, banning the import and production of certain goods (especially the type of goods that can be used for rebellion, guns and ammo) or marginalizing the influence of certain interest groups through various means, at the cost of radicalizing the pops that are targeted in this way.

 

[Grim Deadman]

My reading is that authoritarian governments will have an advantage in terms of getting stuff done - but at the cost of pops unhappy at the the lack of political freedoms, leading to rebellions etc. (or, alternatively, at the cost of keeping a low-literacy population to avoid that, with all the costs that come with that).

Aye, exactly my feel. Want to have an educated rich population? Please deal with all those interest groups and pesky due process.

 

[Grim Deadman]

Unless there is indeed a straightforward alternative for authority-less democracies to achieve the same thing (but even then it should still cost money for the workers and the resources that are necessary for it), I really hope they'll remove road maintenance from authority altogether. It'd be rather dumb if democracies are somehow less capable of building infrastructure (or building anything really). A stronger executive should translate to being able to do things a weaker executive can do only to a lesser extent like limiting the spread of certain ideas, banning the import and production of certain goods (especially the type of goods that can be used for rebellion, guns and ammo) or marginalizing the influence of certain interest groups through various means, at the cost of radicalizing the pops that are targeted in this way.

In a response elsewhere Wiz noted that road maintenance is actually a representation of pre modern communal duties. You pay for modern infrastructure with cash, not with authority, and that's something democracies have in abundance (usually).

 

[Cymsdale]

Nothing really to do with this topic, but I hope when the dev diary for railroads comes out, Wiz puts on his troll hat and titles it "Railroaded Gameplay".

 

[johnty5]

Aye, exactly my feel. Want to have an educated rich population? Please deal with all those interest groups and pesky due process.

Yep. I think it's a case of "you can only have two of the following at once":

1. The (gameplay) advantages of authoritarianism
2. The economic advantages of a literate population
3. Political stability / few rebellions

 

[Woifee]

I can see it already. All i use my despotic power for is to reduce my despotic power and liberize my county against the konservative nationalistic elite who wanna stay in power and do not want to share it with elites of other ideologies or ethnicities.

I have to force my utopia uppon them.

 

[Polarisan]

Not directly.

There was this saying that when the british populace and the king were in accordance with each other, the british crown was the strongest institution in the world.

But when they were at odds... the crown had no power.

I imagine that remaining a despot would require a juggling act of the IGs that in the end wouldn't be worth it. Constitutional monarchy would, on the other hand probably give a lot more authority if the population is supportive.

Think of legitimacy, that's roughly what I would equate it to.

 

[panda_Express12]

I doubt it. I imagine that having a literate, happy and (relatively) wealthy population will have plenty of bonuses over a despot who can get the road to his palace receive some extra maintanence.

 

[Duarte]

the system, will do no more, than *allow* yuo to play as an authoritarian leader by give yuo the tools to do so, yuo will be able to force legislation (with all the issues that entails), pass (costly) decress to complete this or that project or policy, yuo can use to perpetuate your power by whatever means yuo deam appropriate, either by suppressing your illiterate and unproductive peasent, or by running the tight rope of trying to overcome their political demands by fulfilling their material demands (with all the difficulty this entails)

 

[Make Victoria 3]

They already mentioned the benefits of not having autocratic laws. Aside the obvious fact your pops won't be revolting, striking or whatever else they can do to make your life miserable, they mentioned how freedom of press, assembly and other similar laws positively effect tech spread rate and literacy.

Could you please tell me where this was mentioned?

 

[johnty5]

Could you please tell me where this was mentioned?

Here you go.

So if you get more authority from being authoritarian, then what does a non-authoritarian society get in exchange?

Generally speaking, more rights and equality means happier, healthier and wealthier pops with all the benefits that brings.

 

[Make Victoria 3]

Here you go.

Ah right thanks. Though Wiz meant that these happier pops come from the social reforms that might be easier to enact if one has better voting rights, but when i pointed it out that for example a Zar did abolish serfdom and was assasinated over it (i think serfdom still stayed abolished), was open about the possibility that an absolute monarch can just be "LOL lets go full democracy", but with a rapid coup following this attempt. The voting rights itself gives no happiness whatsoever.

 

[johnty5]

Ah right thanks. Though Wiz meant that these happier pops come from the social reforms that might be easier to enact if one has better voting rights, but when i pointed it out that for example a Zar did abolish serfdom and was assasinated over it (i think serfdom still stayed abolished), was open about the possibility that an absolute monarch can just be "LOL lets go full democracy", but with a rapid coup following this attempt. The voting rights itself gives no happiness whatsoever.

I think the point is that literate pops will demand political reform. So authoritarian governments with literate populations will suffer rebellions and authoritarian governments that want to avoid that will need to keep an illiterate population (with the disadvantages that come with that).

So the advantage of non-authoritarian play is that you can have literate populations without rebellions.

 

[Make Victoria 3]

I think the point is that literate pops will demand political reform. So authoritarian governments with literate populations will suffer rebellions and authoritarian governments that want to avoid that will need to keep an illiterate population (with the disadvantages that come with that).

I mean in authoritarian governments you should be able to hand out social reforms, when you either have to appease the population or want to (and can afford it both financially and politically so for example factory safety and work hour reforms wont cause a sufficient backlash to make you avoid them). Bismarck could enact good social reforms for the time without trouble (as far as i know). Though unlike vicky 2 this also means that movement radicalism needs to be removed/changed or otherwise you have to kill rebellions over and over when you hand out social reforms, but refuse political reforms. It wouldn't really make sense that your poor pops rebel after getting a better minimum wage, because they wanted to vote (the first will improve the live of the poor strata while the second does not...).

 

[MinhowMinhow]

Authoritarian xenophobe slaver empires will be the meta then.

 

[PedroLuiz]

Next week on players worry about something with very little information to go with: will *this mechanic* force the player to play exclusively democratically?

 

[johnty5]

I mean in authoritarian governments you should be able to hand out social reforms, when you either have to appease the population or want to (and can afford it both financially and politically so for example factory safety and work hour reforms wont cause a sufficient backlash to make you avoid them). Bismarck could enact good social reforms for the time without trouble (as far as i know). Though unlike vicky 2 this also means that movement radicalism needs to be removed/changed or otherwise you have to kill rebellions over and over when you hand out social reforms, but refuse political reforms. It wouldn't really make sense that your poor pops rebel after getting a better minimum wage, because they wanted to vote (the first will improve the live of the poor strata while the second does not...).

You're proposing enacting social reforms to create happiness to offset the unhappiness of a lack of political reforms? That may well be a way we can play - I don't know.

Wiz's answer seem to suggest that he believes that, generally, people will be unhappier, unhealthier and less wealthy. I guess we'll have a better idea of how it all fits together once we know all the mechanics.

 

[PedroLuiz]

I really hope they'll remove road maintenance from authority altogether.

and i really hope you'd read *any* communication the devs have made with the community, they have posted *everywhere* including in the dev responses themselves that infrastructure and authority *are not linked* and many people have talked about it

 

[Hertzila]

I think there's a compelling argument to normalize the base value and make the progression of laws incur a larger negative value. It makes the impact feel more intuitive.

I'm reminded about of Josh Sawyer's GDC talk about Pillars of Eternity. Initially chargen started with all stats at 1. This led to people really min-maxing characters when doing focus groups. They were fine with a stat being a 1 or a 2. They renormalized the values and made 10 the "default." Fundamentally a character with all 10s played the same in both systems, but simply showing a 9 as giving a "penalty" to a stat's effect made people a lot more hesitant to decrease the stat.

Agreed. While we only have limited glimpses of the UI right now, this sounds like one of those cases where the numbers should be flipped around.

Instead of base +100 and every law giving you more, it would be more like "Base Value +1000" and every law reducing it. Oligarchy -0, National Supremacy -0, Freedom of Conscience -100, Right to Assembly -150, to use the modifiers in the dev diary. It would more clearly show that by defaut, an absolute monarch would personally be very powerful and be able to affect things as they see fit, but each liberal law passed reduces it.

 

[PedroLuiz]

Agreed. While we only have limited glimpses of the UI right now, this sounds like one of those cases where the numbers should be flipped around.

Instead of base +100 and every law giving you more, it would be more like "Base Value +1000" and every law reducing it. Oligarchy -0, National Supremacy -0, Freedom of Conscience -100, Right to Assembly -150, to use the modifiers in the dev diary. It would more clearly show that by defaut, an absolute monarch would personally be very powerful and be able to affect things as they see fit, but each liberal law passed reduces it.

negative values might be harder to use if you want to make modifiers, like +20% authority of 10-6 be 12-6=6; 10-6+1=5 or even, if the math goes wrong, 12-7.2=4.8