Will the authority mechanic railroad players into playing despotism?

[Duarte]

all this just confirms what the devs have said, that authoritarian countries will be viable, if not necesserely competitive, there will be multiple ways to play authoritarian countries, and more importantly, that authoritarian countries will play differently from democracies

 

[Duarte]

But seriously now, looking from other modern pdx games, authoritarian nations will be the best, specially with slavery and all dependents working.

Slavery and serfdom will be good, because are free RGO production. Depending how enslavement will be, like conquering and displacing unaccepted cultures, this will be even better.

Child labor too, it decreases pop growth and literacy, but again, will be possible to stack modifiers to make it profitable and better in long term.

Women labor will be a must, to increase even more profitability (decreasing unrest too !!!).

Will people get upset? Of course, but considering how revolts are underwhelming in EU4, Hoi4 and Stellaris, due mechanics and modifiers, is safe to say that they will be underwhelming here too (compared to Vic2). Vic2 systems are before EU4 ones, were rng based.

Again, if your empire is rich and people are getting their bread and circus, everything is fine. So authoritarian countries will be viable too.

yuo vastly underestimate the negative impact of slavery, not only the economic, but social, political and developmental

 

[MinhowMinhow]

yuo vastly underestimate the negative impact of slavery, not only the economic, but social, political and developmental

I know that slavery is bad, but people will always game the system. I am not even considering the exploits.

 

[lowdias]

I know that slavery is bad, but people will always game the system. I am not even considering the exploits.

Slavery has existed from the dawn of time, always when the is conflict there is victors and defeated, and from the tribal beginnings of humanity a defeated tribe was either wiped out or integrated through slavery/servitude, so throughout history slavery was insanely lucrative make no mistake, so the biggest challenge would be how Victoria 3 will model slavery and the abolitionist movements and all the trouble that came with the abolition of slavery in a country because it was by no means a smooth ride and could cause major trouble (see the US civil war)

 

[Arknav555]

Slavery has existed from the dawn of time, always when the is conflict there is victors and defeated, and from the tribal beginnings of humanity a defeated tribe was either wiped out or integrated through slavery/servitude, so throughout history slavery was insanely lucrative make no mistake, so the biggest challenge would be how Victoria 3 will model slavery and the abolitionist movements and all the trouble that came with the abolition of slavery in a country because it was by no means a smooth ride and could cause major trouble (see the US civil war)

Not to mention the institution's incompatibility with industrialization.

 

[MinhowMinhow]

Not to mention the institution's incompatibility with industrialization.

But how? Slavery can deliver cheaper raw goods to industry. Why weren't slaves employed in industry too? Even nowadays some industries employs people in situations similar to slavery and they are very profitable.
Not defending slavery, but never understood how these systems were incompatible.

 

[Zalthor]

To get the political power away from the nobility and distributed in the hands of the ones who actually want social reforms, you'd need to guarantee their representation in the government.
That is to say, you'd need elections.

Incorrect, Absolutist Governments, just like others, are able to "support" an interest group and make it part of the government, so to speak, though you are only able to have so many until one suffers legitimacy hits.

That means one would be able to add Trade Unions, for example, to their list of supported interest groups, no elections required.

Not to mention [slavery's] incompatibility with industrialization.

Put the slaves in the factories? This was never done, to my knowledge, but it should work. After all, as another poster stated, there are many places across the globe where individuals work in slave-like conditions in sweatshops and factories and the like.

 

[Vohen]

Incorrect, Absolutist Governments, just like others, are able to "support" an interest group and make it part of the government, so to speak, though you are only able to have so many until one suffers legitimacy hits.

That means one would be able to add Trade Unions, for example, to their list of supported interest groups, no elections required.

Supporting and including an IG in the government is one thing, how influential that IG is is another matter entirely.
It has already been stated that elections will boost the influence of IGs, so without elections IGs that depend on popular support (like trade unions) will be left without much political power.
I imagine the other source of influence for IGs will be wealth, so the elites should have very high influence in an absolutist government without elections to balance that out.
So yeah, sure, the government might include trade unions, but their interests will heavily conflict with other conservative (or even liberal) IGs, which will be very influential and cause a lot of stability issues for the monarch.

And honestly, I really, really hope it isn't as simple as "include trade unions in the government -> become an absolutist socialist utopia".
If you don't have elections, it's only natural that political power will be almost exclusively with the wealthy, and I imagine they will be very unhappy if you just come and say "hey, we're increasing your taxes to give money to the poor, pay up now".
And of course, they will use that political power to become a major pita for you, as one would expect.

Of course, this will apparently be changed to include parties, but the design goal will likely stay the same.

 

[InsidiousMage]

Put the slaves in the factories? This was never done, to my knowledge, but it should work. After all, as another poster stated, there are many places across the globe where individuals work in slave-like conditions in sweatshops and factories and the like.

My understanding is that slave labor didn't really replace jobs held by non-slaves, most plantation jobs were never held by non-slaves pre-Emancipation, where as industrialization did. You would then get even more unemployment which would lead to more social unrest if you used slaves in industrial factories.

 

[Arknav555]

Incorrect, Absolutist Governments, just like others, are able to "support" an interest group and make it part of the government, so to speak, though you are only able to have so many until one suffers legitimacy hits.

That means one would be able to add Trade Unions, for example, to their list of supported interest groups, no elections required.


Put the slaves in the factories? This was never done, to my knowledge, but it should work. After all, as another poster stated, there are many places across the globe where individuals work in slave-like conditions in sweatshops and factories and the like.

But how? Slavery can deliver cheaper raw goods to industry. Why weren't slaves employed in industry too? Even nowadays some industries employs people in situations similar to slavery and they are very profitable.
Not defending slavery, but never understood how these systems were incompatible.

But that doesn't actually benefit the people of the country? Sure, the industrialists are going to benefit significantly, but how are the poorer classes going to compete with much cheaper labor. Not to mention that while a slave might be good with unskilled labor, usually those who are illiterate, poorly trained, and demotivated (like the vast majority of slaves) do not make good laborers for the creation of automobiles, for one.

 

[Sparticulous]

Psh, only a king john lets the peasantry try to tel him how to rule his sandbox

 

[LoLuecoLueco]

The thing that made slavery less profitable on the eyes of the State in vicky2, IRL and i believe will be the cause for it here too (in part at least) is simple: slaves don't pay taxes.
Slavery is inherently a institution that strenghtens the nobility, as they will have more power on their hands (they literally have someone's life after all) and lowers the revenue of central authority (i never read about large-scale "slave tax" and most of the money that States always got was from the masses, the nobility, because of obvious reasons, rarely got the grunt of taxation)
Wich was the reason many raced to abolish it in vicky2, slaves don't get salaries in that game so they don't pay taxes so you are poorer while the aristocrats are richer since there is a portion of their production force that you simply cannot tax.
There is also the issue that slave production, such as that of the serfs, is inherently lower than that of free working farmers and labourers, because they are working to fill quotas and not their personal gains, and also all the socioeconomical problems that such a stratified economy bring. All and all, slavery trades final output for control over the producers, wich is something viable, just not the optimal strategy.
On the issue of industrial slavery, it depends on how you look at it. It certainly isn't something unviable as the nazis used it a lot to create the machinery for their war effort, it just works in a very different way than industrialization is accostumed to work because of the precise conditions in wich industrial economies where born, wich where in more and more free-economy societies like England, the U.S., Low Countries etc.
To make a slave industrial economy viable, you would need to breed a type of system probably mainly exportation foccused or in wich the industry is aimed at supplying the army or other base needs, since you won't need the workers of your industry being consumers (they aren't the target audience of production forces) and will still be able to turn a profit.
At the end, its just a question of what you want to do, the ends shape the means a lot, and since paradox is going with a sandbox style game as we can see by the trend of their announcements i believe industrial slavery might be a possibility.

 

[Jia Xu]

POPs are power and in case you guys forgot, in V2, Democracies had an absolutely insane bonus to immigration. As the game went on, USA would become an unstoppable juggernaut largely due to a massive exodus from monarchies in Europe.

 

[Duarte]

POPs are power and in case you guys forgot, in V2, Democracies had an absolutely insane bonus to immigration. As the game went on, USA would become an unstoppable juggernaut largely due to a massive exodus from monarchies in Europe.

because it was in the Americas not because it was a republic, so long as ones capital was in the new world you would gets tonnes of immigration, even if you where absolutist your self, that said what you say should apply in Vicky 3, since pops will now migrate based on waves, that can be caused by poor socio economic conditions.

All that means, that has an absolute monarchy, that yuo can also have a massive amount of immigration, if say yuo have tonnes of social policies(obviusly, countries that have both social policies and politicla reforms, should get more), the only thing stopping yuo from getting them, being the established interests in your country and your ability to manage them effectively.

 

[Jia Xu]

because it was in the Americas not because it was a republic, so long as ones capital was in the new world you would gets tonnes of immigration, even if you where absolutist your self, that said what you say should apply in Vicky 3, since pops will now migrate based on waves, that can be caused by poor socio economic conditions.

All that means, that has an absolute monarchy, that yuo can also have a massive amount of immigration, if say yuo have tonnes of social policies(obviusly, countries that have both social policies and politicla reforms, should get more), the only thing stopping yuo from getting them, being the established interests in your country and your ability to manage them effectively.

Almost correct. Being in the Americas is a factor but so is being a Democracy. If you want to check out the files, look for /common/pop_types.txt. The modifier there says in either American continent AND Democratic government.

 

[Duarte]

Almost correct. Being in the Americas is a factor but so is being a Democracy. If you want to check out the files, look for /common/pop_types.txt. The modifier there says in either American continent AND Democratic government.

well look at that, you are correct, must have been thinking about some mod that did so.

 

[Hertzila]

POPs are power and in case you guys forgot, in V2, Democracies had an absolutely insane bonus to immigration. As the game went on, USA would become an unstoppable juggernaut largely due to a massive exodus from monarchies in Europe.

Unless the absolute monarchies can stop the pop migration somehow, it's kinda even worse since Vicky 3 will apparently do its best to remove static modifiers, so in theory any country could become Vicky 2's USA as far as immigration is considered. Or maybe even multiple countries could become absolute migrant magnets and proceed to vacuum up all the pops that want out of the authoritarian hellhole.

Which, for an industrialized absolute monarchy, could quite likely cause an economic meltdown from the lack of workers and consumers, which will put the bread and circuses under threat, which will cause unrest, which will in turn cause harm to the state, the spiral continues, and suddenly you're in a situation to either liberalize, or hope to whatever god you worship that the guys with pointy boomsticks stick with you rather than the rebels.

Maybe the absolute monarch can manage it, but we know from history that "A place where YOU are the one to determine YOUR fate!" is a powerful tagline for immigrants, the ol' American Dream. Of course, now the migrant magnets will need to manage their absolute hodge-podge pops, but that just sounds like another type of challenge to overcome, rather an inherent limitation that will stop players from trying democracies.

 

[Duarte]

Unless the absolute monarchies can stop the pop migration somehow, it's kinda even worse since Vicky 3 will apparently do its best to remove static modifiers, so in theory any country could become Vicky 2's USA as far as immigration is considered. Or maybe even multiple countries could become absolute migrant magnets and proceed to vacuum up all the pops that want out of the authoritarian hellhole.

Which, for an industrialized absolute monarchy, could quite likely cause an economic meltdown from the lack of workers and consumers, which will put the bread and circuses under threat, which will cause unrest, which will in turn cause harm to the state, the spiral continues, and suddenly you're in a situation to either liberalize, or hope to whatever god you worship that the guys with pointy boomsticks stick with you rather than the rebels.

Maybe the absolute monarch can manage it, but we know from history that "A place where YOU are the one to determine YOUR fate!" is a powerful tagline for immigrants, the ol' American Dream. Of course, now the migrant magnets will need to manage their absolute hodge-podge pops, but that just sounds like another type of challenge to overcome, rather an inherent limitation that will stop players from trying democracies.

I'll be honestly shocked if banning emigration is not an actual thing (potentially the most suicidal thing you could do mind, since letting you discontent pop's migrate out of the country is a good pressure release valve as well)

 

[EUnderhill]

The thing that made slavery less profitable on the eyes of the State in vicky2, IRL and i believe will be the cause for it here too (in part at least) is simple: slaves don't pay taxes.
Slavery is inherently a institution that strenghtens the nobility, as they will have more power on their hands (they literally have someone's life after all) and lowers the revenue of central authority (i never read about large-scale "slave tax" and most of the money that States always got was from the masses, the nobility, because of obvious reasons, rarely got the grunt of taxation)
Wich was the reason many raced to abolish it in vicky2, slaves don't get salaries in that game so they don't pay taxes so you are poorer while the aristocrats are richer since there is a portion of their production force that you simply cannot tax.
There is also the issue that slave production, such as that of the serfs, is inherently lower than that of free working farmers and labourers, because they are working to fill quotas and not their personal gains, and also all the socioeconomical problems that such a stratified economy bring. All and all, slavery trades final output for control over the producers, wich is something viable, just not the optimal strategy.
On the issue of industrial slavery, it depends on how you look at it. It certainly isn't something unviable as the nazis used it a lot to create the machinery for their war effort, it just works in a very different way than industrialization is accostumed to work because of the precise conditions in wich industrial economies where born, wich where in more and more free-economy societies like England, the U.S., Low Countries etc.
To make a slave industrial economy viable, you would need to breed a type of system probably mainly exportation foccused or in wich the industry is aimed at supplying the army or other base needs, since you won't need the workers of your industry being consumers (they aren't the target audience of production forces) and will still be able to turn a profit.
At the end, its just a question of what you want to do, the ends shape the means a lot, and since paradox is going with a sandbox style game as we can see by the trend of their announcements i believe industrial slavery might be a possibility.

In the American South, slaves outproduced free labor in cotton, sugar and tobacco because the whip could compel a faster work-pace than a wage could ever induce. It didn't exactly hurt the cause of the planter that by putting up slaves as collateral, he always had an advantage in obtaining the most favorable lands and could also plant in the spring knowing he had the people on hand for the harvest. The Alabama cotton gang was every bit as "industrial" as anything Ford conceived. As for taxation, the minimal burden did fall on the planter class in the form of property taxes, but since education and much infrastructure was regarded as a private matter, there was not a large need for taxes.

 

[Gurkhal]

What I am wondering about with immigration and such is that it get to much and fast. I could be wrong but people already having a thing going in their homelands, even if non- or pseudo-democratic didn't emigrate because they might get it marginally better?

Thus an entire country getting vaccum-cleaned of all POPs makes no sense since those with business, farms etc. would not want to give up what they've already got going for them. Not to mention the fact that at least to my knowledge a major push for the US in my country was the promise of cheap or free land (taken/stolen/conquered from the Native Americans).

I could be wrong but to me it seems that some other benefit would be necessary to get a massive population movement going than a chance to be free and starve in a gutter in an entirely new continent.

Or am I entirely wrong here?