Well we can look at how people behaved in reality and make them behave in similar ways irl. If you think someone like Nikolai should change to become a liberal 1 year in to the game.. okay sure, I just find that improbable to say the least, considering it's the same guy with same childhood experiences etc. Idk what realization he could've made in 1 year to make a complete 180 on his political compass.
Austrian, Prussian, Spanish, and Dutch rulers had
extremely fast changes of mind on topics when it allowed them to save a fraction of their power in the face of a lot of pressure.
What do you mean it is meaningless? Immersion is essential to the game, I don't see how it's "meaningless".
Your comment deserves nothing more than dismissal and a laugh because it's just an arbitrary statement with no argument
None of this is in Victoria 2. Does Victoria 2 allow you to use dragons as Russia? No. Do people find Victoria 2 immersive? Obviously. There's a large degree of logical distinction between the two things you're attempting to compare.
You used a blatant fallacy (slippery slope). That's why your argument is laughable.
Its meaningless because immersion is arbitrary. Everyone is immersed by different things and something you find immersive may active harm immersion for other players. I would actively be unimmersed if there's some shadow government that cannot be interacted with behind me doing nothing except for telling me that I can't do something.
If you want to roleplay as an authoritarian, please feel free to do so. I hope this game does a much better job of portraying why the government form worked for as long as it did and why it was so effective in a variety of forms.
I guess it's a mix. There has to gameplay otherwise you would just be watching a simulation wouldn't you. It also isn't really the player who decides which reforms "pass". It's the parliament (and maybe the leader will have some say). The player just get the magic push to say which ones are considered (and sometimes the pops will force their will as well).
The devs have literally said themselves that the player isn't playing as the government.
(In Vic2) The player has total control over which (if any) get passed. Parliament just gives the player permission on one of two lists. The player is completely able to ignore the reform button for the entire game if they wish, it'll just make the people very upset. The player doesn't have to confer with any body when it declares war, and there no body that's declaring war without the player's input.
The fact that one of the options for parliament is "appointed" and the fact that the player is the one that appoints the majority party in the upper house incontrovertibly demonstrates that the player has absorbed the role of the head of state (and other roles too).
The lines are obviously blurry as to exactly "who" the player is, but their role absolutely includes the head of state.
What do you mean by government of the nation instead of a government. What's the difference? If you are playing as the conservative government Russia, why in hell would you support soviets to overthrow you from your power and murder your families?
You're not playing as "the conservative government of Russia" you are playing as "the government of Russia". It doesn't matter if that government is conservatives, liberals, or pseudo-communists. When the peasants overthrow the government, you're just playing as the new one. If the government is one person, you're that person. If the military holds a coup, you're the new military government. Its not that much different than already existent government reforms (its just you choose to do one) or national formation.