|
ROY-AL-ISTS! ROY-AL-ISTS! although i think we should pull a freedom fries and change the name to sultanists 
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
crimea posted:Plus we did all that work during the conference to get France to like us! Are the Majlis really so stupid as to throw that away at the drop of a hat? All that hard work earned us nothing but them snubbing us at the conference and then this war they dragged us into. And then they forced us to abandon our ally at their darkest hour. We shall deny them Africa for their transgressions against us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:All that hard work earned us nothing but them snubbing us at the conference and then this war they dragged us into. And then they forced us to abandon our ally at their darkest hour. That hard work also keeps the world's number one superpower that we share a border with from murdering us. AND lets us drag THEM into wars!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
Hashim posted:But duels were never outlawed to begin with We better not change either of these ever, especially since Castration Duels are currently all the rage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
I guess go Royalist this time, with the goal of reuniting Iberia and booting Morocco off the peninsula. Was debating between them and imperialists, but it seems like we're not quite ready economy-wise to go full imperialist. We actually did better against Morocco than I thought. With a bit more military build-up, we might be able to achieve our goal or reunification.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
Rodyle posted:AND lets us drag THEM into wars! You and I both know they'll ignore the call to arms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:You and I both know they'll ignore the call to arms. Possibly, but there's no reason to jettison them until they do, and again, "keeps the world's number one superpower that we share a border with from murdering us." Like let's not forget, once upon a time the number one threat to us was French hordes pouring over the Pyrenees, and that was when they were comparatively weaker and we stronger than we are now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
Where we’re going Mahdi, we don’t need railroads. Imperialists
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
Sticking with France for now is probably the best idea. Besides, we can always "accidentally" screw them over later. The SGF might make a fine choice for ally later, but at the moment is just not in a great position for globe-trotting hellwar. I think I'm going with the Royalists on this one, while the idea of screwing France over by blocking their colonisation targets sounds like a lot of fun, I'm very worried about LF.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 03:29
|
|
|
"Combined therapy" is just castration with surgical tools in the oubliette, isn't it....
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
gently caress this nonsense, going with Royalists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
Royalists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
Imperialists! We need a colony so the new royal line has somewhere to flee to when the revolution hits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
Imperialists. We can beat Morocco on land, but we want more than that. We want their colonies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
Royalists as long as the map of Iberia requires more than one colour, I will be eternally upset during my painting sessions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
Morrow posted:Imperialists. We can beat Morocco on land, but we want more than that. We want their colonies. we want those things that are constantly rebelling, serving as one of Morocco's main weaknesses and money sinks?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
Frionnel posted:Voting right now seems to be at: YOU CAN'T CUT BACK ON TRAIN FUNDING! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 05:30
|
|
|
Imperialists
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
It is funny to see voting swings as a microcosm of life
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
Clayren posted:I do quite like the idea of a moderate party overseeing 20 years of peaceful expansion and wealth but then immediately eating poo poo because it oversaw a victory over the main national rival but didn't gain as much as people wanted. It's the sort of thing historians will look back at and be like "actually the moderates were good and here's why: ... ". So Royalists, is what I'm saying. The fact that Al Andalus is ruled by a dynasty founded by a war hero and now has another war hero general means that people are probably really pro-military at the moment. The game actually models this in a way, there's a stat called jingoism which does various things relating to militancy and makes it cheaper to add war demands during an existing war. You gain jingoism by having unfulfilled war goals or by having unclaimed cores so we probably have quite a bit floating around at the moment. We just beat our biggest rival on land purely because they were way behind on tech, instead of making sure that we don't lose this extremely critical edge we're going to build lots of boats so we can go invade dumbfuckistan instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
So I never played Victoria and have little idea about how the economy works with the different populations, taxes, economic policies, etc. Just how bad is LF this early in the game? Is it a minor inconvenience like 20% less tax revenue or is it actually going to cripple our budding industrial revolution?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
You guys are going to undo all our hard work by having LF ruin everything and when that happens I will be supremely unhappy 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 07:48
|
|
|
Royalists. Let's bloody Morocco some more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 07:51
|
|
|
Seriously we need army tech to colonize anyway, and Laissez-fairre will destroy the economy we built. The Royalists are the best way forward until we reclaim Iberia. Once we do that then we can focus on your stupid boats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 08:11
|
|
|
Snipee posted:So I never played Victoria and have little idea about how the economy works with the different populations, taxes, economic policies, etc. Just how bad is LF this early in the game? Is it a minor inconvenience like 20% less tax revenue or is it actually going to cripple our budding industrial revolution? So what Laissez Faire does is A. Sets the cost for Capitalists (as in, the capitalist pops in our country) to open/expand a factory on their own to 1/4 of the current cost we have with our current policy of State Capitalism B. Disables the government's ability to open new factories and expand existing ones C. Disables state subsidies for factories (as in, the cost of salaries and input goods coming out of the state budget) B is bad because the AI is horrible at figuring out what factories are profitable and will never expand industry as much as a reasonably competent player will. C is bad because the invisible hand of the free market makes the prices of input goods fluctuate wildly, and most factories are just straight up not profitable if they aren't being subsidized by the government. A factory that can't make ends meet gets closed, which means most of the factories we've spent so long building would probably get shut down, causing massive unemployment among craftsmen and leaving us unable to do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 08:14
|
|
|
And then those craftsmen become rebels who then revolt and kill our soldier pops that we should be throwing at Morocco Or even worse our soldier Pops turn into rebels and kill other Soldiers while also ruining your perfect army composition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 08:18
|
|
|
Don't forget that Laissez Faire also caps our tax slider to 50% max, so we can't even emergency tax our unemployed population when we inevitably start bleeding money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 08:21
|
|
|
In conclusion LF sucks and any party that includes sucks by default as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 08:33
|
|
|
Pakled posted:So what Laissez Faire does is Wait, so why would anyone ever choose this policy? Is it viable when you have a big enough capitalist population? Is it ever advantageous?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 08:35
|
|
|
Snipee posted:Wait, so why would anyone ever choose this policy? Is it viable when you have a big enough capitalist population? Is it ever advantageous? It's sort of vaguely ok when you're a hegemon and have a strong industrial base, but no it's basicallly never the sensible choice. And it's fatal under many circumstances, which we may sadly be about to find out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
Snipee posted:Wait, so why would anyone ever choose this policy? Is it viable when you have a big enough capitalist population? Is it ever advantageous? It kinda works if you're already on the top of the mountain in economy and prestige, so basically if you're Britain in vanilla or Dual Monarchy in this here game. Also voting Royalists because we're not on the top of the mountain and if we're going to go for a dumb option we could at least go for the less dumb one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 08:41
|
|
|
Snipee posted:Wait, so why would anyone ever choose this policy? Is it viable when you have a big enough capitalist population? Is it ever advantageous? It's never advantageous. Theoretically, I think a highly-developed country with very rich capitalists is supposed to be able to weather the storm of all the factory closings through sheer numbers with capitalists opening factories super fast, but I've never seen capitalists under Laissez Faire expand industry as fast as a player does under State Capitalism. A highly developed country will be okay, but it's still sub-optimal compared to the player having more control of the economy. If you aren't roleplaying or otherwise intentionally handicapping yourself, you should avoid Laissez Faire like the plague. The funny thing is, Vicky 2's economy system was created by a hardcore libertarian, but his actual ideology ends up being the worst possible one for economic development  Also, the Interventionism policy of the Royalists means the player can't open new factories, but can expand and subsidize existing ones. So, not optimal for early economic development, but if you've got a good base of factories set up already, it's fine, and the subsidies mean you don't get the failure cascade Laissez Faire causes. Pakled fucked around with this message at 08:49 on Jul 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 08:45
|
|
|
laissez fair also gives a 5% bonus to factory output, so if you're leading with a ton of capitalists it can help you maintain that lead in basically every other situation (read, us right now) it ranges from "terrible" to "viable if you understand pop ai better than the games actual devs"
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 08:45
|
|
|
See that map? See how Iberia and Al-Andalus still aren't coterminous? Royalists will get poo poo done. And stay on good terms with perfidious Albion-Gallia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
Royalists it's coming home it's coming home Palermo's coming home
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
L-F is only really disastrous later in the game when you have a really large industrial base, as-is it might hurt us a bit but the benefit of getting commerce + naval techs should outweigh that. But by all means, let's go reactionary and eventually get ruined by rebels instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 09:30
|
|
|
Changing my vote from Imperialists to Royalists.Hitlers Gay Secret posted:gently caress FRANCE FOREVER Their little shitshow got us the Moroccans even further onto the peninsula. GenderSelectScreen fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Jul 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 09:40
|
|
|
Voting in a reactionary government can very well result in us backtracking social and political reforms and antagonizing rebels, which seems a bad idea as well. I'm voting less on an idea of what is optimal though and more what I think would result in more interesting play and priorities, because like with Palermo, the Sepoys, and soon the Scramble for Africa, I feel Al-Andalus will never be interesting as a continental power, and we'll only really be able to punch above our weight if we go for opportunities abroad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 09:46
|
|
|
So L-F is horrible, and Reactionaries will agitate our why-can't-you-just-be-soldiers populace. All I hear is that we have three options where only one is actually viable, except that the warhawks are so pleased with themselves that they think introducing the Third Taifa period will be worth it if we can just get our clay back. Not to mention more clay in several other locations. In short, if you don't want to ruin our country AGAIN you ought to vote Moderate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 10:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Imperialists
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 10:12
|
|
