|
Thing thing about "liberals" in the 19th century is that they didn't give two craps about the peasantry or social rights or any of that useless crap, they just hated kings and religion and such. Also they liked money but that goes without saying.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
Pakled posted:Liberals being vehemently against social reforms is pretty accurate to the period, though. It gives liberials a base 50% support for social reforms, increasing by 5% for each 1 average militancy. Basically liberals alone will never support social reforms, but if there's a large enough base of socialists liberials will support reform without the mobs being at the gates, which I feel works better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:Yea, I always play Vicky 2 with a mod (Age of Politics) which makes the parties voting preferences make more sense (socalists support political reforms, liberals moderately support social reforms, and are more effected by militancy in if they will reform than conservatives - reactionaries never will) Got a link?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Liberals being vehemently against social reforms is pretty accurate to the period, though. Yeap. Liberals in the traditional sense are basically the republicans in terms of economic policy and some liberalism in terms of social policy. Small government, no interference with the workings of the free market, etc, personal freedom and individualism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Honestly, the socialists hating political reforms thing is so egregious I just changed it in both the base game and any mod I download. It's not very difficult, just go to Vicky 2/common, find ideologies.txt, and under the socialist header, change "add_political_reform = { base = 0" to "add_political_reform = { base = 1," getting rid of all the modifiers and such. I'm not sure if Hashim would want to do that halfway through it, but it makes a lot of sense to me. I keep liberals being unwilling to do social reforms without militancy, though. Also, as a quick aside, Hashim... As a person who reads a lot of Paradox LPs, yours is one of the best ones I've read. I get actually excited when I see a bunch of new posts and it's time for an update.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Got a link? https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/hod-age-of-politics.683799/
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
https://www.clickhole.com/5-weird-peasants-who-have-really-accepted-this-whole-w-1828037154 True stories from Al Andalus. This post was approved by the Moderate Party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
The Socialists are nuts; if they have their way, the peasants will have two poo poo buckets!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
I think this idea that all liberals in this period were opposed to social reforms is overstating things somewhat, the late 19th and early 20th centuries after socialism and communism started to take off is where the genesis of social liberalism begins. For example, in the UK, comprehensive state schooling, free school meals, unemployment benefits, worker health and safety laws, and compulsory health insurance partly funded by the state and employers were all measures introduced by the Liberal government elected in 1906. With support from the socialists in parliament, of course, but those sorts of coalitions just don't happen in Victoria. It definitely makes sense for early liberals to oppose social reforms, as this formed the nucleus of the disputes amongst the various rebel groups in things like the revolutions of 1848. But by the time communism comes along, liberals should become more willing to support social reforms as historically not all liberals were full on invisible handers any more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I think this idea that all liberals in this period were opposed to social reforms is overstating things somewhat, the late 19th and early 20th centuries after socialism and communism started to take off is where the genesis of social liberalism begins. For example, in the UK, comprehensive state schooling, free school meals, unemployment benefits, worker health and safety laws, and compulsory health insurance partly funded by the state and employers were all measures introduced by the Liberal government elected in 1906. With support from the socialists in parliament, of course, but those sorts of coalitions just don't happen in Victoria. Also, the last vote had the socialists grab second place. It was a very distant second place, but it still probably spooked some of the more flexible folks into calling for modest reforms, if only to make the lesser classes less susceptible to radical provocateurs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
Tbh if we can, I'd ask Hashim to mod in either the Socialists at 100% political reform support or 50% with increasing support as movements grow like that mod nothingtoseehere linked, because otherwise the Socialists and Liberals are gonna take a majority in the Upper House as the 20th century dawns but somehow keep us locked in an absolutist monarchy that hasn't changed since the 1700's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Tbh if we can, I'd ask Hashim to mod in either the Socialists at 100% political reform support or 50% with increasing support as movements grow like that mod nothingtoseehere linked, because otherwise the Socialists and Liberals are gonna take a majority in the Upper House as the 20th century dawns but somehow keep us locked in an absolutist monarchy that hasn't changed since the 1700's. Yes, this. Like I could see it argued that Socialists are not all in, as plenty could be skeptical of liberal democracy under a capitalist system but for them to just be a hundred percent against reforms unless a significant revolution was about to start is just dumb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
I would rather have there be clear trade-offs in the political parties instead of the Socialists becoming “Liberals but better.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:I would rather have there be clear trade-offs in the political parties instead of the Socialists becoming “Liberals but better.” ^^^
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
the socialist defense policy will be to arm every man and woman but because rifles are quickly becoming a minor player every household will have one artillery piece the family is required to keep in working order and train with and they though snipers in occupied territory were bad 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
We have fulfilled our nation's great ambition upon this earth: to gently caress Morocco. Suck it, Morocco.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:We have fulfilled our nation's great ambition upon this earth: to gently caress Morocco. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
Holy gently caress. Now to make sure we don't get dismantled. Again. I do like the idea of buddying up to Russia if we can, I'd rather have them clown car-ing our enemies instead of us. I actually don't mind leaving Narbuna, especially since it'll (hopefully) block an army coming from there if we ever decide to piss of Provence or Frangleterre stomps on them (please do not piss off Provence). Also, eat poo poo, Morocco.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:In terms of reforms Al-Andalus is a loving horrible place to live in compared to most of real Europe in the late 19th century, which is an offensively low bar. I just would like our factories to not be powered entirely by children working 16 hour days. Oh, absolutely. I’ll just rally against any attempt to implement full socialism because I feel it makes very little sense to go from decades of elitist rule, to socialists somehow achieving a full sweep of the house and then everyone voting socialist from then onwards. Also, have we ever even had a mass uprising that wasn’t nationalist or reactionary?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:I would rather have there be clear trade-offs in the political parties instead of the Socialists becoming “Liberals but better.” There are significant tradeoffs in foreign policy, defence policy, research/development goals, and how they'd react to events. Victoria's arbitrary and nonsensical mechanics aren't needed to make interesting tradeoffs, Hashim's meta layer is already very good at that. If anything lovely mechanics are just getting in the way, and we've ignored/modified others already to make the game better so I don't see why this should be different. And keep in mind that even if the thread votes 100% Socialist or 100% Liberal, that just affects who's in charge on the meta/narrative layer. The actual mechanical Upper House that determines reforms isn't affected by the thread, so we can't just magically vote in the Socialists and switch to Full Communism Now in the mechanics. Making it so Socialists support political reforms just makes it even possible in the first place for coalitions to pass some reforms, it doesn't magically change the country overnight. Like, Socialists and Liberals are probably never gonna get more than a 35-40% share of the Upper House each, which means if they won't support each others' reforms there will never be a majority and we will literally never pass any reforms ever, which has happened all game. We've passed exactly one reform, in the entire game, because of this. That's atrocious. The Socialists or Liberals have always been the largest single faction since like the 1860's, and have held a combined majority for multiple updates. But they absolutely refuse to work together for whatever reason, so we're still a reactionary monarchy that looks bad by 1686 standards much less 1886, and without some major change we will continue to be one into the 20th century just because of a dumb mechanic that makes no sense. That's not an interesting tradeoff, it's lovely game design from the Old Paradox era that we have no obligation to constrain ourselves with. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Aug 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
Definitely on board with the "mod in Socialist willingness to reluctantly cooperate with the Imperialists" request if feasible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
Morocco & Germany failed as hard in Victoria as they did at the World Cup... Russia also was unexpectedly good... MY GOD!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:There are significant tradeoffs in foreign policy, defence policy, research/development goals, and how they'd react to events. Victoria's arbitrary and nonsensical mechanics aren't needed to make interesting tradeoffs, Hashim's meta layer is already very good at that. If anything lovely mechanics are just getting in the way, and we've ignored/modified others already to make the game better so I don't see why this should be different. You're trying to make the game way too easy. If you want to pass reforms, your country needs to have a reason to want to reform. A #2 most powerful country in the world that defeats all comers, has a thriving economy, and successfully dominates global affairs has no pressure to want to change its course of affairs. Absolutely Hashim should not modify the game to change that and make it easier to pass political or social reforms. If you want health care or voting reform or legalized unions or anything else, your country needs to be broken by defeat in wars, economic collapse, and massive social unrest. Why else would anyone want to change course? Also, I'm 100% holding out for Al Andalus to remain a restrictive, coercive oligarchy run by the rich, for the rich, with Dickensian social life right until game end, and you're ruining it. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
I could see a reason for a further voting reform, the nation just fought a brutal war which probably saw over a million if not two million young men at arms, there could be a reform passed that gives the lower classes limited frnachise but it is based on only for those who served in the war. Older generations lose out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:I would rather have there be clear trade-offs in the political parties instead of the Socialists becoming “Liberals but better.” The Socialists wouldn't expand our colonial empire (or our borders at all), and they wouldn't be investing in the navy. These are pretty severe trade-offs if you cared about cutting off the hands of black people or building boats. Patter Song posted:You're trying to make the game way too easy. If you want to pass reforms, your country needs to have a reason to want to reform. A #2 most powerful country in the world that defeats all comers, has a thriving economy, and successfully dominates global affairs has no pressure to want to change its course of affairs. Absolutely Hashim should not modify the game to change that and make it easier to pass political or social reforms. If you want health care or voting reform or legalized unions or anything else, your country needs to be broken by defeat in wars, economic collapse, and massive social unrest. Why else would anyone want to change course? But it's a "thriving economy" for maybe 3-5% of the population. For everyone else, the options are to either become a peasant farmer or a industrial worker getting paid next to nothing for long hours in hazardous conditions. On top of that misery, there is a good chance of getting drafted and ending up as one of the many tens of thousands of dead soldiers killed in the massive hellwars that we apparently have every few decades. I personally don't know if I want us to change the rules after we have already started the game, but socialists logically should be 100% in favor of political reforms that expand democracy to people without wealth. Historically speaking, socialists were oftentimes the leading organizations that pushed for universal male suffrage, women's suffrage, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Morocco & Germany failed as hard in Victoria as they did at the World Cup... Quick, how did Spain do?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:You're trying to make the game way too easy. If you want to pass reforms, your country needs to have a reason to want to reform. A #2 most powerful country in the world that defeats all comers, has a thriving economy, and successfully dominates global affairs has no pressure to want to change its course of affairs. Absolutely Hashim should not modify the game to change that and make it easier to pass political or social reforms. If you want health care or voting reform or legalized unions or anything else, your country needs to be broken by defeat in wars, economic collapse, and massive social unrest. Why else would anyone want to change course? This is absolutely not historically true in all cases. A nation state is not it's people. That the elites are successful in pursuing their policy goals does not mean the common man is seeing the benefits of such.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:This is absolutely not historically true in all cases. A nation state is not it's people. That the elites are successful in pursuing their policy goals does not mean the common man is seeing the benefits of such. My point is that the politicians making decisions on reforms have little incentive for change right now. Our world-class military is totally capable of mowing down dissenters and protesters at home and has just fought three of the strongest militaries in the world to a standstill, and our economy dominates the globe. If the workers want to revolt, we will shoot them in the streets and move on. They have no pressure at the ballot box, and if they were to strike, we'd force them to work at gunpoint. Why on Earth would we change?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
I mean we still have 6 more years of this Imperialist term left, we've got plenty of time for more naval buildup (battleships aplenty and maybe dreadnaughts? I'm not sure when the unlock for them is), and possibly more political reforms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 06:32
|
|
|
Because our rulers have good hearts and want to maximize the well-being of everyone, even if it means they themselves will live slightly less comfortably. hahahahahahaha yeah right
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 06:33
|
|
|
The Bold Kobold posted:Quick, how did Spain do? we lost to russia in the round of 16... *cue ominous music*
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:My point is that the politicians making decisions on reforms have little incentive for change right now. Our world-class military is totally capable of mowing down dissenters and protesters at home and has just fought three of the strongest militaries in the world to a standstill, and our economy dominates the globe. If the workers want to revolt, we will shoot them in the streets and move on. They have no pressure at the ballot box, and if they were to strike, we'd force them to work at gunpoint. Go read about the Jacobin's and the ideas of natural law that they sincerely genuinely believed in. Human beings are not Efficiency Engines nor are they fully rational actors. They have beliefs, shaped by experiences, many of them personal and not political.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 06:42
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:My point is that the politicians making decisions on reforms have little incentive for change right now. Our world-class military is totally capable of mowing down dissenters and protesters at home and has just fought three of the strongest militaries in the world to a standstill, and our economy dominates the globe. If the workers want to revolt, we will shoot them in the streets and move on. They have no pressure at the ballot box, and if they were to strike, we'd force them to work at gunpoint. Bismarck gave ordinary industrial workers something of a national health insurance plan some years after successfully defeating France and unifying Germany. The German Empire was on the rise when he figured that the program was worth weakening the appeal of the social democrats in the country. Considering that we also opportunistically backstabbed this timeline's version of Napoleon, created a famously powerful military, used that military to aggressively expand our borders in the name of nationalism, and so on, Prussia is not a ridiculous parallel. Countries don't have to fall apart for the elites to make concessions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 06:51
|
|
|
Snipee posted:Bismarck gave ordinary industrial workers something of a national health insurance plan some years after successfully defeating France and unifying Germany. The German Empire was on the rise when he figured that the program was worth weakening the appeal of the social democrats in the country. Considering that we also opportunistically backstabbed this timeline's version of Napoleon, created a famously powerful military, used that military to aggressively expand our borders in the name of nationalism, and so on, Prussia is not a ridiculous parallel. Countries don't have to fall apart for the elites to make concessions. Yes, yes, but why should we make concessions when it's more profitable to continue exploiting people full-bore, exclude them from the political process, and shoot/jail/exile the malcontents? I see no benefit to Andalus to instituting pensions or workplace safety laws or minimum wages, and plenty of downside for our bottom line. Edit: And as a bonus, the most radical members of society are the pops that rebel, so shooting them lowers Militancy. Slaughtering one of those massive quarter million or half million uprisings ends up purging society of basically all the most troublesome elements so you can just cruise for another 5-10 years without worry afterwards because all the troublemakers are dead. Then you repeat. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Aug 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 06:56
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Yes, yes, but why should we make concessions when it's more profitable to continue exploiting people full-bore, exclude them from the political process, and shoot/jail/exile the malcontents? I see no benefit to Andalus to instituting pensions or workplace safety laws or minimum wages, and plenty of downside for our bottom line. I assume because paying the workers slightly better is more profitable than crushing them with an iron fist every couple years. The fact that Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Aug 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 07:00
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:I assume because paying the workers slightly better is more profitable than crushing them with an iron fist every couple years. It's less fun, though. If you exit V2 as something other than a reactionary Absolute Monarchy, it's basically admitting you're losing the game and bowing to pressure from your pops, IMO. You need to teach them that you're in charge, not them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 07:04
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Yes, yes, but why should we make concessions when it's more profitable to continue exploiting people full-bore, exclude them from the political process, and shoot/jail/exile the malcontents? I see no benefit to Andalus to instituting pensions or workplace safety laws or minimum wages, and plenty of downside for our bottom line. Imma be honest, this is getting a little weird/creepy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Imma be honest, this is getting a little weird/creepy. This is Victoria 2
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
The greatest lesson of Paradox games is that absolutism is the objective best way for any group system to operate but that incompetency, greed, and conflict among those capable of exercising such power make democracy/republicanism a necessary evil 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 07:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
Patter Song posted:My point is that the politicians making decisions on reforms have little incentive for change right now. Our world-class military is totally capable of mowing down dissenters and protesters at home and has just fought three of the strongest militaries in the world to a standstill, and our economy dominates the globe. If the workers want to revolt, we will shoot them in the streets and move on. They have no pressure at the ballot box, and if they were to strike, we'd force them to work at gunpoint. The problem is that liberals and socialists refusing to work together at all at this stage of political development is completely crazy (in spite of our voting franchise we have plenty of voters of both these categories which is fairly true to actual history). I don't know a huge amount about the history of socialism in every country but Germany and the UK both took different, logical paths towards a similar result (as of the early 20th century) based on electoral machinations in the former and reformism within parliament in the latter. Yes if you want to make everyone involved into a only-exists-in-economics-textbooks 100% self indulgent rational actor then you're right, why would the electorate of Al Andalus vote to effectively spend their own money on making the paups lives better? In the real world people have political beliefs that go against their personal interests.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 08:25
|
|
