• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Dev Diary #45 - Elections

16_9.jpg

Good evening and welcome once again to a Victoria 3 Development Diary! Today’s topic is elections. We’ll be covering the various laws that enable and affect voting, as well as the progression of Election Campaigns and how they affect political power in your country. We'll briefly be mentioning Political Parties in this dev diary, but they’re not the focus of this week - more on that next time! For now, I’ll just say that Political Parties in Victoria 3 exist in democracies and are made up of alliances of Interest Groups.

A country has Elections if it has any of the Distribution of Power laws that enable voting:
  • Landed Voting: Aristocrats, Capitalists, Clergymen, and Officers hold essentially all voting power, gaining a huge bonus to the Political Strength they contribute to their Interest Groups.
  • Wealth Voting: There is a Wealth Threshold that determines a pop’s eligibility to vote. Pops that can vote have more Political Strength.
  • Census Suffrage: The Wealth Threshold is significantly lower than in Wealth Voting. Literate pops contribute much more Political Strength to their Interest Groups.
  • Universal Suffrage: There is no Wealth Threshold for voting. Pop type and literacy do not grant additional Political Strength. Though of course a pop’s wealth will continue to contribute to their Political Strength, and Literacy will make pops more politically engaged.

Under the Wealth Voting Law, political power is held by the pops (and their Interest Groups) who can accumulate the most wealth, and largely denied entirely to the destitute. This naturally favors Aristocrats and the Landowners in more agricultural economies, while favoring Capitalists and the Industrialists in more industrialized economies.
votinglaws.png

All of these laws are compatible with any of the Governance Principles laws. A country with the Monarchy law for instance could be an absolute monarchy with no voting system at all, or it could have Universal Suffrage - likewise a Republic might very well be a presidential dictatorship. If you are so inclined, you could even create a Council Republic or Theocracy that uses Wealth Voting (though it would be bound to create some political conflict, to put it lightly).

There are three factors that, when applicable, will prevent pops from voting entirely:
  1. Discrimination. Discriminated pops cannot vote in Elections.
  2. Living in an Unincorporated State. Only pops living in Incorporated States can participate in Elections. Pops living in, for example, a growing colony cannot vote.
  3. Politically Inactive pops do not vote, regardless of whether they are “legally” eligible. These pops are not part of any Interest Group, and tend to have low Literacy and/or Standard of Living. Peasants working in Subsistence Farms, for instance, are almost always Politically Inactive.

In 1913, suffragette Emily Davison was killed by the king’s horse during a race. A passionate believer in her cause, she had been arrested repeatedly by the British government and force-fed while on hunger strikes.
suffrage.png

This is a good opportunity to talk about the women’s suffrage movement. In Victoria 3, passing the Women’s Suffrage Law will greatly increase both your Workforce Ratio and your Dependent Enfranchisement. This means that a greater proportion of pops will be eligible to work in Buildings, and a much greater proportion of Dependents will now count towards the voting power of their pop. There will be very little support among Interest Groups to pass this Law in 1836 however. After researching Feminism (or having the technology spread to your country), politicians will begin to appear with the Feminist ideology, which causes them to strongly approve of Women’s Suffrage and disapprove of less egalitarian laws. Once you research Political Agitation, the suffrage movement will begin in full force. The ‘Votes for Women’ Journal Entry will appear, and events will trigger from it that will give you the opportunity to grow or suppress the Political Movement. You can complete the Journal Entry by passing the Law and having your first Election Campaign with women eligible to vote; alternatively you can ignore or suppress the movement until it loses its momentum and withers away.

Why, you ask, would you want to suppress the suffrage movement? If you’re striving for an egalitarian society you certainly wouldn’t. But if instead you’re trying to preserve the aristocracy and maintain a conservative nation then not only will your ruling Interest Groups strongly disapprove of Women’s Suffrage but it will also be very harmful to their political power. Greater Dependent Enfranchisement inherently benefits larger pops more than smaller pops (especially under more egalitarian Laws like Universal Suffrage where wealth counts for less), and it is inevitable that there are vastly more Laborers, Machinists, and Farmers than there ever will be Aristocrats or Capitalists. Pops may begin to wonder why the Lower Strata, the largest class, does not simply eat the other two.

The Whigs took a catastrophic hit in the polls after I repeatedly fired a negative election event to test the system.
electioncampaign.png

Elections happen every 4 years in countries with voting laws. An Election Campaign begins 6 months prior to a country’s Election date. Each Political Party is assigned a Momentum value at the beginning of the Campaign, which is a measure of the success of their campaign and is a major factor in determining how many Votes they will garner on election day. During this campaign, Momentum will fluctuate for each of the running Political Parties and impact the final result. Since Parties, Leaders, and many other aspects of the political scene in your country are likely to have changed in the years since the previous election, the Momentum from previous elections does not carry over and is reset. Momentum can be affected by chance, events, and the Popularity of Interest Group Leaders.

The Tories’ success in the last election empowered the Landed Gentry, though the sheer wealth of their aristocratic supporters is still the largest contributor to their Political Strength under Great Britain’s Wealth Voting law.
electionvotespower.png

When the Election Campaign ends, the votes are in and the results are set in place until the next election. Interest Groups receive additional Political Strength from their party’s Votes, which will be a major factor determining your Legitimacy and therefore the effectiveness of your government. The actual makeup of your government is still up to you; just like the electoral systems of most modern countries, winning the popular vote does not automatically mean that a certain party or coalition of parties gets to form a government. But the post-election strength of your Interest Groups and their Party affiliations should be a major consideration, especially if you’re forming a minority government.

In Victoria 3, Elections can be a powerful force for political change but also a source of volatility. Dealing with (and if you’re so inclined, manipulating) Election results will be a major consideration when you form your governments. In this dev diary I’ve mentioned Political Parties, and we know you’re eager to hear more about them since the last time we communicated on the topic. You’ll be pleased to discover that in next week’s dev diary we’ll be covering our design for Political Parties in more detail, so watch this space!
 
  • 187Like
  • 48Love
  • 18
  • 7
  • 5
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
It's funny that you guys are using the electoral college as an argument for why it's reasonable that the loser of the popular vote can win the election by being put in government, when not only is there no electoral college in Vicky 3, there is no government. There's no upper or lower houses, there's no judicial branch, there's no federalism, there's no difference in laws between states with the sole exception of slavery--everything is abstracted to the point where we have no clue what the government actually looks like beyond who the president is and who the 'leaders' of each 'interest group' is.

You can't use a second instance of abstraction to defend the same abstraction. We're already at an abstract enough point where votes, IGs, parties, and laws do not actually represent any government mechanisms, they simply represent end results. Being able to decide who "really" won the election afterwards is insane because all the considerations are already factored in. Everything to do with internal management has been reduced to the clout of IG groups. You can't further reduce it to literally just player choice. At that point, none of the mechanics have any meaning at all. There isn't actually an election being simulated, there's a vague suggestion on what the devs might think would happen if maybe an election was called at this point but ultimately it's up to you to just dictatorially decide what happened. You're reaching a point of abstraction where we've completely left simulation behind and we're just playing a Sid Meier game, where "democracy" means +2 Trade Value in every city.

You are counting the abstraction twice in the same calculation. It's getting absurd. At this point I expect the next layer to be "Actually, the amount of votes an IG got don't actually represent the number of votes cast in the election", and after that "Actually, the interest groups in government don't actually represent the government at all."

As I keep pointing out. The abstraction doesn't just involve official power (the houses of parliament, the judicial branch, the executive branch), but also unofficial power (lobbying, bribery, cultural influence, entrenched bureaucracy...). The elections being rigged are already factored in the abstraction, among many other factors that's why abstraction is useful because the government is complicated. Interest group cloud doesn't literally mean the percentage of seats in parliament, it represents all the power in society at all levels, from the presidency to the presidency of your local chess club.

So what is the player doing when he chooses which IG are in the government? He chooses which interest groups successfully leverage the influence they have into controlling internal and external policies. Though I do grant you that this may be an abstraction too far, has there been any information on what is the actual difference between an interesting group in government and interest group outside of government which supports the government's policies?
 
  • 15
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Why is it hard coded that conservative groups will oppose women's suffrage? There were various points in 19th century France for example where conservatives favored women's suffrage and liberals opposed it, since women were perceived as more religious and so women voting was seen as an electoral boon for conservatives.
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Why is it hard coded that conservative groups will oppose women's suffrage? There were various points in 19th century France for example where conservatives favored women's suffrage and liberals opposed it, since women were perceived as more religious and so women voting was seen as an electoral boon for conservatives.

The policy support of IGs will differ from country to country and may change over the course of the game.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
As I keep pointing out. The abstraction doesn't just involve official power (the houses of parliament, the judicial branch, the executive branch), but also unofficial power (lobbying, bribery, cultural influence, entrenched bureaucracy...). The elections being rigged are already factored in the abstraction
Yes, exactly, which is why it's absolutely batty to add YET ANOTHER layer of abstraction where the player gets to arbitrarily decide which IG's are in power with the excuse of modelling these EXACT SAME THINGS that have already been factored in.
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The devs diary explicitly says women's suffrage will be opposed by aristocrats and other conservative IGs.

It is likely that the conservative IGs in any particular country will be opposed to it, but this differs from country to country and can change throughout the game, every country's IGs are different.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It's funny that you guys are using the electoral college as an argument for why it's reasonable that the loser of the popular vote can win the election by being put in government, when not only is there no electoral college in Vicky 3, there is no government. There's no upper or lower houses, there's no judicial branch, there's no federalism, there's no difference in laws between states with the sole exception of slavery--everything is abstracted to the point where we have no clue what the government actually looks like beyond who the president is and who the 'leaders' of each 'interest group' is.

You can't use a second instance of abstraction to defend the same abstraction. We're already at an abstract enough point where votes, IGs, parties, and laws do not actually represent any government mechanisms, they simply represent end results. Being able to decide who "really" won the election afterwards is insane because all the considerations are already factored in. Everything to do with internal management has been reduced to the clout of IG groups. You can't further reduce it to literally just player choice. At that point, none of the mechanics have any meaning at all. There isn't actually an election being simulated, there's a vague suggestion on what the devs might think would happen if maybe an election was called at this point but ultimately it's up to you to just dictatorially decide what happened. You're reaching a point of abstraction where we've completely left simulation behind and we're just playing a Sid Meier game, where "democracy" means +2 Trade Value in every city.

You are counting the abstraction twice in the same calculation. It's getting absurd. At this point I expect the next layer to be "Actually, the amount of votes an IG got don't actually represent the number of votes cast in the election", and after that "Actually, the interest groups in government don't actually represent the government at all."
If this is the case, it feels like it'd make more sense for the game to do away with elections all together and have the IG clout vary dynamically over time and the government coalitions require a certain sum level of clout to avoid legitimacy penalties, determined by how democratic the laws of the nation are. Then we'd have the level of abstraction the devs seem to want without the cognitive dissonance of "elections" that arbitrarily happen every four years and don't really represent the actual mechanics of government.

Regardless, it feels like we need more info on how governments and ministers actually work in the game, and tie in to interest groups.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes, exactly, which is why it's absolutely batty to add YET ANOTHER layer of abstraction where the player gets to arbitrarily decide which IG's are in power with the excuse of modelling these EXACT SAME THINGS that have already been factored in.

Out of curiosity, how else would you decide it? Even if we assume that a majority of clout needs to be achieved, there will always be many different coalitions that could result from this.
 
Out of curiosity, how else would you decide it? Even if we assume that a majority of clout needs to be achieved, there will always be many different coalitions that could result from this.
A majority of clout needing to be achieved sounds like a good start. Then a coalition would likely need to be built, since it would be uninteresting and unlikely for any one IG to have 51% of the clout. There could be negotiations where, depending on the current laws of the country, the goals of the IGs, and how ideologically similar they are, a coalition of IGs could be built if they all agree to it. Depending on how tenuous the alliance is, they could each gain small disapproval of the government, like how they do if they're not in government at all.

At a certain point they would be unwilling to form a coalition at all; the Clergy and Trade Unions might ally if they both want to better the lot of the poor, but they might not ever do so if the Trade Unions are demanding state atheism and women's liberation and the Clergy are demanding poll taxes and a decrease in education standards. Maybe they would reach this point of unwillingness further if there's a different IG they'd like to be in a coalition with more.

Say, the Clergy, Intelligentsia, and Industrialists could ally together for 51% of the clout, because they all support higher education, more intensive bureaucracy, and are not currently holding ideologies that are entirely mutually exclusive. But none of them really like each other. Instead, the Clergy would prefer to ally with the Armed Forces, because they're currently also displaying the Pious ideology. The Clergy could get a -2 acceptance to any coalition that doesn't include the Armed Forces, and the Armed Forces are deeply opposed to allying with the Intelligentsia, so that will never happen. This pushes the Clergy out of being willing to accept a coalition with the Intelligentsia and Industrialists.

This is just off the top of my head, and could be expanded deeply and is likely flawed, and it doesn't account for the party system since I don't know enough about it, but the main point is that it doesn't treat the IGs as completely directionless puppets that are at the whim of player decision entirely, and it doesn't treat elections as mere suggestions.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Why is it hard coded that conservative groups will oppose women's suffrage?
Because they're opposed to everybody's suffrage?

and the government coalitions require a certain sum level of clout to avoid legitimacy penalties,
They do that. Specifically, the legitimacy of your IGs is low, you can't pass any laws. Also, the pops who have demands that aren't being met will probably radicalize faster because you can't (or won't) pass the laws they want.

Personally I think it would make sense to have a system with no (defined) elections and have IGs rise and fall according to their clout and events, but people would be apoplectic that PDX "removed" something even though, as we can clearly see, elections are a huge headache.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
A majority of clout needing to be achieved sounds like a good start. Then a coalition would likely need to be built, since it would be uninteresting and unlikely for any one IG to have 51% of the clout. There could be negotiations where, depending on the current laws of the country, the goals of the IGs, and how ideologically similar they are, a coalition of IGs could be built if they all agree to it. Depending on how tenuous the alliance is, they could each gain small disapproval of the government, like how they do if they're not in government at all.

At a certain point they would be unwilling to form a coalition at all; the Clergy and Trade Unions might ally if they both want to better the lot of the poor, but they might not ever do so if the Trade Unions are demanding state atheism and women's liberation and the Clergy are demanding poll taxes and a decrease in education standards. Maybe they would reach this point of unwillingness further if there's a different IG they'd like to be in a coalition with more.

Say, the Clergy, Intelligentsia, and Industrialists could ally together for 51% of the clout, because they all support higher education, more intensive bureaucracy, and are not currently holding ideologies that are entirely mutually exclusive. But none of them really like each other. Instead, the Clergy would prefer to ally with the Armed Forces, because they're currently also displaying the Pious ideology. The Clergy could get a -2 acceptance to any coalition that doesn't include the Armed Forces, and the Armed Forces are deeply opposed to allying with the Intelligentsia, so that will never happen. This pushes the Clergy out of being willing to accept a coalition with the Intelligentsia and Industrialists.

This is just off the top of my head, and could be expanded deeply and is likely flawed, and it doesn't account for the party system since I don't know enough about it, but the main point is that it doesn't treat the IGs as completely directionless puppets that are at the whim of player decision entirely, and it doesn't treat elections as mere suggestions.

Right, so the player has to facilitate negotiations between the interest groups he wants in power, or does all of this happen automatically? Your issue doesn't seem to be with the abstraction of political power and clout, but rather the abstraction of the negotiation and coalition building, which is something that can also happen informally (you can have a country run by the military and the devout without any formal negotiation by the non-existent official leadership of these groups). So what's wrong with abstracting which coalition ultimately prevails and putting it into the player's hands? It seems to be the main lever through which the player is supposed to influence the makeup of the ruling regime.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Right, so the player has to facilitate negotiations between the interest groups he wants in power, or does all of this happen automatically?
Ideally the player has to facilitate it by interacting with the IGs and balancing their desires, instead of unilaterally deciding things and having the entirety of the country haplessly pulled along.
Your issue doesn't seem to be with the abstraction of political power and clout
My issue is that the first layer of abstraction, "Interest Groups accumulate Political Clout based on how much influence they have over the nation", is overruled by the next layer of abstraction, "The IGs have no say in what the end result of the government is"
but rather the abstraction of the negotiation and coalition building,
there is no abstraction of negotiation and coalition building. That's the problem. There's no negotiation. There's no election. There isn't even really a coalition. The player just chooses what he thinks is best, and if he's a roleplayer, has to come up with the negotiation and coalition building in his head. The IGs and POPs have no proactive power, will not veto things that are obviously against their interests when by all rights they should have the power, and they don't have opinions on each other.

The IGs cannot say "I will never ally with my diametrical opposite", the only issue after the fact is that you can't satisfy both of their law requests fully. They won't even note that they're in government with their diametrical opposite, they'll only note how the player is fulfilling their needs.

The IGs cannot say "I will rig this election in my favor" or "Overwhelming popular support means I must be in government", they can only have an abstract amount of political clout which represents this, which is then abstracted away again by the fact that the player is the one who decides the outcome of every election.

The IGs cannot even say "I want to build a coalition with this IG and not the other one", because as far as we've been shown, they have no opinion on who else is in the government. They only have an opinion on whether they are in the government, their standard of living, and what laws have been enacted.

The layers of abstraction are colliding with each other, and at points do not even exist because nothing is even modeled by the game at all. Where there could have been an abstraction, there's nothing but players roleplaying, and where there are abstractions, they either overwrite each other, or are overwritten by the player.

The system is fighting itself and cannot accurately simulate elections. The only saving grace anyone has been able to prop up for it is "Well, I can imagine there was a better system instead while I'm playing." That's the problem.

And it only furthers the concern that it seems ridiculously easy to restructure your society however you want (I.E. instant socialist utopia canada AAR). I've thusfar not complained about that much, because it seems like balancing issues that obviously are going to exist in the beta AARs and will almost certainly be patched later, but this is not a balancing issue, this is a game design issue.
 
Last edited:
  • 12
  • 5
Reactions:
Normally, when kicking an Interest Group (or a Party, along with all its Interest Groups) out of government, it gains a bunch of Radicals who are displeased with being removed from power. Just after an election, this penalty is revoked for a single reformation of the player's government, incentivizing using this opportunity to optimize Legitimacy in light of these new election results.
Okay, but if say a party has an outright majority, or even did better than the previous election, surely they shouldn't appreciate being kicked out? Is that just modeled by the legitimacy of the government?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
My issue is that the first layer of abstraction, "Interest Groups accumulate Political Clout based on how much influence they have over the nation", is overruled by the next layer of abstraction, "The IGs have no say in what the end result of the government is"

They do though? That's what the legitimacy mechanic is for, isn't it?
there is no abstraction of negotiation and coalition building. That's the problem. There's no negotiation. There's no election. There isn't even really a coalition. The player just chooses what he thinks is best, and if he's a roleplayer, has to come up with the negotiation and coalition building in his head. The IGs and POPs have no proactive power, will not veto things that are obviously against their interests when by all rights they should have the power, and they don't have opinions on each other.

The player picking IS the abstraction. In any given country there will be at least half-a-dozen different possible coalitions, and which one wins is determined by the player.
The IGs cannot say "I will never ally with my diametrical opposite", the only issue after the fact is that you can't satisfy both of their law requests fully. They won't even note that they're in government with their diametrical opposite, they'll only note how the player is fulfilling their needs.

If the player can satisfy both coalition partners then I'd say by definition the coalition is feasible. This is the equivalent of playing HoI4 and complaining that as the USSR you can disband your entire army and let the Germans conquer you, arguing that the Soviet general staff and the Communist party would not allow even Stalin to do that. That is true but... what's the point? Why would the player disband their entire army in a war game? Why would the player build a purposefully dysfunctional coalition in a political/society game?

The IGs cannot say "I will rig this election in my favor" or "Overwhelming popular support means I must be in government", they can only have an abstract amount of political clout which represents this, which is then abstracted away again by the fact that the player is the one who decides the outcome of every election.

The election victory is abstracted, among many other factors that determine how powerful an IG is. As a note, I would object to the word "government" here, more accurate description would be "regime." Winning an election might have absolutely nothing to do with being part of the ruling regime.

I do not believe the abstraction of "political clout" and the abstraction of "being (or not) a part of the ruling regime" collide with each other. One represents total influence in society, the other represents the ability to successfully utilise that influence to seize control over the instruments of government.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Why would the player build a purposefully dysfunctional coalition in a political/society game?
Accelerationism is a perfectly valid gameplay style ;)
 
  • 3Haha
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You're reaching a point of abstraction where we've completely left simulation behind and we're just playing a Sid Meier game, where "democracy" means +2 Trade Value in every city.

Well said. It bugs me that there is no real gameplay difference between democracies and monarchies. In both player have absolute power and assign interest groups to the government. Only difference is some numbers in political strenght after election.

Its the same game design like in economy. There is also no gameplay difference between playing with liberal economic laws and planned economy. Player decides all - only difference is within some modifiers to buildings or having extra pool of money from capitalist investments.
 
  • 11
  • 6
Reactions:
They do though? That's what the legitimacy mechanic is for, isn't it?
We technically don't know what the legitimacy mechanic does in full. I would assume it has an effect on radicalization, but the only thing I can recall it explicitly doing is affecting the passage of laws.

Either way it's besides the point. Even if the legitimacy debuff makes it so that the government isn't very viable, this doesn't change the fact that they aren't vetoing the player's decision, they're going along with it and then immediately turning around and saying "Wait, why did we do that?! This is worth starting a civil war over!", which is hilariously stupid. There should never be a point where the IGs agree to do something that will instantly make them unhappy to the point of unviability. That's...kind of the point of them being Interest Groups; to affect change to better their interests. This is literally the exact opposite of what they exist to do.
The player picking IS the abstraction. In any given country there will be at least half-a-dozen different possible coalitions, and which one wins is determined by the player.
It's not abstracting anything, because as I've said, there's nothing there. The player picking IGs isn't representing anything other than the player picking IGs. There are no negotiations.
If the player can satisfy both coalition partners then I'd say by definition the coalition is feasible.
Obviously you can't satisfy both coalition members if you have the state atheist soviets making a coalition with the theocratic clergy. It's so obvious, in fact, that the IGs should know this, and refuse to partner together. That's why they should note each other, and understand that this government is not going to work, rather than just blindly be lead by the player into a dark room full of rakes going "Oh boy! That election was so fun, I'm glad we built that coalition!"
but... what's the point?
What? What's the point of IGs having some sort of agency? What's the point of IGs being able to evaluate each other and react to the growing influence or changing ideologies of their peers? Gee I dunno, you got me there man.
Why would the player build a purposefully dysfunctional coalition in a political/society game?
If there's anything to be learned from Victoria 2, it's that temporarily making your society dysfunctional in order to further some other goal is a valid playstyle. Also, y'know, maybe the AI shouldn't be building up the Soviet Vatican Coalition. There's an entire world out there that the player won't be controlling elections for, after all
I do not believe the abstraction of "political clout" and the abstraction of "being (or not) a part of the ruling regime" collide with each other. One represents total influence in society, the other represents the ability to successfully utilise that influence to seize control over the instruments of government.
I seriously don't understand why you're trying to justify why having great amounts of political power should not translate into having great amounts of political power.
 
  • 9
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Either way it's besides the point. Even if the legitimacy debuff makes it so that the government isn't very viable, this doesn't change the fact that they aren't vetoing the player's decision, they're going along with it and then immediately turning around and saying "Wait, why did we do that?! This is worth starting a civil war over!", which is hilariously stupid. There should never be a point where the IGs agree to do something that will instantly make them unhappy to the point of unviability. That's...kind of the point of them being Interest Groups; to affect change to better their interests. This is literally the exact opposite of what they exist to do..

Again, why isn't the general staff vetoing your bad infantry division template in Hoi4?

It's not abstracting anything, because as I've said, there's nothing there. The player picking IGs isn't representing anything other than the player picking IGs. There are no negotiations.

The negotiations and power plays that determine which interest groups run the country is abstracted by the player picking the ruling coalition out of all the possible coalitions, this is not hard to understand.
Obviously you can't satisfy both coalition members if you have the state atheist soviets making a coalition with the theocratic clergy. It's so obvious, in fact, that the IGs should know this, and refuse to partner together. That's why they should note each other, and understand that this government is not going to work, rather than just blindly be lead by the player into a dark room full of rakes going "Oh boy! That election was so fun, I'm glad we built that coalition!"

Again, your general staff in Hoi4 should know disbanding your army is a bad idea. Your advisors in EU4 should know that taking 1000 loans and immediately defaulting, followed by a declaration of war against the Ottomans is a bad idea, yet you are not prevented from making these choices. You should be able to make bad choices in-game unless you want the game to play itself. If the coalition is utterly unforeseeable then unrest is going to skyrocket and your country is going to fall into a civil war. If the coalition of the Soviets and the Clergy turns out to be functional, then that is a fair enough decision (there have been strange bedfellows in politics).

What? What's the point of IGs having some sort of agency? What's the point of IGs being able to evaluate each other and react to the growing influence or changing ideologies of their peers? Gee I dunno, you got me there man.

If there's anything to be learned from Victoria 2, it's that temporarily making your society dysfunctional in order to further some other goal is a valid playstyle. Also, y'know, maybe the AI shouldn't be building up the Soviet Vatican Coalition. There's an entire world out there that the player won't be controlling elections for, after all

Do you want the game to play itself?
I seriously don't understand why you're trying to justify why having great amounts of political power should not translate into having great amounts of political power.

So... should we do away with the "IGs in government" mechanic entirely and just have the clout be the % of controlling the government? What are you even trying to argue? No, clout and political influence don't necessarily always translate into getting your way, though interest groups outside of your government can still prevent or facilitate the passage of laws, so they still have some power, but they are not a part of the ruling regime, but they still have some power. Surely this is not that weird?
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
, among many other factors that's why abstraction is useful because the government is complicated.
I think this is what most people here need to internalize. The whole point of an abstraction is to be able to represent the totality of a system. If one tried to simulate the election system perfectly you would need to calculate the parliament, the ministers, the lobbyist, etc etc. Of course this is pretty much impossible so what is usually done is to simulate the most visible aspect (say, the parliaments and the head of government) and pretend they represent the whole of the system. This is how it is done in Vic2, for instance. But even though this can appear more faithful (and certainly more flavorful) that is not actually that good of a simulation as it omits a lot of what goes on behind curtains.

The interest groups aren't just parties. You, as the player (not the king, not the president, the player) choosing what IGs are part of your government doesn't represent you literally deciding who is elected to the parliament or whatever. It, instead, represents which social forces in your country yield the most influence behind the government. That represent elected officials, sure, but also the ministers that compose the cabinet or powerful lobbyists. If the most voted parties aren't part of the government what this represents is not that their elected officials don't exist, but rather that they can't get their agenda through and instead other groups have prevalence (and, suitably, the government is not seem as legitimate)

With that being said, I am curious about how the head of the government character is chosen. That is not really an abstracted system. They supposedly literally represent the president or whoever right? As such it would be weird if they aren't decided by the election directly, depending on the system. Like, in a presidential system such as the US, the president should always be from the most voted party. Even if, for whatever reason, the government is formed from the loosing parties, the president should be the most voted.
 
  • 7Like
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I think this is what most people here need to internalize. The whole point of an abstraction is to be able to represent the totality of a system. If one tried to simulate the election system perfectly you would need to calculate the parliament, the ministers, the lobbyist, etc etc. Of course this is pretty much impossible so what is usually done is to simulate the most visible aspect (say, the parliaments and the head of government) and pretend they represent the whole of the system. This is how it is done in Vic2, for instance. But even though this can appear more faithful (and certainly more flavorful) that is not actually that good of a simulation as it omits a lot of what goes on behind curtains.

The interest groups aren't just parties. You, as the player (not the king, not the president, the player) choosing what IGs are part of your government doesn't represent you literally deciding who is elected to the parliament or whatever. It, instead, represents which social forces in your country yield the most influence behind the government. That represent elected officials, sure, but also the ministers that compose the cabinet or powerful lobbyists. If the most voted parties aren't part of the government what this represents is not that their elected officials don't exist, but rather that they can't get their agenda through and instead other groups have prevalence (and, suitably, the government is not seem as legitimate)

With that being said, I am curious about how the head of the government character is chosen. That is not really an abstracted system. They supposedly literally represent the president or whoever right? As such it would be weird if they aren't decided by the election directly, depending on the system. Like, in a presidential system such as the US, the president should always be from the most voted party. Even if, for whatever reason, the government is formed from the loosing parties, the president should be the most voted.

I admit that I might have had a head start on internalising this, having lost faith in democracy a long time ago. But yes, all great points. It is also worth realising that much of interest group clout comes from other sources besides elections.

For example, we know from the Canadian AAR that you can reduce the influence of the military IG by disbanding your army (and conversely, building a massive, beautiful modern military would make the IG very powerful, even if they don't even have an official party, and even if the soldiers were barred from voting, as they were in interwar Czechoslovakia). The Papal state AAR shows that the Intelligentsia became more powerful when a university was built and opened, which makes sense. And this is also worth bearing into consideration, you could theoretically have a government composed entirely IGs who are not even running in the elections. You can imagine some sort of military-industrial complex running the country, irrespective of which set of civilian ministers happen to be legally in power.

Trying to represent the ins and outs of things like parliaments, the judiciary, the executive, voting systems, and term limits would make for a robust political system, that is true, but it would actually be less representative of how power actually functions in society.
 
  • 10
  • 3
Reactions: