On the topic of Interest Groups having previously had opinions on foreign policy such as wars with specific countries. As with all design cuts this was painful, but I stand behind the decision. Something like spawning a political movement to encourage a revanschist war against Spain, and have Interest Groups line up in support of opposition of that, could probably be okay (though would bring its own set of additional design issues to solve). But having one Interest Group intrinsically support or oppose a war with Spain, while another supports or opposes a war with France, while another cares a lot about Lucca for some reason - it just felt weird and gamey, and impossible for the player to predict and have any agency over. We know the Trade Unions will always want Progressive Taxes, and if we don't we can take many different steps to weaken them so they won't be a problem. But if the Trade Unions for some indiscernible reason wants you to take a Treaty Port in Ingria today, whereas yesterday they wanted you to force the Ottomans to end the slave trade, this doesn't mean anything to your gameplay other than making a decision to go along with the game's suggestions or not.
I do look forward to designing more interactions between politics and warfare in the future, but something like that would have to be a new feature, not shoehorned into the IG Ideology system. In the meantime, IGs still do care about laws which affect your foreign policy, of course.
