Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #6 - Interest Groups

[wilcoxchar]

This should be represented by the VOTING system not by forcing the USA to have only two parties. That's what I meant. The Socialist and Progressive Party for exemple should exist but politically unimportant because of the voting system. Remember the election of 1912? The Progressive Party was WAY more important than the Republican Party during this election. Also the Populist Party was quiet strong and won in some states.

No it wasn't. The Republican Party ended the 1912-1913 elections with 45 Senators and 134 Representatives, while the Progressive Party ended it with 0 Senators and 10 Representatives. And the Populist Party got subsumed into the Democrats right as soon as they reached any sort of significance. Neither of those is a good example of the United States having any kind of multiparty system.

 

[Somberg]

No it wasn't. The Republican Party ended the 1912-1913 elections with 45 Senators and 134 Representatives, while the Progressive Party ended it with 0 Senators and 10 Representatives. And the Populist Party got subsumed into the Democrats right as soon as they reached any sort of significance. Neither of those is a good example of the United States having any kind of multiparty system.

Agreed, the Progressives weren’t really anything more than a vehicle for Teddy Roosevelt to screw over Taft. There’s a reason why they quickly folded back into the Republican Party come 1916. The Populists had their peak in 1892, after that point their relevance sharply declined. That’s why they ended up getting swallowed by the Democrats. All the issues they were running on Bryan ran on. In neither case did it ever result in the formation of a three party system.

 

[Thure]

No it wasn't. The Republican Party ended the 1912-1913 elections with 45 Senators and 134 Representatives, while the Progressive Party ended it with 0 Senators and 10 Representatives. And the Populist Party got subsumed into the Democrats right as soon as they reached any sort of significance. Neither of those is a good example of the United States having any kind of multiparty system.

Again.... why are yopu people confusing the voting system with the party system? There were multiple parties and some of them had the chance to become bigger and replace on of the other partries if things would have happened differently. The game should portrait the USA with multiple parties but only two of them should be politically important. The voting system should result in a two party system with smaller parties still around. The game should not force the usa to have only two parties at all. There is and was no law which disallowed more than two parties to exist. There only is a voting law which results that other parties are unimportant.

 

[Earmuffs]

I suspect that “no schools” means no state funding for schools, and “religious schools” means the government pays for the state religion to run schools. Nobody was proposing to literally outlaw all schools, like Boko Haram would in the early 21st century. There presumably must be some kind of private seminaries and trade schools to train some kinds of pops. If so, the names of the policies are misleading.

Ohh true, in the context of government funding. That makes sense.

 

[Alpha2518]

Again.... why are yopu people confusing the voting system with the party system? There were multiple parties and some of them had the chance to become bigger and replace on of the other partries if things would have happened differently. The game should portrait the USA with multiple parties but only two of them should be politically important. The voting system should result in a two party system with smaller parties still around. The game should not force the usa to have only two parties at all. There is and was no law which disallowed more than two parties to exist. There only is a voting law which results that other parties are unimportant.

Because for all practical purposes it is a two party system. Sure you can have all these smaller parties. The reality is it doesn't matter because it might as well be a two party system. Just as for example if you have one dominant party and tens of smaller parties, none of the smaller parties ever matter as it is effectively a one party system. To keep pointing out that it's not two or one party by law is semantics at that point as the real world effect is what matters because until you actually have a viable third and second party in these examples. they are de facto two and one party systems with the smaller parties just living in the system, but not being able to do anything beyond say a local level at worst or a state/provincial level at best

 

[BrotherJonathan]

Intially I was a little skeptical of this new system, like I think many of us were. Now I can see why they want to do this instead of keeping the old fixed parties and ideologies from previous games. This system is way more flexible, and allows better representation of politics in uncivs (which didn't really have parties IRL), as well as countries like the United States which tended to have large, "floating" parties that encompassed mutliple interest groups. This is as opposed to the old party system, which was only really good for representing European-style multi-party parliamentary systems.

 

[dav77-b]

(Modding) Is it possible to add/remove/change interest groups during the game via events?

 

[Comrade_Winter]

I am wondering how many people just saw the mention of parties in the DD and immediately started clapping because they like parties, because a lot of the commentary praising or defending their plans for parties don't seem to have a lot to do with what they intend to do. There is a lot of talk about things like first past the post etc. that doesn't seem to have anything to do with what they have in mind.

I am agnostic on whether parties are good or needed, but what they have in mind seems to be unneeded. From what we know from the DD, interest groups can group together to form a party if they have shared interests. That's it. Now that leaves a lot of room for detail, but as is, this seems tacked on and pointless. What's the difference if two or more interest groups with shared interests are in a party, as opposed to separate interest groups that push for the same interests. If they oppose you for disregarding their interests, you will get the drawbacks associated with them, if they support you for embracing their interests, they will give you bonuses each. This will happen whether or not they are labeled as "the same party".

Seems like this only adds a layer of complication into the game that doesn't change any of the political interactions. Furthermore, I am worried how that may look. If my landowners and clergy ally to form a conservative party but all the remaining interest groups decide to be on their own, does that mean that there is just a standalone conservative party but no other parties? Things like this would break my immersion more than aid it.

If you want to introduce political parties into the system, I would put them between the voters and interest groups, instead of above interest groups. That makes a lot more sense to me. Right now the mechanics seems to be that interest groups receive political power from pops, which determines their clout. Part of the political power (but not all) comes from the vote.

If democratic societies have parties, the power of the vote should first go to the parties, who then use this power to support the interests of particular interest groups. They could be a means by which the power of the vote is bundled and then split between IGs based on the party interests (which would be subject to the same baseline inclinations and circumstantial factors). If your political system has no elections, we don't have parties, because there is no voter power to relay to interest groups.

Isn't being unhappy with the British political system the most British thing to do anyway?

Not to be dramatic but literally every English speaking person online knows how the American political system works.

These are my fears.

Political parties shall be a thing by themselves, i hardly can believe that simplify the game is the only way to push forward the politic aspect meanwhile economy and army still have their depth.

I'm asking myself how can interest group represent the whole political active population? How we can say that all the political active aristocrats think the same? How is possible that all "The rural folks" have the same idea to fix their situation? How can interest groups represent different minorities and religious groups?

You can have interest groups like democracy 3/4 and then having them may make sense, but actually i see 3/5 interesent groups and i don't see how these can form up parties. The tendencies to simplify the game thinking the players are not able to handle it make me very sad, considering how much i played vic2.

Banding togheter interest groups can form a political party? Can you imagine the whole rural folks banding togheter into the conservative party? How can this make sense?

Or maybe you will have some rural folks support socialist and some the conservatives so you will need the socialist rural folks and the conservatives one? And you know by their ideology what they want to do and how they want to fix their problem, not because they are "rural folks". YOu know, politics is born cause of this, cause the way to face the problems are many and people who come from the same class, economic situation and religion may want to fix the problems in differents ways.

So that is why we have socialists, conservatives, liberals...But no, actually this game say we just need the lobby groups and farmers thinks all the same, aristocrats thinks all the same and clergy thinks all the same and they all togheter push for the same reforms.

All the Anglican church priests don't want public schools, but just religious schools. It's ridicolous.

 

[adil3tr]

How exactly does history "actually work"? Do you think popular charismatic leaders have zero influence on the course of history? Just read about any leadership struggle in any significant political movement and realize how close the race is every time and how different the movement would have been had someone else come on top. I mean, I get the whole "realistic simulation" thing, nobody can just waltz into American politics and turn the USA into a monarchy in a few years, but some random figure like Stalin can definitely intrigue his way on top of a party, decimating more experienced, popular and powerful candidates to become its leader and changing the course of the country in a major way.

That's not the same thing. This isn't about which faction or leaders of the communist party, this is about a randomly generated leader of an interest group having a random ideology. Also, no I don't think Stalin is a great man of history, he was pretty representative of a social layer of people that was emerging in the soviet union and wasn't being addressed. He's a bad example. Not saying he's good or anything, but to say he was a single wid card or turned everything 180 degrees on his own doesn't make a ton of sense.

 

[adil3tr]

To try to address a couple of other questions all at once: Interest Groups only represents the "conventional" political forces in your country, those who could at least be marginally heard in the halls of power. While they can rebel against the government if they dislike where the country is going, not all rebellious forces in your country are represented by Interest Groups. So in the case of cultural nationalists / secessionists, minority religious groups, colonial subjects, and other Pops who are systemically disenfranchised in the country, there are other (usually more direct) ways in which they can influence you.

This sounds like they won't be simulated polticially in much depth, and will instead be just an unrest system like in EU.

 

[Baneslave]

But no, actually this game say we just need the lobby groups and farmers thinks all the same, aristocrats thinks all the same and clergy thinks all the same and they all togheter push for the same reforms.

...did you actually read the dev diary?

They clearly said that single Pop can support multiple different types of Interest Groups. It can even be seen in the screenshots.

 

[Comrade_Winter]

...did you actually read the dev diary?

They clearly said that single Pop can support multiple different types of Interest Groups. It can even be seen in the screenshots.

Ehrm... yes, i've read the dev diary. It say one pop can support more interest group, but the problem remain. Cause the way they handle problem is just to simplify everything and can't be accurate as a political party.

So you have a priest wich support anglican church and rural folks. So he is supporting automatically religious schools and.. I don't know... "public land" for the farmers.

But this is not even near to something in that work in the world.

It's not like the individuals are forged all by the class, the job they do, there are a numbers of factors that have just been oversimplified cause the developers didn't even think about political parties until the players make them note the "little problem" to make a social-political-economic simulation without political parties.

Political parties are needed to catch what the pops want, not the interest groups. How an interest group can catch a liberal farmer that want public schools, free market and political representation? With a political parties. How you shall represent him with the actual interest group? I don't know? Maybe you got a rural folks + intelligentia (very funny)+ petite burgoiese? Imagine just to represent the petite burgoiese wich had so many different ideas cause they were a group of very diverse people. Imagine represent the army interest group when you have conscription enabled.

The political parties never got support from a whole interest group. Imagine elections in Britain where conservatives got elected cause "rural folks" interest group supported them. How can happen? What about the political active socialist rural folks? Conservative and socialist rural folks have some similar ideas, but they want to do many thing differently.

To make the political part of this game not a joke we will need a lot of modifications or maybe we will need to pay for a DLC to give paradox some more money.

 

[Baneslave]

Political parties are needed to catch what the pops want, not the interest groups. How an interest group can catch a liberal farmer that want public schools, free market and political representation? With a political parties. How you shall represent him with the actual interest group? I don't know?

By spreading Pop's Interest Group support among Interest Groups who support those issues?

To quote developer:

While each individual within a Pop is considered to support a single Interest Group in this tooltip, functionally there's no difference between 150 people in a 1000-strong Aristocrat Pop giving all their support to the Anglicans and all 1000 individuals providing 15% of their Political Strength to the Anglicans. You can look at it however you like.

 

[Comrade_Winter]

By spreading Pop's Interest Group support among Interest Groups who support those issues?

To quote developer:

You know it don't have much sense right? It's like to treat interest groups like if they were political parties wich a precise code.

So i'm a field worker and to get my view taken care of i've to support intelligentsia ( wich i will never meet in my life), rural folks interest groups and industrialist.

How much it was easier if i signed ( as they have really done in real life) to the socialist party or the conservative one that represent most of my views?

It were the political parties wich brought to the masses the way to be active into the politics, it wasn't the interest groups.

And then you have another problem. The pops can support more interest groups... But the interest groups act in this game like if they are political parties with a political agenda: the rural folks interest group want "free land". How can you get the boss of "the rural folks interest groups" It something that ever existed in history? Who is the boss of the petite burgoise? THe most petite of the burgoeise?

How an interest group is organized? They have offices all around the country? "Man i'm going to the rural folks office cause i want free land" and the other "It's ok, let's go to the rural folks office"

It's ok if you want to defend at all costs devs, no problem.

I think the political part of this game will be broken because the developer want to simplify the game so much that this is what we got.

 

[Samitte]

Can you get ethnic/cultural IGs? Hungarians in Austria, for example.

 

[BeauNiddle]

(Modding) Is it possible to add/remove/change interest groups during the game via events?

They talked about technology changing the attraction of interest groups.

So in the early game the Socialist interest group is minor and has little to no affect on the game but then you research the tech that gives +50% attraction (or whatever) to the socialist interest group and suddenly it starts becoming a major force in the political arena.

That mostly does what you want I think.

 

[Baneslave]

You know it don't have much sense right? It's like to treat interest groups like if they were political parties wich a precise code.

And you are treating political parties as if they don't have internal interest groups, and aren't formed when interest group(s) form up as political coalition. And treat political parties as if they had some precise, unchanging code that they follow.

It were the political parties wich brought to the masses the way to be active into the politics, it wasn't the interest groups.

I have to disagree. Most people (back then) did not vote based on some vague party ideology. They voted because theparty supported their views. Only later this morphed into party loyalties.

And then you have another problem. The pops can support more interest groups... But the interest groups act in this game like if they are political parties with a political agenda: the rural folks interest group want "free land". How can you get the boss of "the rural folks interest groups" It something that ever existed in history? Who is the boss of the petite burgoise? THe most petite of the burgoeise?

Most groups, formal or not, have notable characters who either lead or represent the internal tone of the group.

How an interest group is organized? They have offices all around the country? "Man i'm going to the rural folks office cause i want free land" and the other "It's ok, let's go to the rural folks office"

People who participate in political system advocate for things their Interest Group is interest through political parties, court factions, political candidates and other such things.

"I want to support [Interest of Rural Folk Interest Group] so I will vote [party X / wing Y of party X / candidate Z of party X]".

I think the political part of this game will be broken because the developer want to simplify the game so much that this is what we got.

I, on the other hand, find this much more realistic, historical and interesting than static parties of Victoria 2.

"60% of electorate wants Protectionism, State Capitalism and Moralism? Too bad, such party will never be formed nor will any party ever move towards fulfilling this niche."

 

[Ojodeaguila]

These are my fears.

Political parties shall be a thing by themselves, i hardly can believe that simplify the game is the only way to push forward the politic aspect meanwhile economy and army still have their depth.

I'm asking myself how can interest group represent the whole political active population? How we can say that all the political active aristocrats think the same? How is possible that all "The rural folks" have the same idea to fix their situation? How can interest groups represent different minorities and religious groups?

You can have interest groups like democracy 3/4 and then having them may make sense, but actually i see 3/5 interesent groups and i don't see how these can form up parties. The tendencies to simplify the game thinking the players are not able to handle it make me very sad, considering how much i played vic2.

Banding togheter interest groups can form a political party? Can you imagine the whole rural folks banding togheter into the conservative party? How can this make sense?

Or maybe you will have some rural folks support socialist and some the conservatives so you will need the socialist rural folks and the conservatives one? And you know by their ideology what they want to do and how they want to fix their problem, not because they are "rural folks". YOu know, politics is born cause of this, cause the way to face the problems are many and people who come from the same class, economic situation and religion may want to fix the problems in differents ways.

So that is why we have socialists, conservatives, liberals...But no, actually this game say we just need the lobby groups and farmers thinks all the same, aristocrats thinks all the same and clergy thinks all the same and they all togheter push for the same reforms.

All the Anglican church priests don't want public schools, but just religious schools. It's ridicolous.

Not all the aristocrats will join the same IG, like not all the priest will join the Anglican Church

 

[Comrade_Winter]

And you are treating political parties as if they don't have internal interest groups, and aren't formed when interest group(s) form up as political coalition. And treat political parties as if they had some precise, unchanging code that they follow.

They are called "factions" and are way different then "interest groups" made by theorically millions of people that don't rely over structures.

I have to disagree. Most people (back then) did not vote based on some vague party ideology. They voted because theparty supported their views. Only later this morphed into party loyalties.

Most groups, formal or not, have notable characters who either lead or represent the internal tone of the group.

Of course also now it's like that. Few people vote cause ideology: most people vote for interest and find the political party that have the most similar concepts. People don't go throught masonry today or interest group to brought thins forward as they never done it back then. It was the politics not imaginary people that ruled imaginary interest groups that never existed. Imagine the intelligentsia leader... How can you find the intelligentsia leader? Who elect him? It's quiet hilarious have to write about this also.

I, on the other hand, find this much more realistic, historical and interesting than static parties of Victoria 2.

"60% of electorate wants Protectionism, State Capitalism and Moralism? Too bad, such party will never be formed nor will any party ever move towards fulfilling this niche."

I agree with you that vic2 system was too streamlined, but the system they presented is just so much unrealistic. In Vic 2 everybody voted and everybody had an ideology, now we have strange "groups" that get people without having structure, without any basis and togheter just cause social positions. Something that can be represented much better with political parties AND interest groups.

I think i've explained myself well, nothing more to add.

So many people have suggested in this forum many way, many of them not difficult to apply.

It's sad to see such an opportunity to be wasted like this.

 

[grommile]

So many people have suggested in this forum many way, many of them not difficult to apply.

Oh, they're probably not very difficult to apply – but how difficult are they to apply correctly?