• 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.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #81 - New Laws in 1.3

16_9.jpg

Hello. This is Victoria, also known as Pacifica, and today we will be going over the new laws added in 1.3.

By and large, these laws exist to grant an experience that allows for more “modern” forms of states, to represent the changing ideologies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and to represent some of the most contentious and important issues of the period - land reform, anti-clericalism, and more modernised systems of governance.

DD81_01.png

Land Reform​


One of the most important political issues within modernising nations was the matter of land reform. Whilst most European nations, by 1836, had abolished formal serfdom, they often still had tenant farming systems which gave landlords an immense amount of power over the peasantry. Within the period of Victoria 3, many political movements throughout developing nations explicitly sought to handle the issue of landlord power even after serfdom was formally abolished.

Under the new Land Reform law category, production methods pertaining to the rural economy have been decoupled from the Economic System law, instead being folded into this category. The ownership production methods available for farms and plantations will be determined through the player’s Land Reform laws.

Previously, the distinction between the system of serfdom and non-serfdom was extremely non-granular. Once serfdom was abolished, the player could safely ignore the issue of land reform for the entirety of the game, only touching this law category again if they wished to implement workers’ protections. With the new Land Reform law category, the issue of who owns land has been separated from the rights of workers, allowing for increased choice within both categories, and options for interesting political setups, such as a highly laissez-faire republic with a modern commercialised agriculture law and a total lack of workers’ rights, or a paternalistic monarchy that maintains serfdom, but considers protections for labourers to be an innate component of its social contract.

DD81_02.png

The new Land Reform laws represent a variety of land ownership schema, all of which play an important role in affecting the political strength of groups in your nation. Whilst Serfdom and Tenant Farmers greatly benefit the traditional landowning elites, the new Homesteading law both provides a base benefit to the political strength of the Rural Folk, and unlocks the new Homesteading production method, which cuts the proportion of Aristocrats in farms, whilst increasing the amount of Farmer jobs.

Pictured: A wheat farm in Russia with Serfdom active, versus a wheat farm in the USA with Homesteading active. The USA’s starting Homesteading law empowers the Rural Folk in the North, whilst the Southern plantations remain dominated by the Landowners.

DD81_03.png

Commercialised and Collectivised Agriculture, respectively, represent more “modern” systems of industrial agriculture, with commercialised agriculture treating land as private property and farming as a business like any other, unlocking the Publicly Traded production method. Collectivised agriculture, on the other hand, organises the land into plots worked by agricultural collectives. These collectives can either be owned by the workers themselves, or owned directly by the state, unlocking both the Workers’ Cooperative and Government Run production methods.

DD81_04.png

As laws that greatly affect the balance of power within nations, land reform is prone to sparking very contentious debate amongst the populace, as well as fierce resistance from those that have interests in the current system - but the opportunity granted to emerging classes by the prospect of land reform will serve as a boon to the player’s efforts to enact them.

DD81_05.png


DD81_06.png

State Atheism​


Many states within the time frame of Victoria 3 had politics that were dominated by differing attitudes towards religion. Nations such as Mexico, the Spanish Republic, and the socialist states of the early 20th century all practised strong anti-clerical politics, seeking to minimise the political influence of traditional religious institutions within society. These anti-religious policies will be modeled in 1.3 with the new State Atheism law, and with it, the new Atheist “religion”.

DD81_07.png

State Atheism is the ultimate means to reduce the power of the Devout within a nation, banning religion from public life and making all religions discriminated against. Nations with State Atheism will gain a new Atheist state religion to replace their previous one, and enactment will grant a small group of Atheist pops in your nation.

Pictured: Whilst Mexico’s policy may be State Atheism, Catholics still make up a supermajority of the nation - it has a long way to go to truly eradicate religion from public life.

DD81_08.png

Whilst this is an immensely effective way of reducing the power of religious institutions within the state, State Atheism will create a massive group of discriminated pops, which will increase turmoil through the nation. With this law, it will be ever more important to both focus on keeping standard of living high, and prioritising national values to quash the remnants of religion within your country.

State Atheism will generally be backed by Nihilists, Communists, and other similar ideologies. The process of enacting State Atheism will ignite conflicts between secular and religious society - but it will also open new opportunities for social experimentation, as traditional institutions are rendered marginalised.

DD81_09.png


DD81_10.png

Technocracy and Single-Party States​


The final two laws added in 1.3 are the Technocracy and Single-Party State laws, both representing more modern distributions of power that were either implemented or theorised about during the tail end of our time period. Both of these laws grant significant Authority, with Single-Party State granting the highest flat bonus to Authority in the game.

DD81_11.png

The new Single-Party State law is intended as a late-game replacement to the Autocracy and Oligarchy laws, designed to fit into the era of mass politics and the party-state. Once Single-Party State is enacted, either the ruler’s IG’s political party will become the sole political party in the nation, or a new political party involving the ruler’s IG will form. Elections will be held every four years as normal, with the single legal party always getting 100% of the vote.


Pictured: The modern face of the Empire of Japan, ruled by the firm hand of the Taisei Yokusankai.

DD81_12.png

Under a monarchial single party state, the head of state will be hereditary as normal, but under another system, whenever the head of state dies or otherwise changes, a new leader will be chosen from the interest groups within the party. A single-party state does permit including non-party interest groups - but they will come at a substantial hit to legitimacy.

Enacting a single-party state will enrage those interest groups not contained within the party - but it will allow a unique political situation where both more “authoritarian” laws like Command Economy and Collectivised Agriculture, and more “democratic” laws such as Women’s Suffrage and Elected Bureaucrats are available.

Pictured: An enactment event that can arise, if the idea of a single-party state is already popular in your country… and one that can arise if the people are not so thrilled about it.

DD81_13.png


DD81_14.png


Pictured: A closer look at the Regime. I love the Regime.

DD81_15.png

Meanwhile, a Technocracy represents rule by the trained and educated, in accordance with the theories of figures such as Henri de Saint-Simon and Howard Scott. The tendencies that technocracy draws from are myriad, but all desire a state primarily ruled by technical experts. A technocratic state will tend to be supported more by the Intelligentsia and Industrialists, and provides benefits to the political strength of the educated class, from academics to officers. Technocracies will dispense with the inefficient and unenlightened notion of “democracy” altogether, removing political parties, cancelling elections, and ruling in a fashion similar to Autocracies, Anarchies, and Oligarchies.

DD81_16.png

Technocracy can be combined with every set of governance principles in the game [although such combinations may be quite unstable], meaning that both the Platonic ideal of enlightened governance, and the grand dreams of true Vperedist patriots can be realised under this law.

DD81_17.png

A Technocracy will be greatly beneficial for those that wish to enshrine the rule of the Industrialists and Intelligentsia without worrying about elections - and it, as well, permits the Command Economy law, allowing for a highly centralised, streamlined, and optimised economy under the auspices of stone-faced men in stately grey suits.

DD81_18.png

Industry Banned​


As the final law we will be visiting, we have precisely the opposite of Technocracy, and one of the most drastic changes in playstyle in Victoria 3 - Industry Banned.

DD81_19.png

The Industry Banned law represents the most radical elements of opposition to the industrialisation of the Victorian Era. Under this law, all heavy industry in your nation - steel mills, motor industries, chemical plants, and more - will be destroyed, and cannot be replaced until the law is replaced. Furthermore, this law forbids all automation technologies for the industries that remain, mandating the economy remain both small-scale and labour intensive. Technology spread and research speed will be sharply reduced, allowing your nation to remain in a pristine pastoral state, unblemished by things such as smog, labour-saving technology, or modern medicine.

Pictured: The machines may threaten to overthrow us, but there is one thing they lack - the unbreakable and universal concordat of Humanity.

DD81_20.png

Of course, passing this law will be immensely contentious. Any group that has an opinion on the economic system will usually have a low opinion of abolishing the means of production entirely. There are, of course, some proponents of this law that may arise, however - and, under a sufficiently cruel and alienating system, some otherwise reasonable people may see putting an end to industry itself as desirable to the status quo.

DD81_21.png

Industry Banned will enormously empower the Rural Folk, and through disabling heavy industry, will also harm the influence of the Industrialists, and boost the Landowners. By combining Homesteading and Industry Banned, one can acquire a +75% bonus to the clout of the Rural Folk - creating the rural, idyllic realm within which power lies primarily with smallholding settlers.

As you can see, we are putting significant effort into making both internal politics and ideological variation more interesting and flavourful in 1.3, as well as creating additional laws for both more exotic late game situations and critically important political issues that defined the time.

Also, revolutions now always adopt the most desired governance principles of their most powerful IG. You won’t be seeing any more radical or communist revolutions with monarchs at their heads.

Pictured: One example of a revolutionary government against a monarchy, composed mostly of people who are ambivalent on the question of monarchism versus republicanism.

DD81_22.png

That is all, and we will see you next week.
 
  • 145Love
  • 114Like
  • 12
  • 9
  • 7
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
I really really like the new laws and the opportunities they'll offer, but I've got some land reform bugbears: who are the Aristocrats under Homesteading supposed to represent? It feels like it introduces an awkward tension in countries like the USA - of the Homestead Acts, even - that saw smallholding farms contemporaneously with "aristocrat" owned plantations.

On top of that: why does Collective Agriculture give extra power to bureaucrats? It straddles an awkward split between general agricultural cooperatives that often emerged spontaneously without government intervention, and the state-run collective farms that would empower such bureaucrats. Should there perhaps be a Collective Agriculture law (for government-run) and a Cooperative Agriculture law (for cooperative ownership)? Even in the USSR with its sovkhozes and kolkhozes, the latter were pseudo-cooperatives. Farmers did not exactly enjoy being beholden to the state for the remuneration of their labour and produce, and switching between true coops and state collective farms was not so willy-nilly.

Additionally, with the general way Victoria 3 works, government run production methods already employ bureaucrats and give them wages: granting an additional boost to their power - which, under cooperative ownership, is non-existent anyway - seems redundant. I think these should be split into two laws. Certainly an anarchist commune, for example, would still have cooperative ownership but not "collective agriculture" that empowers bureaucrats. Homesteading privileges smallholders at the expense of day labourers and others, while cooperative agriculture is a whole mode of social-political organisation, and should certainly give power to rural folk. Agricultural cooperatives in this era ran the gamut from utopian intentional communities like Fourier's phalansteries in the wake of the French Revolution to modern credit unions established at the end of the 19th century.
 
  • 4
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I really really like the new laws and the opportunities they'll offer, but I've got some land reform bugbears: who are the Aristocrats under Homesteading supposed to represent? It feels like it introduces an awkward tension in countries like the USA - of the Homestead Acts, even - that saw smallholding farms contemporaneously with "aristocrat" owned plantations.

On top of that: why does Collective Agriculture give extra power to bureaucrats? It straddles an awkward split between general agricultural cooperatives that often emerged spontaneously without government intervention, and the state-run collective farms that would empower such bureaucrats. Should there perhaps be a Collective Agriculture law (for government-run) and a Cooperative Agriculture law (for cooperative ownership)? Even in the USSR with its sovkhozes and kolkhozes, the latter were pseudo-cooperatives. Farmers did not exactly enjoy being beholden to the state for the remuneration of their labour and produce, and switching between true coops and state collective farms was not so willy-nilly.

Additionally, with the general way Victoria 3 works, government run production methods already employ bureaucrats and give them wages: granting an additional boost to their power - which, under cooperative ownership, is non-existent anyway - seems redundant. I think these should be split into two laws. Certainly an anarchist commune, for example, would still have cooperative ownership but not "collective agriculture" that empowers bureaucrats. Homesteading privileges smallholders at the expense of day labourers and others, while cooperative agriculture is a whole mode of social-political organisation, and should certainly give power to rural folk. Agricultural cooperatives in this era ran the gamut from utopian intentional communities like Fourier's phalansteries in the wake of the French Revolution to modern credit unions established at the end of the 19th century.
I think aristocrats in Homesteading, should represent American post-slavery plantations, where families own plantations, but higher poor workers/farmers farm them.
While they may not fully be aristocrats, they were rich landowner families.
 
I think aristocrats in Homesteading, should represent American post-slavery plantations, where families own plantations, but higher poor workers/farmers farm them.
While they may not fully be aristocrats, they were rich landowner families.
There's a specific name for post-civil war plantation agricultural relations though, and it was sharecropping, more or less like this tenant farming law. Unfortunately though, a country can't have different laws across different states the way things are right now.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I am not sure about Single-Party State. Every communist party had internal factions (to this day, China has their "cliques"), it seems silly that SPS has a single party which always gets 100% of the votes. Couldn't instead the IGs be inside factions/cliques (reskinned parties, I guess) and each having some clout, with non-revolutionary IGs being marginalized by default?
the thing is those cliques belong to the same Interest Group, similar to how both US parties are capitalist.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
@PDX_Pacifica Is the game ever going to properly represent Latin Americans, or are we forever stuck with the lazy stereotype of all Latin Americans being mestizos?

IG leaders in Latin American countries during were overwhelmingly ethnically Southern European during this period. It makes zero sense for Argentinian and Brazilian IG leaders to all look like Mexican mestizos, when in reality they usually looked like this:

353px-Pedro_de_Araujo_Lima_1835.jpg


IG leaders for Latin American countries should at the very least have the chance of being white. And it's such a simple change too, all it takes is changing this in the definitions of Latin American cultures:

Code:
    ethnicities = {
        1 = south_american
    }

To something like this:

Code:
    ethnicities = {
        1 = caucasian
        1 = south_american
    }
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Hello. This is Victoria, also known as Pacifica, and today we will be going over the new laws added in 1.3.

By and large, these laws exist to grant an experience that allows for more “modern” forms of states, to represent the changing ideologies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and to represent some of the most contentious and important issues of the period - land reform, anti-clericalism, and more modernised systems of governance.


Land Reform​


One of the most important political issues within modernising nations was the matter of land reform. Whilst most European nations, by 1836, had abolished formal serfdom, they often still had tenant farming systems which gave landlords an immense amount of power over the peasantry. Within the period of Victoria 3, many political movements throughout developing nations explicitly sought to handle the issue of landlord power even after serfdom was formally abolished.

Under the new Land Reform law category, production methods pertaining to the rural economy have been decoupled from the Economic System law, instead being folded into this category. The ownership production methods available for farms and plantations will be determined through the player’s Land Reform laws.

Previously, the distinction between the system of serfdom and non-serfdom was extremely non-granular. Once serfdom was abolished, the player could safely ignore the issue of land reform for the entirety of the game, only touching this law category again if they wished to implement workers’ protections. With the new Land Reform law category, the issue of who owns land has been separated from the rights of workers, allowing for increased choice within both categories, and options for interesting political setups, such as a highly laissez-faire republic with a modern commercialised agriculture law and a total lack of workers’ rights, or a paternalistic monarchy that maintains serfdom, but considers protections for labourers to be an innate component of its social contract.

The new Land Reform laws represent a variety of land ownership schema, all of which play an important role in affecting the political strength of groups in your nation. Whilst Serfdom and Tenant Farmers greatly benefit the traditional landowning elites, the new Homesteading law both provides a base benefit to the political strength of the Rural Folk, and unlocks the new Homesteading production method, which cuts the proportion of Aristocrats in farms, whilst increasing the amount of Farmer jobs.

Pictured: A wheat farm in Russia with Serfdom active, versus a wheat farm in the USA with Homesteading active. The USA’s starting Homesteading law empowers the Rural Folk in the North, whilst the Southern plantations remain dominated by the Landowners.

View attachment 966611
Commercialised and Collectivised Agriculture, respectively, represent more “modern” systems of industrial agriculture, with commercialised agriculture treating land as private property and farming as a business like any other, unlocking the Publicly Traded production method. Collectivised agriculture, on the other hand, organises the land into plots worked by agricultural collectives. These collectives can either be owned by the workers themselves, or owned directly by the state, unlocking both the Workers’ Cooperative and Government Run production methods.

As laws that greatly affect the balance of power within nations, land reform is prone to sparking very contentious debate amongst the populace, as well as fierce resistance from those that have interests in the current system - but the opportunity granted to emerging classes by the prospect of land reform will serve as a boon to the player’s efforts to enact them.

State Atheism​


Many states within the time frame of Victoria 3 had politics that were dominated by differing attitudes towards religion. Nations such as Mexico, the Spanish Republic, and the socialist states of the early 20th century all practised strong anti-clerical politics, seeking to minimise the political influence of traditional religious institutions within society. These anti-religious policies will be modeled in 1.3 with the new State Atheism law, and with it, the new Atheist “religion”.

State Atheism is the ultimate means to reduce the power of the Devout within a nation, banning religion from public life and making all religions discriminated against. Nations with State Atheism will gain a new Atheist state religion to replace their previous one, and enactment will grant a small group of Atheist pops in your nation.

Pictured: Whilst Mexico’s policy may be State Atheism, Catholics still make up a supermajority of the nation - it has a long way to go to truly eradicate religion from public life.

View attachment 966616

Whilst this is an immensely effective way of reducing the power of religious institutions within the state, State Atheism will create a massive group of discriminated pops, which will increase turmoil through the nation. With this law, it will be ever more important to both focus on keeping standard of living high, and prioritising national values to quash the remnants of religion within your country.

State Atheism will generally be backed by Nihilists, Communists, and other similar ideologies. The process of enacting State Atheism will ignite conflicts between secular and religious society - but it will also open new opportunities for social experimentation, as traditional institutions are rendered marginalised.

Technocracy and Single-Party States​


The final two laws added in 1.3 are the Technocracy and Single-Party State laws, both representing more modern distributions of power that were either implemented or theorised about during the tail end of our time period. Both of these laws grant significant Authority, with Single-Party State granting the highest flat bonus to Authority in the game.

The new Single-Party State law is intended as a late-game replacement to the Autocracy and Oligarchy laws, designed to fit into the era of mass politics and the party-state. Once Single-Party State is enacted, either the ruler’s IG’s political party will become the sole political party in the nation, or a new political party involving the ruler’s IG will form. Elections will be held every four years as normal, with the single legal party always getting 100% of the vote.


Pictured: The modern face of the Empire of Japan, ruled by the firm hand of the Taisei Yokusankai.

View attachment 966621
Under a monarchial single party state, the head of state will be hereditary as normal, but under another system, whenever the head of state dies or otherwise changes, a new leader will be chosen from the interest groups within the party. A single-party state does permit including non-party interest groups - but they will come at a substantial hit to legitimacy.

Enacting a single-party state will enrage those interest groups not contained within the party - but it will allow a unique political situation where both more “authoritarian” laws like Command Economy and Collectivised Agriculture, and more “democratic” laws such as Women’s Suffrage and Elected Bureaucrats are available.

Pictured: An enactment event that can arise, if the idea of a single-party state is already popular in your country… and one that can arise if the people are not so thrilled about it.

View attachment 966624

View attachment 966625

Pictured: A closer look at the Regime. I love the Regime.

View attachment 966626
Meanwhile, a Technocracy represents rule by the trained and educated, in accordance with the theories of figures such as Henri de Saint-Simon and Howard Scott. The tendencies that technocracy draws from are myriad, but all desire a state primarily ruled by technical experts. A technocratic state will tend to be supported more by the Intelligentsia and Industrialists, and provides benefits to the political strength of the educated class, from academics to officers. Technocracies will dispense with the inefficient and unenlightened notion of “democracy” altogether, removing political parties, cancelling elections, and ruling in a fashion similar to Autocracies, Anarchies, and Oligarchies.

Technocracy can be combined with every set of governance principles in the game [although such combinations may be quite unstable], meaning that both the Platonic ideal of enlightened governance, and the grand dreams of true Vperedist patriots can be realised under this law.

A Technocracy will be greatly beneficial for those that wish to enshrine the rule of the Industrialists and Intelligentsia without worrying about elections - and it, as well, permits the Command Economy law, allowing for a highly centralised, streamlined, and optimised economy under the auspices of stone-faced men in stately grey suits.

Industry Banned​


As the final law we will be visiting, we have precisely the opposite of Technocracy, and one of the most drastic changes in playstyle in Victoria 3 - Industry Banned.

The Industry Banned law represents the most radical elements of opposition to the industrialisation of the Victorian Era. Under this law, all heavy industry in your nation - steel mills, motor industries, chemical plants, and more - will be destroyed, and cannot be replaced until the law is replaced. Furthermore, this law forbids all automation technologies for the industries that remain, mandating the economy remain both small-scale and labour intensive. Technology spread and research speed will be sharply reduced, allowing your nation to remain in a pristine pastoral state, unblemished by things such as smog, labour-saving technology, or modern medicine.

Pictured: The machines may threaten to overthrow us, but there is one thing they lack - the unbreakable and universal concordat of Humanity.

View attachment 966633
Of course, passing this law will be immensely contentious. Any group that has an opinion on the economic system will usually have a low opinion of abolishing the means of production entirely. There are, of course, some proponents of this law that may arise, however - and, under a sufficiently cruel and alienating system, some otherwise reasonable people may see putting an end to industry itself as desirable to the status quo.

Industry Banned will enormously empower the Rural Folk, and through disabling heavy industry, will also harm the influence of the Industrialists, and boost the Landowners. By combining Homesteading and Industry Banned, one can acquire a +75% bonus to the clout of the Rural Folk - creating the rural, idyllic realm within which power lies primarily with smallholding settlers.

As you can see, we are putting significant effort into making both internal politics and ideological variation more interesting and flavourful in 1.3, as well as creating additional laws for both more exotic late game situations and critically important political issues that defined the time.

Also, revolutions now always adopt the most desired governance principles of their most powerful IG. You won’t be seeing any more radical or communist revolutions with monarchs at their heads.

Pictured: One example of a revolutionary government against a monarchy, composed mostly of people who are ambivalent on the question of monarchism versus republicanism.

View attachment 966635
That is all, and we will see you next week.
 
I'm confused on how the Southern Planters are going to stay relevant in the South if the US has Homesteading which greatly diminishes their numbers.

Do the Homesteading production methods that replaces Aristocrats not apply to Plantations?

Is there some sort of modifier spread throughout the South that increases Aristocrat's political power to make up for their lose of numbers?

Unless the US Rural Folk get a unique pro-slavery stance, it looks like outlawing slavery peacefully is going to be even easier now once Jackson inevitably kicks it.

I am also concerned that the more esoteric governments and laws introduced in the patch will pop up far too frequently in-game by the AI, especially Industry Banned. The AI doesn't need more opportunities to shoot itself in the foot. Will they at least be locked behind late-game tech like Political Agitation or something?

I agree with the other posters saying a specific government type for Technocracy is unnecessary since it can be simulated through existing mechanics just fine. You can increase Officer and Academic political clout directly by deciding how much you pay them, and boosting Engineers is like boosting Capitalists since they vote the same.

It really feels like something you'd add in one of the last updates to the games as a sending-off present, not what you'd add in this early stage where the base game still has critical flaws. I doubt it took more than 1 guy an afternoon to make this, so I'm not going to go so far as saying its a wasted effort but it does make me question the devs priorities.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
Why add the government type of "Cybernetic State"? Cybernetics is a big social science concept put forward by Norbert Wiener in 1948. It is beyond the time line of our game and does not conform to history. Of course, the word cybernetics appeared in Ancient Greece or in the 19th century, but cybernetics became a practical concept of social science in 1948, and should not be added to the game that ended in 1936, or they should not use the word cybernetics. In addition, the realization of cybernetics needs the help of computers. How can we realize the cybernetics state without computers? Can even things that Allende's Argentine government and Soviet OGAS did not achieve before 1936? To be honest, I hope the game can be more historical. We can look for these strange things in Mods or add them in the end of the game update, maybe 10 year later, but not now.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Directorial Republic describes the governments of Switzerland and BiH IRL. What would cause the government to display "Directorial Republic"?
Presidential or Parliamentary Republic and Technocracy would be my guess.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
the thing is those cliques belong to the same Interest Group, similar to how both US parties are capitalist.

Are they really? I could easily see a Vic3 Shanghai clique having the PB, while the Tsinghua has the Industrialists and Intelligentsia (and maybe the Rural Folk), with both having a chance to change sides depending on ideologies. If we are going by the US parties argument then every IG should be in a single capitalist party until the socialists appear.
 
Also the devout faction really needs to be replaced with factions for every religion present, it doesn't make sense for the catholic germans to support the devout faction that wants state protestantism and etc.

According to the wiki only Pops of the State Religion support the Devout Faction, so in a Protestant Germany catholic pops should never support the Devouts.

However remembering this thing made me raise a question, what will happen when we enact State Atheism? Will all the support of the Devouts ironically come from the Atheists Pops now or will the previous state religion be remembered and the Devouts supporters will remain the previous ones? I hope someone already tested this and it will be the latter.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
I forgot to mention this previously. But I find it quite strange that despite introducing Land Reform and Anticlericalism, the issue of Church ownership of land hasn't really been addressed despite being quite important in much of the world, and could help to prop up the otherwise fairly inconsequential Devout IG.
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
According to the wiki only Pops of the State Religion support the Devout Faction, so in a Protestant Germany catholic pops should never support the Devouts.

However remembering this thing made me raise a question, what will happen when we enact State Atheism? Will all the support of the Devouts ironically come from the Atheists Pops now or will the previous state religion be remembered and the Devouts supporters will remain the previous ones? I hope someone already tested this and it will be the latter.
Thanks, I didn't know that.
That's even more reason to change it, religious political parties were in V1, and now in V3 major religious minorities aren't even a political faction? Espec when you can have a country where 90% of your population have one religion and it's not your state religion. It's hard to imagine say, post-unification german politics without the Protestant/Catholic divide and how often the Catholic party was kingmaker in coalitions and passing laws. Now that Victoria has good coalition and IG shifting support to parties we need major religious groups to be politically active through their own IGs!

Cultures too.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I wish 'clout' determined that instead, it doesn't make sense that a one party state would use fair elections to determine who would lead. Then they are just a democracy, with an opposition, etc.
the real world has had both. Just as you can have a dictatorship with parties.
Even the USSR wasn't what you'd call democratic but leadership changes, espec at local level, usually had to wait till the election and shuffling/politics then between candidates not just when the clout of the factions shifted. By having dictorial and democratic and everything in-between one-party states, both changes on elections based on clout, and changes immediately based on clout can happen in game?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I feel like it might make a good DLC, because after all it's something we will eventually get and not everything will be a free feature, but this is something that could add a lot of interesting flavour and separate mechanics, but wouldn't make the game without it feel too lacking. And tbh a large, detailed DLC, that really gets it right, would maybe be better, than a smaller free feature implementation.
Ooh, that could work! Maybe it would add unique government mechanics depending on what kind of system you have, like Parliament or Congress?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
the real world has had both. Just as you can have a dictatorship with parties.
Even the USSR wasn't what you'd call democratic but leadership changes, espec at local level, usually had to wait till the election and shuffling/politics then between candidates not just when the clout of the factions shifted. By having dictorial and democratic and everything in-between one-party states, both changes on elections based on clout, and changes immediately based on clout can happen in game?
Yeah, I guess they did have elections, but were it "fair" elections? Because if they weren't, then I think "clout" represents that power just fine.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions: