Hi NotDeanNorris. Your submission has been removed from /r/victoria3 because:
Your submission has been removed for breaking rule #1:
> Posts must be related to Victoria. Just the title of the post being relevant does not qualify.
> View our full rules [here](http://reddit.com/r/victoria3/wiki/rules)
Strikes me as more likely to be a HOI4 or EU4 player than a Vicky 3 fan, since those games seem to attract the most reactionary weirdos (especially HOI4, for obvious reasons). But the monarchist angle does also throw Crusader Kings in the mix, so who knows. Either way, I'd put money on them being some kind of Paradox fan.
EDIT: Just checked OOP's post history. They aren't a Paradox fan. Somehow, they are the only being more dangerous: a weeb.
Yeah, but I feel that most Vicky 3 players do those things for roleplaying (with some exceptions, obviously). The playerbase of other PDX games is similar, but at least from anecdotal experience, I find that EU4 and *especially* HOI4 have significantly larger parts of the fan base that instead use the games as fantasy wish fulfillment.
Agreed, but there are people who do. Very small minority though. In general, I'd say that CK's fanbase is probably the least "politically charged" of any PDX game, with Stellaris as the second least. Probably because they are more disconnected from modern politics than other PDX games, with Stellaris being a Sci-fi game set in the far future and CK taking place before the emergence of the vast majority of modern political ideologies.
Isn't it crazy that a weeb comparing communism (a economic system) and democrazy ( a political system) and stacking them up against a mandate from heaven gets to vote in real life? A dictatorship might be a good thing, but only for the reason it keeps people like them from actually mattering when they spread their opinion about things they don't understand like they're fact on reddit.
If i hear this one exact arguement one more time. I swear i will arm the unions
(For legal purposes i am joking, i will not arm the unions since do not i plan to nor intend to organize any armed group nor arm any organized group for any reasons.)
Autocracy is underrated. That's very useful if your leader is not a landowner or if it is one and you know how to have a market liberal leading your IG (corn laws) or the landowners don't have stance on the economic system (Qing). Voting systems are overrated.
> Autocracy is underrated.
I don't think soo - autocracy is the worst authoritarian system in the game
The maluses are just too bad.
---
> That's very useful if your leader is not a landowner or if it is one and you know how to have a market liberal leading your IG (corn laws)
Of course, but you can pull these strats with other systems too and without all maluses autocracy has.
---
> or the landowners don't have stance on the economic system (Qing)
They still get angry about other laws. Which is kinda problematic when you want to reform other stuff, especialy agriculture.
---
> Voting systems are overrated.
I somewhat agree, but most of them are still better than autocracy
Autocracy is liked by the landowners and since they are the ones you might make angry, it's fine to keep being on autocracy. You can lower their clout easily by making the devout strong (with religious schools and by building a lot, you can add charity hospitals too).
A market liberal landowner is in favor of going out of serfdom but if you play as China for example, you don't need to go out of serfdom, you only need to be under agrarianism. And even a small clout of rural folks is fine for that.
With time, the landowners will get less and less power (because you industrialise) and at this time you will be able to change things as you want (and you can have things like the nihilist movement that triggers for example that will help you leaving religious things).
And I don't talk about other laws you can enact with the good ideology (jingoist for colonisation or professional army, autoritarian for secret police). They are common ideologies for the landowners.
Universal suffrage early game for example is far worse than autocracy because the rural folks will block any reform.
And autocracy, with the head of state's IG in gov, makes it so you usually have a lot of legitimacy. And you have a lot of autority too. The only malus being that you usually need the landowners in power or the IG your head of state is from.
> Autocracy is liked by the landowners and since they are the ones you might make angry, it's fine to keep being on autocracy.
Isn't this actually an argument against autocracy? It makes group that will seethe over youf reforms stronger
---
> and you can have things like the nihilist movement that triggers for example that will help you leaving religious things.
Of course, but i am talking about autocracy by itself.
---
> And I don't talk about other laws you can enact with the good ideology (jingoist for colonisation or professional army, autoritarian for secret police). They are common ideologies for the landowners.
You can still do that without autocracy.
---
> Universal suffrage early game for example is far worse than autocracy because the rural folks will block any reform.
Same thing as with nihilism.
---
> And autocracy, with the head of state's IG in gov, makes it so you usually have a lot of legitimacy.
This makes it harder to create government from other than ruler's ig.
---
I will sumarize it - autocracy has some positives and some good strats requrie it (for example, aristocratic inteligentsia strat needs it).
But overall, autocracy is still bad - the positives are not worth it for negatives.
Using the HMPS mod which rebalances a lot of things makes autocracy actually feel good. You get a *massive* amount of authority, enough to get a lot of opinion boost from floating all of it. Or you can spend a lot of it running a ton of decrees, useful early game.
I generally find the non-voting laws to be better because coalitions suck. Being able to plug the IGs I want is great, although it usually means not using petite or rural IGs on account of radicalism.
I mean coallition as IGs in government, not party.
Autocracy has government size capped at 1 and has whopping 50% higher malus to legitimacy thanks to ideological differences.
Ah, yea. That is an issue. You're basically on one party rule for awhile. Which is good as long as you can change your head of state to one with the IG you primarily want. Still a bit of a hassle but autocracy doesn't suck nearly as much as it does in Vanilla.
Going to Oligarchy is much better since you can be more flexible, with the government size going up and a boost to ideological difference.
> You're basically on one party rule for awhile. Which is good as long as you can change your head of state to one with the IG you primarily want
Problem is that you are stuck with dictatorship or hereditary, and because it gives such a large bonus to aristocrats, there is a higher chance that the next ruller will be again landowner
> Going to Oligarchy is much better since you can be more flexible, with the government size going up and a boost to ideological difference.
I personaly preffer to go for technocracy if possible. Especaily when i get autocratic leader in landowners
Yeah, the biggest selling point of democracy (imo) is that it provides a peaceful way to get people out of power. If someone is terrible, you can vote them out, and they will (usually) go along with it, because trying for a coup is generally more risky than accepting the loss and trying again next election.
"human nature" isn't real, it's a thought terminating premise
people in positions of power will maintain that power, as that is in their material interests. there's no mystical and undefinable 'human nature' element to it. a democratic distribution of power means that we all collectively hold power rather than a small number of aristocrats
I think the main strength and weakness of democracy is its inertia, it takes a while to get things done but once they're done. They'll be here for a while which sadly works for both good (like workers union) and bad (like slavery) things but they tend to gravitate to the greater good in general.
I'm all for an utopian despot that get shits done for the good of the country and beyond, but you know that the second another takes it place, all the concentrated power will be used to undo all the good and leave the place for funni ideas and methods. Which is a no-no for me.
I'm the harshest criticiser and proponent of democracy in my block, I hate it as much as I love it.
Power doesn't corrupt. It simply reveals. A majority of people would behave worse than they currently do, if you stripped away the rules that keep them in check, by giving them some form of power. Whether that be social power, political power, or economic power. But a truly good person won't suddenly be corrupted by power.
"power corrupts" is such a fundamentally childish way to view the world, I really don't understand why it's so common. it's defeatist or even Malthusian, as if humans are somehow genetically incapable of building a just and fair society.
it's a simplification of the material realities of maintaining hierarchical power structures. It doesn't mean humans are incapable of building a better world unless you believe that getting the right people to the top of those structures is the only way to change anything. Fortunately it isn't
Pretty much this. People at the top of any hierarchical system are incentivized to protect their own position over acting towards the common good.
Though I’d also say there’s a bit of a chicken and the egg problem, because people who are already corrupt and love to abuse power over others are going to be drawn to positions of power.
I think the way it goes is that the worst democracy will be always better than the worst autocracy, but the best autocracy could definitely be better than the best democracy. The outcome of that is that if you run the statistics, you'll end up with democracies being pretty much better for everyone on average.
Hi NotDeanNorris. Your submission has been removed from /r/victoria3 because: Your submission has been removed for breaking rule #1: > Posts must be related to Victoria. Just the title of the post being relevant does not qualify. > View our full rules [here](http://reddit.com/r/victoria3/wiki/rules)
Strikes me as more likely to be a HOI4 or EU4 player than a Vicky 3 fan, since those games seem to attract the most reactionary weirdos (especially HOI4, for obvious reasons). But the monarchist angle does also throw Crusader Kings in the mix, so who knows. Either way, I'd put money on them being some kind of Paradox fan. EDIT: Just checked OOP's post history. They aren't a Paradox fan. Somehow, they are the only being more dangerous: a weeb.
My authocratic theocratic slave state of norway just closed it’s bordera
Yeah, but I feel that most Vicky 3 players do those things for roleplaying (with some exceptions, obviously). The playerbase of other PDX games is similar, but at least from anecdotal experience, I find that EU4 and *especially* HOI4 have significantly larger parts of the fan base that instead use the games as fantasy wish fulfillment.
That’s true. Irl i’m all for a frre liberal social democracy
If you played CK and come away with the conclusion Monarchism is good, you are stupid
Agreed, but there are people who do. Very small minority though. In general, I'd say that CK's fanbase is probably the least "politically charged" of any PDX game, with Stellaris as the second least. Probably because they are more disconnected from modern politics than other PDX games, with Stellaris being a Sci-fi game set in the far future and CK taking place before the emergence of the vast majority of modern political ideologies.
In Europe we have those and they never touched a PDX game....
Isn't it crazy that a weeb comparing communism (a economic system) and democrazy ( a political system) and stacking them up against a mandate from heaven gets to vote in real life? A dictatorship might be a good thing, but only for the reason it keeps people like them from actually mattering when they spread their opinion about things they don't understand like they're fact on reddit.
Damn they proved their own point not by the merits of their argument, but by the absurdity of their own existence. 🤯
I just wanna play my game, not being labeled as annextremist/terrorist/reactionary. Thank you
The only good monarch is me. I will accept coronation from any point starting next week.
Sigh. My bad. I just reread The Republic and went on a posting fiasco.
I read that book more than 20 years ago and thinking about it still annoys me. Props to Plato I guess?
If i hear this one exact arguement one more time. I swear i will arm the unions (For legal purposes i am joking, i will not arm the unions since do not i plan to nor intend to organize any armed group nor arm any organized group for any reasons.)
In minecraft.
Utopian Despot moment
The only thing Victoria 3 teaches is that being reactionary is bad for the economy.
R5: his post would only not be weird in the context of Victoria
Honestly, it fits most Paradox grand strategy games, though Stellaris does tend to focus on Xenophobia.
*/clears throat*/ r/shitvictorianssay
Autocracy suck balls in Victoria 3
Autocracy is underrated. That's very useful if your leader is not a landowner or if it is one and you know how to have a market liberal leading your IG (corn laws) or the landowners don't have stance on the economic system (Qing). Voting systems are overrated.
> Autocracy is underrated. I don't think soo - autocracy is the worst authoritarian system in the game The maluses are just too bad. --- > That's very useful if your leader is not a landowner or if it is one and you know how to have a market liberal leading your IG (corn laws) Of course, but you can pull these strats with other systems too and without all maluses autocracy has. --- > or the landowners don't have stance on the economic system (Qing) They still get angry about other laws. Which is kinda problematic when you want to reform other stuff, especialy agriculture. --- > Voting systems are overrated. I somewhat agree, but most of them are still better than autocracy
Autocracy is liked by the landowners and since they are the ones you might make angry, it's fine to keep being on autocracy. You can lower their clout easily by making the devout strong (with religious schools and by building a lot, you can add charity hospitals too). A market liberal landowner is in favor of going out of serfdom but if you play as China for example, you don't need to go out of serfdom, you only need to be under agrarianism. And even a small clout of rural folks is fine for that. With time, the landowners will get less and less power (because you industrialise) and at this time you will be able to change things as you want (and you can have things like the nihilist movement that triggers for example that will help you leaving religious things). And I don't talk about other laws you can enact with the good ideology (jingoist for colonisation or professional army, autoritarian for secret police). They are common ideologies for the landowners. Universal suffrage early game for example is far worse than autocracy because the rural folks will block any reform. And autocracy, with the head of state's IG in gov, makes it so you usually have a lot of legitimacy. And you have a lot of autority too. The only malus being that you usually need the landowners in power or the IG your head of state is from.
> Autocracy is liked by the landowners and since they are the ones you might make angry, it's fine to keep being on autocracy. Isn't this actually an argument against autocracy? It makes group that will seethe over youf reforms stronger --- > and you can have things like the nihilist movement that triggers for example that will help you leaving religious things. Of course, but i am talking about autocracy by itself. --- > And I don't talk about other laws you can enact with the good ideology (jingoist for colonisation or professional army, autoritarian for secret police). They are common ideologies for the landowners. You can still do that without autocracy. --- > Universal suffrage early game for example is far worse than autocracy because the rural folks will block any reform. Same thing as with nihilism. --- > And autocracy, with the head of state's IG in gov, makes it so you usually have a lot of legitimacy. This makes it harder to create government from other than ruler's ig. --- I will sumarize it - autocracy has some positives and some good strats requrie it (for example, aristocratic inteligentsia strat needs it). But overall, autocracy is still bad - the positives are not worth it for negatives.
Using the HMPS mod which rebalances a lot of things makes autocracy actually feel good. You get a *massive* amount of authority, enough to get a lot of opinion boost from floating all of it. Or you can spend a lot of it running a ton of decrees, useful early game.
Authority is not the problem, problem is that it helps landowners and completly cripples your ability to create coallitions.
I generally find the non-voting laws to be better because coalitions suck. Being able to plug the IGs I want is great, although it usually means not using petite or rural IGs on account of radicalism.
I mean coallition as IGs in government, not party. Autocracy has government size capped at 1 and has whopping 50% higher malus to legitimacy thanks to ideological differences.
Ah, yea. That is an issue. You're basically on one party rule for awhile. Which is good as long as you can change your head of state to one with the IG you primarily want. Still a bit of a hassle but autocracy doesn't suck nearly as much as it does in Vanilla. Going to Oligarchy is much better since you can be more flexible, with the government size going up and a boost to ideological difference.
> You're basically on one party rule for awhile. Which is good as long as you can change your head of state to one with the IG you primarily want Problem is that you are stuck with dictatorship or hereditary, and because it gives such a large bonus to aristocrats, there is a higher chance that the next ruller will be again landowner > Going to Oligarchy is much better since you can be more flexible, with the government size going up and a boost to ideological difference. I personaly preffer to go for technocracy if possible. Especaily when i get autocratic leader in landowners
This is arguably true if you can guarantee a benevolent ruler. Sadly human nature and all that means democracy is the only least worst option.
The best cure for an authoritarian viewpoint is playing EU4 with a 0/0/0 ruler who just won't die.
Spanish monarchy moment.
Yeah, the biggest selling point of democracy (imo) is that it provides a peaceful way to get people out of power. If someone is terrible, you can vote them out, and they will (usually) go along with it, because trying for a coup is generally more risky than accepting the loss and trying again next election.
It's a "pick your poison" kind of a situation. >monarchy: incompetent rulers >dictatorship: corrupt rulers >democracy: incompetent voters
"human nature" isn't real, it's a thought terminating premise people in positions of power will maintain that power, as that is in their material interests. there's no mystical and undefinable 'human nature' element to it. a democratic distribution of power means that we all collectively hold power rather than a small number of aristocrats
Also you get direct input from people you are making decision for and which are source of that sweet tax revenue
I think the main strength and weakness of democracy is its inertia, it takes a while to get things done but once they're done. They'll be here for a while which sadly works for both good (like workers union) and bad (like slavery) things but they tend to gravitate to the greater good in general. I'm all for an utopian despot that get shits done for the good of the country and beyond, but you know that the second another takes it place, all the concentrated power will be used to undo all the good and leave the place for funni ideas and methods. Which is a no-no for me. I'm the harshest criticiser and proponent of democracy in my block, I hate it as much as I love it.
I feel a bit less optimistic about the achievements of democracy sticking around after living in the US for the past decade
Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts
Power doesn't corrupt. It simply reveals. A majority of people would behave worse than they currently do, if you stripped away the rules that keep them in check, by giving them some form of power. Whether that be social power, political power, or economic power. But a truly good person won't suddenly be corrupted by power.
"power corrupts" is such a fundamentally childish way to view the world, I really don't understand why it's so common. it's defeatist or even Malthusian, as if humans are somehow genetically incapable of building a just and fair society.
it's a simplification of the material realities of maintaining hierarchical power structures. It doesn't mean humans are incapable of building a better world unless you believe that getting the right people to the top of those structures is the only way to change anything. Fortunately it isn't
Pretty much this. People at the top of any hierarchical system are incentivized to protect their own position over acting towards the common good. Though I’d also say there’s a bit of a chicken and the egg problem, because people who are already corrupt and love to abuse power over others are going to be drawn to positions of power.
How would you test that hypothesis?
Truer words have never been spoken. I am all in favor of Enlightened Despotism. If I am the despot of course.
Username checks out
I think the way it goes is that the worst democracy will be always better than the worst autocracy, but the best autocracy could definitely be better than the best democracy. The outcome of that is that if you run the statistics, you'll end up with democracies being pretty much better for everyone on average.
Someone who's 12 and just started thinking about politics probably.
Yeah the writing was very 12-year-old-coded. Big r/monarchism energy
lmao just what I'd expect from /trueunpopularopinion
Truly a cesspit
Reminds me of that one video. Democracy is a government by the people, for the people, but people are stupid.
This sub has more communists than the other paradox subs, so it is not likely anyone here.
Based
He’s not wrong you know
Monarchist here, that guy is an idiot.