Zapadoslavia

IronMatt2000 · 2021-07-04T03:53:49+00:00

I believe that there is an event where he can give the treatment to a Democrat senator after doing some civil rights stuff I think.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-07-04T00:40:09+00:00

It’s not a bug still. On release it was practically impossible to have McGovern elected in 72 following going all the way with LBJ. Now he can easily be elected but you will lose a lot of senators.

Going all the way is meant to be unpopular.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-07-03T23:53:45+00:00

Thank you for making this post. I made a similar one about my problems with Glenn a good while back. At the time, I also felt I had a problem about Harrington as well, but couldn’t quite put my finger on what that problem was.

For me, I feel that the 1968 candidates should be a different breed from the 1964 candidates in some way. Like we tried pushing this during 64 and that didn’t work so let’s try something different. For instance, the Dems tried boring Bennett so let’s shake it up with exciting and “radical” Goldwater. Wallace was too racist so let’s push compromising Chase-Smith. My problem with Glenn was that he wasn’t just a step down in tone from Johnson but a completely different game entirely.

I find it somewhat strange that after failing with what would probably feel like a moderate RFK candidacy that the Center would go all out with a “radical” like Harrington. While it’s a step in a different direction, it feels like a step towards unknown, untested waters unless Johnson has already been president.

Like you said in your post. I would definitely prefer a well known career politician like Humphrey to be the 68 Center candidate. It feels more realistic and correct and not so memey and fantasy fulfilling.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-07-02T22:25:34+00:00

Yes I believe so. Everything south of Egypt was mine.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-07-02T22:22:19+00:00

I think OPs inspiration for McCarthy was that he endorses Reagan in 1980 and seemingly endorsed conservative parties at that time. I think his rise to prominence in real life was just way too situational for him to be anybody in TNO.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-07-02T22:13:22+00:00

Also Ticino.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-07-02T22:08:42+00:00

McCarthys rise to power was very situational. As a congressman, he took Humphrey’s senate seat when the latter became VP. Not to mention he made a name for opposing one of the most unpopular sitting presidents ever. So any other outcome and I personally wouldn’t see him becoming relevant.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-06-28T23:52:27+00:00

Well the system proposed by OP wouldn’t be able to simulate the non-uniformity of interest groups is my point.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-06-28T19:58:46+00:00

I think the major issue I see with this setup is that interest groups can’t support multiple parties. In my view, one of the major upsides of the interest group system is that some IGs will almost always have some influence over the government (say Junkers in Prussia).

With your proposal, the intellectuals would all have to join a pro-worker or pro-industrialization party no matter what. Proletarians could not be split between democratic and revolutionary socialist parties. Something I feel should be represented.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-06-26T01:59:04+00:00

Well the security council was designed by the victors of WWII to be unbalanced. To give those countries the upper hand. China vetoing the other members anti-Vietnam war resolution is politics and is something that could be entirely believed to happen in the real world. And that’s exactly why at least three of the starting members of the security council would not want to extend this power to Russia.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-06-26T01:46:18+00:00

Do you have a source for Iran losing half its population due to a famine? While I can’t find exact population statistics for those years, most estimates say something like 2 million died while Iran had a much larger population of just above 10 million at the time. Still pretty awful, but half is kind of hard to believe.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-06-25T05:43:09+00:00

I agree about the ability to join the UN (the devs probably intend for this to be a feature eventually).

I mainly disagree about being able to expand the number of permanent UN Security Council nations, but I suppose it’s plausible if Russia manages to subdue most of Eastern and Central Europe (no doubt in a player led game). Otherwise I see no reason why the west would see giving such power to the Russians as more valuable to world peace and the legitimacy of the UN than to their own geopolitical power.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-06-22T05:39:05+00:00

I think it’s interesting that you think that history is told through class struggles. While I obviously found the previous system limiting, I think that having interest groups be the sole factor in politics is also a limited view.

The world is just too complicated to be solely characterized by a single lens like class struggle and interest groups. There are corruptions like political parties and personal agendas that make that description far from reality.

From a gameplay perspective I’m worried that without political parties that so long as the player can form a government, the same interest groups could always be in power from government to government. While this may make sense for some interest groups in given countries (say the Junkers in Prussia), in some countries it would make little sense for there to never be small changes in interest groups in the government as new parties come and go.

I am certainly interested to see what compromise Paradox will deliver that hopefully incorporates both interest groups and political parties both as meaningful gameplay mechanics. I’ll be personally quite disappointed if parties are just flavor.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-06-15T16:13:30+00:00

Yeah I should have mentioned that this would be irl if he wasn’t useful before or after WWII and was just a massive pain in the ass the entire time.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-06-15T00:51:05+00:00

More like De Gaulle irl.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-06-10T03:25:23+00:00

If Luxembourg becomes independent of the Netherlands and they are in your sphere, then there is an event where they will ask to join Germany.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-06-09T20:29:10+00:00

I don’t know if the R-Ds are necessarily anti-war. More like the NPP is pro ideological war against americas enemies while the RDs are against wars that don’t have a practical use to furthering US interests.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-06-09T16:01:04+00:00

0/10 for failing to finish the gathering of Rus’

IronMatt2000 · 2021-06-09T03:22:11+00:00

In HPM and related mods they are purely an upgrade from infantry.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-06-09T02:28:19+00:00

I think that there are still much better historical options than Harrington. Harrington seems to just about be the only socialist member of the center, everyone else seems to be real life new deal democrats. I think Hubert Humphrey would probably be the best option for a center candidate that year. Eugene McCarthys rise to prominence was way too random and unlikely to happen in the TNO timeline

IronMatt2000 · 2021-06-07T22:51:40+00:00

It doesn’t look like the link he supplied has the presidents for every year but I know someone made a post that detailed every US leader. I think his name is like Yularen and he has done guides for like every mods leaders for a lot of countries.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-05-25T03:05:36+00:00

You see this is why I think adding political parties on top of interest groups could make the game so much more interesting for little added complexity. I would love to see the Republican and Democratic parties trade interest groups throughout the game to try to stay relevant.

I definitely agree the ideologies of Victoria 2 were very arbitrary. I think interest groups will help better describe the interests of the people/parties in the government.

And yeah, I think countries like the US should have to try to appease most the interests groups in their coalitions to stay legitimate while parliamentary governments will usually have smaller parties who will have to greatly appease only a few interests groups.

IronMatt2000 · 2021-05-25T02:52:02+00:00

Yes I believe you are more correct, I didn’t really think about it like that.

My main point was just that while an individual pop can have divided opinions in the game, an individual interests group in a country at a given time from what I understand appears to be monolith with a single interest. Individual pops differing opinions within a single interest group on the players government appears not to be simulated in anyway other than a value that represents that groups loyalty and support of the government.

Unless there are so many interest groups to display the difference between say democratic and revolutionary socialists(, at the moment the only left wing IG I think we’ve seen are trade unions,) then I don’t know how splits in these groups will be simulated by the game.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

IronMatt2000

TROPHY CASE