/gsg/ - Grand Strategy General

Yeah the irredentist borders are what is bothering me too, maybe just leave istria as a three province state with fiume, pola, and postojna, since they didn't receive Independence till well the 1990's

I like your thinking, but in that case there should be a way for democracies to lose their pluralism, facilitating democratic crises and subsequent dictatorships. Currently, there's no way for that to happen unless very specific random events fire far more regularly than is really possible. Also, how do communist dictatorships play into it? Are they pluralistic?

How can you switch religions as an unciv? I understand that only non-judaic faiths have the option.

HPMfag here. How do I ensure that the CSA wins as Mexico? They are only starting out with a pathetic 20-25k, and are much more content to siege middle america and fucking die the moment a forty stack comes along than to even try to defend themselves. At full mobilization I have 100-125k, and it's only enough to stave off the inevitable for up to two years. I'm 100% open to someone stepping in and playing as Mexico/the CSA for me as a learning experience. I've been playing for years and I'm fully willing to admit that I'm no pro.

Can you add a decision or something to encourage conversion to the state religion?
I would imagine this would cause militancy and push immigrants

Are you planning on eventually doing something with the Paris Commune?

Anyway, the states look like this right now. I need to check pops and decide on istria, but they will probably be left in, at least for now.

The problem is, I can't affect growth. I can only take chunks out of it.

>Dictatorships should almost invariably already be apluralistic from the moment they come to power, because the conditions which precipitate their rise are almost invariably going to be a state which experienced democratic crisis and a loss of pluralism prior to resorting to an authoritarian solution
That's the thing, while I agree a rebellion should lower plurality, it shouldn't kill it all. It should reduce it by 50% (though I can't do that, so it will always be a fixed number, probably -30 or -35) and the rest would be brought down by an increase in autocracy. It if starts too low, the initial instability becomes too irrelevant. maybe.

>POPs in societies with high plurality but low opportunity for expression or support will rebel in favor of those things (liberals, socialists, to an extent an-libs), whereas POPs in societies with low plurality--which I think can broadly be referred to as a sate of democratic crisis--will favor restoration of order or glory through the use of a "strong man," IE dictator.
It makes perfect sense, thank you very much for your input in this. I will make it so low plurality (less than 35%) affects autocracy-seeking rebels by making them more likely while high plurality (more than 70%) makes liberal rebels more likely. Between 35 and 70 it would be a neutral zone.

>in that case there should be a way for democracies to lose their pluralism, facilitating democratic crises and subsequent dictatorships.
Right, which is my concern with this. Democracies should lose pluralism through revanchism certainly, and if they have the Autocracy NV they should gain it more slowly, but the other situations where pluralism should be lost are probably either difficult or potentially even impossible to implement (obviously HPM would know more about it than I do). Labor unrest should be a major one, to represent draws to both fascism and communism, but how could that be modeled? Lost wars should of course also factor in, but that could be abused by players to keep a state's plurality artificially low, which directly impacts their research points. Plurality loss on scandals, party scandals, dismantlement, and yellow journalism would also need to be implemented or their values increased, as well. And that's not even considering other factors which I'm invariably missing.

>Also, how do communist dictatorships play into it? Are they pluralistic?
All dictatorships should be apluralistic, but I think communist and anarcho-liberal rebels should have a slight benefit to rising chance from high plurality (or say rather that it doesn't dissipate entirely). All extremist ideologies should have their greatest support at very low levels of plurality, however, with fascists and reactionaries gaining a larger boost than communists, who should still have their largest draw at minimum plurality, but less total added benefit than fascists/reactionaries, based simply upon communism's ostensible internationalism, brotherly unity, etc. It's difficult to advocate that easily in apluralistic conditions, and so the main risk for a nation to fall to communism should remain conditions in the nation itself, although since communism has benefits to rising chance at higher plurality than other extremist ideologies do, it's still a threat at all pluralities.

Bellissimo

Friuli isn't as useless as I thought it would be, about the same as Tirol. Emilia Romagna and Venetia now both have almost half a million pops each.

I'd need a better and way more specific reason for that.

Flavor, probably. A tag is unlikely.

Through a decision to request missionaries.

do you still plan to do Meuse borders at some point?

Germany has no way to neuter france currently without it looking hideous,

>The problem is, I can't affect growth. I can only take chunks out of it.
Ah, now that is a problem. So you wouldn't be able to include passive reductions scaled to revanchism? If so I truly wonder how extensive and perhaps even process-intensive a rework on this scale would need to be. Probably too much to bother with, even though I think it is more realistic.

>That's the thing, while I agree a rebellion should lower plurality, it shouldn't kill it all.
I don't mean it like that, I mean that, for rebels to rise in sufficient numbers to be successful, the dictatorship should have already been undergoing a crisis of democracy when it was a democracy, and should already have low plurality from beforehand. A dictatorship which is formed in conditions of high plurality should be just as unstable as if a republic is formed in conditions of low plurality.

That said, since you can only take chunks out, I suppose that's something of a moot point. Although I think that plurality should perhaps not be the currency required for totalitarian decisions, but instead a reduction of plurality is the reward for increasing totalitarianism; plurality should still be a threat to the dictatorship and shouldn't be very easily wiped away. Apluralism should be a pre-coup prerequisite for a dictatorship which is stable from the moment it's established, otherwise it will need to go through a long period of struggle on the path to totalitarianism.

>It makes perfect sense, thank you very much for your input in this.
Very welcome. See for further thoughts if you're interested, although to be fair now I think it's probably impossible to model plurality as I think would really need to be modeled to pull off everything perfectly.

It's being difficult to be a great power in this campaign. But as I got a neat flag, it boosts the morale of chink hordes to achieve pic related for Chinksraum

I don't know if it is about coding of the game, Viets became like %30 of the population in the states that I didn't own at the begininng of the game. I even managed to get 1% bureaucrat to make that part of Guanxi a state. I don't observe such behaviour with European pops, I wonder if it is hardcoded somehow.

Well the most obvious would be those who enact the islamic law decision or whatever it is. Historically and within the timeframe of the game conversion to the islamic state religion allowed less taxes and was thus encouraged, I also think a level of militancy and perhaps an associated event that decreases non-state religion pops by a little bit can be used to simulate pogroms associated with this anti-heretic environment. An encourage pogrom decision for all absolute monarchies should act against a specific religion like the genocide decision and then cause a decrease in pops, small level of conversion and immigration push in effected regions due to the religious violence

I'd also like to see a decision or maybe a slider or something to pay to encourage christian missionaries in colonial states, with higher efficiency on animists, then buddhists, then hindus. Jews and muslims would be exempt from this. I know missionaries can be encouraged but just in foreign countries and it doesn't have the same effect.
Within the timeframe of the game entire ethnic groups have had significant christian minorities develop through foreign occupation and missionary work

>Flavor
>HPM is an americunt
:(

Why no west Malaysia?

calll the cops idgaf

Hello, HPM, as you know in the game by the end the pops are 10% conservative, 40% liberal, 40% sofialist, and 10% other, I respectfully request you make farmer pops much more inherently conservative so this doesn't happen, it's frankly unbelievable traditional conservatism is dead by 1936.

Also, aristocrats liberal and socialist tendencies should be ENTIRELY removed, for one because the appointed upper house reform rests upon these pops being more conservative/reactionary than their counterparts, but more importantly because it simply does not make sense to have commie aristocrats.

And I don't just mean change 0.9 to 0.8, I mean change it to 0.5, if not lower.

Please don't fight me over this, laddo, I've not been well.

It seemed as too much of a mess, but since now Brits control all of it I think I will also include it. USA went berserk in a way I have never seen before in this game. Hope they won't try to install democracy to my rice fields.

Farmers were socialists back then. Don't reflect modern politics to the past.

HPM said there's a new version coming out soon because he found a bug in the rebel files :^)

Can you please for the love of God remove that little benis in Transnistria?It makes borders horrendous and I doubt it's historical

No but your southern half needs to rise up and btfo the commies

Yes, farmers desperately wanted their goods and trade taxed and regulated.

They're more socialist today because today they want subsidies, back then they just wanted to be left alone to sell their produce.

>aristocrats liberal and socialist tendencies should be ENTIRELY removed
I completely disagree. Aristocrats weren't just some monolithic hivemind of conservatism, some aristocrats irl wanted greater political rights and social reform.

Also, whilst we're on the subject, fis the borders of the green state north of it so both grossgermaniums and gross romaniums can be pretty.

Here's a picture for reference.Definitely not historical.

>whilst
t. shakespeare

It looks like Romania is opening its mouth while Ungarn is taking a shit into his mouth.

Okay, I didn't actually mean entirely, and yes, I know there were handfuls of socially and politically "revolutionaries" such as Barnardo, but I would argue this is better represented by the capitalist pop. When I think of aristocrats I think of manors, castles, indentured servants, millenia of tradition, not humanitarians. Like I said, I believe the "benevolent philanthropist" is the capitalist, not the aristocrat.

Farmers should start much more reactionary and conservative, with a quite low percentage of liberal tendencies.

It's commonly used in my country, for I am an ANGLO

Should probably count from a different artillery amount.
At least I don't tend to have full combat width of artillery as soon as I hit mil tech 7.

With full combat width of artillery, Leader Shock is better at mil techs.0-8, 11-12.
While Leader Fire is better for the rest.

Yet another reason for Transilvania to remain Romanian

R8 my German blob.
White people are truly the most superior race on this planet, All other races are inferior to whites.

>Doing the release minors trick
0/10 do this with max infamy

>release minors trick
?

truly germanic and glorious

Considering your infamy is under 25 and you have one province German nations that will petition for annexation after awhile, I'm saying you are using the release opm for free infamy trick

>I'd need a better and way more specific reason for that.
Not him but I 100% support anything that can make the Heavenly Kingdom have more than 1% christians.

kys irl

white men

And I need to decide if reactionary rebels break alliances on win or not. NNM thinks "no, they shouldn't" while vanilla says "yes, they should".
Anyway, thanks for everyone who helped with this. I need to go for a while.

Sure.

The islamic law decision doesn't exist anymore, and the whole thing was a mistake. Especially considering the Dhimmi have protection, though it wasn't always enforced.

In any case, moralism provides a bonus to conversion, so you can pick a party with that.

Only animists can be trully converted if there's not a pop of the same culture in the same province.

>So you wouldn't be able to include passive reductions scaled to revanchism?
No.
For some bizarre reason Paradox never implemented the functionality for it to work like a modifier, hence why it will be taken out in chunks.

>plurality should still be a threat to the dictatorship and shouldn't be very easily wiped away
I do agree with you, the problem is how to wipe it. Events? Decisions? Probably events.

I can't do everything perfectly since it can't work like a modifier, but plurality will still play a big role when differentiating democratic from autocratic regimes, hopefully.

See

When you're changing pops what files are you rewriting?

How come Brazil gets a decision to claim Cisplatina when they can do that through conventional war but Germany don't get a decision to create a protectorste in Bohemia because they can do that in conventional war?

The pop files you dummie

Farmers are all for subsidies and big government, it protects them from crop failure or over production. The bed of American socialism were farmer's parties out west.

Also, Vicky's conservatives are literally just the old guard of Europe. They're platform was "keep the status quo". They were mostly gone by the thirties and were replaced by social democrats and centre-right pro-business parties in Europe.

Because one is historical irredentism and the other is to fit your specific blobbling conditions

Don't dignify the revisionist with rebuttal. BASED FARMERS ARE ACHUELY PRONE TO FASCIST 7:10

i'm a cia plant and you're all on a watchlist

i'm not american so suck my dick

Reactionary rebels shouldn't break alliances, even if they form a monarchy from a republic.

Reactionaries are keen on keeping allies since they want to keep their regime. There are some exceptions, like Boxers or russian reactionaries.

Communist. fascists and the rest break alliances because of "muh proletariat/race/state/rights" thing.

I'm behind 7 favelas tho

CIA isn't just domestic lad. Its the FBI you needn't give a fuck about.

Are you planning on making it so that religion actually means something in Vicky 2, HPM? I feel like there's a lot you can do with that.

oh shit i'm sorry then

Aah, I see, you're right. Germany has never historically taken the Czech lands,

white men

Right.Glad you understand.

fascism is a form of socialism and left-wing, they are against the free market

It's not socialism. Fascism relies on a big business to support their rule. See Hitler and Mussolini for examples. The only thing in common is the desire for a bigger state.

It's different from one country to the other but they should definitely be the most conservative/reactionary pops at the start everywhere.

At the start, yeah. And they are.

>trully
lmao check out this tardlet spic

Apart from aristocrats of course.

As I've said, it historically differed from one country to the other (still does). There's probably no way to make it so certain ideology events don't pop us as often in one country than in another, though.

AY PAPI!

Just try to involve the UK into it, they will at the very least distract the US and the yankee brigades will be decimated while they siege down all those tundra provinces.

sorry alex that was too meanspirited I actually really enjoy ur mod please come back i love you

Sorry for what?

I'm already allied to the UK, but intervening via influence makes the CSA the warleader. I could try waiting for them to call me, but the AI is ridiculously shy about it for some reason.

If I remember correctly those western troops will blow you the fuck out. Beware of the eternal Castilian.

Oh, apparently being called in normally doesn't make a difference. The CSA has three military score and still won't let me be war leader.

I don't doubt it, can't wait to westernise.

Is there anyway you can bring your troops to mountain provinces (the appalachians maybe), dig down and kill the yankees there?

I'll try it, but won't they just overrun everywhere else?

You will slow them down, the AI will freak out and send half their army towards you. If you've seen AI Germany fight France and Poland you'll see that they split their army despite Poland being much weaker and easier to hold off.

>1492
Scared

>westernised troops actually beating non westernised troop
EU3 is a relic of it's time.

whhere can I download vicky2 mods? Like concert of europe?

How will Victoria III handle westernisation without triggering their SJW audience?

Paradox doesn't really given to that stuff that often though.

Anyhow I'm back in burgerland now, although it'll be another week or so before I'm actually home again. In the meantime I don't have much to do, so I've been playing HIP (although my laptop runs it like trash) to try to get a feel for what rules I'd like to use in my run. Obviously a lot of this is subject to change and I'll need to do another test run before any potential AAR could begin, but this is giving me some ideas about what to do and how the game performs under certain conditions. Lowered demesne value, for example, doesn't actually seem to make realms weaker; if anything, it's kept everything far more stable, at least seemingly.

In this game I've personally killed 4 Caliphs, there have been 5 Caliphate regencies for underage heirs, the current Caliph is 1000 in debt with 4 loans, and I've beaten him in both an offensive and defensive war, yet he has no serious rebellions. I suspect this is because the AI is giving out land to fewer rulers but creating higher-level titles for them, since land can't so easily be concentrated in individuals, leading to a loyal base of rulers who never feel the need to rebel. This is just assumption on my part, but as historical as a 50% demesne value would be, it seems like it behaves poorly with the game's mechanics.

Another example is the Byzantine Empire, which at one point had a Muslim heir that was underage. That heir not only successfully took control of the Empire despite major rebellions, but he held it together and converted most of it besides. I was forced to place a Armenian Paulician claimant on the throne in order to finally end the Islamic push into Europe, and now the Empire is about 50% Islamic, 20% Orthodox, 20% Iconoclast, and 10% Paulician, yet is still holding together just fine. Entirely unreasonable, and I have to hope that it's the demesne setting which is responsible for it.

speaking as one of them ebil sjws, literally just rename uncivilized to non-westernized or something. Not like it'll matter, everyone will still call them uncivs anyway.

This isn't your general, lads.

Leftypol

It's coming, province by province, hold me!

I really like the Chalcedonian mechanic, expanded heresies, and trade routes in CK2+, but everything else seems better in HIP

Which one should I pick?