|
Akratic Method posted:Think Pinochet transplanted to the 1800s. It's meant to be the equally repressive but economically opposed capitalist counterpart to a Stalinist state. It's also almost entirely anachronistic. The notion that the unregulated marketplace can and should run a country is a lot more modern than many people realize.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
Duckbag posted:It's also almost entirely anachronistic. The notion that the unregulated marketplace can and should run a country is a lot more modern than many people realize. I don't know, the 19th century had plenty of nutjobs like this guy who'd be happy with that sort of system of government. In general, though, I'd always seen Anarcho-Liberals as Bentham-Mill style Philosophic Radicals, championing making working conditions for low-level jobs as miserable as possible so people would have more of an incentive to move up.  After all, people operate on seeking pleasure and minimizing pain, so we need to give the shittiest parts of life as much pain as possible so people have a reason not to want to end up there.(Bentham is all kinds of hosed up) I suspect this because, like, half of the Anarcho-Liberal factions in the game are just "the Radical Party" and Mill called his movement the Radicals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Yeah, there were definitely people advocating stuff like that (you probably know more about economic history than I do, but even I know what century "Social Darwinism" started in). The issue is more about whether there was ever any sort of mass movement in support of those principles and to my knowledge there wasn't. Socialism has natural appeal to an underclass hungry for social justice, but how does the notion of giving rich people absolute power in society appeal to anyone who isn't rich? I know many modern conservatives support policies that favor the rich because they think they will be rich someday, but even they would largely balk at the notion that capitalists should overthrow the government. Even banana republics and laissez-faire hellholes like Pinochet's Chile owe more to foreign intervention and out of control militaries than any true anarcho-capitalist movement. Besides, the 19th Century was already the golden age of robber barons. Why overthrow a government that's pretty much in your pocket anyway? It just doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:Yeah, there were definitely people advocating stuff like that (you probably know more about economic history than I do, but even I know what century "Social Darwinism" started in). The issue is more about whether there was ever any sort of mass movement in support of those principles and to my knowledge there wasn't. Socialism has natural appeal to an underclass hungry for social justice, but how does the notion of giving rich people absolute power in society appeal to anyone who isn't rich? I know many modern conservatives support policies that favor the rich because they think they will be rich someday, but even they would largely balk at the notion that capitalists should overthrow the government. Even banana republics and laissez-faire hellholes like Pinochet's Chile owe more to foreign intervention and out of control militaries than any true anarcho-capitalist movement. Besides, the 19th Century was already the golden age of robber barons. Why overthrow a government that's pretty much in your pocket anyway? It just doesn't make sense. You don't think Haiti and India, at least, make sense as nations that would be ripe for such foreign intervention? The results aren't so much different from the East India Company.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Sorry I've been distracted, guys. I have screenshots done and uploaded, but I just haven't gotten around to actually writing this update yet (partially because I have stuff I want to say about in-game mechanics and I'll need a few lengthy Editor's Notes to explain how a combination of bugs and player arrogance/incompetence resulted in the perfect storm of the next update). Just wanted to let you guys know I haven't forgotten you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Yessod posted:What on earth is a "bourgeois dictatorship"? As best I can tell it's what the bolsheviks called Kerensky's government, and I can't find any other references outside of this game. Is it just something incomprehensible that Paradox made up? The terms "bourgeois dictatorship" and "proletarian dictatorship" come from Marxist terminology, referring to the class nature of a state. "Dictatorship" is not meant in the traditional sense (an autocratic regime) but rather in the sense that a class controls almost all of the state power - the US or UK are bourgeois dictatorships in Marxist terms because state power is held by the bourgeoisie, the Paris Commune was a proletarian dictatorship because state power was held by the proletariat. In V2, Paradox appropriated these terms to mean something completely different; a bourgeois dictatorship is an anarcho-liberal dictatorship and a proletarian dictatorship is essentially a Stalinist regime. The Marxist idea of a proletarian dictatorship would be more accurately represented in game by a democracy in which only poor strata and certain elements of the middle strata could vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Sorry I've been distracted, guys. I have screenshots done and uploaded, but I just haven't gotten around to actually writing this update yet (partially because I have stuff I want to say about in-game mechanics and I'll need a few lengthy Editor's Notes to explain how a combination of bugs and player arrogance/incompetence resulted in the perfect storm of the next update). Just wanted to let you guys know I haven't forgotten you. Really looking forward to it Patter Song! Your themed updates have been great! This thread got me playing Victoria 2 again, though I'm torn because it just eats up so much time. It seems like you have much better understanding of he game mechanics than I do, so it would be great to hear more detail about the bugs and such. Good luck with the update!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Chapter XIII The Second War: Russia's Revenge. January 1914-February 1916quote:Turning and turning in the widening gyre Crippled veterans board streetcars and the new autobuses that crowd the streets of Munich, paying their reduced fares as women and children back away in horror from the man with half a face and the man with only a stump where his right leg should be. The hospitals are still filled with those trying to recover from the effects of chlorine gas and mustard gas, of unexploded ordinance and of starvation. The fields look like moonscape as the corpses of South Germany's finest dissolve into the soil. Rebels beat on the walls of Munich while the government desperately tries to remind people that even now, SGF is still at war with its Italian neighbor, to no avail. St John wrote, The Book of Revelation 18 1-3 posted:After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illumined with his glory. And he cried out with a mighty voice, saying, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place of demons and a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird. For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the passion of her immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed acts of immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich by the wealth of her sensuality." How did this happen? It shouldn't have been this way. Two years ago we were prosperous and fat off of our victory over the Russians and French. Today...oh, today...the arrogance of our leaders in not even admitting their own fault and treating the cataclysm as if it were some sort of natural disaster is the worst part of all.    I remember two years ago when we celebrated Japan's recognition that its writ no longer held sway over its mainland Korean provinces, though it kept the island of Jeju. Of course, the Japanese never truly accepted this loss, and, as everyone knows, have since tried to reinvade Korea, but so far Korea's odd decision to keep its 351,000 men in arms have kept the Japanese at bay.  Japan is even struggling to keep control of its Manchu puppet as China has taken the turmoil in the east to reannex one of its most persistent breakaway warlords.   While it looked like China was on the verge of joining the Great Power club, their decision to put an anti-military party in charge of the government has led the world to value its military at a far lower level. Editor's Note: your mil score in V2 is about 20% your army, 40% your ruling party's attitude, and 40% the capital ships in your navy. It's a ridiculous index that has little to nothing to do with how strong your military is. China's military was suddenly valued at about half as much because it changed ruling parties. We could also double our Mil score overnight by putting Jingoists in power, but for the last 30 years we've have Anti-Military Socialists and Liberals running the show.  The rebellions were frequent. Everyone has a starry-eyed idealist friend who died in those days.  I do not care to remember them.  It hits too close to home.  So many innocent dead.   Young blood spilt for nothing.   Not content with losing wars for Yemen every decade, the Spaniards had Britain beat up Morocco for them and took a large chunk for themselves. Meanwhile, other Maghrebi Arabs reverted to a more traditional way of life.   Nothing changes in India, does it?  For once, it wasn't our sailors who pulled off the impressive voyage of exploration. Hats off to the Swedes, I suppose.  If the government was so intent on putting planes into the military, why don't they have a single brigade of air support yet? Editor's note: Aeronautics just unlocks the possibility I can discover Military Aviation, which is taking its time.  The government, at the time, seemed intent on joining the Dreadnought race, despite the navy already being above its supply limit. If nothing else, the war put an end to that foolishness.  Nor have the army been foolish enough to adapt to tank warfare yet, despite the permanent standing order to build tanks.  Arrogance. What concern had we over whether the Poles were freed? The government said that the Russians were cowards and were still licking their wounds from the previous war, and that they'd certainly give in.  When people protested the coming of another great war, they just instituted more pensions to buy the dissidents off.  Russian lies that SGF was somehow out to grab Poland for itself scared SGF's allies. Editor's note: you are absolutely not supposed to get that modifier for your first wargoal as an attacker. Though Britain eventually does sign up, the Dutch don't, and totally would have if this were fixed.  The mobs that roam the street demand radical change, change the state is not prepared to give them.   In the height of decadent pre-war frivolity, the 1915 World's Fair took place in Munich mere weeks before the war.  Our North German adversaries not only don't have a king, they have a full-fledged modern democracy, putting SGF egalitarianism to the lie.  The Dutch told us, in the days in the runup to the war, that they would remain neutral, and didn't take sides in the crisis.   Their neutrality proved a lie. Despite their truce with us, France joined the fray as well, while none of our allies would join in the war. Editor's note: Great Wars sparked by crises are supposed to automatically call all of the two sides' allies. Russia's were called, ours...weren't, and couldn't be manually called because they all had truces with Russia. The Dutch, who liked us more than the Russians and would have probably joined on our side if they got the automatic call from both, chose Russia after stupidly sitting out the diplomatic negotiations in the crisis and taking a huge prestige hit.  Even Switzerland refused to join, citing that it had troops in hostile soil and couldn't join the war. Why the Swiss army was vacationing in Silesia in peacetime was a mystery the government didn't have time to ponder.   In a welcome distraction, the USA launched its own war against the Russian alliance.   Gas filled the streets of the border towns while Field Marshal Haig landed an expeditionary force in Dunkirk. Within months Haig's forces would be completely obliterated, knocking Britain out of the war.    Victories were costly, and the NGF and Russians outnumbered us far too much.   Though there is no fighting force on earth that can match the SGF in quality man for man, it is difficult to replace professional soldiers of that caliber.   Even the switch to wartime economics and incentives proposed by Lord Keynes didn't ease the burden.   Italians decided that now would be an opportune time to take Tyrol. Our allies are willing to fight that war, and will have to win it for us, we have no forces to dispatch to the Alpine front.  Attrition, attrition. We could not replace our losses in victorious battles, and the sheer numerical advantage of France + Netherlands + NGF + Russia eventually told.    Whole armies were wiped out.  The French and North Germans marched into battle wearing their gas masks. All of the sudden, our chemical weapons were useless and theirs were as effective as ever. Our soldiers died like flies.  Pensions weren't going to buy anyone off at a time when the NGF was haughtily demanding Franconia and the dismantling of the Federation.   Russia was more forgiving, demanding the entirety of Galicia. The loss of SGF's thriving oil industry was a brutal loss, but the disarmament and indemnities bit even harder. Not only was Poland not free, even more of it was under the grip of the Tsar.   Now Bavarian nationalists siege the capital, Italians pour over the Alps (though Rome itself is held by Two Sicilies), and revolution seems imminent. How the mighty have fallen. What is next for the SGF? How can it reemerge from the ashes? The National Socialist Worker's Party has an answer, to blame those Liberals and Socialists who have backstabbed us with their weak acceptance of the vipers, the minorities within us. The Communists have another answer, to nationalize the property of the capitalists who led us into this unsuccessful war. The Nationalists have yet another answer, to secede from this failing federation. I know not what the right answer is. I just know this. Change is coming to South Germany, and if liberal democracy can't give it that change, it will be swept away. Demographics:  Map (unlabeled because the last map was only two years ago) 
Patter Song fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Looks like Hitler may come after all. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
quote:Editor's note: you are absolutely not supposed to get that modifier for your first wargoal as an attacker. Though Britain eventually does sign up, the Dutch don't, and totally would have if this were fixed. edit: the ally-calling confusion is also because you were the aggressor. The defender can call allies regardless of truces, the aggressor cannot. I'm not exactly sure how this applies to automatic calls from crisis wars, but its probably the same. Xenoborg fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:Every crisis I've ever seen had that penalty with nothing to suggest it shouldn't be there. I figured it was a diplomatic penalty for being the aggressor in the conflict. Nope, it's usually not there for aggressors for the initial wargoal, and it being there for aggressors is a bug. It is for subsequent wargoals you use to bribe the other GPs to join you. The most obvious case of that is colonial crises, where there shouldn't be an aggressor/defender at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
This war also shows why you should never ally with the UK: they are a complete paper tiger when it comes to land war in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 23:06
|
|
Patter Song posted:
You've got to love that poo poo. Great how that never will be fixed because Vicky 2 is apparently a finished game. I've had that modifier gently caress me in several crises myself. At this point, I never bother being the aggressor in a crisis anymore unless I know I can wreck anybody potentially involved.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:You've got to love that poo poo. Great how that never will be fixed because Vicky 2 is apparently a finished game. I've had that modifier gently caress me in several crises myself. At this point, I never bother being the aggressor in a crisis anymore unless I know I can wreck anybody potentially involved. IDK, I always read it as 'this is the side that's loving with the status quo.' I never saw it as a bug, it happens every crisis. I mean, 99% of the time that happens it's because you're trying to peel off a chunk of some Great Power, so, yeah, you're 'adding a wargoal.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:This war also shows why you should never ally with the UK: they are a complete paper tiger when it comes to land war in Europe. Counterpoint, from the previous update:  Britain's been a great ally this go-around, probably especially because they lost India and don't station troops there so they have more forces in theater.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
By jingo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Thanks to its strait to the mainland, V2 Britain seems like a much better ally (and much more dangerous enemy) than Britain is in a lot of other Paradox games. In my last game, they were the strongest opposing army in the final Great War before the end of the game by far, and only fell because they were trying to hold down like three fronts at once after Italy and Russia blew it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:Thanks to its strait to the mainland, V2 Britain seems like a much better ally (and much more dangerous enemy) than Britain is in a lot of other Paradox games. In my last game, they were the strongest opposing army in the final Great War before the end of the game by far, and only fell because they were trying to hold down like three fronts at once after Italy and Russia blew it. Wow, I have almost 1000 hours of V2 played and never knew there was a straight land route between Dunkirk and Canterbury. It does seem that the PDM mod removes it though which most of my recent games have been.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:Wow, I have almost 1000 hours of V2 played and never knew there was a straight land route between Dunkirk and Canterbury. It does seem that the PDM mod removes it though which most of my recent games have been. I went most of my game without noticing it, too. I was all like, "Wow! The V2 AI sure is great at using ships to move troops around!" I even wound up using the Ottoman Navy to launch an amphibious assault on London. Instead of just, you know, walking there from occupied France.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
It's usually a terrible thing for the British. From earlier in this very LP:
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
And on that note, can we get a zoomed-out map of postwar Europe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 09:55
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:It's usually a terrible thing for the British. From earlier in this very LP: How does straits work? If I recall correctly, if you have your navy into the waters associated with the strait, only your troops can use it, but I may be conflating Vicky with Europa Universalis. As a corollary, a naval battle ought to block passage until it's resolved. If crossing a strait carries the same penalties as an amphibious attack, having the English Channel fordable cuts down on micromanagement: if Great Britain loses control of the seas the land war ought to be mostly a formality, if you're Great Britain you already need a massive transport fleet, so it's not that big an advantage. Obviously, GB's AI should have a custom "Defend the Channel at all costs" setting, otherwise this virtual strait can be exploited relatively easily, but you can't win them all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
I can almost hear some heavy nationalist candidate now after the last update: Due to warscore seven years ago Our enemies brought forth upon this federation a new humiliation Conceived in treachery and bound by the proposition that they are our equals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
We're well into the endgame now. This is a vote, but not on tactics. Rather, it's the value you want me to take to the end of the game. A. Get our score as high as possible. (The gamey approach) B. Retake our land and extract vengeance on our foes. (The revaunchist approach) C. Respect the people's will. (The democratic approach) D. More butter, less guns. Promote the general welfare, not welfare for generals. Plowshares into pruning hooks and shoot for expanded industry and prosperity. (The technocrat/peacenik approach) Note that I am not revealing what these outcomes do. If you want us to go Communist, for example, you might want to try to figure out which of those goals Communism best approaches (probably A, tbh).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
A How high can you get that score?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:A The last fifteen years of the game will be spent building as many dreadnoughts as can be pumped out over the course of the rest of the game, where they will be left to sit at 5% health undersupplied in Trieste draining my treasury and contributing 100s of points to my score apiece.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
D. More butter now means more guns later during the big world war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
It does crack me up that Vicky naval AI was so bad they had to let the British walk to France. e: Oh and C, because in Vicky, as in life, democracy is a hilarious shitstorm. Duckbox fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
B Revanchism all the way. The humiliation we received at the hands of our enemies and our backstabbing allies must be avenged. The oil fields of Galicia must be secured for our future economic welfare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
B. I wanna see your biggest battle!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
B! We cannot tolerate that kind of humiliation again! I say we destroy the NGF, Russia, and France all!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
B We either gain victory through war or go out with a bang.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
B. Let's face it, endgame Vicky almost always devolves into massive slogs of war, so let's embrace that, go Fascist and wreck some poo poo.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Edit: Actually, let's make that D. Empress Theonora fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
B. Revanchism is the light.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
B all that we can B.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
B, gently caress those guys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
B! Get as many great wars as you humanly can!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
B, as if goons will ever choose aught but war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
D, the world has seen enough war for now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 03:06
|
|
