Victoria 2

[Tamas]

Nationally diverse empires did not engage in reforms because they feared unstability and rightly so. Russia and A-H for example was indeed better off with less reforms. Not the populace, but Teh Empire itself. Of course it did not work by the end of the period but reforms did not work either. Like, sure, in the 1910s, A-H had a lot of problem with Serbs living in southern Hungary, and kept cracking down on them, which just sort of made matters worse. But, at the same time, Romanian activists in Transylvania had a more or less free hand at propaganda because A-H wanted to score good points with its supposed ally Romania, but that only sped up te independence movement there. Its a matter of fact that the crackdown on the Serbs was more effective from the empire's point of view than the liberal policy with the Romanians.

[DGuller]

Its a matter of fact that the crackdown on the Serbs was more effective from the empire's point of view than the liberal policy with the Romanians.

I presume that the Serbs learned their lesson and didn't trouble anyone anymore?

[Tamas]

Its a matter of fact that the crackdown on the Serbs was more effective from the empire's point of view than the liberal policy with the Romanians.

I presume that the Serbs learned their lesson and didn't trouble anyone anymore?

Very funny, but of course what I mean is that anti-reform policies allowed the government to have more direct control over the inevitable.

In Vicky 1, you get the feeling that non-reforming countries do this just because they like to be evöl.

But thats bullocks, I have read a lot about the end struggle of A-H and the leaders, both Austrian and Hungarian were surprisingly aware of the state of the empire. But, beside personal political concerns, most of them (especially Hungarians) thought that giving way to minorities would only make the desingetration faster. And they were more or less right by that time, as by early 1900s there was not much to be done which would not eventually result in the defacto partition of Hungary. Which of course would have made just about every single magyar citizen absolutely furious, so apart from radical Austrians no-one saw it as a net positive for the empire.

[Drakken]

Well, to be fair, ideology seems now to be quite divorced from issues in Vic2.

From what I read Conservatives are people basically satisfied with the statu quo and thus cannot enable nor disable reforms, while Liberals are the ones pushing for political reforms, while Socialists push for social reforms. In both cases, when satiated they become Conservatives, while the "real conservatives" might switch to become Reactionaries as they become pissed.

I just hope that in Vic2 enabling Reforms will lead to as much political complication than benefits, so that it stops being a no-brainer to place Liberals ASAP to enable all the Reforms before 1850. But with the new system, I can see countries becoming actually plagued with Reactionary elites, with ensuing hilarious political events, if Reforms are pushed too fast.

And remember, in Vicky2 the Upper House is not really a Upper House, but rather a tool to represent the agendas of the power brokers and leading elites around your rule. To quote King:

No, the upper house doesn't always represent an upper house as such. Imperial Russia has an appointed upper house even though one did not exist. This represents the series of power brokers and elites that the government simply cannot afford to ignore.

What we have done is split granting reform and day to day government into two. So the lower house is essentially the old Victoria Revolutions Political system. This puts breaks on your sliders, determines if you can build factories or not and things like this. The Upper house represents your current ruling system's support for political and social reform. In part it is there to put breaks on the reform process and secondly to avoid the old Victoria problem where you liberals were angry because the Laissez Faire government they elect refuses to give them pensions. Now they will elect a liberal government in the lower house because they like Laissez Faire but will seek to get socialists into the upper house so they can get the pensions they always wanted.

We'll see if it works in practice, but on the paper I like the concept. It is a welcome change from Victoria.

[sbr]

[Habbaku]

:fap:

[PRC]

I always found Japan a hell of a lot of fun to play in Victoria 1.

[Josquius]

I didn't. I could never handle being a minor and playing by the same rules as the big boys but crippled.

[Faeelin]

But thats bullocks, I have read a lot about the end struggle of A-H and the leaders, both Austrian and Hungarian were surprisingly aware of the state of the empire. But, beside personal political concerns, most of them (especially Hungarians) thought that giving way to minorities would only make the desingetration faster. And they were more or less right by that time, as by early 1900s there was not much to be done which would not eventually result in the defacto partition of Hungary. Which of course would have made just about every single magyar citizen absolutely furious, so apart from radical Austrians no-one saw it as a net positive for the empire.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I am inevitably dubious when I hear autocrats discuss how they're refraining from giving people rights because it's in their best interest.

[Tamas]

But thats bullocks, I have read a lot about the end struggle of A-H and the leaders, both Austrian and Hungarian were surprisingly aware of the state of the empire. But, beside personal political concerns, most of them (especially Hungarians) thought that giving way to minorities would only make the desingetration faster. And they were more or less right by that time, as by early 1900s there was not much to be done which would not eventually result in the defacto partition of Hungary. Which of course would have made just about every single magyar citizen absolutely furious, so apart from radical Austrians no-one saw it as a net positive for the empire.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I am inevitably dubious when I hear autocrats discuss how they're refraining from giving people rights because it's in their best interest.

Uhm, what exactly are you talking about? I was saying that the ruling class of A-H, in the early 1900s saw that given the current complex ethnic and political problems rampan under the hood in the Monarchy, going more liberal would destroy the entity known as Austria-Hungary. And they were perfectly right, as history shown.

And I am not saying it was in the people's interest to see A-H live on. (well it was for Hungarians but whatever). I am saying that it was pretty bad to portray liberal reforms as net positive for a COUNTRY. Because they were not, because in that timeframe they were countries which had no future in modern times, and not standing up against the tide meant they sure destruction.

[Syt]

But thats bullocks, I have read a lot about the end struggle of A-H and the leaders, both Austrian and Hungarian were surprisingly aware of the state of the empire. But, beside personal political concerns, most of them (especially Hungarians) thought that giving way to minorities would only make the desingetration faster. And they were more or less right by that time, as by early 1900s there was not much to be done which would not eventually result in the defacto partition of Hungary. Which of course would have made just about every single magyar citizen absolutely furious, so apart from radical Austrians no-one saw it as a net positive for the empire.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I am inevitably dubious when I hear autocrats discuss how they're refraining from giving people rights because it's in their best interest.

Huh? Who argued that point? Austrians and Hungarians wanted to hang onto their joint Empire, hence no rights for Slovaks, Romanians, Czechs and so forth. Nothing about this being in the best interest of the minorities.

[The Minsky Moment]

And I am not saying it was in the people's interest to see A-H live on. (well it was for Hungarians but whatever).

And the 

[Valmy]

And I am not saying it was in the people's interest to see A-H live on. (well it was for Hungarians but whatever)

Oh yes it was.  The Empire was the best way to secure the economic prosperity of Eastern Europe and keep the Russians and Germans out.  The Monarchy fell and the place has been an economic basketcase and playground for Russians and Germans ever since.

Breaking up A-H was an idea based on ethnic hatred and nationalistic head-up-assism and a great historical example about how if you do not hang together you will most assuredly hang separately.

[Tamas]

And I am not saying it was in the people's interest to see A-H live on. (well it was for Hungarians but whatever)

Oh yes it was.  The Empire was the best way to secure the economic prosperity of Eastern Europe and keep the Russians and Germans out.  The Monarchy fell and the place has been an economic basketcase and playground for Russians and Germans ever since.

Breaking up A-H was an idea based on ethnic hatred and nationalistic head-up-assism and a great historical example about how if you do not hang together you will most assuredly hang separately.

I most certainly agree, however I dont think there was any reasonable way out of the nationalistic deadlock EXCEPT for a German victory in WW1 which would had given Austria the support it needed to force (literally) through a reform of making the Monarchy a multi-ethnic affair. That would had led to something akin to 1848 (from Hungary), you know.

That's why I believe the Entente's victory was a net negative.

[jimmy olsen]

And I am not saying it was in the people's interest to see A-H live on. (well it was for Hungarians but whatever)

Oh yes it was.  The Empire was the best way to secure the economic prosperity of Eastern Europe and keep the Russians and Germans out.  The Monarchy fell and the place has been an economic basketcase and playground for Russians and Germans ever since.

Breaking up A-H was an idea based on ethnic hatred and nationalistic head-up-assism and a great historical example about how if you do not hang together you will most assuredly hang separately.

Totally agree, in all deference to Putin it was the collapse of A-H that was the 20th century's greatest geopolitical disaster not the collapse of the Soviet Union.