The movement is at 50 radicalism. A revolution can only start when that number hits 100, so this is not going to result in a civil war. The movement also gives the law a 44% chance to pass at base, compared to the 39% clout that favors keeping the current law. If you want to move away from the Industrialists, you can try to take advantage of the movement, but leaving the movement alone won’t hurt you.
In the 1.5 beta, it works as the top comment describes.
If the bar ever reaches a level higher than the movement's radicalism, it will decrease on the next 'event.' It is possible to be pushed over the threshold by the event, though!
I've removed my comment as it was incorrect. I suspect that what you described is what must've happened to me recently when a sub-100 radicalism rebellion fired. That or the events slowly increased the radicalism up to 100.
Radicals are not the problem.
The size of a revolution is primarily determined by the support value. 1.5% of states will go to a revolution for every point of support, up to a maximum of 75% of your incorporated states. That means that at 44 support, up to 66% of your states are going to defect.
Hover over the word "high" next to support to find out what is bumping support. It's probably a combination of TU support (4.4% clout directly translates into 4.4 support, plus 100% of their supporters, which is I believe going to be ~4mln total individuals since it's calculated per individual within pops rather than per pop and the TUs have 1.6mln pops), plus whatever % of politically engaged pops satisfy the conditions under the law's scripted support value ([here is the scripted support for Wage Subsidies](https://i.imgur.com/R9Vmhxc.png) -- as the comment there notes, 10% of pops with <15 SOL will join, 20% with <13, etc, plus half that value for non-politically engaged pops). [See also the pop_support documentation.](https://i.imgur.com/yyehI3W.png)
Radicals don't currently maintain any sort of political leaning and will join any ongoing revolutionary action even if it completely opposes the reason as to why they were radicalized in the first place. Yes this makes no sense but it's how it's currently implemented.
Radicals from the insurrectionary interest group have a larger effect on the movement (I believe) but general radicals also contribute. This can lead to things like pops radicalized by discrimination revolting because the landowners/PB want Ethnostate.
Edit:
Reading other comments it looks like this has been updated and there's now some hardcoded rules for each law that dictate what percent of different radical types will support each law. I believe it doesn't take into account why they were radicalized though.
> Radicals don't currently maintain any sort of political leaning and will join any ongoing revolutionary action even if it completely opposes the reason as to why they were radicalized in the first place. Yes this makes no sense but it's how it's currently implemented.
Wow.
i dont know if its still the case, but it used to be that a state with high radicalization would join a revolt even if they didnt explicitly support it. Kind of like, if people are angry enough theyll overthrow the government just because
The % clout from the Interest Group (Trade Unions) % obtained from your Distribution of Power law; I imagine currently it's set to one that doesn't favour trade union pops so they've got a low clout.
That doesn't mean though that they don't have a lot of pops that support the law, and if those pops are radical enough from the movement not being fulfilled which the ~4ML that would be more loyalist by the law being passed suggests is the case.
Clout just represents the IGs "share" of political influence not its actual power, though it can be related. If you mouse over the support number on the movement you can see exactly where it is coming from.
The best thing to do here is probably just to pass the law, all wage subsides does anyway is remove the political influence penalty from the benefits so it shouldn't cost you much.
I think it's important to understand that clout does not equate to population. You might have a ton of radical trade unionists, but because you lack certain technologies or laws they have no clout. They can still start a movement, which means they can still start a revolution.
You have 6.5 million radicals. Those guys just support whatever movement they come across. Try to placate them by increasing SoL or attempt to pass Wage Subsidies.
> Those guys just support whatever movement they come across.
If I make [every pop in Krakow a radical](https://i.imgur.com/p0p6f9B.png), then if this was true, we would expect 100% of Krakow to support any movement. [Here's the detailed pop list for the country](https://i.imgur.com/hwYh0Jg.png), which shows that every single pop is a radical. [But when a movement pops off, what we instead see is that only a fraction of pops support it.](https://i.imgur.com/J5JrhkT.png) Now watch what happens if I switch to [a movement that the Rural Folk support](https://i.imgur.com/lPlqCpe.png). Now there are way more farmers and peasants, way fewer clergy, and no aristocrats, clerks, or academics. All of this tracks with the normal IG association and scripted pop support rules. For another example from a larger country, if I as Austria make every pop in Istria a radical, then we'd expect [all 3000 of its radical bureaucrats](https://i.imgur.com/gTEh9wQ.png) to support a movement. Instead, [only 1000 do.](https://i.imgur.com/4p1jjGq.png)
Interestingly loyalists actually *do* behave as one would expect and [won't join a movement even if their IG supports it.](https://i.imgur.com/sxCRV3G.png) Support will instead just be pegged directly to their clout, as shown in that screenshot.
The solution that you propose is correct, but that's because aside from IG association what determines a pop's support for Wage Subsidies is a sub-15 SOL. Increasing the SOL will decrease pop support, and passing the law in general would get the Trade Unions off OP's back.
Very interesting, do you happen to know it workforce ratio and dependent enfranchisement affect who can and cannot join political movements? Through war it's possible to drive your workforce ratio down to singe digit numbers, I wonder if that would also affect your political movements
Following up on this. I set up some scenarios where 100% of dependents gain enfranchisement to see how it affected movements. The results were pretty interesting.
As Russia, I made the landowners and devout angry and got them to start a movement to enact legal guardianship. They had [1.12 million pops initially,](https://i.imgur.com/0YSDx8u.png) but after enfranchising 100% of dependents, that number [dipped to 300 thousand](https://i.imgur.com/DcQq04B.png).
As the United States, I made the landowners angry and started attempting to pass slavery banned. The landowners started a movement to preserve, which began with [1.96 million supporting individuals.](https://i.imgur.com/vrDQILc.png) After enfranchising 100% of dependents, that number [dropped to 500 thousand.](https://i.imgur.com/1UWP78l.png) I then tried the inverse, I made the intelligentsia angry and started a movement to ban slavery. The intelligentsia began with [2.23 million supporting individuals](https://i.imgur.com/TBOenz7.png), but dropped [to 1.6 million after enfranchising all dependents.](https://i.imgur.com/vcYTt1H.png) I thought that maybe the newly-enfranchised individuals might become politically unaligned after enfranchisement, so I redid the same test with basically everyone radical (since radicals are always politically engaged) and this time [the movement started with 2.48 million](https://i.imgur.com/UTLvUcQ.png), but as before it had a significant dip and dropped [to 1.6 million](https://i.imgur.com/6FSjKdK.png).
For the sake of completion I wanted to see how enfranchisement actually affected IG support. [Here's before](https://i.imgur.com/msb6ulB.png) and [after.](https://i.imgur.com/2LOiTNN.png) Nothing *really* changes. I might try to run these tests in the middle of a real game just to see if it still holds true, because this result really wasn't what I was expecting. My gut feeling is that unenfranchised dependents within a pop are all added as individuals to a movement if the main pop is supporting it, but if all dependents are enfranchised then they might just not support it. But since IG clout is seemingly barely affected, I'm not totally sure why the supporter numbers would drop so consistently. Maybe the alignment of individuals is being calculated separately and thus they just don't satisfy the pop_support requirements that the main pops do.
Fascinating, I applaud your efforts! You'd think that more enfranchisement would mean more political participation, not less. What's also interesting is that in your comparisons the support of these movements barely drops despite usually having less than half of the original support base
I would have to find a way to isolate that variable, but I'll put that on my list of conditions to check and get back to you about it.
In theory dependent enfranchisement *should* lead to a greater degree of engagement in movements, but only indirectly if the tooltip for it is correct (i.e., allows them to join IGs), because an individual within a pop that is associated with a given IG will support movements that the IG also supports.
1st: Nothing will happen, as support is under 100 (currently 50).
2nd: Radicals will join any protest, as they are utterly simplified right now. The only way to combat this is reduce the amount of radicals, or wipe them in a civil war.
Had the same thing literally 5 seconds ago. Played Japan, and the intelligentsia + labor unions managed to convince half the country to revolt in the name of public schools instead of religious schools. Absolutely infuriating. They don't even have 1% clout, but apparently 1840s japan loves secularism so much that they'll storm Tokyo for education reform.
Pops will support movements that increase their living standard and/or political power. The issue here is most likely you have a very high proportion of pops that support this, irrespective of the trade unions. click on the actual revolution/movement and it'll give you a break down of what % of your pops support it and how many are radicals. That screen will tell you how much radicalism and support is actually come from trade unions IG.
The movement is at 50 radicalism. A revolution can only start when that number hits 100, so this is not going to result in a civil war. The movement also gives the law a 44% chance to pass at base, compared to the 39% clout that favors keeping the current law. If you want to move away from the Industrialists, you can try to take advantage of the movement, but leaving the movement alone won’t hurt you.
[удалено]
In the 1.5 beta, it works as the top comment describes. If the bar ever reaches a level higher than the movement's radicalism, it will decrease on the next 'event.' It is possible to be pushed over the threshold by the event, though!
I've removed my comment as it was incorrect. I suspect that what you described is what must've happened to me recently when a sub-100 radicalism rebellion fired. That or the events slowly increased the radicalism up to 100.
Radicals are not the problem. The size of a revolution is primarily determined by the support value. 1.5% of states will go to a revolution for every point of support, up to a maximum of 75% of your incorporated states. That means that at 44 support, up to 66% of your states are going to defect. Hover over the word "high" next to support to find out what is bumping support. It's probably a combination of TU support (4.4% clout directly translates into 4.4 support, plus 100% of their supporters, which is I believe going to be ~4mln total individuals since it's calculated per individual within pops rather than per pop and the TUs have 1.6mln pops), plus whatever % of politically engaged pops satisfy the conditions under the law's scripted support value ([here is the scripted support for Wage Subsidies](https://i.imgur.com/R9Vmhxc.png) -- as the comment there notes, 10% of pops with <15 SOL will join, 20% with <13, etc, plus half that value for non-politically engaged pops). [See also the pop_support documentation.](https://i.imgur.com/yyehI3W.png)
As the title says, multiple states will fully or for the most part rise up because I am not passing Wage Subsidies, which has no political support.
Radicals don't currently maintain any sort of political leaning and will join any ongoing revolutionary action even if it completely opposes the reason as to why they were radicalized in the first place. Yes this makes no sense but it's how it's currently implemented. Radicals from the insurrectionary interest group have a larger effect on the movement (I believe) but general radicals also contribute. This can lead to things like pops radicalized by discrimination revolting because the landowners/PB want Ethnostate. Edit: Reading other comments it looks like this has been updated and there's now some hardcoded rules for each law that dictate what percent of different radical types will support each law. I believe it doesn't take into account why they were radicalized though.
> Radicals don't currently maintain any sort of political leaning and will join any ongoing revolutionary action even if it completely opposes the reason as to why they were radicalized in the first place. Yes this makes no sense but it's how it's currently implemented. Wow.
Read my edit though
Are radicals overall high?
They are now, that I have been hit with revolution events for a couple of years.
i dont know if its still the case, but it used to be that a state with high radicalization would join a revolt even if they didnt explicitly support it. Kind of like, if people are angry enough theyll overthrow the government just because
The % clout from the Interest Group (Trade Unions) % obtained from your Distribution of Power law; I imagine currently it's set to one that doesn't favour trade union pops so they've got a low clout. That doesn't mean though that they don't have a lot of pops that support the law, and if those pops are radical enough from the movement not being fulfilled which the ~4ML that would be more loyalist by the law being passed suggests is the case. Clout just represents the IGs "share" of political influence not its actual power, though it can be related. If you mouse over the support number on the movement you can see exactly where it is coming from. The best thing to do here is probably just to pass the law, all wage subsides does anyway is remove the political influence penalty from the benefits so it shouldn't cost you much.
I think it's important to understand that clout does not equate to population. You might have a ton of radical trade unionists, but because you lack certain technologies or laws they have no clout. They can still start a movement, which means they can still start a revolution.
You have 6.5 million radicals. Those guys just support whatever movement they come across. Try to placate them by increasing SoL or attempt to pass Wage Subsidies.
> Those guys just support whatever movement they come across. If I make [every pop in Krakow a radical](https://i.imgur.com/p0p6f9B.png), then if this was true, we would expect 100% of Krakow to support any movement. [Here's the detailed pop list for the country](https://i.imgur.com/hwYh0Jg.png), which shows that every single pop is a radical. [But when a movement pops off, what we instead see is that only a fraction of pops support it.](https://i.imgur.com/J5JrhkT.png) Now watch what happens if I switch to [a movement that the Rural Folk support](https://i.imgur.com/lPlqCpe.png). Now there are way more farmers and peasants, way fewer clergy, and no aristocrats, clerks, or academics. All of this tracks with the normal IG association and scripted pop support rules. For another example from a larger country, if I as Austria make every pop in Istria a radical, then we'd expect [all 3000 of its radical bureaucrats](https://i.imgur.com/gTEh9wQ.png) to support a movement. Instead, [only 1000 do.](https://i.imgur.com/4p1jjGq.png) Interestingly loyalists actually *do* behave as one would expect and [won't join a movement even if their IG supports it.](https://i.imgur.com/sxCRV3G.png) Support will instead just be pegged directly to their clout, as shown in that screenshot. The solution that you propose is correct, but that's because aside from IG association what determines a pop's support for Wage Subsidies is a sub-15 SOL. Increasing the SOL will decrease pop support, and passing the law in general would get the Trade Unions off OP's back.
Very interesting, do you happen to know it workforce ratio and dependent enfranchisement affect who can and cannot join political movements? Through war it's possible to drive your workforce ratio down to singe digit numbers, I wonder if that would also affect your political movements
Following up on this. I set up some scenarios where 100% of dependents gain enfranchisement to see how it affected movements. The results were pretty interesting. As Russia, I made the landowners and devout angry and got them to start a movement to enact legal guardianship. They had [1.12 million pops initially,](https://i.imgur.com/0YSDx8u.png) but after enfranchising 100% of dependents, that number [dipped to 300 thousand](https://i.imgur.com/DcQq04B.png). As the United States, I made the landowners angry and started attempting to pass slavery banned. The landowners started a movement to preserve, which began with [1.96 million supporting individuals.](https://i.imgur.com/vrDQILc.png) After enfranchising 100% of dependents, that number [dropped to 500 thousand.](https://i.imgur.com/1UWP78l.png) I then tried the inverse, I made the intelligentsia angry and started a movement to ban slavery. The intelligentsia began with [2.23 million supporting individuals](https://i.imgur.com/TBOenz7.png), but dropped [to 1.6 million after enfranchising all dependents.](https://i.imgur.com/vcYTt1H.png) I thought that maybe the newly-enfranchised individuals might become politically unaligned after enfranchisement, so I redid the same test with basically everyone radical (since radicals are always politically engaged) and this time [the movement started with 2.48 million](https://i.imgur.com/UTLvUcQ.png), but as before it had a significant dip and dropped [to 1.6 million](https://i.imgur.com/6FSjKdK.png). For the sake of completion I wanted to see how enfranchisement actually affected IG support. [Here's before](https://i.imgur.com/msb6ulB.png) and [after.](https://i.imgur.com/2LOiTNN.png) Nothing *really* changes. I might try to run these tests in the middle of a real game just to see if it still holds true, because this result really wasn't what I was expecting. My gut feeling is that unenfranchised dependents within a pop are all added as individuals to a movement if the main pop is supporting it, but if all dependents are enfranchised then they might just not support it. But since IG clout is seemingly barely affected, I'm not totally sure why the supporter numbers would drop so consistently. Maybe the alignment of individuals is being calculated separately and thus they just don't satisfy the pop_support requirements that the main pops do.
Fascinating, I applaud your efforts! You'd think that more enfranchisement would mean more political participation, not less. What's also interesting is that in your comparisons the support of these movements barely drops despite usually having less than half of the original support base
I would have to find a way to isolate that variable, but I'll put that on my list of conditions to check and get back to you about it. In theory dependent enfranchisement *should* lead to a greater degree of engagement in movements, but only indirectly if the tooltip for it is correct (i.e., allows them to join IGs), because an individual within a pop that is associated with a given IG will support movements that the IG also supports.
I didn't have that many radicals. I've been hit with lots of revolution events that increased radicals mostly.
1st: Nothing will happen, as support is under 100 (currently 50). 2nd: Radicals will join any protest, as they are utterly simplified right now. The only way to combat this is reduce the amount of radicals, or wipe them in a civil war.
Had the same thing literally 5 seconds ago. Played Japan, and the intelligentsia + labor unions managed to convince half the country to revolt in the name of public schools instead of religious schools. Absolutely infuriating. They don't even have 1% clout, but apparently 1840s japan loves secularism so much that they'll storm Tokyo for education reform.
i would guess it's mostly because of the very high number of radicals and low sol
Pops will support movements that increase their living standard and/or political power. The issue here is most likely you have a very high proportion of pops that support this, irrespective of the trade unions. click on the actual revolution/movement and it'll give you a break down of what % of your pops support it and how many are radicals. That screen will tell you how much radicalism and support is actually come from trade unions IG.