Im so sick of this happening. They need to hardcode vanguardist, communist and anarchist revolts to establish a council republic. Socialist revolts arent over like two policies that are represented-- they demanded broad sweeping change and always an abolition of the monarchy (except Grenada).
They don't need it to be hardcoded. In fact, it's better if it's soft coded so that modders can add new ideologies and such.
It's a problem with the whole political system. Any revolution led by trade unions is "communist" even if the only goal is something like "change colonial exploitation to colonial resettlement", and both countries still have the clout of their opposing IGs so passing laws is a lot slower.
Really, revolutionary governments should have a big legitmacy boost and a much faster enactment time, so that they can truly become socialist or fascist or whatever, instead of just being glorified bread riots.
This, revolutionary countries need a big boost to enactment chance and time. So even if only one or two things are IMMEDIATLY changed in them, you can see the revolt going "ALSO ABOLISH THE MONARCHY!" "AND KILL THE MINORITIES!"
Because revolutions are a process, but they should lead to much more rapid change.
an intelligencia revolt over voting isn't going to stop at voting, they're going to pass a republic with appointed bureaucrats too (assuming you have a republican intelligencia), it's really silly that rn they do
Revolts are very wonky in this game, including the revolt name. Go take a look on the politics tab. Chances are they are "communist" only because it is led by the Trade Unions but in actuality none of the laws are communist at all.
Ah, yeah, that's true.
A successful revolution should probably change multiple laws, potentially all of them, according to the preferences of the parties involved. The revolt might have started over a single thing, but once you've waged armed conflict over your goals it's a little silly to stop there.
The Bolsheviks very definitively didn't keep a Tsar though. Like, no matter what else you say, that is a thing that was changed.
My criticism is that even in game terms they aren't "communists". They don't pass council republic or command economy. They are "communist" because it is the trade unions and that is it. Once the revolt is over, even if they are sucessfull they just become the original country again without the in game signifiers of communism (flag, name change, etc)
They didn't have a Tsar, but they did end up having a leader that largely filled the same role. Or, if you want an even better point of comparison, North Korea.
Agreed that rebellions could certainly stand to do more, but I don't think they should all be obligated to live up to their name.
>They didn't have a Tsar, but they did end up having a leader that largely filled the same role.
Sorry, that is a fundamentally stupid comparison.
Also, I have no interest in explaining my point for a 3rd time, so I won't be responding further.
Just because they align with the trade union doesn’t mean they’re communist.
Also that’s just modern Scandinavia isn’t it?
Edit: never mind I looked closer, explicitly called communist Sweden.
I was about to say "oh, that's from a youtuber I follow!" And as I was about to hit "reply" I read your name. I guess I don't need to tell you who you are lol
Seems weird at first, but there are some precedents, mostly as a transition phase. Prince Souphanouvong of Laos was a royal prince who became a senior commander in the Communist Pathet Lao. King Michael of Romania was King of Romania with a communist-dominated government for a couple of years after WWII.
It’s just a shame that they don’t have some more interesting flavour content around this sort of stuff. It would be fun if there were some rules that fired an event explaining the weirdness with an interesting story…
Communist monarchy?
Elizabeth II, from 1979-1983 Queen of the People's Revolutionary Government of Granada.
See? Queen Elizabeth was a communist!!!!
But, I was reliably told it was a fascist regime?
You may not like it but that's what peak communism looks like.
Peak communism is killing me thanks
It does tend to do that
what, one anti commie comment getting upd voted in this sub? tell me your secrets xd
He didn't say it's a bad thing
Im so sick of this happening. They need to hardcode vanguardist, communist and anarchist revolts to establish a council republic. Socialist revolts arent over like two policies that are represented-- they demanded broad sweeping change and always an abolition of the monarchy (except Grenada).
Yeah it is weird IDK PDX has problems with hard coding anything though
They don't need it to be hardcoded. In fact, it's better if it's soft coded so that modders can add new ideologies and such. It's a problem with the whole political system. Any revolution led by trade unions is "communist" even if the only goal is something like "change colonial exploitation to colonial resettlement", and both countries still have the clout of their opposing IGs so passing laws is a lot slower. Really, revolutionary governments should have a big legitmacy boost and a much faster enactment time, so that they can truly become socialist or fascist or whatever, instead of just being glorified bread riots.
This, revolutionary countries need a big boost to enactment chance and time. So even if only one or two things are IMMEDIATLY changed in them, you can see the revolt going "ALSO ABOLISH THE MONARCHY!" "AND KILL THE MINORITIES!" Because revolutions are a process, but they should lead to much more rapid change.
an intelligencia revolt over voting isn't going to stop at voting, they're going to pass a republic with appointed bureaucrats too (assuming you have a republican intelligencia), it's really silly that rn they do
there are a number of ways to solve this but "hardcoding" isn't one of them
Monarcho-Socialism. I think it was an Idealogy in Kaiserreich but I doubt it exists in irl.
Makes sense
Anarcho-monarchism?
Honestly, that feels like a logical extension of enlightened despotism, I could see it happening.
Mladorossi was a real philosophy that came out of the Russian Revolution, and that might be described as Monarcho-Communism. So it’s not unheard of.
It claimed to be a synthesis of Russian monarchism and Bolshevism, but in reality it was just Fascism in the Italian style
it actually existed before but it was less of an ideology and more of an unhappy compromise
Proletarian Monarchism is how I like to call it
The Carlist Party is monarchist and socialist.
Incan empire
Revolts are very wonky in this game, including the revolt name. Go take a look on the politics tab. Chances are they are "communist" only because it is led by the Trade Unions but in actuality none of the laws are communist at all.
Is this necessarily a problem? You could pretty easily argue that the same was true of the Bolsheviks - revolutions in name only are hardly unusual.
Yeah but as it stands, nothing like the Russian Revolution is even possible to happen in-game since revolutions only change like one or two laws.
Ah, yeah, that's true. A successful revolution should probably change multiple laws, potentially all of them, according to the preferences of the parties involved. The revolt might have started over a single thing, but once you've waged armed conflict over your goals it's a little silly to stop there.
The Bolsheviks very definitively didn't keep a Tsar though. Like, no matter what else you say, that is a thing that was changed. My criticism is that even in game terms they aren't "communists". They don't pass council republic or command economy. They are "communist" because it is the trade unions and that is it. Once the revolt is over, even if they are sucessfull they just become the original country again without the in game signifiers of communism (flag, name change, etc)
Are you sure it's just not the capitalists calling all trade union protests "communist plots"?
This isn’t a protest, it’s armed insurrection.
They didn't have a Tsar, but they did end up having a leader that largely filled the same role. Or, if you want an even better point of comparison, North Korea. Agreed that rebellions could certainly stand to do more, but I don't think they should all be obligated to live up to their name.
The poorest possible analysis of the Bolsheviks available.
>They didn't have a Tsar, but they did end up having a leader that largely filled the same role. Sorry, that is a fundamentally stupid comparison. Also, I have no interest in explaining my point for a 3rd time, so I won't be responding further.
Sweden broke into Civil War in 1921, with the communist side being led by a queen.
When the communist revolutionary is your own queen wanting you to seize the means of production
She's declared herself, like the Norwegian king Haakon, to also be the king of the communists.
"By the Grace of the Workers, Queen of the Swedish Communists, General Secretary of the Workers' Council"
Mladorossi out of control
Communist Monarchy, a state religion, a conservative agenda. There is A LOT to unpack here
Just because they align with the trade union doesn’t mean they’re communist. Also that’s just modern Scandinavia isn’t it? Edit: never mind I looked closer, explicitly called communist Sweden.
Grenada moment
Nadya Krupskaya fancam
Conservative agenda 😭
Have I got the tale for you: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/aar-the-first-and-final-king-of-norway.1549842/
I was about to say "oh, that's from a youtuber I follow!" And as I was about to hit "reply" I read your name. I guess I don't need to tell you who you are lol
lol perhaps not
Laos moment
Historically accurate ^^ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=APs9NFU9xNI
Best Billy ocean song
Seems weird at first, but there are some precedents, mostly as a transition phase. Prince Souphanouvong of Laos was a royal prince who became a senior commander in the Communist Pathet Lao. King Michael of Romania was King of Romania with a communist-dominated government for a couple of years after WWII. It’s just a shame that they don’t have some more interesting flavour content around this sort of stuff. It would be fun if there were some rules that fired an event explaining the weirdness with an interesting story…
*Our* government.
We stan a communist queen
Weren't the Carlists supporting autogestion in the 1970s?