u/TheMaskedFelon

No offense but I don't really see how, like the commonwealth thing is actually a cool vanilla path but it isn't a new mechanic (it's just an event chain and a tag switch) so it has no relevance to kaiserreich. Exiled govs are cool but much like alliances and autonomy it would probably give the game less depth when it's actually applicable (like a German gov in exile hosted by mittelafrika) by changing complex event chains and decisions into a single stat. When applied dynamically, you end up with unrealistic and silly outcomes that hamper the integrity and believability of the game. In the end, it will more than likely be the case that the mechanic is disabled entirely (or made to be irrelevant by a game rule).

I was thinking, maybe, that it would make sense, given KR lore, that the government in exile mechanic were limited to German-associated monarchies hosted by the German empire, entente countries hosted by Canada (including the United Kingdom at game start perhaps?), and syndicalist governments new and old hosted by France or Britain (this would lead to interesting situations like the FAI being a continual thorn in the side of Carlist Spain as long as the CoF exists, making joining wk2 very appealing). But that would cause so many potential problems and broken event chains for such a small mechanic that I really don't see the point in bothering.

I really feel the devs have (probably intentionally) left Kaiserreich's "syndicalism" vague. It is supposed to be the case that the Union of Britain and France represent the more libertarian and "orthodox" branches of radicalism respectively, so keep in mind that there is a significant degree of separation between these in terms of political economy. I'll be writing mostly in regard to France as I believe it is most in line with Syndicalist thought in the real world.

income cap

Somewhat irrelevant with general income equity (although almost certainly not exact equity: many positions in the Soviet Union were incentivized to keep them filled, which was actually a somewhat unpopular policy but almost certainly present in a country with anarchists in government where systems of forced or prison labor as existed in the Stalin-era Soviet Union or countries like the US today are not present. I can tell you that the famous architect of Marxian syndicalism, De Leon, advocated pay grades depending on quality of work as well: http://www.deleonism.org/text/lv000012.htm and in this passage (http://www.deleonism.org/text/lv000013.htm) he describes in a somewhat roundabout way incentives for undesirable positions: "Given the instance of 200 conductors and 200 motormen being needed, the supply of conductors, which will be indicated by the number of applicants for conductors' function, and the supply of motormen, which will be indicated by the number of applicants for motormen's function, will be an exact index of the amount of tissue expended in each function. Temperamental and other exceptional causes being left aside, it will be found that the preference will be generally given by the applicants to the pleasanter, or easier, function, that is, to the function that consumes less tissue. Say that, in the instance under consideration, 400 workers apply for the function of conductor, while only 50 apply for the function of motorman, it would follow that 1 hour of a motorman's function consumes as much tissue as do 8 hours of a conductor's. The rate of tissue consumption being the index of the contribution to the social store, and the rate of contribution to the social store being the index for the rate of compensation, the motorman's 1 hour would receive a compensation equal to the conductor's 8 hours. The huge advantage of leisure that the motorman's function would thus be found to enjoy, and the conductor's function to be deprived of, would have the effect of counterbalancing the discrepancy in the consumption of tissue. A deflection of applicants from the conductors' to the motormen's function would set in"

labor vouchers

I can tell you for a fact that there cannot be a post-monetary economy in the period the game takes place. That degree of economic calculation requires an expansive telecommunications, computation, and data collection network that will not be possible to even start implementing until probably the 1960s (Kruschev commissioned the work of an economist whose name escapes me about this possibility, and shot the proposal down on account of prohibitive costs). De Leon never spoke of labor vouchers, and Mars himself only wrote of them as a hypothetical in his "communist" post socialist political economy (critique of the gotha program, for those interested).

how does anyone but the government create jobs?

In France it is quite possible the government is the only job provider, being that the Trade Unions are governmental political organizations (albeit worker controlled). As such it would more than likely be the case that the Commune of France is a full employment economy with all industrial interests nationalized and administered at workshop and regional levels by unions in much the same way they were administered centrally by GOSPLAN in the USSR. If any one is interested in the specifics of this, I can point you to a relevant section of the 1936 Soviet constitution which I believe is a good baseline for a Marxian program of public ownership: "ARTICLE 6. The land, its natural deposits, waters, forests, mills, factories, mines, rail, water and air transport, banks, post, telegraph, and telephones, large state organized agricultural enterprises (state farms, machine and tractor stations and the like) as well as municipal enterprises and the bulk of the dwelling houses in the cities and industrial localities, are state property, that is, belong to the whole people."

Would each local trade union boss given extra access to capital in order to procure what they need from non-Syndicalist countries?

It is almost certainly the case that the Trade Unions negotiate a budget with the rest of the government to be spent on manufacture, including imports. I cannot tell you how tax rates are decided (or even the method: the USSR had a form of sales tax which functioned as surplus extraction, for instance) and it might even be the case that the Unions simply run the factories and other industrial interests but have no say in their own budgets. This all depends on how governmental powers are split.

How does any form of entrepreneurship work when you are forever bound to the trade unions and must agree with their party line?

Research and development need not be politicized (of course there are stand out examples to the contrary) if you're conflating "entrepeneurship" with "inventiveness". There's no reason to think that a state institution for research does not exist, and state research has always been the backbone of innovation in most countries. If you mean "entrepeneurship" in the usual sense, the ability to start private business interests, a De Leonist "orthodox" syndicalist country would simply not have little place for it. Maybe artisans, registered with the government. The expansion of industry or output would be determined by unions using the same projected demand models used by private firms in the same period. The "party line" is a democratic common agreement by workers.

Tbh for this reason I would've liked it if they'd just done away with the conventional province/nation system in this game. Why not represent tribes as pops that only control settlements, with shifting spheres of influence instead of tiny province sized countries? Independent nations that occupy provinces as distinct territories could be reserved for more organized civilizations in the Mediterranean and middle East, while "barbarians" remain highly mobile settlers/armies that aren't rooted to a specific nation with borders. These barbarian controlled areas could be represented in the map maybe in a separate mode, while in political view their territories are uncolored "colonizable" space that have the name of the tribe floating above.

Really outdid yourself, I wouldn't be surprised at all if other mods or even official content attempt to imitate it a few years down the line. This is exactly the kind of thing I've wanted from a grand strategy game since Vicky 2.

Absolutely fantastic. The parliament mechanics (in general, not the UK unique one obviously) really ought to be a central pillar of gameplay. In far distant development I would love to see the role of national focuses relegated almost entirely to executive and military decisions (I.e. what the executive branch of a given type of government is entitled to do) and parliament/congress for all other legislative actions.

This gives players a much more realistic perspective on running a state in this era. It also clearly differentiates types of government: we can now actually experience the difference between a non-parliamentary presidential republic like the US and a parliamentary monarchy like the UK, or even see the semi-unexplored legislative electoral politics of countries like the USSR in comparison to a totalitarian executive-controlled state like Nazi Germany or theoretical options introduced with this mod like a libertarian FAI-controlled Spain and councillist Bavaria, where the executive might not exist at all. We can finally explore what a Pre-Stalin Constitution/liberalized Soviet Union would look like, or far-flung alternate historical possibilities like a napoleonic "imperial" republic in the US (cough cough, Huey Long, cough).

If I could give one piece of feedback: KEEP DOING THIS. It's great. Take it further. It's exactly the layer of complexity this game needed.

Tbh they should shoot to have monarchies of both native and Hohenzollern dynasties for every country by beta too (or autdem governorships). The political axis in this timeline IS supposed to be Syndicalism on the left and Monarchy on the right, after all.

It would be really cool to have a court packing bill>expanded new deal>second bill of rights path for FDR. Another interesting possibility is FDR succeeding in replacing Truman with Henry Wallace as Vice President, meaning a Soviet-neutral or even Soviet-aligned America with a robust welfare state when FDR succumbs to polio.

Psssh... nothin personnel, elves...

-Pelinal Whitestrake (OC please do not steal)

Didn't realize there were so many legit n'wahs on this sub.

Other Elder Scrolls lore facts:

• Vivec is a hermaphrodite that once fucked Molag Bal (the King of Rape) for 88 days straight and had a bunch of disgusting monster children with him that he murdered one by one

• Queen Barenziah was once graphically described being molested by a Khajiit in a Riften tavern and she really enjoyed it

• Khajiit are confirmed in elder scrolls lore to have barbed dicks (that's why the Riften tavern in Skyrim is called the "Bee and barb")

• A redguard once nuked a continent by splitting an atom with his sword

• The plot of Skyrim is that Akatosh sent himself (the player) to go kill himself (Alduin) because he was trying to take over the planet with other pieces of himself (dragons)

• The dwarves were just elves that tried to turn themselves into a giant robot and just stopped existing on accident

With this, you can add new variables and buttons with scripted effects to existing GUI as well as create whole new menus of buttons and variables, which can hidden or enabled based on triggers and context (like country tag). Lots of potential for new mechanics.

If I understand it correctly, this could allow modders to add in things like money or food to the game and mechanics to accompany them. With this and decisions, you could make a whole new game.

The great thing about this system you've designed is that it could quite easily be adopted to virtually any system of government to represent factional conflict.

For example, by 1933 (3 years before the 1936 constitution) the Congress of Soviets mostly rubber-stamped decisions of the Central Executive Committee (CCCP), which it elected. The CCCP consisted of 21 members.

So at game start, instead of a Parliament decision section with hundreds of seats, you'd have a Central Committee with only 21. Now you have to bargain with individual members instead of whole parties, with less political power needed to strong arm them depending on Stalin's level of control over security forces. The challenge for a pro-Stalin player is to overcome democratizing elements of the party (who historically formed an anti-Stalin bloc in the 17th Congress) by winning the trust of the party through a successful 5 year plan (thereby winning motions against him at the Congress), enacting the purges afterward, and finally creating the stronger, more loyal 36-seat Presidium to replace the CCCP as legislative power after enacting his 1936 Constitution. A democracy-minded player will have the reverse challenge: discredit Stalin by making deals with his supporters or purposely sabotaging the Five Year Plan, demote him, and either retain the status quo or grant the Congress its de jure powers under the terms of the 1924 Constitution, effectively transforming the Soviet Union into a unicameral parliamentary democracy.

You can imagine something similar for Nazi Germany prior to the Reichstag Fire, a sort of meta-game where the player has to politically manoeuvre to retain power.

This is so cool!

I fixed it

https://imgur.com/a/dcPqi

made better version

go hawks

Spare me your universalisms.

http://imgur.com/a/K4psP

Just look up the CNT-FAI, Free Territory, Shinmin, Yugoslavia, the Hungarian Revolution, Paris Commune, Industrial Workers of the World, Luxembourgism or just make even the barest attempt at actual research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_country

You explained why chavez seizing private property was bad. Please tell me why socialism is bad.

Good argument, boi. Scared of reading?

There are 400 million people in this fucking country to choose from you retard, are you going to file through each one to prove that some obese fucking pig is somehow better than them?

Quoting western terrorists, fantastic. You're obviously a perfect ambassador for your continent.