Paradox Studio Thread

[NvII iS 8ulLt f0R 88C]

Need slave forts that I can dot across the West African coastline.

>

 

[Slap47]

Paradox correct on Lincoln.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Is Lincoln really a Petite-Bourgeoisie mouthpiece?

As far as his own social class goes, he was Rural Folk who became a corporate (?) lawyer (Bourgeoisie agent).

The Republicans were, if I had to adopt Victoria III's shitty dumbed down Marxist system, something like Bourgeoisie/Industrialists + Intelligentsia + Clergy against the Democratic Armed Forces + Plantation Owners + Rural Folk.

And I think Petite-Bourgeoisie were more Democrats?

 

[Willie B. Hardigan]

Is Lincoln really a Petite-Bourgeoisie mouthpiece?

As far as his own social class goes, he was Rural Folk who became a corporate (?) lawyer (Bourgeoisie agent).

The Republicans were, if I had to adopt Victoria III's shitty dumbed down Marxist system, something like Bourgeoisie/Industrialists + Intelligentsia + Clergy against the Democratic Armed Forces + Plantation Owners + Rural Folk.

And I think Petite-Bourgeoisie were more Democrats?

I mentally disregard anyone or anything that unironically uses the term "Bourgeoisie" so your guess is as good as mine.

The man had to juggle many different interest groups from his party and the opposition before, during, and after the war. Where his "true loyalties" lie is still debated by people who absolutely love or loathe him but generally he was a Conservatively-slanted Radical Abolitionist and Eastern Industrialist who seemed to have had a vested interest in expanding social mobility for the middle class in America or at least tried too. He was a loyal Whig and retained a lot of their Middle-class-centric policies internally even when he switched to the Republican party so that might be the reason why many associate him with campaigning that specific group.

It's honestly fine historically but, I would have added "Industrialists" as another "Interest Group" in that character menu or have it replace the "Petite-Bourgeoisie" by the end of the 1860s. The Democrats of the time followed the Jeffersonian concept of an agrarian society more so and wanted a limited government so lumping them in with the Middle Class might be a bit of a stretch for anyone who isn't a plantation owner. They probably would have been called Moyenne Bourgeoisie or the "Upper-Upper Middle Class. My knowledge of "Marxist Theory" is a little rusty so feel free to correct me. I still prefer the Victoria 2 model for the Civil War even if it is quite a bit limited and dated.

 

[Midwit]

I would have added "Industrialists" as another "Interest Group" in that character menu

It's literally right there in the picture.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I mentally disregard anyone or anything that unironically uses the term "Bourgeoisie" so your guess is as good as mine.

The man had to juggle many different interest groups from his party and the opposition before, during, and after the war. Where his "true loyalties" lie is still debated by people who absolutely love or loathe him but generally he was a Conservatively-slanted Radical Abolitionist and Eastern Industrialist who seemed to have had a vested interest in expanding social mobility for the middle class in America or at least tried too. He was a loyal Whig and retained a lot of their Middle-class-centric policies internally even when he switched to the Republican party so that might be the reason why many associate him with campaigning that specific group.

It's honestly fine historically but, I would have added "Industrialists" as another "Interest Group" in that character menu or have it replace the "Petite-Bourgeoisie" by the end of the 1860s. The Democrats of the time followed the Jeffersonian concept of an agrarian society more so and wanted a limited government so lumping them in with the Middle Class might be a bit of a stretch for anyone who isn't a plantation owner. They probably would have been called Moyenne Bourgeoisie or the "Upper-Upper Middle Class. My knowledge of "Marxist Theory" is a little rusty so feel free to correct me. I still prefer the Victoria 2 model for the Civil War even if it is quite a bit limited and dated.

That’s a perfectly valid, useful word that was in use long before Marx was born.

I can see a lot of Northern Republicans counting as Petite-Bourgeoisie, but my understanding was that Jacksonian America had the Petite-Bourgeoisie (shopkeepers and like). But that could have evolved over time. Petite-Bourgeoisie comes down to being the craftsmen and the merchants, as I understand.

Dont remember what Victoria 3 calls the proletariat (Trade Unions). I’d assume the non-Irish were Republicans in this time.

 

[Snekposter]

That’s a perfectly valid, useful word that was in use long before Marx was born.

I can see a lot of Northern Republicans counting as Petite-Bourgeoisie, but my understanding was that Jacksonian America had the Petite-Bourgeoisie (shopkeepers and like). But that could have evolved over time. Petite-Bourgeoisie comes down to being the craftsmen and the merchants, as I understand.

Dont remember what Victoria 3 calls the proletariat (Trade Unions). I’d assume the non-Irish were Republicans in this time.

Trouble is the whole thing is Marxist nonsense, and while I'm not an expert on that, and the US definitely doesn't fit into Marxist dialectics, I can try to explain things.

Petite Bourgeois is urban folk. Various urban tradesmen, merchants, etc. Rural Folk is those people of the lower classes who work the land. In Marxist dialectic they're poor, landless serfs or tenant farmers and those who provide goods and services to them like local blacksmiths and other low-level artisans, which uh... doesn't translate at all to the US where they were free smallholders with their own lands, and said lines between artisan/farmer were essentially non-existent since the artisans owned their own farmlands and the farmers also had their own trades they engaged in. Landowners would be the nobility who owned the farms the European serfs and tenants farmed, and in the USA our equivalent would be the plantation owners.

Industrialists are the urban 1%, various factory owners and those in charge of large dedicated mercantile operations as opposed to a small corner shop that a Petite Bourgeois might own and operate.

Naturally, you can see where things break down hard in Marxian dialectic because the US had and has an extreme amount of social mobility compared to Europe. There was nothing stopping a son of a farmer (Rural Folk) moving to the city and working in a factory (Trade Unions) before opening up a small local shop or as an independent tradesman (Petite Bourgeois), and his son going on to become an Industrialist.

On top of that what Vicky 3 fails to take into account (because Marxism doesn't allow groups to shift their interests as circumstances change, naturally) is that IG's frequently switched teams as their own priorities did. The Rural Folk wound up shifting from the Democrats towards the Republicans as a result of the the Democrats over-favoring the wealthy Landowners, and that's before you take into account that the North didn't have those European-style aristocratic holdings, so Northerners were massively abolitionist with Southerners not wanting the competition as agrarian farmers that would be caused by abolition.

And I certainly don't need to remind you of the various uprisings and discontent from various southern farmers towards a Confederate government that obeyed the whims of the rich slaveowners. Rich man's war, poor man's fight.

As to the Armed Forces:

At no fucking point has anyone in the US military been fond of mass conscription, and in fact the US military was overall mixed regarding the Westwards expansion since they were the ones who paid in blood for the decisions other people made.

 

[Willie B. Hardigan]

It's literally right there in the picture.

That "Industrialists" option in the background is not part of Abraham Lincoln's character template though, it's part of the politics tab which lists off four other people with singular interest groups in a similar manner. Here's an example image:

Those are all different "Historical Characters" who can only have a singular internet group at a time. As far as I know, Lincoln can only ever advocate the Intelligentsia or Petite Bourgeoisie. @Slap47's screenshot just had the character menu cover up the profiles of the one above him.

Speaking of Victoria 3 and its politics, there is a mod on the Steam workshop that supposedly improves or gives more depth to the system by adding more variety to the political parties, interest groups, etc. It's called the "Better Politics Mod" and looks something like this:

How balanced or historically accurate it is, will require somebody to actively scrutinize the changes but it might be something to at least check out for those who are still playing Victoria 3 in 2024 for whatever reason. It's probably been posted in this thread already.

 

[Snekposter]

Speaking of Victoria 3 and its politics, there is a mod on the Steam workshop that supposedly improves or gives more depth to the system by adding more variety to the political parties, interest groups, etc. It's called the "Better Politics Mod" and looks something like this:

I've used it before and "mess" is a good way to describe it. Not because the mod itself is bad but because there's nine billion political groups you need to worry about which is... pretty standard for the era, and arguably necessary considering how shit Paradox's own implementation was.

 

[thefreshmaker]

Trouble is the whole thing is Marxist nonsense, and while I'm not an expert on that, and the US definitely doesn't fit into Marxist dialectics, I can try to explain things.

Something worth noting, beyond what you have said, is that Marxian analysis is almost entirely relegated to a specific time period in British history that Marx saw, and then describes it poorly.

The system is supposed to describe the "class-warfare" that is supposed to have occurred in the mid 1800s in Britain, but the reality is that these were not fixed groups and had far wider interests than Marxian views suggest. In the UK, the industrialists and landed elite were one and the same - they transformed their farm land into gigantic rural estates for living in and changed their incomes from agriculture to machinery and mining. Rather than continue being rent seekers (as in making an income purely off of happening to own land that others would be forced to pay to access/work) they began upgrading and investing into land to build factories and machine stock, or delved deep into the earth.

In the US it was far closer to the Marxian analysis regarding the landed elite and urban industrialists, because the large farm owners operated on similar lines to Roman Latifvndivm and rarely engaged in the urban economy. The industry in the South still existed, much like in Ancient Rome, but it was more about maximising human labor and capital into agricultural products and their vast estates were almost entirely insular economies themselves. The slaves would both till the soil for cash crops and their own food on site, construct mills on the estate, and then produce finished goods such as simple clothes, cigarettes, bread products, etc. The most developed slave estates in the South and in Italy would also mine iron locally for use in blacksmithing whatever tools were required. What little outside interaction occurred was typically seasonal hire for extra work or the actual selling the cash crop which would be either reinvested in more slaves or completely eaten up as income by the estate holder.

In the UK, the "rural folk" would be virtually non-existent outside of Ireland, where a Feudalistic system was still ingrained because of a lack of development (with no urban jobs, most people were poor farmers who instead of being tied to the land were simply unable to leave due to cost). Most of the rural farmers moved rapidly into the cities which caused the wave of industrialization. "Rural folk" in the US would be a significant group referring to free land holders, in fact the largest single group until the turn of the century and European mass immigration. Marxian analysis fails here because of what you describe, they owned and worked the land and lived lives far in excess of even rich British elites in many cases, at least in the North and West where labor was not cheap.

It's a very childish, materialist "rich people vote for less taxes and poor people vote for free healthcare" type of analysis. The truth is far more complex and PDX should have looked towards the Democracy series for a better way to simulate politics.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

Victoria 3 isn't just marxist nonsense, it's BADLY MADE Marxist nonsense. God forgive me for saying this, but a actual communist scholar would likely have done a better job of applying marxist dialetics to the game because they would have been aware enough of the differences between the different societies and their positions on the "March of History".

 

[Slap47]

I quite like the games political system. Certain pops are bias towards different ideas, but also accumulate power through the money they earn over time so you can't just quickly change everything.

They use the system pretty cleverly as well. The pops in capitol cities have more political influence. Paris has 30 Admin buildings, some schools and a bunch factories filled with pops destined to be liberals. You're incentivised to build up this city to use up that admin, but also have entrenched landed elites that hate the capitol. You end up building up a problem for yourself as the personalities of French Republicans and monarchist leaders are often very extreme and may soon have equal power.

No need for special events. They use the mechanics to create an authentic setup that reflects both the material conditions and autism of the era.

At no fucking point has anyone in the US military been fond of mass conscription, and in fact the US military was overall mixed regarding the Westwards expansion since they were the ones who paid in blood for the decisions other people made.

Scott pioneered the Anaconda Plan that demanded the use of more than 100,000 soldiers. Regardless, he will be dead by the time mass conscription is even available.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

Project Caesar news: Missions



Johan wants to have systems in place first. Missions will only get worked on and implemented once the game systems are working. Shipping a complete game, what a concept!

 

[Blackstar]

Another thing that he stated a week or two ago is that once they're done showcasing each part of the map they'll begin showcasing country flavor

 

[Big Fart Bart]

Anyone have any experience with the various HoI4 AI mods?
I'm so sick of watching the AI attack along the entire front line with zero thought put into it, racking up millions of manpower lost ramming stuff like garrison divisions into heavy tank divisions. But I'm kinda guessing at this point that it's not something mods can fix.
I tried the Expert AI one for about half a game, but i saw that the AI was still doing stuff like that, just with better divisions and gave up on it.

 

[Snekposter]

Scott pioneered the Anaconda Plan that demanded the use of more than 100,000 soldiers. Regardless, he will be dead by the time mass conscription is even available.

100k soldiers is nothing though. Borodino alone was twice that number when you take both sides into account. Sevastopol during the Crimean War had 100k laying siege to the place. The Union had 100k at Gettysburg! Even during the early stages like at Malvern Hill it was half that number on either side, and the Army of the Potomac itself tended to number around 100k. 100k to choke an entire nation is death is about as cheap as it gets as far as manpower goes. On top that, need I remind you that 92% of the soldiers in the US Army during the Civil War were volunteers? 6% were alternates, 2% conscripts.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

100k soldiers is nothing though. Borodino alone was twice that number when you take both sides into account. Sevastopol during the Crimean War had 100k laying siege to the place. The Union had 100k at Gettysburg! Even during the early stages like at Malvern Hill it was half that number on either side, and the Army of the Potomac itself tended to number around 100k. 100k to choke an entire nation is death is about as cheap as it gets as far as manpower goes. On top that, need I remind you that 92% of the soldiers in the US Army during the Civil War were volunteers? 6% were alternates, 2% conscripts.

That’s hard for me to wrap my head around, though I checked it and know you’re right. At least that <10% were conscripts. I had the impression conscription was a major part of both armies.

 

[Snekposter]

That’s hard for me to wrap my head around, though I checked it and know you’re right. At least that <10% were conscripts. I had the impression conscription was a major part of both armies.

I blame it on Americans loving an underdog tale. The plucky, courageous South against the industrialized masses of the North, but it never is that simple. In reality the South was almost entirely conscript once people realized after the first year that oh, the North isn't just going to roll over and let the South win. The first Confederate conscription act was passed in April of 1862, less than a year after the war started. On the northern side the Enrollment Act wasn't even proposed by Congress until 1863, almost a full year after the South had begun conscription, but both it and the earlier Militia Act of 1862 largely mimicked the way the Continental Army had been formed via a quota system of troops from each state with draftees being a last resort in case the quotas weren't met.

 

[The Gene Genie]

On CK3: I actually do like the development of the Administrative Bureaucracy with the Eastern Romans. I know various mods, especially from CK2 and such as well as its DLC for the Eastern Romans, have tried to do this before so I’m glad it’s incorporating a way to emphasize court scheming and the reason why “Byzantine” has become a byword for excessively complex systems.

Don’t care much about the landless adventurer/mercenary though.

 

[Scale Smerch]

Anyone have any experience with the various HoI4 AI mods?
I'm so sick of watching the AI attack along the entire front line with zero thought put into it, racking up millions of manpower lost ramming stuff like garrison divisions into heavy tank divisions. But I'm kinda guessing at this point that it's not something mods can fix.
I tried the Expert AI one for about half a game, but i saw that the AI was still doing stuff like that, just with better divisions and gave up on it.

Expert AI is about as good as you're going to get it. The lesser known AI mods more or less ape off the same things EAI does, in part because Paradox hasn't opened up much of the AI code for modding. EAI's author always makes mention of this and how the things he's tweaking are the full extent of what can be changed.