Political power and living standard

[SOUND ONLY 01]

I feel like these 2 shouldn't be hooked, they should be able to toggle differently.

It's like noblesse oblige, I would like to rise my peasant's living standard a little, but no, you may not have more political power.

Sure, for balancing issue leave "Utopian Abundance" for egalitarian.
What I don't get is why giving people "Social Welfare" actually gives less stability than "Basic Subsistence" just because for some reason giving people stuff actually make them more active in politics.

[[AUT] Beazerka]

Well i would say Political power is a "weight" for the calculation of the end value. (DUH)
I think of it like how many rights do you have, or how much discrimination they face.

If i.e. Some pops have 100% PP and are member of an faction that likes you you get a massive + on Stab.
But if lets say some with lower PP is a member of an faction that dont like you, it dosent matter that much, but when they get more PP their happiness weight more for the final value.


I hope that makes some sense, but tbh i often cant write my thought correct down in english sry for that :)

[SOUND ONLY 01]

Originally posted by AUT Beazerka:

Well i would say Political power is a "weight" for the calculation of the end value. (DUH)
I think of it like how many rights do you have, or how much discrimination they face.

If i.e. Some pops have 100% PP and are member of an faction that likes you you get a massive + on Stab.
But if lets say some with lower PP is a member of an faction that dont like you, it dosent matter that much, but when they get more PP their happiness weight more for the final value.


I hope that makes some sense, but tbh i often cant write my thought correct down in english sry for that :)

Um...Thank you for explaining, but that's not what I ask for, I understand how PP works, it's just I wish I can toggle it different from living standard up keep.

Like a slave to a rich man might have high living standard but no PP.

They can be very happy if their master treat them well, but they still have to obey every order given by the master.

[[AUT] Beazerka]

Originally posted by SEELE:

Originally posted by AUT Beazerka:

Well i would say Political power is a "weight" for the calculation of the end value. (DUH)
I think of it like how many rights do you have, or how much discrimination they face.

If i.e. Some pops have 100% PP and are member of an faction that likes you you get a massive + on Stab.
But if lets say some with lower PP is a member of an faction that dont like you, it dosent matter that much, but when they get more PP their happiness weight more for the final value.


I hope that makes some sense, but tbh i often cant write my thought correct down in english sry for that :)

Um...Thank you for explaining, but that's not what I ask for, I understand how PP works, it's just I wish I can toggle it different from living standard up keep.

Like a slave to a rich man might have high living standard but no PP.

They can be very happy if their master treat them well, but they still have to obey every order given by the master.

I know what you mean

Thats why i said "I think of it like how many rights do you have, or how much discrimination they face."

"A Slave who knows his Value gets lazy"

Oh and the slaves in i.e. ancient Rome had rights. They were protected against reasonless abuse from the owner. And Slave =/= Slave. But i have to agree in Reality it wasnt linked to the upkeep

I mean i guess you could explain it with smth like that: In the 3rd reich. What upkeep had the Jews,what PP had the Jews and how did the jews get treated? (a hint it was inhuman) Well... in that scenario. you mean what i get. BUT do note i dont support such ideology or anything

[Gato Gordo]

Originally posted by SEELE:

I feel like these 2 shouldn't be hooked, they should be able to toggle differently.

It's like noblesse oblige, I would like to rise my peasant's living standard a little, but no, you may not have more political power.

Sure, for balancing issue leave "Utopian Abundance" for egalitarian.
What I don't get is why giving people "Social Welfare" actually gives less stability than "Basic Subsistence" just because for some reason giving people stuff actually make them more active in politics.

Why would you want slaves with higher upkeep but no impact on productivity or stability? Only reason I could imagine would be for some "benevolent slaver" rp :^)

[mss73055]

You need to see it in context. Social wellfare is for hooligans. No matter how many gold watches you get them, they still beat up your grandma at the football.

Utopian standards is for students. No matter how many exams you fail you can buy that that gadget. And hack it, improve it, and maybe contribute a little to society :D

[Scr(A)tch]

Originally posted by AUT Beazerka:

Originally posted by SEELE:

Um...Thank you for explaining, but that's not what I ask for, I understand how PP works, it's just I wish I can toggle it different from living standard up keep.

Like a slave to a rich man might have high living standard but no PP.

They can be very happy if their master treat them well, but they still have to obey every order given by the master.

I know what you mean

Thats why i said "I think of it like how many rights do you have, or how much discrimination they face."

"A Slave who knows his Value gets lazy"

Oh and the slaves in i.e. ancient Rome had rights. They were protected against reasonless abuse from the owner. And Slave =/= Slave. But i have to agree in Reality it wasnt linked to the upkeep

I mean i guess you could explain it with smth like that: In the 3rd reich. What upkeep had the Jews,what PP had the Jews and how did the jews get treated? (a hint it was inhuman) Well... in that scenario. you mean what i get. BUT do note i dont support such ideology or anything

Jews under the 3rd Reich were being purged. Slavery is another thing (actually many different things in itself as you stated).

I think the intention to link PP to living standard is some kind of implementation of the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In that sense, the most deprived slaves are just thinking about survival and don't have the time, nor the means, to organize and thus can't oppose a political resistance.

On the other hand, they will be most unhappy and will try to revolt, hence the increased crime.

Increasing living standards effectively trades crime for PP. Which is pretty logical if you think about it: the new treatment will not change the fact that they don't want to be slaves, but instead of violent, spontaneous uprisings, they will, more peacefully, organize politically.

You have another way to differentiate slave treatment in the Slavery Types.

[mss73055]

Or prison labour ^^.

[[AUT] Beazerka]

Originally posted by Scr(A)tch:

Originally posted by AUT Beazerka:

I know what you mean

Thats why i said "I think of it like how many rights do you have, or how much discrimination they face."

"A Slave who knows his Value gets lazy"

Oh and the slaves in i.e. ancient Rome had rights. They were protected against reasonless abuse from the owner. And Slave =/= Slave. But i have to agree in Reality it wasnt linked to the upkeep

I mean i guess you could explain it with smth like that: In the 3rd reich. What upkeep had the Jews,what PP had the Jews and how did the jews get treated? (a hint it was inhuman) Well... in that scenario. you mean what i get. BUT do note i dont support such ideology or anything

Jews under the 3rd Reich were being purged. Slavery is another thing (actually many different things in itself as you stated).

I think the intention to link PP to living standard is some kind of implementation of the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In that sense, the most deprived slaves are just thinking about survival and don't have the time, nor the means, to organize and thus can't oppose a political resistance.

On the other hand, they will be most unhappy and will try to revolt, hence the increased crime.

Increasing living standards effectively trades crime for PP. Which is pretty logical if you think about it: the new treatment will not change the fact that they don't want to be slaves, but instead of violent, spontaneous uprisings, they will, more peacefully, organize politically.

You have another way to differentiate slave treatment in the Slavery Types.

I know they were Purged. I know the difference in IRL and in game i know about the settings also. It was just an example to visualize the causality between the 2 things.


As i said earlier Slave =/= Slave. There were Houseslave to for example. They had a pretty good living standart for Slaves. Not every slave in the history of mankind was supposed to work for ressources on i.e. Plantages or Mines.

Anyway how are you supposed to be relevant if you barely have enough food to survive? And Ingame happines has mostly to do with your Factions. So to some degree like in RL but, well not every for example, monarchist is pissed as hell because "the faction" disslikes you.

I dont have a Problem with the mechanic, but i see why someone would have, i never was in the situation where it made the difference.

And what ever it even dosent matter in the end. Its an Game with some rules the rules were made by devs and must not follow logic ;) (to be fair that is to some degree an killer argument from me but its true anyway)

So i just have to ad:
I appreciate the discussion, and your heavenly patience with me and my horrible english :)

[Scr(A)tch]

Originally posted by AUT Beazerka:

Originally posted by Scr(A)tch:

Jews under the 3rd Reich were being purged. Slavery is another thing (actually many different things in itself as you stated).

I think the intention to link PP to living standard is some kind of implementation of the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In that sense, the most deprived slaves are just thinking about survival and don't have the time, nor the means, to organize and thus can't oppose a political resistance.

On the other hand, they will be most unhappy and will try to revolt, hence the increased crime.

Increasing living standards effectively trades crime for PP. Which is pretty logical if you think about it: the new treatment will not change the fact that they don't want to be slaves, but instead of violent, spontaneous uprisings, they will, more peacefully, organize politically.

You have another way to differentiate slave treatment in the Slavery Types.

I know they were Purged. I know the difference in IRL and in game i know about the settings also. It was just an example to visualize the causality between the 2 things.


As i said earlier Slave =/= Slave. There were Houseslave to for example. They had a pretty good living standart for Slaves. Not every slave in the history of mankind was supposed to work for ressources on i.e. Plantages or Mines.

Anyway how are you supposed to be relevant if you barely have enough food to survive? And Ingame happines has mostly to do with your Factions. So to some degree like in RL but, well not every for example, monarchist is pissed as hell because "the faction" disslikes you.

I dont have a Problem with the mechanic, but i see why someone would have, i never was in the situation where it made the difference.

And what ever it even dosent matter in the end. Its an Game with some rules the rules were made by devs and must not follow logic ;) (to be fair that is to some degree an killer argument from me but its true anyway)

So i just have to ad:
I appreciate the discussion, and your heavenly patience with me and my horrible english :)

Sure, but you had plenty of examples of actual slavery that would have been better suited.

I also recognized you said slavery is a term that widely covers many different realities.

Rules are abstractions, but they have to make sense to some extent at least (believable if not realistic).

OP may be pissed off by the mechanic, but it's fairly grounded in a logic I can admit as believable. And the Shroud knows I'm prone to claim games are unrealistic garbage.

[lubed_assassin]

The only way to increase living standard and to take away political power is through violence.

Max Weber defined power (1) as “the chance of a man or of a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action”

So the idea is your giving people the means to have more political power because now they can wield that wealth however they see fit.

If basic subsistence makes your people happier as a whole, then your workers really hate your guts. I suspect they have been unhappy for a long time and now have joined opposing government factions.

[James009]

I think it's fine the way it is.

[lubed_assassin]

Originally posted by James009:

I think it's fine the way it is.

me 2, the guy just needs some government ethics attraction.