IG clout means nothing now

[Bearcat]

The election system is broken. The party that wins the election does not give legitimacy to the government. Adding conflicting IGs to the government raises it???

[Kimlin]

Which IGs?

[kgkong]

You gotta also pay a lot more attention to also the leaders of the political groups now. You had to before, but it wasn't as big of a thing to do since there was no such thing as ideological cohesion being a factor. So the bigger factor that is now in the game for legitimacy is ideological cohesion, or how well do the ideologies of the group and its leader jive with the party's group and head of state that is the elected or autocratic or whatever governing head.

You can now have a military industrial university complex. There's nothing that legitimately stops a government forming that's an educated militant system. You have to work on assisting the cohesion more, so it's a lot more important to pay attention to the events that pop up that can impact who's in charge of a political group, duels, and anything else that can impact their ideology.

If a character remains in charge of a political group long enough with ideologies that clash with the group's original, the group can begin to reform their own stance and legislation preferences, from it looks like to me so far with actually experimenting with an educated landowners/monarchy style of government. Legitimacy tanks to 45-60 range until I can start getting either parties ideologies to shift either through the leader character or otherwise.

Now the change actually adds more consequences from ideologically different groups in government, as well as making it possible to have better legitimacy with usually conflicting ideological groups. It kind of bugged me pre 1.1 that if you wanted to remotely go liberal (open borders, education, multiculturalism) it was really difficult to also be militant and a maintain a legitimate monarchy that is well beloved. You can have all the loyalists in the world and few radicals but legitimacy sucked because of the government model and two parties originally conflicting, even if they both had leaders sharing the same ideology and traits. Much easier to create a more dynamic mix-and-match government. But more dynamics come with more risks.

[RandyNewman]

I've only messed with one campaign so far, but after enacting any type of voting, I gain the most legitimacy from having every single IG in government. Removing a single IG lowers it; unless they're not in a party and have very low clout. Then I might gain one or two legitimacy points from removing them.

I don't know if that's what Paradox was going for, but it's where they ended up

[Kimlin]

Originally posted by RandyNewman:

I've only messed with one campaign so far, but after enacting any type of voting, I gain the most legitimacy from having every single IG in government. Removing a single IG lowers it; unless they're not in a party and have very low clout. Then I might gain one or two legitimacy points from removing them.

I don't know if that's what Paradox was going for, but it's where they ended up

Are you using mods ?

[Dray Prescot]

I (as Sweden) am running higher Legitimacy than before 1.1, and I am passing Laws faster than before 1.1.

[RandyNewman]

Originally posted by Kimlin:

Originally posted by RandyNewman:

I've only messed with one campaign so far, but after enacting any type of voting, I gain the most legitimacy from having every single IG in government. Removing a single IG lowers it; unless they're not in a party and have very low clout. Then I might gain one or two legitimacy points from removing them.

I don't know if that's what Paradox was going for, but it's where they ended up

Are you using mods ?

I wish