Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Although, if you manage to uphold the standard of living, there won't be as many radicals.
Classic example one is a jingoist IG landlord owner where going peasant --> professional army or adopting colonization.
>radicalism is low so no revolution starts
>appease the masses by enacting homesteading
>landowners pissed and start a revolution even though they have less people supporting them
>cancels homesteading
>homesteading movement becomes a revolution
thanks paradox
Maybe the whole homesteading wouldn't be so bad if Commercialized Agri wasn't so deep into the tech tree but you basically spend the first half of the game or more with them crying for homesteading non stop =\
And commercialized agriculture wasn't a thing until the nobles went bankrupt and the capitalists could buy out their land.
Also, homesteading is good if you want to break the nobility's dominance. You have to, since they are a major roadblock on the way to industrialization.
Cept going homesteading gives Farmers a lot of power and they are rural folk and they hate industrialization "almost" as much as the landowners