Probably unintended, yeah, but kinda makes sense for Russia. In the Empire, especially in the late 19th century, social mobility was technically unlimited - a peasant could become an aristocrat. One of the ways to do that was the army. Reaching the rank of Colonel guaranteed personal nobility, and receiving the full Order of St. George guaranteed inherited nobility. Vicky 3 doesn't really model the complex class systems like that, but at least in this specific case, the system sort of works out how it would IRL. Because without removing the Table of Ranks and all its associated laws, a professional army would still be one where the officers are aristocrats, because they become aristocrats by being officers.
The problem is that the armed forces IG ideology doesn't change with the change of army law, it would be better if the increased representation of aristocrats in armed forces made the armed forces more conservative
@@niewiemkto9537 or rather one might argue that they should loose a bunch of "dislikes" as the armed forces IG becomes less poltical, E.g they will still oppose changing colional law because as troops that effects them, but they are going to stop opposing child labour laws abd such
In a country like Russia, one key element is redistributing army locations after passing Professional Army. It's not just a question of total Army size: you also want all your barracks to be in Core territory. Your Capital in particular should be 100/100 for Barracks, since the Capital state grants +50% clout to all its pops. And there are other reasons to want Professional Army. Due to the way Recruitment Rate scales (and ties into troop replenishment while at war), having 100 Barracks in a single State is much stronger than having 100 Barracks spread across four States in groups of 25, as is the max under Peasant Levies.
Ah, i didn't knew that beeing in the capital increased clout. Thanks for sharing. There are totally valid reasons to enact professional army, like you also said. It's just that "weakening the Landowners" is not one. :)
@@DataTimelapses but you are weakening them right? Considering you'll be building industry in a normal game the capitalists and others are gaining more political strength relative to the landowners no?
Snooped a bit more around in the game. A huge amount of support for armed forces is coming from capitalists once you built the military industrial buildings. Each capitalist from those buildings have +250 attraction to the armed forces.
It's a similar deal with Hereditary bureaucrats, which is pretty annoying - getting a professional bureaucracy, which the Intelligentsia want, will always weaken them. Part of me wonders if there should just be a massive flat magnifier applied to the pops attracted to work in any kind of government building, be it govt. administration or barracks etc.
So, intelligentsia are stronger under hereditary bureaucrats. Interesting, I never checked hereditary bureaucrats myself. Do you know about the landowners? From a theoretical standpoint, i would expect that landowners are also stronger under hereditary bureaucrats, since it buffs aristocrats and spawns new ones in the gpvernment buildings (which are split between interest groups). But, again, i never actually tested it.
@DataTimelapses my working theory is that this result in this video and the one I've described is most pronounced in countries with an essentially infinite pool of LO-owned subsistence farms, like Japan China or Russia The intended behaviour would happen if the majority of your aristocrats were coming from the PMs on your government buildings - but in countries where government building jobs make up a completely negligible portion of the total aristocrat pool, pop attraction matters way more. Kind of annoying that the variables that effect political power distribution the most are the least obvious
This is due to they changed how these laws act. It used to just empower Landowners (Hereditary Bureaucrats) and employees would be supporting Landowners. And Appointed Bureaucrats would empower Intelligentsia AND make makes Bureaucrats support Intelligentsia. Now they do remove pop groups away from those, forcing Aristocrats to only able to supports Landowners IG, which unintentionally empowers Landowners because Aristocrats are rich. This is the main issue.
So you're saying that we usually are wasting time by pursuing a jingoist, by using a year or something to pass this law? That is a massive game changer...
If you want professional army to weaken the landowners politically, then yes, i think you are wasting your time. :) If you want professional army for actually army stuff (military buffs, building more barracks in a single state...), then it is still a fair and valid choice.
I did some testing but with the Ottoman empire and the conclusion is similar to you with professional army (Edit: I meant Peasant levies) my Landowners had lower clout than 20% (I even managed to marginalize them for some time with some events) while the Armed forces had more than 30% it's indeed a political trap and would not recommend you to pass until you have better laws enacted
This just might be my play style, but I feel like other law changes that I'm doing around the country make taking professional army worth it in the long run for the military power because the landowners are losing more power than they are gaining from changing to professional army, such as getting rid of local police, and other legal reforms. Also, I think that industrializing and actually changing your economy does an underrated amount to change the political ideologies of the upper class. Everyone likes to focus on laws because they are sexy, but changing the underlying incentives of your upper class is key to reforming society.
@@jeffersonclippership2588 laws are quick but it doesn't matter if the landowners lose the 25% interest group strength if your entire economy is an agricultural backwater. plus some law changes might screw you over if you do them at the wrong time, like if your country is mostly peasants and then you give them the right to vote, good luck dealing with the rural folk party. I think you should always think about how your law changes are improving your restructuring and not let them do the restructuring for you because that is how you get underwhelming uses of the law.
I think it is important to mention autocracy law as it buffs aristocrats and officer clout. Professional armies seek to reduce attraction of the officers in favor of servicemen. Do the officers transfer their clout elsewhere after professional armies gets passed?
Oh, you probably mean "The armed forces will attract fewer non-servicemen or officiers pops", right? I am pretty sure it's meant to unterstood as "the armed forces will attract fewer non-servicemen and non-officiers". The second non was just ommited, although i totally understand the confusion. :D At least in the game files (00_armed forces.txt), officiers always have 250 attraction to the armed forces. It should not (can not?) change due to changing laws.
This is really useful to see. I think the *0.5 attraction penalty for non-servicemen and officers under Professional Army is probably the biggest culprit here. At the start of the game, servicemen are too poor to have much political relevance, and officers are few in number with the earlier training modes at barracks. So with Professional Army, you're just losing a bunch of attraction from other pops who normally support the Armed Forces. I think all non-discriminated pops have a small attraction to the Armed Forces, so that's a percentage of nearly every profession that gets cut in half. It's small but still significant; too much for even a large standing army to make up for. Also, for Aristocrats, it's a double whammy, since they're not only losing the bonus attraction from Peasant Levies but getting hit with another *0.5 attraction penalty from Professional Armies.
I had noticed in my Russia playthrough that after enacting Professional Army, that the Armed Forces became marginalized a few years later (dropped to around 4% clout). This could be because my population rapidly increased (doubled by 1900) and I still only had around 420 battalions and no conscription centers.
I noticed when play as Russia that simply building up the industrialists through building more mines and factories will be much more efficient at decreasing Landowners influence. Empower them and Intelligentsia (mostly through building up universities, which you'll want for qualifications, and more admin building, which you'll also want for tax efficiency) so you can eventually pass Commercialized Agriculture to pretty much destroy whatever is left of the Aristocrat Influence. Do be careful though in also not letting the Church get too powerful,
I'm now actually a bit curious if national militia would have a similar effect or not and whether that one would maybe be more effective in limiting the power of the landowners.
It's important to note, that in 1.6 it was changed that during diplomatic plays, other countries count conscripts that are assigned to army the same as the standing army even when they are not raised. This means that if you play low infamy, your ability to sway and especially reverse sway is greatly improved by this (basically they fear your army strength). This allows you to get a lot of stuff for free, especially bankrolls.
@@DataTimelapses Yes, they introduced it because the US always backed out against other GP's during the diplo play phase, as they thought themselves weak
until this is changed, i do agree with PA being a political trap. ironically, not having PA made it easier to dislodge the Landowners than having it, since a larger portion of aristocrats (who should be powerful under autocracy/landed voting, which is often the case if you start with peasant levies), will support AF, who in turn support things like better taxes, dedicated police, and the occasional democrat leader to get better bureaucratic laws. dislodging the aristocrats requires voting reforms, as well as changing the economic make-up of the country, regarding how industrialized the country is, who owns the bulk of buildings, etc. Originally i thought PA dislodged the aristocrats, but that was only the result of having PA + Army expansion + building up the economy and military supply to support that army, which radically shifted the economic make-up, that actually weakened the Landowners. However, I still advocate for getting PA as soon as you can, bcs unless you are Russia/Qing/India, who can overwhelm opposition with 200+ battalions, for everyone else, having the military debuff of Peasant Levies is unsustainable
can you do some testing with parties I noticed that some parties get together after enacting some laws (of course with landed voting) I don't remember but the armed forces joined the aristocrats after enacting Per capita taxation and/or other laws
Interesting idea. But i don't have deep knowledge about parties and their formation yet. I will put your suggestion on my ideas list. No promises though :)
How it works in theory is that they will band together when they both want a law enacted and they don't have significant conflicts with some other law. In this case both of them prefer laxer taxation.
That thought comes up immediatly, doesn't it? :D I haven't looked deeply into it, but there is an important difference: hereditary bureaucrats increases attraction of aristocrats to the intelligentia, but only if they work in government administration. If you remove hereditary bureaucrats, then the prodction method changes and there aren't any aristocrats in administration anymore. So, my guess is: no, it is not the same. But again, haven't look deeply into it.
This is actually very informative as I expected the opposite. I guess the only reason you'd want PA early is if you actually need to fight a war otherwise the strong landlords are really screwing you.
Mình nghĩ còn tùy thuộc vào bạn đang chơi ở quốc gia nào nữa. ở một số nước việc ban hành điều luật gàn như là bắt buộc để làm suy yếu phe quý tộc ví dụ như Việt Nam và một số phe có khởi đầu thấp khác
Just to be precise: Depends on your goals. If you want to use your army for actual warfare, keeping professional army can be a good idea. If you want to weaken the landowners to get some reforms done, then changing to peasant levies will help you.
The problem with this is, that it is based on an ai which will never force you to strenghen your army much in number. But in russia you have the problem, that their are only less high populated areas were you can build up your army. For example the Qing: if they build up max units in their regions, they will lose the war against the british. You need more mass to handle this. And as russia you have the same problem. Also as usa or other huge countries with huge depopulated areas. Also nations like prussia need more troops than the 25 per region. But their are countries which do not need more than 25 units per region, because they simply can build them in all regions and have no regional rival which force them to do so. And if they ever patch the ai (or you play with an ai mod), you need to raise up much stronger forces. And that will be not possible with pleasants. You can send militia to war, but pops are worth much. Losing to many i a war is a bad idea, because you lose workers and future pop growth rates. So having a professional army is better than sending militia... except for qing or india. What i want to say is: politic is not all. You must always see the global situation and your neighboors. For example: you are playing as austria and prussia is raising its army. But you have pleasant law and can not raise up more. What will you do? You know that prussia will attack you, because of the unification event. With pleasant law you ca not react to this threat. With professional army you can. But overall: As long as training, equipment, etc of a standing army is not much better than of pleasants the difference is to low. And i do not understand why the management of an standing army is to weak in this game. They desided to weaken the military part of the game so heavily... but the game plays in an area were in europe were fought more wars than the centuries later and further. And then the colonial wars.
This feels like unintended behavior, losing authority over the military was a huge blow to the aristocracy historically
Peasant levies provides a +25% bonus to aristocrats. I guess that is meant to represent that importance?
Probably unintended, yeah, but kinda makes sense for Russia. In the Empire, especially in the late 19th century, social mobility was technically unlimited - a peasant could become an aristocrat. One of the ways to do that was the army. Reaching the rank of Colonel guaranteed personal nobility, and receiving the full Order of St. George guaranteed inherited nobility.
Vicky 3 doesn't really model the complex class systems like that, but at least in this specific case, the system sort of works out how it would IRL. Because without removing the Table of Ranks and all its associated laws, a professional army would still be one where the officers are aristocrats, because they become aristocrats by being officers.
The problem is that the armed forces IG ideology doesn't change with the change of army law, it would be better if the increased representation of aristocrats in armed forces made the armed forces more conservative
@@niewiemkto9537 or rather one might argue that they should loose a bunch of "dislikes" as the armed forces IG becomes less poltical, E.g they will still oppose changing colional law because as troops that effects them, but they are going to stop opposing child labour laws abd such
@@BattleHerb that's honestly applicable for most IGs. Their views remain, unfortunately, static, even if their makeup shifts considerably.
In a country like Russia, one key element is redistributing army locations after passing Professional Army. It's not just a question of total Army size: you also want all your barracks to be in Core territory. Your Capital in particular should be 100/100 for Barracks, since the Capital state grants +50% clout to all its pops.
And there are other reasons to want Professional Army. Due to the way Recruitment Rate scales (and ties into troop replenishment while at war), having 100 Barracks in a single State is much stronger than having 100 Barracks spread across four States in groups of 25, as is the max under Peasant Levies.
Ah, i didn't knew that beeing in the capital increased clout. Thanks for sharing.
There are totally valid reasons to enact professional army, like you also said. It's just that "weakening the Landowners" is not one. :)
@@DataTimelapses any chance for more tests taking into account that info?
@@DataTimelapses but you are weakening them right? Considering you'll be building industry in a normal game the capitalists and others are gaining more political strength relative to the landowners no?
@@yere7851 noot with this law. It is true that you weaken them with industry but it won't go up beacause of this law in any realistic situation.
Wow that's so thorough, I'm impressed
Thanks! I was going against public opinion with this one, so i wanted an convincing argument. :)
Snooped a bit more around in the game.
A huge amount of support for armed forces is coming from capitalists once you built the military industrial buildings.
Each capitalist from those buildings have +250 attraction to the armed forces.
Ah, thanks for sharing! I didn't know about this one. :)
Or your Bureaucrats if your MIC are all government owned (I do that to empower Intelligentsia, and once they have Vanguardist leader it's my win)
Looks like I'll be sticking with enacting dedicated police force first. Thanks for the video and the data, you're a blessing.
It's a similar deal with Hereditary bureaucrats, which is pretty annoying - getting a professional bureaucracy, which the Intelligentsia want, will always weaken them.
Part of me wonders if there should just be a massive flat magnifier applied to the pops attracted to work in any kind of government building, be it govt. administration or barracks etc.
So, intelligentsia are stronger under hereditary bureaucrats. Interesting, I never checked hereditary bureaucrats myself.
Do you know about the landowners? From a theoretical standpoint, i would expect that landowners are also stronger under hereditary bureaucrats, since it buffs aristocrats and spawns new ones in the gpvernment buildings (which are split between interest groups). But, again, i never actually tested it.
@DataTimelapses my working theory is that this result in this video and the one I've described is most pronounced in countries with an essentially infinite pool of LO-owned subsistence farms, like Japan China or Russia
The intended behaviour would happen if the majority of your aristocrats were coming from the PMs on your government buildings - but in countries where government building jobs make up a completely negligible portion of the total aristocrat pool, pop attraction matters way more.
Kind of annoying that the variables that effect political power distribution the most are the least obvious
This is due to they changed how these laws act. It used to just empower Landowners (Hereditary Bureaucrats) and employees would be supporting Landowners. And Appointed Bureaucrats would empower Intelligentsia AND make makes Bureaucrats support Intelligentsia.
Now they do remove pop groups away from those, forcing Aristocrats to only able to supports Landowners IG, which unintentionally empowers Landowners because Aristocrats are rich. This is the main issue.
So you're saying that we usually are wasting time by pursuing a jingoist, by using a year or something to pass this law? That is a massive game changer...
If you want professional army to weaken the landowners politically, then yes, i think you are wasting your time. :)
If you want professional army for actually army stuff (military buffs, building more barracks in a single state...), then it is still a fair and valid choice.
@@DataTimelapses and if your planing on going to war as professional armies fight better then a levy army.
Yeah, PA does much better work as a industrialization factor more than supressing Landowners.
Thank you for all the effort to make this!
I did some testing but with the Ottoman empire
and the conclusion is similar to you
with professional army (Edit: I meant Peasant levies) my Landowners had lower clout than 20% (I even managed to marginalize them for some time with some events)
while the Armed forces had more than 30%
it's indeed a political trap and would not recommend you to pass until you have better laws enacted
Glad to hear that someone else got similiar results!
Just for clarification: did you mean "with peasant levies my landowners had less than 20%"?
@@DataTimelapses yes.
of course I passed tenants farmers and legacy slavery and finished the tanzimat
This just might be my play style, but I feel like other law changes that I'm doing around the country make taking professional army worth it in the long run for the military power because the landowners are losing more power than they are gaining from changing to professional army, such as getting rid of local police, and other legal reforms. Also, I think that industrializing and actually changing your economy does an underrated amount to change the political ideologies of the upper class. Everyone likes to focus on laws because they are sexy, but changing the underlying incentives of your upper class is key to reforming society.
Laws are quick, restructuring society is something you do for like half the run time.
@@jeffersonclippership2588 laws are quick but it doesn't matter if the landowners lose the 25% interest group strength if your entire economy is an agricultural backwater. plus some law changes might screw you over if you do them at the wrong time, like if your country is mostly peasants and then you give them the right to vote, good luck dealing with the rural folk party. I think you should always think about how your law changes are improving your restructuring and not let them do the restructuring for you because that is how you get underwhelming uses of the law.
I think it is important to mention autocracy law as it buffs aristocrats and officer clout. Professional armies seek to reduce attraction of the officers in favor of servicemen. Do the officers transfer their clout elsewhere after professional armies gets passed?
Oh, you probably mean
"The armed forces will attract fewer non-servicemen or officiers pops", right?
I am pretty sure it's meant to unterstood as "the armed forces will attract fewer non-servicemen and non-officiers". The second non was just ommited, although i totally understand the confusion. :D
At least in the game files (00_armed forces.txt), officiers always have 250 attraction to the armed forces. It should not (can not?) change due to changing laws.
@@DataTimelapses it's close to similar to aristocrats 250 attraction to the landowner IG, so it should be looked at if it's significant or not
This is really useful to see. I think the *0.5 attraction penalty for non-servicemen and officers under Professional Army is probably the biggest culprit here. At the start of the game, servicemen are too poor to have much political relevance, and officers are few in number with the earlier training modes at barracks. So with Professional Army, you're just losing a bunch of attraction from other pops who normally support the Armed Forces. I think all non-discriminated pops have a small attraction to the Armed Forces, so that's a percentage of nearly every profession that gets cut in half. It's small but still significant; too much for even a large standing army to make up for. Also, for Aristocrats, it's a double whammy, since they're not only losing the bonus attraction from Peasant Levies but getting hit with another *0.5 attraction penalty from Professional Armies.
I had noticed in my Russia playthrough that after enacting Professional Army, that the Armed Forces became marginalized a few years later (dropped to around 4% clout). This could be because my population rapidly increased (doubled by 1900) and I still only had around 420 battalions and no conscription centers.
I noticed when play as Russia that simply building up the industrialists through building more mines and factories will be much more efficient at decreasing Landowners influence. Empower them and Intelligentsia (mostly through building up universities, which you'll want for qualifications, and more admin building, which you'll also want for tax efficiency) so you can eventually pass Commercialized Agriculture to pretty much destroy whatever is left of the Aristocrat Influence. Do be careful though in also not letting the Church get too powerful,
The church gets power from dumb peasants, give education for your pops and their power goes away really quick.
I'm now actually a bit curious if national militia would have a similar effect or not and whether that one would maybe be more effective in limiting the power of the landowners.
It's important to note, that in 1.6 it was changed that during diplomatic plays, other countries count conscripts that are assigned to army the same as the standing army even when they are not raised. This means that if you play low infamy, your ability to sway and especially reverse sway is greatly improved by this (basically they fear your army strength). This allows you to get a lot of stuff for free, especially bankrolls.
Oh, counting conscripts was a new 1.6 thing? I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for sharing. :)
@@DataTimelapses Yes, they introduced it because the US always backed out against other GP's during the diplo play phase, as they thought themselves weak
You can use advanced cheats mod to instantly construct the barracks and also instantly hire to full so u can get more accurate results
I didn't know that a mod could do that. Thank you. :)
until this is changed, i do agree with PA being a political trap. ironically, not having PA made it easier to dislodge the Landowners than having it, since a larger portion of aristocrats (who should be powerful under autocracy/landed voting, which is often the case if you start with peasant levies), will support AF, who in turn support things like better taxes, dedicated police, and the occasional democrat leader to get better bureaucratic laws.
dislodging the aristocrats requires voting reforms, as well as changing the economic make-up of the country, regarding how industrialized the country is, who owns the bulk of buildings, etc. Originally i thought PA dislodged the aristocrats, but that was only the result of having PA + Army expansion + building up the economy and military supply to support that army, which radically shifted the economic make-up, that actually weakened the Landowners.
However, I still advocate for getting PA as soon as you can, bcs unless you are Russia/Qing/India, who can overwhelm opposition with 200+ battalions, for everyone else, having the military debuff of Peasant Levies is unsustainable
can you do some testing with parties
I noticed that some parties get together after enacting some laws (of course with landed voting)
I don't remember but the armed forces joined the aristocrats after enacting Per capita taxation and/or other laws
Interesting idea. But i don't have deep knowledge about parties and their formation yet.
I will put your suggestion on my ideas list. No promises though :)
How it works in theory is that they will band together when they both want a law enacted and they don't have significant conflicts with some other law. In this case both of them prefer laxer taxation.
Isn't this the exact same scenario for the hereditary bureaucrats law?
That thought comes up immediatly, doesn't it? :D
I haven't looked deeply into it, but there is an important difference: hereditary bureaucrats increases attraction of aristocrats to the intelligentia, but only if they work in government administration.
If you remove hereditary bureaucrats, then the prodction method changes and there aren't any aristocrats in administration anymore.
So, my guess is: no, it is not the same. But again, haven't look deeply into it.
Remember that peasant levies has restrictions towards military PMs that professional army doesn't
This is actually very informative as I expected the opposite. I guess the only reason you'd want PA early is if you actually need to fight a war otherwise the strong landlords are really screwing you.
Thank you. :)
And i agree, that is my take as well.
Great vid
Mình nghĩ còn tùy thuộc vào bạn đang chơi ở quốc gia nào nữa. ở một số nước việc ban hành điều luật gàn như là bắt buộc để làm suy yếu phe quý tộc ví dụ như Việt Nam và một số phe có khởi đầu thấp khác
is it also better to turn on peasant levies when i play as a nation starting with pro army and that has a poverful aristocrats (Persia)?
Just to be precise: Depends on your goals. If you want to use your army for actual warfare, keeping professional army can be a good idea.
If you want to weaken the landowners to get some reforms done, then changing to peasant levies will help you.
Mass conscription is the goat of army laws anyway
He is not even counting the the soldiers geaths in wars that will also weaken the armed forces, Holy shit this is big!
any intentions of doing an Armed Forces clout maxing guide?
Not yet. But i can put that on my ideas list. :)
@@DataTimelapses i'd like to see that.
Amazing
The placebo effect !
Gonna ask a friend to mod fix that
The problem with this is, that it is based on an ai which will never force you to strenghen your army much in number.
But in russia you have the problem, that their are only less high populated areas were you can build up your army. For example the Qing: if they build up max units in their regions, they will lose the war against the british. You need more mass to handle this.
And as russia you have the same problem. Also as usa or other huge countries with huge depopulated areas. Also nations like prussia need more troops than the 25 per region. But their are countries which do not need more than 25 units per region, because they simply can build them in all regions and have no regional rival which force them to do so.
And if they ever patch the ai (or you play with an ai mod), you need to raise up much stronger forces. And that will be not possible with pleasants. You can send militia to war, but pops are worth much. Losing to many i a war is a bad idea, because you lose workers and future pop growth rates. So having a professional army is better than sending militia... except for qing or india.
What i want to say is: politic is not all. You must always see the global situation and your neighboors.
For example: you are playing as austria and prussia is raising its army. But you have pleasant law and can not raise up more. What will you do? You know that prussia will attack you, because of the unification event. With pleasant law you ca not react to this threat. With professional army you can.
But overall: As long as training, equipment, etc of a standing army is not much better than of pleasants the difference is to low. And i do not understand why the management of an standing army is to weak in this game. They desided to weaken the military part of the game so heavily... but the game plays in an area were in europe were fought more wars than the centuries later and further. And then the colonial wars.
Oh it was you who made that post
Got me :)
agora esperimente sulfragio universal junto hehe
Might be a bit messy though :P
oh so it was you I saw on reddit
Yes, i posted on reddit immediatly after releasing the youtube video :)
No waaaay
too little subscribes; too little likes!
Thank you! I totally agree :P
People still play this game? The one where we need a degree in economics?😂
According to steamdb, about 5k to 10k economists in training daily ;) steamdb.info/app/529340/charts/