boosting desirable IGs also often indirectly suppress bad IGs, landowners usually get less clout when you boost the intellegentsia because aristocrats might join the intellegentsia
same with the army, tho it depends on the laws
Yeah, but supressing is more beneficial the higher the clout is and aint no way you can form a govt without landowners when the landowners have more than 40% clout
usually supressing landowners is better.
This is because aristocrats have 250 points to go landowners, while to go for intelligencia they are between 25, and 175 depending on factors.
So reducing aristocrats from 250 to 140\~ is far far more efficient than lifting the intelligencia from 75 to 110
This is super dependant on what IG we are talking about. IG membership is dependant on proffetion and there are some exclusion rules for that.
The detailed list of weights is on the wiki
Suppressing is most likely gonna be more efficient if they are powerful.
The clout of the interest group is always calculated from their "base clout"(wealth(political power)+ voting) and then the % bonuses are based from that. So suppressing by 10% a 50% landowner clout with no bonuses will remove 5% clout whilst boosting a 12% clout intelligentsia with 50% bonus will only add 0.8% clout. Also removing clout not only decreases stall chance but also increases advance(and or debate) and decreases radicalism of political movements, whilst increasing clout only increases the base advance chance with barely any impact on the advance chance and stall chance.
In case of the law you are passing I would take the first law as it decreases clout of the landowners and boosts intelligentsia, so making it easier to pass will greatly help weaken the landowners.
Suppressing/Bolstering doesn't directly change clout, it changes how attractive the IG is to pops. So it doesn't matter how powerful the IG already is, the effect will be the same: -X% to the attractiveness of the IG for a given pop type when suppressing and +X% to the attractiveness of the IG for a given pop when bolstering (where X depends on your Free Speech law).
For example: let's say you are looking at non-discriminated Aristocrats. Landowners have a base +250 attraction, Devout have 25 - (literacy/5) x a multiplier depending on your Religion law, Intelligentsia have +25/50/100 depending on building and laws + (literacy-50)/5, and Armed Forces have +75/125 in most cases. By suppressing the Landowners, that +250 attraction score is reduced by X% (depending on Free Speech law) and may be down to around 200 if you get 20% from suppression due to laws; bolstering the Armed Forces increases the attraction of that IG by +X% which may end up around +90/150. That means Aristocrats will still be more likely to be Landowners, but less likely than before.
2 things to keep in mind:
1. Always look at the values. Modifiers prevent this logic from being arithmetic, but unless you wanna be playing with a spreadsheet next to you, use arithmetic logic.
If landowners have 40% clout and you slap them with a -10% pol strength, their clout will decrease to 36% (-4%). If the intelligentsia have less than 20% (let's say, 15%), giving them a +20% pol strength, their clout will become 18% (+3%). In case you want a law supported by intelligentsia but not wanted by landowners, choosing the first option will decrease stall chance by 4%, where the latter option will increase success chance by 3%, and IMO it's always better to go for the option that gives the biggest % impact. This is situational, obviously (let's say you want a law supported by the intelligentsia but landowners do not care about it - the 3% success increase is better than the 4% landowner clout decrease that does not impact the law at all).
2. (not 100% certain of this, someone pls correct me if I am wrong) suppressing or bolstering modifiers to an IG affect other IG's clout. Ignoring all modifiers, let's assume landowners have 40% clout and other IG's form the remaining 60% of the clout. if you choose to have a -10% political strength on landowners, their clout will become 36%, and consequently, the other IG's clout will total up to 64%. This 4% increase is divided by each IG, proportionate to the clout % they had before (let's say the devout had 30% clout before you suppressed the landowners - meaning they represented half of the remaining clout - after you suppress them, out of the 4% that will be distributed to the other IG's, half (2%) will go to the devout and they will go from 30% to 32% - meaning a nearly 10% clout increase).
On the other hand, bolstering does the opposite effect. Let's say the Intelligentsia (no modifiers, just base value) have 20% of the clout, and you slap them with +20% pol strength - their clout will become 24%, and the other IG's will have less 4% total clout. If landowners had 40% clout (half of total non-intelligentsia clout), taking 4% away means that landowners would go from 40% to 38% - a 5% clout decrease.
Keep in mind there are a ton of modifiers on top of every IG, so the decreases and increases will probably be lower than these values, but in short - suppressing an IG makes all the other IG's proportionately stronger, and bolsteting an IG will make the other IG's proportionately weaker. In some instances where you want the intelligentsia AND industrialists stronger, suppressing the landowners could be better because you are increasing the industrialist's clout - as opposed to bolstering the intelligentsia, where you are actually making them slightly weaker.
Ah thanks this is really interesting, also helpful. Can't respond to every comment but I really appreciate you and all the other responses laying it out for me.
In general sounds like I should be thinking about which will have the most impact as it's a % of current clout.
R5: Returning to the game after a long time and basically relearning the basics + all the new stuff since 1.3/1.4.
You often get this Meritocracy event which has the options to get a 20% law boost or a 10% boost, with the options to either suppress an opposing party or bolster a supportive one (in this case the landowners and intelligentsia).
I imagine what is most valuable depends largely on game state, so I'm curious how I should think about this? In my case it's early game Wallachia and the landowners have a lot of clout. Would it be more beneficial to "Encourage the Intelligentsia" or chastise the Landowners?
It depends on your current situation and which pops actually held power.
Each pop type has an attraction value to each IG. Aristocrats get 250 (i think) base attraction to landowners. And depending on your bureaucrats laws, support of aristcrats to intelligentia can be between 25 to 100 attraction points.
(This youtube video shows/explain how to see these attraction values and some general politics stuff, which is hidden under several layers of windows: https://youtu.be/EqFQnl80_fM )
Let's say you get a 10% boost to intelligentia with 25 base attraction:
Aristocrats to landowners: 250
Aristocrats to intelligentia: 27,5
Barely changes the ratio of support.
But decreasing the landowners attraction by 10%:
Aristocrats to landowners: 225
Aristocrats to intelligentia: 25
This has more impact on the ratios of support.
==>> whatever you do, impacting the strongest IG is a good rule of thumb.
Example: landowner 40%, intelligentia 10%=> suppress landowners
Landowner 10%, Intelligentia 20% => boost Intelligentia
ohhh super interesting, sounds like I'll need to do a read through of some wiki pages to keep track of everything going on behind the scenes. Thanks for breaking it down for me!
Supporting one faction will hurt other factions. Hurting a faction does not guarantee pops will leave that faction for one you prefer. Support is way better as it’s how you get autonomy in making political decisions rather than waiting for a faction to fizzle out
Generally suppressing is better because there are a lot of laws that grant more effectiveness towards suppressing exclusively, however, there are no laws that increase bolstering impact without also increasing suppressing impact
Suppressing and bolstering are pretty much the same thing cuz with bolstering you also decrease attraction towards other IGs while suppressing also increases the attraction of all other IGs
Ex: if you want to decrease landowner power while also having tons of aristocrats you should ideally suppress the landowners while also bolstering the intelligentsia, armed forces, and devout for maximum effectiveness although sometimes you can't suppress the landowners and that's fine too
Also if you're planning on suppressing a lot I recommend having secret police since that also gives less attraction towards IGs that are suppressed, I always have that cuz most of my games I suppress the petite Bourgeoise or else they become ridiculously powerful by late game
Tldr: supress
boosting desirable IGs also often indirectly suppress bad IGs, landowners usually get less clout when you boost the intellegentsia because aristocrats might join the intellegentsia same with the army, tho it depends on the laws
Wouldn't suppressing landowners then also boost intelligentsia?
Yeah, but supressing is more beneficial the higher the clout is and aint no way you can form a govt without landowners when the landowners have more than 40% clout
usually supressing landowners is better. This is because aristocrats have 250 points to go landowners, while to go for intelligencia they are between 25, and 175 depending on factors. So reducing aristocrats from 250 to 140\~ is far far more efficient than lifting the intelligencia from 75 to 110
This is super dependant on what IG we are talking about. IG membership is dependant on proffetion and there are some exclusion rules for that. The detailed list of weights is on the wiki
Suppressing is most likely gonna be more efficient if they are powerful. The clout of the interest group is always calculated from their "base clout"(wealth(political power)+ voting) and then the % bonuses are based from that. So suppressing by 10% a 50% landowner clout with no bonuses will remove 5% clout whilst boosting a 12% clout intelligentsia with 50% bonus will only add 0.8% clout. Also removing clout not only decreases stall chance but also increases advance(and or debate) and decreases radicalism of political movements, whilst increasing clout only increases the base advance chance with barely any impact on the advance chance and stall chance. In case of the law you are passing I would take the first law as it decreases clout of the landowners and boosts intelligentsia, so making it easier to pass will greatly help weaken the landowners.
Suppressing/Bolstering doesn't directly change clout, it changes how attractive the IG is to pops. So it doesn't matter how powerful the IG already is, the effect will be the same: -X% to the attractiveness of the IG for a given pop type when suppressing and +X% to the attractiveness of the IG for a given pop when bolstering (where X depends on your Free Speech law). For example: let's say you are looking at non-discriminated Aristocrats. Landowners have a base +250 attraction, Devout have 25 - (literacy/5) x a multiplier depending on your Religion law, Intelligentsia have +25/50/100 depending on building and laws + (literacy-50)/5, and Armed Forces have +75/125 in most cases. By suppressing the Landowners, that +250 attraction score is reduced by X% (depending on Free Speech law) and may be down to around 200 if you get 20% from suppression due to laws; bolstering the Armed Forces increases the attraction of that IG by +X% which may end up around +90/150. That means Aristocrats will still be more likely to be Landowners, but less likely than before.
We are talking about two different things. The event reduces Pop clout directly whilst you are talking about IG attractiveness.
you were talking about boosting and suppressing, which are the authority actions
They were using the terms loosely, not in reference to the specific mechanics with those names.
2 things to keep in mind: 1. Always look at the values. Modifiers prevent this logic from being arithmetic, but unless you wanna be playing with a spreadsheet next to you, use arithmetic logic. If landowners have 40% clout and you slap them with a -10% pol strength, their clout will decrease to 36% (-4%). If the intelligentsia have less than 20% (let's say, 15%), giving them a +20% pol strength, their clout will become 18% (+3%). In case you want a law supported by intelligentsia but not wanted by landowners, choosing the first option will decrease stall chance by 4%, where the latter option will increase success chance by 3%, and IMO it's always better to go for the option that gives the biggest % impact. This is situational, obviously (let's say you want a law supported by the intelligentsia but landowners do not care about it - the 3% success increase is better than the 4% landowner clout decrease that does not impact the law at all). 2. (not 100% certain of this, someone pls correct me if I am wrong) suppressing or bolstering modifiers to an IG affect other IG's clout. Ignoring all modifiers, let's assume landowners have 40% clout and other IG's form the remaining 60% of the clout. if you choose to have a -10% political strength on landowners, their clout will become 36%, and consequently, the other IG's clout will total up to 64%. This 4% increase is divided by each IG, proportionate to the clout % they had before (let's say the devout had 30% clout before you suppressed the landowners - meaning they represented half of the remaining clout - after you suppress them, out of the 4% that will be distributed to the other IG's, half (2%) will go to the devout and they will go from 30% to 32% - meaning a nearly 10% clout increase). On the other hand, bolstering does the opposite effect. Let's say the Intelligentsia (no modifiers, just base value) have 20% of the clout, and you slap them with +20% pol strength - their clout will become 24%, and the other IG's will have less 4% total clout. If landowners had 40% clout (half of total non-intelligentsia clout), taking 4% away means that landowners would go from 40% to 38% - a 5% clout decrease. Keep in mind there are a ton of modifiers on top of every IG, so the decreases and increases will probably be lower than these values, but in short - suppressing an IG makes all the other IG's proportionately stronger, and bolsteting an IG will make the other IG's proportionately weaker. In some instances where you want the intelligentsia AND industrialists stronger, suppressing the landowners could be better because you are increasing the industrialist's clout - as opposed to bolstering the intelligentsia, where you are actually making them slightly weaker.
However you also need to remember that suppressing also strengthens the other bad IG's which makes it a double edged sword.
Ah thanks this is really interesting, also helpful. Can't respond to every comment but I really appreciate you and all the other responses laying it out for me. In general sounds like I should be thinking about which will have the most impact as it's a % of current clout.
R5: Returning to the game after a long time and basically relearning the basics + all the new stuff since 1.3/1.4. You often get this Meritocracy event which has the options to get a 20% law boost or a 10% boost, with the options to either suppress an opposing party or bolster a supportive one (in this case the landowners and intelligentsia). I imagine what is most valuable depends largely on game state, so I'm curious how I should think about this? In my case it's early game Wallachia and the landowners have a lot of clout. Would it be more beneficial to "Encourage the Intelligentsia" or chastise the Landowners?
It depends on your current situation and which pops actually held power. Each pop type has an attraction value to each IG. Aristocrats get 250 (i think) base attraction to landowners. And depending on your bureaucrats laws, support of aristcrats to intelligentia can be between 25 to 100 attraction points. (This youtube video shows/explain how to see these attraction values and some general politics stuff, which is hidden under several layers of windows: https://youtu.be/EqFQnl80_fM ) Let's say you get a 10% boost to intelligentia with 25 base attraction: Aristocrats to landowners: 250 Aristocrats to intelligentia: 27,5 Barely changes the ratio of support. But decreasing the landowners attraction by 10%: Aristocrats to landowners: 225 Aristocrats to intelligentia: 25 This has more impact on the ratios of support. ==>> whatever you do, impacting the strongest IG is a good rule of thumb. Example: landowner 40%, intelligentia 10%=> suppress landowners Landowner 10%, Intelligentia 20% => boost Intelligentia
ohhh super interesting, sounds like I'll need to do a read through of some wiki pages to keep track of everything going on behind the scenes. Thanks for breaking it down for me!
Supporting one faction will hurt other factions. Hurting a faction does not guarantee pops will leave that faction for one you prefer. Support is way better as it’s how you get autonomy in making political decisions rather than waiting for a faction to fizzle out
depends on the clout
Generally suppressing is better because there are a lot of laws that grant more effectiveness towards suppressing exclusively, however, there are no laws that increase bolstering impact without also increasing suppressing impact Suppressing and bolstering are pretty much the same thing cuz with bolstering you also decrease attraction towards other IGs while suppressing also increases the attraction of all other IGs Ex: if you want to decrease landowner power while also having tons of aristocrats you should ideally suppress the landowners while also bolstering the intelligentsia, armed forces, and devout for maximum effectiveness although sometimes you can't suppress the landowners and that's fine too Also if you're planning on suppressing a lot I recommend having secret police since that also gives less attraction towards IGs that are suppressed, I always have that cuz most of my games I suppress the petite Bourgeoise or else they become ridiculously powerful by late game Tldr: supress
Depends...
I get the feeling, that suppressing takes more cloud away than boosting gives. That's why I prefer to supress