Party issues are the different political positions held by the various in-game parties. There are a variety of different party issues, each one with unique positions. The party issues held by the ruling party affect gameplay a great deal, determining the degree of control the player can exercise over various facets of policy. Much effort is often expended by the player in pursuit of a specific party so that he may acquire a set of desired party issues.
Ideology greatly affects the stance of a party on the various issues, but individual parties may vary considerably from the ideological norm.
Types of Party Issue
There are five party issues, each of which has two to four stances available to a party. Each of these stances has some degree of concrete effect.
Trade policy is the party position on free trade. Though in reality this is a nuanced debate that has spanned several centuries and takes different forms over time, Victoria 2 simplifies it down to two options, each diametrically opposed to the other.
|Name||Min Tariff||Max Tariff|
Protectionism is a government policy of taxation and discrimination against foreign imports. This policy allows the player to implement tariffs up to 100%, and restricts import subsidies to 25%. Protectionism is useful to the player, as it allows the player more tariff power while restricting a relatively useless game play mechanism.
Free trade is a policy explicitly aimed at allowing a free flow of goods across borders without undue interference by government officials, laws, or taxes. Free trade restricts the maximum tariff to 25%, while allowing full import subsidies. Free trade doesn't really confer many in-game benefits to most players, but it can be useful in forcibly limiting a player's abuse of tariffs, and also confer psychological benefit to those of us that value free trade in reality. On the other hand, import subsidies can also be useful in allowing capitalists and artisans to access materials not made in the player's country, so it can be used to promote industry.
Economic policy determines your national system of economic management. There are four choices available, ranging from a free market system to a total state-ownership system.
Laissez Faire is a hands-off government policy that sees the market as the ultimate tool for progress, and believes that markets spontaneously organize human activity. This policy disables almost all player intervention in the economy. The player cannot build factories or railroads, and cannot subsidize or prioritize hiring in factories. The upside is, factory costs for capitalists are low. When laissez faire works well, it produces potent and efficient industrial giants at little to no cost to the state coffers. When it fails (which Victoria 2's shortcomings ensure it often does), it results in a spectacular and irksome collapse of industry. Good for beginners, players who dislike economic micromanagement, or players who wish to play a more nuanced or challenging economic game.
This policy finds the market to be a useful tool for growth, but that it needs help sometimes. Interventionism allows the player to build railroads, upgrade factories but not build new ones, and subsidize and prioritize hiring in factories. This increased scope of action is punished by an increase in factory costs for capitalists. This policy is a sort of middle ground between full planning and no planning, and is useful for players who want to tweak at the margins but let the market handle the rest.
State capitalism demands that the state control the "commanding heights" of the economy, but leave the market to handle the less important things. This policy allows the player to construct railways, construct and upgrade factories, and subsidize and prioritize factory hiring. While capitalists can still build factories, it is at double the costs they would face in a laissez faire market. Also, capitalists cannot expand factories beyond their initial level, requiring player intervention to build up significant industry in one province. This policy also requires a minimum taxation level of 25%. This policy is seen by many players as the ideal, especially early in industrialisation when few capitalists exist, as it allows the player almost total control, while still allowing the capitalists to contribute, however meagerly.
The planned economy, also known as central planning, socializes the control of all economic resources into the hands of the state. All economic decisions are made by the state, and the market is excluded from functioning in the state in question. This policy allows the player the same breadth of action as state capitalism, but bans capitalist initiative entirely. It also carries a required taxation level of 50%. This policy is really the ugly step-sister of state capitalism, carrying additional disadvantages but no significant advantages. However, after HoD this is longer true as the negative modifiers have been removed and planned economy now gives a +5% bonus to factory throughput. This Policy also means the rich strata is no longer important to the economy, meaning you can demote all capitalists and aristocrats, meaning you will no longer have to succumb the burden of satisfying the rich strata.
Religious policy determines your national stance on religion. Each one of these options represents a government attitude towards religion, both broadly and in the context of the state religion. Religious policies have no direct effect on game mechanics, but they do influence decisions and events.
Atheism is the opposite of moralism. Rather than holding up one religion as the one true word, atheism actively attacks all religion as illegitimate.
Secularism is the stance that the government has no place in religion, and should abstain from any and all involvement in religious affairs of any kind.
This policy holds that each citizen has the right to his own religious views, and that the religious majority (where there is one) has no right to infringe upon this free practice.
Moralism promotes one religion above all others, and actively seeks to spread the state religion to religious minorities. If the ruling party supports Moralism, non-state-religion populations have a positive modifier to their CON which is not present for pops of the state religion.
Citizenship policy determines the rights of ethnic minorities in your nation. Historically, the rights and rightful place of minorities in society has been a contentious issue in any number of nations, particularly in multi-racial countries (like Austria) or in very ethnically conscious nations (like Japan). In practice, this policy simply determines who gets to vote, and modifies the rate at which cultures assimilate to your primary culture. This means citizenship policy is inconsequential to those governments that do not allow voting, aside from its effects on decisions, events and assimilation.
|Residency||Primary Culture Voting|
|Limited Citizenship||Primary & Accepted Culture Voting||10% Global Assimilation Rate|
|Full Citizenship||All Voting||25% Global Assimilation Rate|
Residency allows immigrants and minorities the right to reside and work within the national borders, but no political rights. This policy gives the full vote to the primary culture and halved votes to accepted cultures. It also increases the rate at which non-state/accepted-culture pops emigrate from your nation.
Limited citizenship allows immigrants and minorities to become citizens (possibly with certain restrictions) after a certain period, "proving" their loyalty. This policy gives the full vote to the primary culture and any accepted cultures to vote, and halved votes to all other cultures.
Full citizenship allows immigrants and minorities the full rights of citizenship, usually after some universally-accessible and relatively easy process of naturalization. This policy allows all populations to vote equally, regardless of culture.
War policy is the embodiment of the national attitude towards the military and warfare generally. Historically, aggressive empires have glorified war to justify their actions, while smaller countries or trading nations have emphasized the power of peace. In practice, these policies affect the player's maximum defense budget, as well as the supply consumption of military units and the degree to which war exhaustion affects the nation.
Jingoism, sometimes overlapping with expansionism, irredentism, or imperialism, focuses on the martial virtues of warfare, and glorifies territorial expansion. Allows 100% military budget, increases supply consumption by 10%, and reduces war exhaustion effects to 50%. Also sets the flag for jingoism, which can affect decisions and events.
Jingoism is also special in that (lack of) support for it limits warmongering. Adding a war goal during an ongoing war without a corresponding casus belli requires just under 7% of the country's population to support jingoism, and causes a quarter of those pops to support pro military instead.
The pro military values the military for national defense and just wars. Aggressive wars may be viewed as acceptable, if not glorious. Allows 100% military budget and reduces war exhaustion effects to 70%.
The anti military stance disdains war, considering peace to be preferable. Believers in the anti military stance often believe change is better accomplished through peaceful means, by the market or by political means. Sets maximum military spending at 75%, increases war exhaustion effects to 120%, and decreases supply consumption by 25%.
Pacifists believe war is an illegitimate means of change, and even finds aggression in self defense to be suspect. Sets maximum military spending at 50%, increases war exhaustion effects to 150%, and decreases supply consumption by 50%.
Data on party issues can be accessed by locating the Paradox folder in the drive to which it is saved, then navigating to