Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Building a Nation - an Interactive British AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seek75 said:
Even though the Irish hate us?

The concept of nationality only applies when the people it is being applied to truely believe they are of that nationality. The Irish do not see themselves as British; they see themselves as Irish. They also see us as oppressors and destroyers (it was us, after all, who passed the Corn Laws, which was essentially a gurantee for famine), and, if we were to assault them, all of Ireland would rise against us in order to maintain their own liberty. Even if we approached them with a friendly, caring manner, they would have absolutely nothing to do with us.
Click to expand...

true, but I what about those of the protestant North, and those who are still loyal to the Republic? I mean sure past practices of the Crown has left much of Ireland in a state of extreme hate towards us, especially the catholics, but we cant leave the protestants to bear the pain of living in a hostile country. (Is ireland more thant one state? If not my idea kind of wont work :p)
 
geiseric said:
true, but I what about those of the protestant North, and those who are still loyal to the Republic? I mean sure past practices of the Crown has left much of Ireland in a state of extreme hate towards us, especially the catholics, but we cant leave the protestants to bear the pain of living in a hostile country. (Is ireland more thant one state? If not my idea kind of wont work :p)
Click to expand...

What about them? They are Irish. Religion, while still an important thing, does not warrant intervention in a now independent country. Perhaps a deal could be made with the Irish government to secure safe passage from Ireland to Britain, but nothing more. I don't want to leave them in a hostile land, but to attempt anything other than a peaceful transfer simply isn't the way to go.
 
Red Cesar said:
It's not tyranny, but it would be nice to have a say in several large events, based upon the republics foundings.

OOC: I think it adds flavor too :)

If he shouts for king and country one more time....
Click to expand...

What would happened? No I am actully corius. I might be a unquenching monarchist, but besides that I am actully pretty nice when we don't talk about monarchy vs republic. I am still and will always be a monarchist.
 
Seek75 said:
What about them? They are Irish. Religion, while still an important thing, does not warrant intervention in a now independent country. Perhaps a deal could be made with the Irish government to secure safe passage from Ireland to Britain, but nothing more. I don't want to leave them in a hostile land, but to attempt anything other than a peaceful transfer simply isn't the way to go.
Click to expand...
Just because they are Irish doesnt mean they are automatically going to be more willing to forgive one another, I have no doubt they have as much hate for them as they do any other brit, mostly out of jealousy which our former policies helped create do to their favoritism.

Treading on hot coals here.
Click to expand...
Huh? How? He is saying they would be more willing to forgive and forget because they share irish roots, I dont see anything wrong with that.
 
Will people stop say King and Country please?! Apart from the fact we no longer have a king, it was aid by aristocrats just before they charged into battle in the a couple of decades before this timeline.
 
Indeed! Long live the Republic of Britain! Earl Gray for everyone! All hot and steamy ;)

Jolly good beginning chaps! Nice work laying the foundation of freedom and rational government in this election (that I sadly missed). Now we must make sure to regain the prosperity the Tory mismanagment and revolutionary overzealousness have cost us. We must encourage the capitalist class to expand our industries and we must look overseas to expand our markets. Only by regaining the jewel of the empire can we make certain the future greatness of our republic.

Now, it seems we lost all our naval bases on the way to India, so getting a sizable army over there would be quite a dangerous operation in itself. It might be more expedient to take a shortcut trough Egypt. Even without a canal we could ferry troops over by using separate fleets.

Ireland is poor and hostile. While it behooves us to establish commercial control, anything beyond that is a waste of effort. Besides, conquering territory in Europe will make us far more feared and hated than taking more valuable lands in Egypt and India.
 
Last edited:
In the savage lands of Asia and Africa they still practice slavery and other uncivilized customs. We need to liberate the poor savages and teach them the value of Christianity, money based society and honest work.
 
Hooray...the lesser of two weevils has been elected!

Now, on to more important things...

Voting: What are the voting settings? I don't recall 'education' being one of them...are we 'landed' or 'wealth', from your post I would assume 'wealth'...but I'm not sure.

'Freedom of religion' and 'separation of church and state'? Hah! You will see future conflict over those two mutually exclusive ideas...

This seems to be more of a post-modern secular humanist wet-dream rather than a look at what the politics of the late 1830s post revolutionary Britain would look like. Just sayin that the current governmental policies would be considered VERY radical in the 19th century.

Now, I hope that the Ireland question will be resolved soon...although I wouldn't be averse to a few expeditions to restore British colonies in out of the way places. Who's with me, Cecil Rhodes style?!

Looking forward to seeing how the Whig / Radical coalition interfaces with the numerous Conservatives...
 
TheExecuter said:
Hooray...the lesser of two weevils has been elected!

Now, on to more important things...

Voting: What are the voting settings? I don't recall 'education' being one of them...are we 'landed' or 'wealth', from your post I would assume 'wealth'...but I'm not sure.

'Freedom of religion' and 'separation of church and state'? Hah! You will see future conflict over those two mutually exclusive ideas...

This seems to be more of a post-modern secular humanist wet-dream rather than a look at what the politics of the late 1830s post revolutionary Britain would look like. Just sayin that the current governmental policies would be considered VERY radical in the 19th century.

Now, I hope that the Ireland question will be resolved soon...although I wouldn't be averse to a few expeditions to restore British colonies in out of the way places. Who's with me, Cecil Rhodes style?!

Looking forward to seeing how the Whig / Radical coalition interfaces with the numerous Conservatives...
Click to expand...

The voting system is somethign I just thought up on the spot tbh. :p

I initially thought of granting universal suffrage but decided that this would be too much, however I realised that for a Radical-Whig alliance to work the franchise would have to change. So I chose this, an idea that is satisfactory for all. Voting rights in game don't really matter.

How are freedom of religion and seperation of church and state mutually exclusive? In fact the seperation of church and state is almost a requirement for full freedom of religion.

You do realise Britain has just experienced a social revolution and half of the ruling government is made up of Radicals don't you? These two things have shifted the goalposts of British society. In truth, the radical elements of the new Republic are really dampened down version of American ideas. In the situation this alternate Britain finds itself in the state must change in line with society - the Whigs came to power with the desire to maintain the authority of the state and of their class. If they are to do this they felt that radical changes to society are required. Also, many of the reforms taking place are not so disimilar to the real life reforms of the 1830s.



As for questions about my failure to address the economy and foriegn policy in the last update, sorry :eek:o, I forgot. Basically economic policy will largely be dictated by the Whigs with the main reform to the economic system being any potential change to the child labour laws.

Foriegn policy will again be a largely Whig dominated field. However, the alienation from Europe caused by the radical nature of the new Republic (compared to the Ancien Regimes of the Continent) will force us to look to closer relations with our ideological and cultural allies across the Atlantic.

I'm going to start playing the game now, so bye!
 
Yay we won! Hot Earl Gray for everyone!

In game speaking, I'd suppose that you'd SoI the former-colonies-now-turned-independent, right? After all, less than a decade ago they were all british
 
ATTACK77 said:
The voting system is somethign I just thought up on the spot tbh. :p

I initially thought of granting universal suffrage but decided that this would be too much, however I realised that for a Radical-Whig alliance to work the franchise would have to change. So I chose this, an idea that is satisfactory for all. Voting rights in game don't really matter.
Click to expand...

Oh, I thought we were going to have an impact on the 'in-game' aspects. Let us know what those are when you get a chance, please...

ATTACK77 said:
How are freedom of religion and seperation of church and state mutually exclusive? In fact the seperation of church and state is almost a requirement for full freedom of religion.
Click to expand...

It is a common misconception that there is, in fact, a 'secular' philosophy. In reality, every man (and every politician) follows a religious belief system. Most of what you would call 'secular' is actually a belief system known as 'secular humanism', which is itself a religion.

Erecting a 'wall' between 'church and state' effectively means that those who follow a version of 'secular humanism' wish to exclude all other religious beliefs from the public policy discussion (claiming separation). This results, in the long-run, in a society dominated by the secular humanist belief system, and the eventual persecution of other religious beliefs.

In short, you cannot divorce religion from the state, unless you can somehow divorce religion from mankind. It is an idealistic absurdity to say that there can be some sort of 'separation of church and state' that means anything.

ATTACK77 said:
You do realise Britain has just experienced a social revolution and half of the ruling government is made up of Radicals don't you? These two things have shifted the goalposts of British society. In truth, the radical elements of the new Republic are really dampened down version of American ideas. In the situation this alternate Britain finds itself in the state must change in line with society - the Whigs came to power with the desire to maintain the authority of the state and of their class. If they are to do this they felt that radical changes to society are required. Also, many of the reforms taking place are not so disimilar to the real life reforms of the 1830s.
Click to expand...

Certainly, however, I think you are putting too much of a modern spin on things. It is your show however, and I will watch with interest.
 
TheExecuter said:
Oh, I thought we were going to have an impact on the 'in-game' aspects. Let us know what those are when you get a chance, please...



It is a common misconception that there is, in fact, a 'secular' philosophy. In reality, every man (and every politician) follows a religious belief system. Most of what you would call 'secular' is actually a belief system known as 'secular humanism', which is itself a religion.

Erecting a 'wall' between 'church and state' effectively means that those who follow a version of 'secular humanism' wish to exclude all other religious beliefs from the public policy discussion (claiming separation). This results, in the long-run, in a society dominated by the secular humanist belief system, and the eventual persecution of other religious beliefs.

In short, you cannot divorce religion from the state, unless you can somehow divorce religion from mankind. It is an idealistic absurdity to say that there can be some sort of 'separation of church and state' that means anything.



Certainly, however, I think you are putting too much of a modern spin on things. It is your show however, and I will watch with interest.
Click to expand...

There is not need to take such a mocking tone. :/

You guys have an impact in game by electing the ruling government and giving me direction. But what is the point of getting caught up with in game voting rights when they have no bearing in the AAR? Because its not the POPs but you lot that vote in elections.

I'm not even going to address your little rant on secularism, its not worth doing so. We all know that barring the Church of England from sitting alongside government making decisions and giving religous freedom to Catholics, non-Anglican Protestants and Jews is secular oppression.

As for your hangs up on things being overly modern, I'm still unsure here. I admit that the bits on economic policy in the election update were overly modern, but I still don't get your problem with the reforms. All of these were either actual reforms in Britain in the 1830s or are inspired by 18th century revolutions. Hardly ahead of the times.
 
FYI, when I said they were Irish, I ment...well, they're Irish. They're citizens of Ireland, not of Britain. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over them, and no ability to do anything more than request a peaceful transfer of them over here should violence from the Catholic population get out of hand.
 
Seek75 said:
FYI, when I said they were Irish, I ment...well, they're Irish. They're citizens of Ireland, not of Britain. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over them, and no ability to do anything more than request a peaceful transfer of them over here should violence from the Catholic population get out of hand.
Click to expand...

oh, well I was close
 
As Attack rightly says, the ideas put forward/adopted by the Radicals and Whigs are indeed comfortably part of that era. Just look at what the Chartists wanted, or what Charles Fox was pushing for prior to and during the American Revolution (which I must add still inspires many sitting Radicals).

(In character) This coalition that has now been assembled is exactly what our nation, so recently laid low by civil strife, needs to once again take its place among the Premier states of the World. Together we shall enact a series of progressive and positive reforms that will answer the cries for justice that have come from our shores for much too long. We will maintain stability and order, steer a deliberate and measured course, and bring Britain, this Republic of Britain forward into the Modern Age for good.
 
Unfortunately, if we choose to maintain good relations with the U.S., we will be prevented from trying to reestablish the empire in North America, as the Monroe Doctrine states that the U.S. will prevent any new European expansion on their continent.

Fortunately for us, that still leaves Africa, Asia, and Australia open for conquest/colonization. Unfortunately, because South Africa split away from the empire, our ships will take attrition from the long voyage east. Therefore, I propose the conquering of the country of Madagascar be our first priority, as we can use it as a springboard into Africa and Asia.

Also, after pouring over many maps, I have come across an isthmus on the left-hand side of the Suez peninsula. It will take a lot of work, but if we manage to convince Egypt to allow us to build a canal across that isthmus, and we research the tools to do so, we might be able to exponentially decrease the time of the voyage to Asia.

Finally, the restoration of relationships with Australia should be a top priority.

(By the way, I know most people realize this, but in case you, the reader, don't, this isn't meant to be an arrogant, dictating comment, but rather as an opinion, open for debate and discussion.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back