Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #18 - Rank & Prestige

[Willem IV]

Nothing know so far, but they confirmed that the Russian-Japanese war of 1905 was an inspiration for them.
So yes, you most likely need to do some fighting to gain recognition.

 

[Axe99]

The AirForce in the Great War was mostly recon. No major impact in direct warfare. The fight was still on the ground and seas. The era/game is more about securing your resources/tradenetwork. So you needed a big fleet

Recon was what it was useed for initially, but even then it was hugely important in the Great War - in effect being able to see the shape of the enemy's lines, spot for artillery, see the massing of reserves. That kind of intelligence is priceless, which is why aerial warfare developed so quickly. Bombing had an impact though (and before the end of WW1, torpedoes were being launched from aircraft over water). There's a reason thousands up thousands of aircraft were made an used in action. And bearing in mind the game goes to the 1930s, when air forces were an order of magnitude more important again, it'd be odd for them not to count in the 'prestige tally' just because they didn't happen to exist at the start of the game.

 

[LAF1994]

That being said, armies should still be important, and iirc Vicky 2 did overemphasise navies by it's somewhat blunt 'dreadnought prestige bonus'. Given the care and attention the devs have shown so far though, and

Prestige was the main use of dreadnoughts, though. However, they should be more expensive and harder to build than in Vic2 (where building up the infrastructure for a navy can be done far too quickly and cheaply).

 

[demanvanwezel]

Prestige was the main use of dreadnoughts, though. However, they should be more expensive and harder to build than in Vic2 (where building up the infrastructure for a navy can be done far too quickly and cheaply).

yeah, IRL the only nations that build their own dreadnoughts were the UK, germany, france, the US, italy, japan, russia and austria-hungary (this list seems weirdly familiar ), all the rest bought them from one of these countries

 

[Nibbes]

I hope it is, navy in this timeperiod was massively more important then the army in terms of power projection, there's a reason germany wanted to build a fleet despite them having like 100 times the army size of the UK

also airforce wasn't really a thing untill 1917/1918 and even then it had to struggle to make itself into a distinct thing from the army (and even that wasn't implemented in most countries by the 1930's AKA end of the game)

Some times these powers are more "dick swinging" then being actually practical with its military. Germany is good example. The Americans were ahead of curve at realizing the value of air craft carriers over destroyers.

The European elites especially aristocrats biggest issue between end of Napoleonic Wars and into world war 1 and even bit of 2 was treating war with often outdated understanding of it especially global or major modern ones. The Europeans largely avoided modern ground shaking war from end of Napoleonic to WW1 but had many situations to learn before experiencing themselves like from watching American Civil War or not forgetting why Napoleon did so well in war.

For example, if you get ahead on technology especially if the game has lack of lock dates for them then you can use air force and proto carriers to catch British navy in shallow or coastal waters catching them in bad position and destroying multiple ships which shows Europeans value of this technology and weapons while other one takes a prestige lost little

 

[Axe99]

Prestige was the main use of dreadnoughts, though. However, they should be more expensive and harder to build than in Vic2 (where building up the infrastructure for a navy can be done far too quickly and cheaply).

The primary purpose of dreadnoughts was sea control - they were the next evolution of the 'line of battle' ship, that at the start of the Vicky 3 timeframe is still mostly a wooden sailing ship (I can't recall off the top of my head when the first wooden ship-of-the line had a steam engine plonked into it), and ends with ships being laid down of the ilk of Yamato and Bismarck. Prestige was a bonus, but the prestige was due to the power-projection capability of the vessels - prior to aircraft becoming a serious threat to battleships, a battleship force could sail up to a city on the coast and bombard it with relative impunity as long as they were appropriately screened for mines and submarines, and the only thing that was going to stop it was another battleship force.

Ie, the first generation of all-big-gun 'line of battle' ships were not noticeably more 'prestige-granting' than earlier battle ships other than the fact that more prestige was tied up in any one vessel because they were larger vessels and there were generally less of them (particularly once they started to grow to 35,000 and above tons displacement).

I very much agree about the infrastructure to build them - the armour plant, machinery and armament were all huge tasks, as was the hull itself.

yeah, IRL the only nations that build their own dreadnoughts were the UK, germany, france, the US, italy, japan, russia and austria-hungary (this list seems weirdly familiar ), all the rest bought them from one of these countries

That's almost all of them - don't forget the Espana class - built with foreign help to be sure, but built in Spain nonetheless.

For example, if you get ahead on technology especially if the game has lack of lock dates for them then you can use air force and proto carriers to catch British navy in shallow or coastal waters catching them in bad position and destroying multiple ships which shows Europeans value of this technology and weapons while other one takes a prestige lost little

Bear in mind that historically the UK lead on carrier aviation and had the strongest naval air arm in the world until Lexington and Saratoga were finished (by that point, the rot of having the RAF in charge of the aircraft had set in a bit). In the 1910s and 1920s the Royal Navy were more air-minded than pretty much any other navy out there, although the USN matched them and then overtook them by the end of the period.

I can't speak for land stuff, but European navies were generally ahead of the rest of the world (including the US, by some margin, until the very late 19th century) when it came to naval developments - they were by no means backwards. The first ironclad seagoing warship was French. The first all-iron seagoing warship was British. The US did some innovative things during the American Civil War, but then their navy stagnated for decades, while the technology in Europe shot ahead (such that when the US did go back to building battleships, their first two were small and well outclassed by contemporary European vessels).

Prior to and during WW1 the huge expansion of the USN meant it caught up and in some areas moved ahead, but it wasn't until after WW2 that the USN had a clear technological lead over other navies. From post-WW1 up to and including the WW2 period it was in the top tier of naval powers, and did some things better, while it did other things worse, but it wasn't 'in front' by that stage.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Some times these powers are more "dick swinging" then being actually practical with its military. Germany is good example. The Americans were ahead of curve at realizing the value of air craft carriers over destroyers.

The European elites especially aristocrats biggest issue between end of Napoleonic Wars and into world war 1 and even bit of 2 was treating war with often outdated understanding of it especially global or major modern ones. The Europeans largely avoided modern ground shaking war from end of Napoleonic to WW1 but had many situations to learn before experiencing themselves like from watching American Civil War or not forgetting why Napoleon did so well in war.

For example, if you get ahead on technology especially if the game has lack of lock dates for them then you can use air force and proto carriers to catch British navy in shallow or coastal waters catching them in bad position and destroying multiple ships which shows Europeans value of this technology and weapons while other one takes a prestige lost little

US, British and Japanese all built up to their allocated tonnages in carriers between the wars. In terms of doctrine and ship design all had some things going on for them, British tend to be most maligned but they had advantages too such as great fuel safety and air operations in adverse conditions. The continental European navies were ones behind the pack, which I'd say was due to lesser strategic need for carriers, less material for conversions to large carriers which were crucial for working out carrier operations, less tonnage allowed for carriers in treaties and lower level of naval construction in general. I don't think there ever really was carriers vs. destroyers debate, carriers were competing more with battleships.

European military circles studied and kept studying Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, Franco-Prussian War etc. for military lessons during 19th century and in the years leading to WW1. I don't think military theory was more advanced anywhere in the world in this period. For example here's a British analysis of a Franco-Prussian War battle that I read recently, note that the same author wrote works on American Civil War as well: https://archive.org/details/battlewrthaugus00hendgoog/mode/2up

 

[Nibbes]

The primary purpose of dreadnoughts was sea control - they were the next evolution of the 'line of battle' ship, that at the start of the Vicky 3 timeframe is still mostly a wooden sailing ship (I can't recall off the top of my head when the first wooden ship-of-the line had a steam engine plonked into it), and ends with ships being laid down of the ilk of Yamato and Bismarck. Prestige was a bonus, but the prestige was due to the power-projection capability of the vessels - prior to aircraft becoming a serious threat to battleships, a battleship force could sail up to a city on the coast and bombard it with relative impunity as long as they were appropriately screened for mines and submarines, and the only thing that was going to stop it was another battleship force.

Ie, the first generation of all-big-gun 'line of battle' ships were not noticeably more 'prestige-granting' than earlier battle ships other than the fact that more prestige was tied up in any one vessel because they were larger vessels and there were generally less of them (particularly once they started to grow to 35,000 and above tons displacement).

I very much agree about the infrastructure to build them - the armour plant, machinery and armament were all huge tasks, as was the hull itself.




That's almost all of them - don't forget the Espana class - built with foreign help to be sure, but built in Spain nonetheless.



Bear in mind that historically the UK lead on carrier aviation and had the strongest naval air arm in the world until Lexington and Saratoga were finished (by that point, the rot of having the RAF in charge of the aircraft had set in a bit). In the 1910s and 1920s the Royal Navy were more air-minded than pretty much any other navy out there, although the USN matched them and then overtook them by the end of the period.

I can't speak for land stuff, but European navies were generally ahead of the rest of the world (including the US, by some margin, until the very late 19th century) when it came to naval developments - they were by no means backwards. The first ironclad seagoing warship was French. The first all-iron seagoing warship was British. The US did some innovative things during the American Civil War, but then their navy stagnated for decades, while the technology in Europe shot ahead (such that when the US did go back to building battleships, their first two were small and well outclassed by contemporary European vessels).

Prior to and during WW1 the huge expansion of the USN meant it caught up and in some areas moved ahead, but it wasn't until after WW2 that the USN had a clear technological lead over other navies. From post-WW1 up to and including the WW2 period it was in the top tier of naval powers, and did some things better, while it did other things worse, but it wasn't 'in front' by that stage.

Remember pre world wars especially 1 the US is investing way more in domestic and business/trade then military. Much of our pre ww1 actions especially outside Western Hemisphere are usually private third parties or mercenaries. The Europeans invested much more into either their navy(British which makes sense it’s island) and army(Prussia). That is why when US rapidly converts to war economy even before entering it was often the economic lifeline for entente especially UK. Ww2 lead lease was vital to Brits staying in north at before US even entered.

The US by ww1 is arguably already 1 in economics outside of controlling 1/3 of world market like British(we thought decolonization would open up more free trade post ww2). Also Germany science wise and likely quality before ww1/1914 might be best in world. Germany had military industrial complex and arguably most powerful single army in world at start of ww1. They fought Russia, France, and UK largely as backbone of its alliance(not strongest allies either) and nearly won. That’s impressive. The US before 1917 and even until ww2 to lesser extent isn’t taken as most serious as projecting military power outside of defending its hegemony in Western Hemisphere and itself.

Russia actually overestimated especially before world wars due to its raw size. Germany did win there nearly. Russia before communist is very backwards by most European standards on development.

The US was most innovative with technology because they often were less political with it then European counterparts who had to consider how to implement it into existing framework more so.

The civil war sees examples of total war with Grant march through the south. Submarines, multiple fronts, blockades, navy invasion, raids/coop, mines, partisans, and even child soldiers near end. The Europeans shrugged this off as “petty raids” because their military elite and top ranks often had outdated understanding of tactics and organization of modern or industrialized military. They aren’t always fighting zulus or boxer rebels. Americans actually adapted tactics from frontier to modern weaponry. Our helicopters are even called Apaches because we did take some tactics then adopted them to gun use especially once you got 4 shots instead of 1.

Europeans sense of “honorable” war and rigid aristocratic military ranks also hinder them at times. The US had just benefit of lacking that and more “band of brothers” military hierarchy

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

The civil war sees examples of total war with Grant march through the south. Submarines, multiple fronts, blockades, navy invasion, raids/coop, mines, partisans, and even child soldiers near end. The Europeans shrugged this off as “petty raids” because their military elite and top ranks often had outdated understanding of tactics and organization of modern or industrialized military. They aren’t always fighting zulus or boxer rebels. Americans actually adapted tactics from frontier to modern weaponry. Our helicopters are even called Apaches because we did take some tactics then adopted them to gun use especially once you got 4 shots instead of 1.

Meanwhile actual level of US Army tactical development was Sherman and Hancock suppressing attempt at improving military doctrine due to personal authority issues with a junior officer (Edit: I mean the Hunt-Hancock Controversy that began at Gettysburg and extended beyond Hancock's death, with Sherman later supporting his pal). And after some initial good development in early mid 19th century US Army armory gradually grew obsolescent in comparison to European ones in the last three decades of it. Nah, you are not correct to think US military thinking was above European one.

 

[Axe99]

The US was most innovative with technology because they often were less political with it then European counterparts who had to consider how to implement it into existing framework more so.

You're quite right that until near the end of the 19th century, the US didn't invest much into their defence (navy or army), and had they invested a similar proportion of their GDP they would have had stronger forces. However, when it comes to technology while the US was absolutely very innovative, at least in the naval sphere, as far as I'm aware, they were no more innovative than other leading naval powers (and, due to being a bit 'new on the scene' in World War One may have had a few more blind spots, just because it takes time and experience to round things out). The US were the first to launch an aircraft from a naval ship, but the British were the first to operate an aircraft carrier at sea. The Japanese were the first to use an aircraft launched from a naval vessel to attack a ship. The Austro-Hungarians (I think - this is all going from memory, and I may mess things up) were the first to sink a submarine using an aircraft. There's no evidence at all in the game's timeframe to suggest the US was more innovative than other naval powers, even adjusting for expenditure (the US WW1 expansion of the navy was huge, but the destroyers and light cruisers that came from it were not up to par compared with what was being built at the same time in Britain or Germany).

The civil war sees examples of total war with Grant march through the south. Submarines, multiple fronts, blockades, navy invasion, raids/coop, mines, partisans, and even child soldiers near end. The Europeans shrugged this off as “petty raids” because their military elite and top ranks often had outdated understanding of tactics and organization of modern or industrialized military. They aren’t always fighting zulus or boxer rebels. Americans actually adapted tactics from frontier to modern weaponry. Our helicopters are even called Apaches because we did take some tactics then adopted them to gun use especially once you got 4 shots instead of 1.

Europeans sense of “honorable” war and rigid aristocratic military ranks also hinder them at times. The US had just benefit of lacking that and more “band of brothers” military hierarchy

The US did pioneer submarines (although it wasn't a Gov't effort - it was a couple of ambitious individuals (Holland and Lake) that eventually sold the navy on it) but by the end of WW1 the best submarines in the world were arguably German and British. Blockades were hardly something new to the US, nor was naval invasion, nor were mines (they had been used in the Crimean war not long before the American Civil War took place, and the world's first minesweeping was done by European navies, not the USN/CSN). The big innovation out of the American civil war was the Monitor (although similar developments were taking place overseas, and it was the Cole's and not Ericcson's design, iirc, that ended up providing the template for turret design going forward) and far from paying no attention to development the monitor and the naval combat from the war was followed closely (just as close attention was paid to the Battle of Lissa in 1866, to the joy of ram enthusiasts everywhere).

As before, I can't really comment on the land stuff, as that's not my thing, but the impression I've got from their performance in the war with France around 1870 or so was that the Prussian army wasn't exactly backward. While I can't say whether it's right or wrong, I'd strongly suggest caution before reading too much into stereotypes of mentality.

We're starting to get a bit off-topic here though - the important point I think is that capacity for force projection and power more generally should be what underpin the prestige provided by armed forces, and that in this context navies in the game's era were still very important, although late in the game the aircraft carrier and aircraft more generally should start to become more important (and armies should of course be somewhat important throughout). If we're going to continue this discussion, there may be value in dragging it back to prestige and how it works for Vicky 3.

 

[killaghost12]

The Europeans shrugged this off as “petty raids” because their military elite and top ranks often had outdated understanding of tactics and organization of modern or industrialized military.

You really do have a very reductionist view of Europe during this period don't you?

This period marked a whole slew of constant military reforms, reorganisations and the adaptation of technology. While the US largely fought their civil war largely with muskets, France and Prussia were seeking the mass adaptation of early bolt action rifles, only a year after the US civil war ended the Austro-Prussian war kicked off with Prussia largely fielding an army equipped with Dreyse Needle guns. By this time it was also well understood that the key to victory was the swift mobilisation and out manoeuvring of your enemy - something that would bite France is the ass only 5 years after the end of the US civil war, in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870.

You appear to take the lack of a war on the scale and brutality and length of the US Civil war to mean that European military developments were behind that of their US contemporaries. But surely it is the other way around? The Franco-Prussian war and Austro-Prussian war were wars between two major powers and often regarded as being equals in might ended in the matter of months. Surely that provides a deeper, more intricate military understanding of modern war than you give them credit for!

 

[Sir Tornado]

A country under the dominion of another is largely subservient to its overlord in diplomatic matters. If someone wants to mess with the EIC they're also forced to deal with Great Britain, so their Recognition status is largely irrelevant under these circumstances.

But what really matters is what happens if a Subject nation gains its independence. If EIC decided to mount a rebellion against the Crown and successfully became an independent Major Power in the Indian subcontinent, would the Great Powers treat it with some modicum of respect or would they be considered irrelevant other than as a ripe target for exploitation? The game mechanics argue that the former makes more sense.

And to be clear, if an Unrecognized country is Puppeted and subsequently Released, its status as Unrecognized remains.

Historically, the possibility of EIC breaking away from Great Britain was precisely zero. Absolutely zero. It was just not possible due to the way EIC was structured and the way it was run and due to its ownership structure.

There was a historic possibility of the government of EIC being overthrown and a new country being established in the lands formerly governed by EIC (and that was kind of the aim of the 1857 revolt against EIC), but EIC's leadership itself somehow deciding to revolt against Great Britain? No.

We have to remember here, that EIC got its legitimacy from an act of British parliament and eventually it was an act of British parliament that dissolved it. It was governed by board of directors who were appointed by its shareholders - almost all of whom were British and many were even members of the British parliament itself.

So, I hope Vic3 does not throw up this scenario.

 

[unmerged(760025)]

The possibility of EIC breaking away from Great Britain was precisely zero. Absolutely zero. It was just not possible due to the way EIC was structured and the way it was run and due to its ownership structure.

There is a possibility of the government of EIC being overthrown and a new country being established in the lands formerly governed by EIC (and that was kind of the aim of the 1857 revolt against EIC), but EIC's leadership itself somehow deciding to revolt against Great Britain? No.

We have to remember here, that EIC got its legitimacy from an act of British parliament and eventually it was an act of British parliament that dissolved it. It was governed by board of directors who were appointed by its shareholders - almost all of whom were British and many were even members of the British parliament itself.

So, I hope Vic3 does not throw up this scenario.

Historically you are more than likely right about the possibility of the EIC becoming independent.
But in the game ? As apparently one of the most powerful "nation", it would make sense for the EIC to rebel to try to achieve independence.

 

[Nibbes]

You're quite right that until near the end of the 19th century, the US didn't invest much into their defence (navy or army), and had they invested a similar proportion of their GDP they would have had stronger forces. However, when it comes to technology while the US was absolutely very innovative, at least in the naval sphere, as far as I'm aware, they were no more innovative than other leading naval powers (and, due to being a bit 'new on the scene' in World War One may have had a few more blind spots, just because it takes time and experience to round things out). The US were the first to launch an aircraft from a naval ship, but the British were the first to operate an aircraft carrier at sea. The Japanese were the first to use an aircraft launched from a naval vessel to attack a ship. The Austro-Hungarians (I think - this is all going from memory, and I may mess things up) were the first to sink a submarine using an aircraft. There's no evidence at all in the game's timeframe to suggest the US was more innovative than other naval powers, even adjusting for expenditure (the US WW1 expansion of the navy was huge, but the destroyers and light cruisers that came from it were not up to par compared with what was being built at the same time in Britain or Germany).



The US did pioneer submarines (although it wasn't a Gov't effort - it was a couple of ambitious individuals (Holland and Lake) that eventually sold the navy on it) but by the end of WW1 the best submarines in the world were arguably German and British. Blockades were hardly something new to the US, nor was naval invasion, nor were mines (they had been used in the Crimean war not long before the American Civil War took place, and the world's first minesweeping was done by European navies, not the USN/CSN). The big innovation out of the American civil war was the Monitor (although similar developments were taking place overseas, and it was the Cole's and not Ericcson's design, iirc, that ended up providing the template for turret design going forward) and far from paying no attention to development the monitor and the naval combat from the war was followed closely (just as close attention was paid to the Battle of Lissa in 1866, to the joy of ram enthusiasts everywhere).

As before, I can't really comment on the land stuff, as that's not my thing, but the impression I've got from their performance in the war with France around 1870 or so was that the Prussian army wasn't exactly backward. While I can't say whether it's right or wrong, I'd strongly suggest caution before reading too much into stereotypes of mentality.

We're starting to get a bit off-topic here though - the important point I think is that capacity for force projection and power more generally should be what underpin the prestige provided by armed forces, and that in this context navies in the game's era were still very important, although late in the game the aircraft carrier and aircraft more generally should start to become more important (and armies should of course be somewhat important throughout). If we're going to continue this discussion, there may be value in dragging it back to prestige and how it works for Vicky 3.

To be clear I’m being more general here. Prussia later Germany did a lot in innovation along organizational and logistical lines. I’m talking more stuff like special forces and leadership structure at lower levels.

Germany and UK wasn’t bad but French forgot Napoleon own tactics during Franco Prussian war with use of artillery and mobility.

The Americans had many of their own short comings but our generals and officers did mingle and fight alongside our men instead of ordering them on suicide charges. Europeans had more “do as I say” mentality instead of “do as I do”/lead by example.

Grant could be petty drunk but his men respected him and how he cared for them like “band of brothers” which even during ww1 European soldiers were shocked by cordial relationships between ranks especially once at war.

I am also talking more army then navy for most part. Navy more straightforward on tactics at times and even more technology and logistics based.

Germany and UK were not bad but Russians, Italians, and even French and Austrians not so much especially by world war 1. The Italian generals sent men on charges in mountains against machine gun nests and they nearly got overrun until resorting to more unconventional tactics while on defense

 

[Nibbes]

Meanwhile actual level of US Army tactical development was Sherman and Hancock suppressing attempt at improving military doctrine due to personal authority issues with a junior officer (Edit: I mean the Hunt-Hancock Controversy that began at Gettysburg and extended beyond Hancock's death, with Sherman later supporting his pal). And after some initial good development in early mid 19th century US Army armory gradually grew obsolescent in comparison to European ones in the last three decades of it. Nah, you are not correct to think US military thinking was above European one.

The northern military ranks had more incompetence and infighting in general. The south generals and northern ones incompetence is one reason the CSA did not honestly lose faster. The north outclassed them in almost every possible one and yet it still took them years to win and going total war to do so. Also the US is in "recovery" period after civil war and trying to repair half the country that was just ravaged by war and its after shock. Military and external expansion/desires usually will take back burner for time after such events

 

[demanvanwezel]

That's almost all of them - don't forget the Espana class - built with foreign help to be sure, but built in Spain nonetheless.

I knew about those, I disqualified them because they were build by the british in spain (japan did so at first too but then build their own) but mainly because they ruin my reference that dreadnoughts were build by what's usually seen as the 8 great powers at the time

 

[Nibbes]

You really do have a very reductionist view of Europe during this period don't you?

This period marked a whole slew of constant military reforms, reorganisations and the adaptation of technology. While the US largely fought their civil war largely with muskets, France and Prussia were seeking the mass adaptation of early bolt action rifles, only a year after the US civil war ended the Austro-Prussian war kicked off with Prussia largely fielding an army equipped with Dreyse Needle guns. By this time it was also well understood that the key to victory was the swift mobilisation and out manoeuvring of your enemy - something that would bite France is the ass only 5 years after the end of the US civil war, in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870.

You appear to take the lack of a war on the scale and brutality and length of the US Civil war to mean that European military developments were behind that of their US contemporaries. But surely it is the other way around? The Franco-Prussian war and Austro-Prussian war were wars between two major powers and often regarded as being equals in might ended in the matter of months. Surely that provides a deeper, more intricate military understanding of modern war than you give them credit for!

Europeans sometimes had technology but not always most merited or knowledgeable people in charge to utilized it properly as seen with one. The British and Germans adept the best but army in both Italy, Russia, and even France is filled with bunch of "old guard/blood" nobles in background instead of more merited people. The northern military sometimes had similar issues with snot nose brat industrialist kids being officers in Union army instead of merited and respected grunt even from lower class background. France is republic but still have those "old blood/money" people entrenched in military ranks.

Germany for example would have done better in ww1 if they just allowed officers and younger non Junkers actually have say in command system and some independence. Many of these vets would later make massive innovations in ww2 but Junkers in ww1 did not always give them chance to "shine" and sent many to die needlessly in trenches or no man's land on charges.

 

[Wild Boar]

You've already coded a mod for a game that hasn't released? How does that even work?

You've already coded a mod for a game that hasn't released? How does that even work?

No. I did it in Victorial II - go check out my mod, its in my signature.

 

[demanvanwezel]

Europeans sometimes had technology but not always most merited or knowledgeable people in charge to utilized it properly as seen with one. The British and Germans adept the best but army in both Italy, Russia, and even France is filled with bunch of "old guard/blood" nobles in background instead of more merited people. The northern military sometimes had similar issues with snot nose brat industrialist kids being officers in Union army instead of merited and respected grunt even from lower class background. France is republic but still have those "old blood/money" people entrenched in military ranks.

Germany for example would have done better in ww1 if they just allowed officers and younger non Junkers actually have say in command system and some independence. Many of these vets would later make massive innovations in ww2 but Junkers in ww1 did not always give them chance to "shine" and sent many to die needlessly in trenches or no man's land on charges.

aufftragstaktik or mission-type tactics (AKA giving objectives and letting the officers on the ground decide how to take them) had been the staple of the prussian and later german armies since the reforms after napoleon and was certainly present during WW1

 

[Grand Historian]

The Europeans should definitely get some special diplomacy related to concert of Europe and Royal lines and nobility ties.

For example, monarchs and aristocrats in Europe would ally at times even across international lines to put down nationalist or republican revolutionaries or elements. If Austria or Austria Hungary lost its emperor and nobility in revolution it’s not really empire or even thing anymore but a “greater Austria” that is also a republic. The different ethnic groups especially nationalist would feel less tied to regime that is now seen as just German nationalist who got rid of monarch. They likely try to break away or maybe even re install the Habsburg monarch

Yeah, the loss of the Habsburgs was the death-knell of a Greater Austria plan in the age of nationalism. Of course it wouldn't be fun for a player if they become a republic as x nation and then immediately start loosing territories to ethnic secession, but I think there should be real consequences to the particular structure of government and what it claims to be.