Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #18 - Rank & Prestige

[lordgreenace]

I would give them slack on character models unless they plan on doing some overlap coding/models with royal court dlc for CK3. I feel like they are somewhat with how similar models look. Might also make later modding for it easier once it comes out too. It is definitely something that should get cover in patches and dlcs but there likely other stuff to address first.

Correct me if wrong, but isn't this period where even foreign courts and diplomats tried to replicate/copy fashions/styles of European/western powers especially more major ones? So how shan, shogun, and emperor could also play symbolic political/cultural role(making conservatives or liberals happy vs upset). Does make me wonder how important individual monarchs or leaders will be

It would be neet if Minor Powers, Insignificant Powers, Unrecognized Powers dressed up in the cultural wears of the Great Powers. Like if you create pan Asian allies to beat up Europe in WW1. Making Asian countries the main Great Powers, then other nation starts dressing up in traditional Asian clothing as Asian countries have the most prestige so everyone tries to emulate them.

 

[ISitOnGnomes]

It would be neet if Minor Powers, Insignificant Powers, Unrecognized Powers dressed up in the cultural wears of the Great Powers. Like if you create pan Asian allies to beat up Europe in WW1. Making Asian countries the main Great Powers, then other nation starts dressing up in traditional Asian clothing as Asian countries have the most prestige so everyone tries to emulate them.

This kind of thing, while minor and mechanically irrelevant, would be so flavorful. It would also be super rewarding for the player to see your culture actually being projected across the globe as you force your nation up the ranks.

Edit: this suggestion probably deserves its own thread for more viability, rather than being buried deep in a dev diary.

 

[Nibbes]

This kind of thing, while minor and mechanically irrelevant, would be so flavorful. It would also be super rewarding for the player to see your culture actually being projected across the globe as you force your nation up the ranks.

Edit: this suggestion probably deserves its own thread for more viability, rather than being buried deep in a dev diary.

Agreed, I likely play as Shogun good bit so being able to dress in traditional Japanese clothing would be cool along with option to modernize samurai or at least make them into something like European knighthood(symbolic title largely). The clothing can also be symbolic jester. For example, conservatives and especially reactionaries and "old guard" elements love tradition and prideful so they like leader who wears traditional clothes while one who jumps on "foreign trends" less so. Foreign designs of other great powers could please intellectuals, petite bourgeoisie, and more liberal nobles.

Although, the game might have something like general cultural families like that of coming CK3 dlc. For example, hopefully Serbia or Bulgaria feel more inclined or comfortable adopting fashions and trends from the Russian Empire vs let's say Germany or France unless heavily influenced/sphered by other two(for example Slavs under more German influence like the Czechs likely mingle and copy them more. For example if the Poles are independent that Catholicism might make them more inclined to follow trends from other Catholic powers especially if the put Catholicism over "pan-Slavic" or Slavic identities).

I hope there is different ways to be "recognized" by Europeans. If you are democratic industrial powerhouse with cutting edge technology and educated well off population that should make Europeans and especially Americans to see you as "equals". Think how racist regimes like Nazis or even later on Apartheid South Africa with the "honorary whites" as basically "exceptions" to "white only rule". There comes point where being overly racist can be counterproductive to geopolitics.

For example, the Japanese made "gentlemen's agreement" with US over immigration of its citizens to avoid "shame" of racial discrimination the Chinese faced. The Japanese started regulated who and where people could leave just so they do not make Japan look "bad" in eyes of westerners. After ww2, Japanese quickly becoming growing market sees South Africa make "exception" for them as well.

For example, Italy and Japanese put forward racial equality cause to League of Nations which European powers and US said hell no too. Now if they edited that just to refer to Japanese and Italians instead of everyone the US especially might have been more open to idea. China being great power does not prevent Americans from seeing Chinese laborers as second class citizens and indentured labor. Many would still see them as "poor illiterate opium addicts".

Let's use Russian Empire or even Soviet Union as example. The Europeans and Americans often saw them as "equals" militarily and even on technology and economics at times but as "culturally backwards" and "morally" not "equals". Soviet citizens were actually heavily regulated from coming to US during 50s by many local and federal institutions because many fear they could be spies.

If you just try to bully your way to top or make yourself industrial powerhouse like Soviets did(with a lot of blood and heavily unethical acts) you might be number 1 especially if you beat up on everyone else but not everyone will like or even respect you.

If you want modern example look at Japan vs CCP China or hell CCP China vs Hong Kong/Taiwan/Singapore. Most of China cultural projection and output is from places like Hong Kong. Or how Japan is not military power of China or even have same economic leverage but people buy their products, watch their shows/anime, and etc vs China where it almost comes out of place like Hong Kong solely(which is why Jackie Chan is so rich)

 

[grandadmiralbob]

This game looks cool, even if I suck at Vic2. I can't wait to learn it and try out Oman once I know wtf I'm doing.

 

[styroler]

They did not fight any wars in 1836. Prussia grew stronger than Austria in the coming decades but their position in 1836 was not a terribly strong one. 1866 it's a whole other picture, but the game doesn't start in 1866.

Um no. You are missing the entire 18th century there where the Prussian army defeated Austria in every one of the three conflicts it engaged in, and that was prior to the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire. By the 19th century there was no question over if Prussia was stronger than Austria or not, it was over if Prussia was overwhelmingly stronger to the point it could exlude it from German politics or not, which is what the Austro Prussian War was about. Saying Prussia wasnt stronger at least militarily by 1836 is just plain wrong and is demonstrably false by looking at the entire previous history before the game starts.

 

[demanvanwezel]

Um no. You are missing the entire 18th century there where the Prussian army defeated Austria in every one of the three conflicts it engaged in, and that was prior to the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire. By the 19th century there was no question over if Prussia was stronger than Austria or not, it was over if Prussia was overwhelmingly stronger to the point it could exlude it from German politics or not, which is what the Austro Prussian War was about. Saying Prussia wasnt stronger at least militarily by 1836 is just plain wrong and is demonstrably false by looking at the entire previous history before the game starts.

look, I'm as pro-prussian as they come but that's just demonstratibly false, the war errupted over the austro-prussian division of slesvich-holstein but was ultimatly over the prussians excluding the austrians from german politics, a policy that had already begun with the zolverein and with the conflict over "klein-deutschland" and "gross-deutschland"
I mean, if prussia was really seen as stronger then why did it back down from the erfurt union in a move that was uniformingly seen as humiliating?
the very reason why france didn't intervene is because they expected a prussian defeat
the austrians were expected to raise double the size of the prussian army but their mobilisation hadn't finished by the time of koeniggratz
austria was in 1936 very much the senior german power, brought down by by it's internal troubles and military conservatism (fun fact: at koeningratz the austrian army was still using single shot riffles because the generals were scared that soldiers would empty their guns at the enemy and then retreat if given multi-shot riffles)

 

[styroler]

look, I'm as pro-prussian as they come but that's just demonstratibly false, the war errupted over the austro-prussian division of slesvich-holstein but was ultimatly over the prussians excluding the austrians from german politics, a policy that had already begun with the zolverein and with the conflict over "klein-deutschland" and "gross-deutschland"
I mean, if prussia was really seen as stronger then why did it back down from the erfurt union in a move that was uniformingly seen as humiliating?
the very reason why france didn't intervene is because they expected a prussian defeat
the austrians were expected to raise double the size of the prussian army but their mobilisation hadn't finished by the time of koeniggratz
austria was in 1936 very much the senior german power, brought down by by it's internal troubles and military conservatism (fun fact: at koeningratz the austrian army was still using single shot riffles because the generals were scared that soldiers would empty their guns at the enemy and then retreat if given multi-shot riffles)

The reason is very simple. Prussia was indeed more powerful than Austria on its own by the time of the Efurt Union. It was not however more powerful than the Russian Empire, which by 1850 was seen as one of the most powerful states in Europe. The Prussians clearly backed down from the Union because of the threat of intervention of the Russian Empire on their Austrian allies behalf, certainly not the military strength of the Austrians alone. This is precisely why Bismark made sure that by the time Austro-Prussian War broke out that Austria was no longer allied with Russia. Also I am not actually disputing the idea that Austria was the more diplomatically strong of the two powers, as it was able to maintain hegemony over most of the German States and alliances with more Major powers while Prussia was always left more isolated and unable to use its strength to strong arm its neighbors into doing what it wanted. When Bismark rose he saw the isolation of Prussias enemies so they could be eliminated as necessary for allowing Prussia to rise. The simple evidence of this is an analysis of the Prussian army, which saw practically no change from 1836 to 1866, when they defeated the Austrians. Why then would they be in a better position to strike Austria in 1866 rather than in 1836? Because in 1856 during the Crimean War, (after the Erfurt Union incendent) the russio austrian alliance broke down and Bismark was able to convince Russia to remain neutral. So no it just doenst hold up to scrutiny that Austria was stronger than Prusssia when it needed Russia to defend it.

 

[ISitOnGnomes]

The reason is very simple. Prussia was indeed more powerful than Austria on its own by the time of the Efurt Union. It was not however more powerful than the Russian Empire, which by 1850 was seen as one of the most powerful states in Europe. The Prussians clearly backed down from the Union because of the threat of intervention of the Russian Empire on their Austrian allies behalf, certainly not the military strength of the Austrians alone. This is precisely why Bismark made sure that by the time Austro-Prussian War broke out that Austria was no longer allied with Russia. Also I am not actually disputing the idea that Austria was the more diplomatically strong of the two powers, as it was able to maintain hegemony over most of the German States and alliances with more Major powers while Prussia was always left more isolated and unable to use its strength to strong arm its neighbors into doing what it wanted. When Bismark rose he saw the isolation of Prussias enemies so they could be eliminated as necessary for allowing Prussia to rise. The simple evidence of this is an analysis of the Prussian army, which saw practically no change from 1836 to 1866, when they defeated the Austrians. Why then would they be in a better position to strike Austria in 1866 rather than in 1836? Because in 1856 during the Crimean War, (after the Erfurt Union incendent) the russio austrian alliance broke down and Bismark was able to convince Russia to remain neutral. So no it just doenst hold up to scrutiny that Austria was stronger than Prusssia when it needed Russia to defend it.

I think you are conflating military might with international prestige. Its very much likely that Prussia's military will be stronger than Austria's even though Austria has more prestige. You said yourself that Austria was more powerful in international diplomacy, which is what prestige represents/mainly affects.

 

[demanvanwezel]

The reason is very simple. Prussia was indeed more powerful than Austria on its own by the time of the Efurt Union. It was not however more powerful than the Russian Empire, which by 1850 was seen as one of the most powerful states in Europe. The Prussians clearly backed down from the Union because of the threat of intervention of the Russian Empire on their Austrian allies behalf, certainly not the military strength of the Austrians alone. This is precisely why Bismark made sure that by the time Austro-Prussian War broke out that Austria was no longer allied with Russia. Also I am not actually disputing the idea that Austria was the more diplomatically strong of the two powers, as it was able to maintain hegemony over most of the German States and alliances with more Major powers while Prussia was always left more isolated and unable to use its strength to strong arm its neighbors into doing what it wanted. When Bismark rose he saw the isolation of Prussias enemies so they could be eliminated as necessary for allowing Prussia to rise. The simple evidence of this is an analysis of the Prussian army, which saw practically no change from 1836 to 1866, when they defeated the Austrians. Why then would they be in a better position to strike Austria in 1866 rather than in 1836? Because in 1856 during the Crimean War, (after the Erfurt Union incendent) the russio austrian alliance broke down and Bismark was able to convince Russia to remain neutral. So no it just doenst hold up to scrutiny that Austria was stronger than Prusssia when it needed Russia to defend it.

bismarck is not some political genius who manoevres his political opponents into places where he wants them
by all accounts he didn't want war with austria, at least not yet, he was hoping for some concessions in hesse and other parts where prussian/austrian interest clashed
also austria and russia were no longer allied since the crimean war which ended 10 years ago and that had nothing to do with bismarck (and everything to do with austria proclaiming that they'd declare war if russia moved one soldier into wallachia)
anyways the dreyshe needle gun was adopted by prussia in 1840, and this was effectively the gun that gave the prussians the edge over the austrians since it was a multi-shot gun that could be reloaded prone
but on all accounts the battle was won simply because the prussians had mobilised more men then the austrians even though the austrians had more protential troops then the prussians (they're in good company though as the same thing happened in the franco-prussian war, the french weren't even done mobilising by the time of sedan)

 

[styroler]

I think you are conflating military might with international prestige. Its very much likely that Prussia's military will be stronger than Austria's even though Austria has more prestige. You said yourself that Austria was more powerful in international diplomacy, which is what prestige represents/mainly affects.

The difference is though it is not like Prussia was not capable of obtaining allies, it was simply incapable of obtaining reliable enough allies to attempt anything. Prussia had been allied to the British and the French in the previous century, and were more than capable of building new such alliances. Prussia's difficulty was that there was just not really any powers in Europe which could be trusted to actually fight effectively against Russia, and like I said it was not capable of going up against the Russia as honestly no nation in 1836 was capable of going up against Russia. Russia wouldn't loose a war until it faced the combined armies of both Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire so it wasnt like Prussia could just form a coalition to defeat them. The point is to compare the strengths of the Prussians and the Austrians, not the Prussians vs the Austrians and the Russians. Austria was smaller economically, much smaller militarily, and survived because it maintained one trump card in its relationship with the unstoppable Juggernaut that Russia was in 19th century Europe. I would not think its fair to say that the Austrian's are more prestigious and powerful because they can ally the worlds biggest nation.

 

[ISitOnGnomes]

The difference is though it is not like Prussia was not capable of obtaining allies, it was simply incapable of obtaining reliable enough allies to attempt anything. Prussia had been allied to the British and the French in the previous century, and were more than capable of building new such alliances. Prussia's difficulty was that there was just not really any powers in Europe which could be trusted to actually fight effectively against Russia, and like I said it was not capable of going up against the Russia as honestly no nation in 1836 was capable of going up against Russia. Russia wouldn't loose a war until it faced the combined armies of both Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire so it wasnt like Prussia could just form a coalition to defeat them. The point is to compare the strengths of the Prussians and the Austrians, not the Prussians vs the Austrians and the Russians. Austria was smaller economically, much smaller militarily, and survived because it maintained one trump card in its relationship with the unstoppable Juggernaut that Russia was in 19th century Europe. I would not think its fair to say that the Austrian's are more prestigious and powerful because they can ally the worlds biggest nation.

Looking back with hindsight you are correct, but what matters is what people thought at the time. Was the common consensus during the time period that Prussia was clearly superior to its neighbors?

I'm not saying you're wrong by the way. I'm no historian, so I'd be honestly interested to know what the consensus at the time was. I always thought Prussia was seen as that upstart that had to keep proving itself, while Austria was the old man riding the coat tails of past glory.

 

[styroler]

bismarck is not some political genius who manoevres his political opponents into places where he wants them
by all accounts he didn't want war with austria, at least not yet, he was hoping for some concessions in hesse and other parts where prussian/austrian interest clashed
also austria and russia were no longer allied since the crimean war which ended 10 years ago and that had nothing to do with bismarck (and everything to do with austria proclaiming that they'd declare war if russia moved one soldier into wallachia)
anyways the dreyshe needle gun was adopted by prussia in 1840, and this was effectively the gun that gave the prussians the edge over the austrians since it was a multi-shot gun that could be reloaded prone
but on all accounts the battle was won simply because the prussians had mobilised more men then the austrians even though the austrians had more protential troops then the prussians (they're in good company though as the same thing happened in the franco-prussian war, the french weren't even done mobilising by the time of sedan)

First off I would have to completely disagree with your point about Bismarck not wanting the war and not manipulating Austria into the war right at that moment. The Austro-Prussian war is probably the most clear cut example of Prussia manipulating a country to entering a war over a manufactured crisis following the 2 Schleswig War. He put Austria in a situation where it had to mobilize first, which forced the Italians to turn to the Prussians for an alliance, and allowed Prussia to wage a devastating two front war. While I would certainly not downplay the Dreyshe needle gun, its important to note that many modern historians doubt its specific importance in winning the war for several reasons. One, Prussia far outnumbered the Austrian army on the battlefield, even accounting for the forces it hadnt managed to mobilize. Austria was stuck waging a two front war beteen the Italians and the Prussians so they had to divide their army while Prussia could meet them in full force. More importantly however is that the Austrian army was also just in no shape to fight any major wars regardless of technology. Just a few years previously in the 2nd Italian war of independence, the french and Italian armies who were both still armed with muzzle loaders managed to decisivly defeat a larger Austian army, so while the needle guns were useful they were not really relevant to what was already by the begining of the war an almost inevitable Prussian victory.
I do agree that the Russo-Austrian alliance had been broken by the Austrians, and not really through any action by bismarck; though this didnt just give the greenlight for the Prussians to go to war with the Austrians because by this point Napoleon III was threatening to intervene in any disturbance of the status quo which was only lifted after bismarck and Napoleon III actually met and he agreed to allow it.

The whole point though is that none of this actually supports your argument that Austria was actually ever capable of defending its self or was somehow only falling behind Prussia later in the century. Ultimately Prussia was clearly the stronger of the two powers pretty much from the end of the Napoleonic wars, and the only thing that was keeping Prussia from finally pouncing on its rival was that Germany was heavily manipulated by outside politics and was not strong enough to face those threats on its own. This fact was consistent both with the Prussians and Austrians, who both were humiliated and put down by their much larger Great power neighbors. The Efurt union case is the best example of this, as literally Prussia was forced to refuse the crown because the Entire Russian army was stationed in Austria (putting down the 1848 revolutions) and prepared to curbstomp Prussia if they dared to say yes. Austria wasnt even capable of putting down its own rebellions, so how was it supposed to pull off such a terrible humiliation against Prussia on their own with practically no army? Bismarck needed to work his magic and get a little bit of luck to finally isolate Germany long enough to establish Prussian dominance. Prussia was not the strongest state in Europe, but it was sure a heck of alot stronger than Austria considering it would pretty much end up fighting the whole of Germany including Austria and winning in the end.

 

[styroler]

Looking back with hindsight you are correct, but what matters is what people thought at the time. Was the common consensus during the time period that Prussia was clearly superior to its neighbors?

I'm not saying you're wrong by the way. I'm no historian, so I'd be honestly interested to know what the consensus at the time was. I always thought Prussia was seen as that upstart that had to keep proving itself, while Austria was the old man riding the coat tails of past glory.

Well both of those are partly true but its important to note that my understanding is that the real consensus by the end of the 18th century anyway was that the real powers of Europe were just Britain, France, and Russia and both Prussia and Austria were considered to weak to be a real power following Napoleon dissolving the Holy Roman Empire. Yes Prussia was still an upstart, but it was also kinda old news as the mass armies being formed by the major powers dwarfed all of the German states and as long as the outside powers could keep the status quo then there was nothing really to worry about. It was only closer to German Unification did the powers actually begin to consider Prussia a threat and France was so humiliated by the Franco-Prussian war because for the first time one of the three great powers from the end of the century had actually been trampled. Austria was equally ignored because the end of the Holy Roman empire was seen as so humiliating to them that they were less of a ture power anymore and more of a rump state.

 

[Svenska Super]

thx appreciate that.

did they see anyone? im polite, again appreciate that. Where is first video of gameplay? Need digital cr*ck

 

[Kazakk]

Exact same GDP is virtually impossible since it's a big value that scales down to 5 decimals but if it happened against all odds then country tag index would be the tie breaker.

Is this a challenge?

 

[Rockphed]

Is this a challenge?

Yes. You must get a screenshot of five nations with the same prestige and gdp. No mods!

 

[Kylev]

I'm just waiting to get my hands on VIC3 so I can rehaul the map. For example, much of modern day south-east persia is controlled by Kalat before the 1860s

 

[Xain]

Just for reference:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1488527560170373120

 

[GeraldYao]

Is there any possiblity for recognition countries to become unrecognition countries? Like a sudden change of the international order

 

[Nikolai II]

Is there any possiblity for recognition countries to become unrecognition countries? Like a sudden change of the international order

Previous answers to that question have been a complete "no" - there's no such function planned (nor any contemporary precedent).