That is pretty much the plan. It is not about cultural hegemony anyway it is all about political and military hegemony.
A Paradox Christmas Carol
- Thread starter King
- Start date
-
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.
That is pretty much the plan. It is not about cultural hegemony anyway it is all about political and military hegemony.
This may be slightly off topic but what about relatively non-nationalist revolters like communes or socialist unions, do they fall under the "nations that would be really cool" category or basically just tied to socialist rebels taking over an already existing country?
Basically yes, however we have support for name change for government form. So RUS - Russia can become the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The tag and country are the same but our immage consultants say that Russia just doesn't same communism enough, so we get a rebranding.
Will these name and flag changes occur via events, or will they automatically appear when governments change?
That's not really what happened.. According to Gyldendals and Politikens Danmarkshistorien. (The best and most famous publishers in Denmark's Danish History) The feud started much earlier. 1864 was the end of the feud one might say. As I mentioned earlier 1848 was the start of the First Schleswig War between Denmark and the German Confederation. Now Sweden was actually our ally at this time and as I mentioned students even favoured Scandinavianism and that is where Paradox Interactive gets the idea of the union tag should be Scandinavia. Which I find realistic and awesome, though I can't help thinking that the union tag is not quite clear. King is talking about Serbs being under Turks or Austrians then later about South Slavic nationalists want a Greater Slavic nation, now Serbian nationalists would first want their own nation. If this is how it works I fully agree with King, but if they go for the Pan-Slavic nation before their own cultural nation Serbia then it is quite unrealistic and not historical.
Denmark did not try to be a 3rd part in the German Confederation nor where they ever part of it.. It was Bismarcks own intention to use Holstein and Lauenburg, being part of the German Confederation, as an excuse for invasion and dividing the nation. He never wanted to take Denmark, but wanted a national state with Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg because Germans lived here. Problem was that Schleswig was not part of the German Confederation and was actually part of the Danish Kingdom. Though in War of 1848 a protocol was signed, the London Protocol, where Denmark was prevented from giving two different constitutions in Schleswig and Holstein. They were not to be treated in anyway different from the other. Thus when the national-liberals in Denmark wanted to draw the border on the Ejder making Holstein and Lauenburg independent national-liberal states it was a clear break of the treaty and Bismarck did not want more national-liberal German states in the German Confederation. Thus he waged war and took Schleswig as well. Later he took down Austria, who he knew had been negotiating with the Danes. This is all based on his speech in 1867 and his private letters from 1856-1864. They can be seen here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E01E2DD1630EF34BC4153DFB766838C679FDE
To sum it all up Denmark never tried to form Germany that is absurd. They were not part of the Confederation and nor did they like to deal with them after 16 years being tricked into all sorts of things. The Danish politicians had to navigate through dangerous waters with the Germans more than happy to 'help' the Germans in Schleswig, though we know that they were not given freedom per se. Danish naitonal-liberals should aim for a Danish state and then if still angered a Scandinavian state. But Danes in German nations would not strife for a Scandinavian state. Only Danes in Denmark. If this is possible then great. If not then too bad. Thanks for listening.
The more I think (and read) on the proposal, the more I like it. I also like the concept: 'cultures' in politic terms, not antropologic, like 'nationalities'.
It'd be also great that non-national POPs had other restrictions of living in a country where they're not accepted because of minorities policy. I mean, political consequences (secessionism, migration, lower POP promotion, militancy) rather than economical (reducted productivity whatever you do; I agree if it is related to revoltrisk or militancy).
I mean: liberal policies to make more happy (and profitable
) you're minorities could alienate you're own national POPs, going conservatives and more nationalistic (unless they're liberal enough). And if you just follow the conservative stream, you'll be feeding secessionism and losing chances to improve your economy and your research... (I'm thinking in historical situation of Spain, for example, with continuous coups-d'etat in this timeframe and the emergence of nationalism both in Catalonia and Basque country... but two rich regions anyway)
It'd be also great that non-national POPs had other restrictions of living in a country where they're not accepted because of minorities policy. I mean, political consequences (secessionism, migration, lower POP promotion, militancy) rather than economical (reducted productivity whatever you do; I agree if it is related to revoltrisk or militancy).
I mean: liberal policies to make more happy (and profitable
) you're minorities could alienate you're own national POPs, going conservatives and more nationalistic (unless they're liberal enough). And if you just follow the conservative stream, you'll be feeding secessionism and losing chances to improve your economy and your research... (I'm thinking in historical situation of Spain, for example, with continuous coups-d'etat in this timeframe and the emergence of nationalism both in Catalonia and Basque country... but two rich regions anyway)
King, and what about the Brazilian Cultural Group with three inner cultures that I commented before (here and here)? Thinking about the secession, not the unions, part of them existed during the period(Piratini or Rio-Grandense Republic) and/or tried to exist (Balaiada, Sabinada and many other revolts). Besides that, as I said before, their relations are exactly like the ones of the three American Cultures: they formed the same country, but with visions and origins sufficiently different to lead to revolts and secession if their issues were really opposed in the Union. It would also be the only way I can see to properly simulate "separatist revolts" in Northeastern Brazil, as there can't be such if there is nothing to break apart.
Sorry for asking again, but I would like to know what do you think about this idea, and if something like this would/could be implemented.
---
I like the idea of more historical Socialist Pops and their revolts - but this totally ends with the Manhattan Commune from Vicky1, doesn't it? (Ha, and this is not something bad, actually... lol).
---
You said that there will be automatic flag and name changing when the country changes its government form, but this will occur even when it happens by "peaceful" ways? If so, how will it explain France, that passed by Monarchies, Republics and Empires with the same flag, or Cuba, that suffered a Communist Revolution and kept the flag?
Wouldn't that be handled by giving Monachistic, Republican and Empirial France the same flags?? ... then for France the flag never changes, though it might for a fascist Britain or communist Sweden.
If someone wants different flags, I am sure this could be modded??
Seems like an obvious choice...
(although of course the white Bourbon flag was used in the First Restoration rather than the tricolor - and was insisted upon by Henry V as a precondition of restablishing the monarchy in 1871 - meaning there should certainly be a different one for an absolutist monarchy France).
But if there was an Ancien Regime reactionary revolution in France, I'm pretty sure they would abolish the tricolor and put again the "argent, fleur de lis or".
Maybe the flag would change only if there was an "extremist" government, like an Absolute Monarchy, Republican Dictatorship or Comunist Dictatorship...? It worked barely like this in Vicky1, IIRC.
King, can you list all the nations that can be formed? I am sure a lot of people are interested in that.
King, could you tell us how the "liberal revolutions" will be handled?
Will it just consist of some disjointed liberal revolts or an actuall, organized, revolution?
Will it just consist of some disjointed liberal revolts or an actuall, organized, revolution?
And ruin the surprise? Why should he?
Cultures are not cast in Stone at the moment so I really can't comment on the specifics. What I can say is no matter what we do it probably won't be enough
. Flag and names work like this. There is a default flag that is uses and then we can define additional ones for each government form. If we do not define a name or a flag it will just use the defualt one. So if Cuba has no communist flag defined it keeps the current one.
That's great! It really cuts down on the need for redundant flags that Victoria had--copy+paste+rename ad infinitum.
Just since you've been having to deal with a lot of contentious proposals, etc. I'd like to point out how absolutely fantastic the entire community thinks this idea is. It looks like Victoria 2 is shaping up to be, hands-down, Paradox's best-planned and even most-historical game ever. Everyone here hugely appreciates all your work.
Now, I demand that you include New Englanders as their own culture with a culture group and union tag, also part of the American and British culture groups as part of the larger Germanic and Indo-European groups! Obviously a Boston brahmin would find it easier to be ruled by a Hindi-speaker (brahmin! look!) than a foul non-IE-speaking Injun of some kind! And anyway, they tried to secede! In 1812! They have just as much a right to be a culture as Dixie!*
* For anyone too sensitive to detect facetiousness, note: joking.
Will arabs have a pan arab state, while the varying existing arab states today will be the aforementioned "regional states". I think Pan Arabism was common at the time. Likewise will their be a religious version of it called "the Caliphate"?
Or perhaps a Caliphate would get cores on all Muslim lands as well?
Or perhaps a Caliphate would get cores on all Muslim lands as well?
Will Finns be put as part of Scandinavia or separated? As the game starts at a time when Finland had been part of Russia for 30 years without major incidents, i.e. the later Russification policies, I'd say it better fits to be separate. Just give Sweden cores on Finland which would move to Scandinavia if it forms.
Ok, but let's say there is a socialist rebellion in India. Is not more logical that they try to proclaim their independence from the UK (in a 'pan-national' basis) rather than turn it socialist?