Country "degeneration". could it be a thing?

[geogus]

One thing that strikes odd for me is like an country ( tag) never collapses and transform itself in another one in PDX games.

Imagine this scenario.

After a succession of catastrophic military defeats the ottoman empire loses all of its european and anatolian provinces.

Now the ottos are limited to land in egypt, cairo, Suez Alexandria and other provinces in the area.

Afer these wars ottos are left in peace and years go by while the country is rebuilt around its new capital, lets say, cairo.

However, egypt was never a de facto core heartland of ottomans, as anatolia and even parts of europe were.

Actually, egypt was more like a conquered region of the greater turk empire.


In this scenario, should not be possible that this remaining ottoman empire, that has land only in egypt, simply ceases to exist and transforms, degenerates, in a new nation.

Many times in eu iv, a see a nation "exiled" from its core cradle land.

For exemple, in a game run i had once sweeden conquered ireland, and after centuries lost all its scandinavian provinces and existed only in the irish island. Shouldnt, in this case, "sweeden" collapses into ireland?

When something like this happens, maybe this nation could transform

 

[Arrowkill]

I would be very interested to see a mechanic like this. It seems like it would make sense logically, and if the country it degenerates into were to rise again it could reclaim it's old status.

 

[Negru Voda]

Are there any historical examples of this sort of thing?
I mean, this isn't really lik the Danelaw (Vikings in England) or the Dutch colonies in South Africa, is it? Cause the old realms still stood around, and the new realms did their own things.

Regarding the example from the OP, in V3, I would see this handled by either a country sticking arround, but being really a different place, cause you have different lands and pops - you just still have your Flag, Monarch and Primary Culture (maybe other things hold over, although we don't have stuff like National Ideas in V3 asaif).

Or you could get a nationalist rebelion which would declare Ireland a thing, with some scandinavians arround there cause of migration from the Swedish times.

I don't expect the devs are planning to make it possible for the Sweden in Ireland to somehow become a different tag like a "Swireland" which now accepts the Irish culture as well as the Swedish, but it's no longer Sweden and it's not really Ireland either.

It would be a pretty cool mechanic, but I think it's a little unlikely for it to actually be relevant all that frequently in the game.

 

[Caewil]

In Vicky 2 you couldn’t conquer someone’s capital until they had lost all their other territory IIRC. So the situation described by the OP shouldn’t happen.

 

[Ferrous Will]

CK2+ had something similar where if you create an empire you need to stay big enough to justify your rank, otherwise that empire will be destroyed.

 

[Ololorium]

In Vicky 2 you couldn’t conquer someone’s capital until they had lost all their other territory IIRC. So the situation described by the OP shouldn’t happen.

It was a model in all old Paradox games, I think even EU4 at the beginning had some restrictions on annexing the capital province. But all modern Paradox games don't have this restriction, so I doubt they would bring it back in Victoria 3.

 

[Ololorium]

It's an interesting thought, but it's very hard to come up with a real-life example of something like that. Roman Empire, maybe? Well, the Eastern Roman Empire still called themselves just "Roman Empire" until the very end. So, if there is a continuity in administration, I think it would not make sense for a country that was displaced from their original core land to formally degrade into something else, at least not on the timescale of Victoria (Byzantium was calling itself the Roman Empire for almost a thousand years after losing actual Rome). De-facto changes might be big, like accepting another culture that's now the majority, but things like that are (I assume) already in the game.

 

[Kapitalisti]

One thing that strikes odd for me is like an country ( tag) never collapses and transform itself in another one in PDX games.

In general true, but for example in CK2/3 it's possible for a realm to disintegrate. Although even then the previous controlling empire/kingdom does live on as, well, EU4 Byzantium style empire. Though there are a few decisions that seem specially made for stuff like this; in EU4 Norway is liable to be reduced to owning just Iceland so the devs added the decision to reform it into the Iceland tag in such situations.

In general there should be more situations like this, like if Great Britain loses Scotland it at least gets renamed to just England etc. But on the other hand having too strict events for disintegration would be kinda horrible for players. Plus like the Byzantium example there are many historical examples of an empire staying technically alive even if they lose 99% of their territory.

 

[Kaspar Osraige]

Closest example of this IRL is Seljuks, who lost their empire's Persian heartland and became exiled in Anatolia. Also Umayyads in Andalusia too, I think.

 

[The Goldfinch]

I like this idea, but its a thing for ck - EU timeframe, that could indeed make world look slightly less stupid.

However In XIX century this "degenerated" Country would rather break apart

 

[fr-rein]

Leave that to the POPs!
*millions of Jakobibs, nationalists, separatists, communists and journalists spawn*

 

[Red Death]

I think there's a few reasons we don't get that many actual historical examples of this (states living on after losing their core territory):

1. Without their core territory, they no longer have the strength to suppress the local population of whatever territory they have left. Implementing this in game could work like you suggest, but it could also just work as local nationalist pops rising up to form their own state, destroying the rump empire. Really, it just requires modelling that the state loses a disproportionate amount of power when losing its core territory. (since that's where its actual support base is)
2. Recognizing that their core is much more important, empires can abandon control over their outer territories by pulling all military forces in for the defense of the core. (Western Roman Empire did this) So, it's just unlikely for such an "exiled country" to exist, unless it was a deliberate retreat, at which point you're more likely to be dealing with a fleeing dynasty than a true continuation of the same state.

 

[ikki]

Well there is the empire of trebizon.
Primary issue being countries as rule just dont survive at all after losing the capital to some horde that does not bother to negotiate and just takes & keeps.

There is also Kievan Rus, survivors of the Mongols fell apart into smaller realms and Vladimir eventually retook it all with vengeance. The ultimate "ill be back"

 

[fr-rein]

The only close example to Victoria 2 era is... Taiwan. I can't think of another proper example really.

 

[Ololorium]

The only close example to Victoria 2 era is... Taiwan. I can't think of another proper example really.

Yes, Taiwan is a great example. The country still formally calls itself "Republic of China". So the Paradox approach where the "exiled" countries keep their name is more realistic than it looks at the first sight.

 

[Buttons12345]

After a succession of catastrophic military defeats the ottoman empire loses all of its european and anatolian provinces.

Now the ottos are limited to land in egypt, cairo, Suez Alexandria and other provinces in the area.

Even by the start of Victoria 2 Egypt was semi-autonomous and practically independent. If the Turks lost all of their European and Anatolian holdings Muhammad Ali probably would have just overthrown the Sultan outright and started an Arab-Egyptian empire centered in Egypt, but this would be a case of a vassal declaring independence and conquering its suzerain, not a nation losing its homeland and declaring itself a new nation.

 

[Maldazar]

I don't think this is historicaly a thing for the simple reason that you can lose your 'extended terrotory' (so in your example, that would be the ottomans losing their territory in levant / egypt) but you can't really lose your 'core territory', because that just means you got full-annexed and ceased to exist. No country as far as I know has ever given up their core territory but being able to keep control of their 'extended territory'. Or you lose it all, or you lose extended territory only. The one exception (not in the scope of this timeframe) would maybe be the Taiwan situation? Where the governament of China lost kind of their entire core territory and was left with only an 'extended' territory. But even then, that wasn't by external conflict but by a civil war.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

Republic of China on Taiwan is an interesting one, but, despite it’s then recent return to China at the time, it’s hard to say it wasn’t “core territory.” Also a bit odd since it’s from a civil war.

You did sort of have such a situation not too long before game start with the Portuguese fleeing to Brazil and establishing the court there after their mainland possessions were lost (well, more accurately were just occupied, but still). Eventually they added Brazil to the list of kingdom titles for their monarch. Has there not been greater success in Europe allowing them to return, they may have eventually settled into usually being called and permanently running the empire from Brazil.

 

[Buttons12345]

Republic of China on Taiwan is an interesting one, but, despite it’s then recent return to China at the time, it’s hard to say it wasn’t “core territory.” Also a bit odd since it’s from a civil war.

You did sort of have such a situation not too long before game start with the Portuguese fleeing to Brazil and establishing the court there after their mainland possessions were lost (well, more accurately were just occupied, but still). Eventually they added Brazil to the list of kingdom titles for their monarch. Has there not been greater success in Europe allowing them to return, they may have eventually settled into usually being called and permanently running the empire from Brazil.

Taiwan is as far as both Chinas are concerned a core part of Chinese territory, it has been lost at times but so was Alsace-Lorraine when it comes to France. While this might apply to a time period like CK 2 (Anatolia would probably be considered this to the Seljuks with their core territories being in Persia and their homeland being in Central Asia) and maybe even EU IV with the Timurids being driven from Persia but forming a Mughal successor state. However for this game I don't think it makes sense.

One idea however which I think could be implemented in an interesting fashion is a government in exile like Free France. While that example is a bit outside the time scope the Empire of Brazil is a similar situation to some extent. If you have a government forced on you or have rebels enforce their demands but a large contiguous detached part of your empire (so the Tsar can't flee to Siberia when the communists come but the British king can flee to Canada) isn't possible you are allowed to form a government in exile. The AI should generally take this option, the player can refuse and keep playing the whole country under the new government. I might also allow some sort of similar situation with dominions, so if Canada is a dominion when commies take Britain it becomes fully independent with the monarch ruling from there and each country getting a reunification casus belli on each other for a while depending on the governments (fascists want to retake the colonies if the king fled rather than accept an illegitimate fascist government, communists would just liberate the former colony).

 

[geogus]

Closest example of this IRL is Seljuks, who lost their empire's Persian heartland and became exiled in Anatolia. Also Umayyads in Andalusia too, I think.

There are other historical examples.

Carthage started as a phoenician colony. After the phoencians colapsed, carthage still went on and turned into a big player in the med, until scipio africanus.