Coups in the other Countries

[Orinsul]

Say im a Great Power, the world admires me and my boots are shiny, should i not be allowed to big foot people?

Especially when it comes to overthrowing the government of neighbouring one-state nations and all sized puppet states. [Americans in Haiti might be a good real-world example or the bloody-marxists winning an election and changing the system of government in australia and you as Britain not being able to do anything about it! as a Victoria the first example.][ OR to say return legitmate government to one province german states after 1848, im sure you can think of many other places this'd be damn useful.]

What I'd like to see is the ability for Great Powers to once they have either soldiers in the capital province of a not a war-with state in their sphere of influence they could attempt to oust the government and replace it with one more in their interests, maybe a 25% chance of it working and using up some diplomats or some money [going to your ideology POPs or maybe beaurcrats in that country] and running the risk of a severe prestige hit if things go badly.

[IF Coup successful in a player run country the player would get an event that allowed him to dodge it for say money incentives, debt or bad relations, as the Developers are concerned that Great Powers actually having great power might make small nations not fun to play, when everyone knows that the challenge is why people play the little ones]

Maybe its too much the ask this late in the game-making game, but it'd be damned useful and ALOT of fun.

 

[OHgamer]

Examples from the time period?

Usually if a great power wanted an amenable local leader, they would go in and shoot up the place, remove the old leadership, put their proxy in, and then more often than not declare a protectorate.

See the UK intervention in Zanzibar in the mid 1890s.

Coups sponsored from outside seem to me more a post-1945 thing, when direct intervention was less possible, and the cold war made for a bit of discretion.

 

[Orinsul]

the haiti one was a time period example, wasnt it? who knows i thought it was anyway.
Emperor of Mexico, although thats not really a minor power and it doesnt really fit, British Rajs? who knows.

I'll go with your Zanzibar one.
i know nothing about it but youre a smart fellow so it'll be a good one.

 

[Andrelvis]

OHgamer, I think he meant that when you occupy a capital, you could change the regime of the occupied country, rather than supporting a coup indirectly.

IIRC one example that would fit this (as long as it isn't restricted to great powers) is Brazil invading Uruguay to change the party in power there in the mid 19th. There are others, such as the removal of liberals of the position of power they achieved in various small countries in 1848.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Indeed, there really ought to be means of military intervention aimed at achieving political aims - such as forcible removal of assorted left-wing governments. I guess Prussia could annex the German minors and then release them, but it would be much easier if it was just a peace option (a war goal, that is).

In fact, it seems that the war goal system is perfectly tailored for this kind of thing, if you restrict the availability of this particular goal to a few select cases (i.e., Communist governments should have the option toward neighboring non-Communists, Reactionary monarchies toward new left-wing regimes, etc.).

 

[Orinsul]

i was meaning without a war, hence the word Coup and all the words and descriptions used in the proposal too.
Thought a diplomatic/spylike action

wars are a different thing altogether.

 

[Culise]

i was meaning without a war, hence the word Coup and all the words and descriptions used in the proposal too.
Thought a diplomatic/spylike action

wars are a different thing altogether.

Even so, the Haitian and Mexican interventions you mentioned as examples could have been modelled as wars in-game - send in the troops, install your puppets, and profit. In fact, I'm pretty sure Emperor Maximillian's Mexican adventure was modelled as a war in Vicky 1. The British Rajs don't really qualify either way, since the ones that didn't play ball (such as those who joined the Sepoy Mutiny) tended to be removed entirely rather than replaced and their territories integrated into the British-controlled Presidencies, at least as far as I know. I think OHGamer has the right of it in that this was the era of just sailing a gunboat in and putting a few shells through an intransigent ruler's palace, and I think the only things I can think of were the Communist support to various attempted putches in neighbouring states, most of which failed and were near the end of the timeframe in either case, and maybe the coup that overthrew Queen Liliʻuokalani of Hawai'i, which still itself involved American troops after the fact and could easily be classed in the same vein as the Haitian and Mexican interventions.

 

[Petrarca]

Since these haven't been succinctly addressed:

the haiti one was a time period example, wasnt it? who knows i thought it was anyway.

The US Marines invaded, and US officials controlled the government for twenty years. Likely it would be modeled by the naval shelling & further escalation that are provoked by failures to repay debt.

Emperor of Mexico, although thats not really a minor power and it doesnt really fit,

That wasn't a coup, it was a war that lasted five years. These examples are quite different from Arbenz in Guatemala.

 

[Andrelvis]

I'd like to see it possible to "permanently (or within a set time) occupy" a province in peace, that is, not own a province but administer it.

 

[Nikolai]

If one of my vassals or dominions were to get couped, I wouldn't want to be forced to sit still and just accept it. Or alternatively DoW my dominion/vassal, with all the hazzle that would mean.

 

[Orinsul]

If one of my vassals or dominions were to get couped, I wouldn't want to be forced to sit still and just accept it. Or alternatively DoW my dominion/vassal, with all the hazzle that would mean.

Thats pretty much exactly the problem, the Developers want to leave this unaddressed because as king said, they dont want to make it so that you cant play minor nations. So Empires are to have no authority in their dominions and satellites, which is to me at least untenable.

There must be some ability to maintain regimes that are in your interest in your dominions, and to act against revolutions and constitutional reforms within your satellites and dominions.

And the way i proposed seems, to me atleast, to be the best and easiest way to do it.

 

[Jia Xu]

Thats pretty much exactly the problem, the Developers want to leave this unaddressed because as king said, they dont want to make it so that you cant play minor nations. So Empires are to have no authority in their dominions and satellites, which is to me at least untenable. There must be some ability to maintain regimes that are in your interest in your dominions, and to act against revolutions and constitutional reforms within your satellites and dominions. And the way i proposed seems, to me atleast, to be the best and easiest way to do it.

You don't need to micromanage your satellites to show your muscle. The fact that a country is your vassal at all is a powerful statement to where that country stands on foreign related issues. Obviously it's aligned with you and the autonomous government which is running the country on your behalf is running things in a way that's ultimately in-line with your interests (from an RP perspective of course). Any vassal regime regardless of what form it takes is still a vassal regime. It's a puppet government.

 

[Alexander Seil]

You know, given that it was indicated that the design team had ideas for an expansion pack, and that the expansion pack would be focused on the Civil War (named after it, anyway, which of course implies a certain focus and a new scenario), it seems that something like this would fall right under that. The Mexican adventure is in the very same timeframe

 

[ollobrains]

expansion idea or a moddible idea later perhaps

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Tinkering with other nations' internal politics was something sadly absent from Victoria, I hope it's different this time.

 

[unmerged(174694)]

Examples from the time period?

Usually if a great power wanted an amenable local leader, they would go in and shoot up the place, remove the old leadership, put their proxy in, and then more often than not declare a protectorate.

See the UK intervention in Zanzibar in the mid 1890s.

Coups sponsored from outside seem to me more a post-1945 thing, when direct intervention was less possible, and the cold war made for a bit of discretion.

Agree. Different time frame. In the good ol' victorian days you could you use the army and not have a big public opinion malus.
Indirect intervention is more of a thing in the 20th century and today.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Agree. Different time frame. In the good ol' victorian days you could you use the army and not have a big public opinion malus.
Indirect intervention is more of a thing in the 20th century and today.

A lot of those interventions were small scale. If the game treats minor interventions the same as total war, it could screw things up. The US didn't have to exterminate whole armies and occupy whole countries to install whichever puppet dictator.

 

[HMAS-Nameless]

hmm i beleive reading in the dev diaries that in vicky 2 that they are looking at the intervention in Mexico as the French Emperor not gettin paid his international loan

 

[Orinsul]

So over-quibbling over a minor example aside.

You reckon a full war that could escalate into a great war very easily, cause high war wariness and all the other effects of war in the game, is an appropraite and best-way to manage Great Powers forced reforms in minor countries? To combatting communists in their satilites and bringing their sphere of influence into line with their policies?

To treat a small coup exactly the same as a major war?

To treat the restoration of the governor general following a reform in your dominion that theyd have no ability to do as a total war, forcing you to lose them as your dominion, break alliances and then declare war and take a change-government and satilite peace-terms IF youre lucky enough to gain an absolute victory over them?

To roundly screw up your empire, because you have no ability to fix it?

no sir, i do not agree with that as the simplest and most sensible answer to the question, i find it insufferable.

 

[ComradeOm]

A lot of those interventions were small scale. If the game treats minor interventions the same as total war, it could screw things up. The US didn't have to exterminate whole armies and occupy whole countries to install whichever puppet dictator.

The French were however forced to fight (and lose) a lengthy and costly war when the Mexicans had the means to fight back. If the US fights a war with Haiti in-game then I would expect it to be quick and "small scale"

So over-quibbling over a minor example aside

How many other examples can you provide?