Many diplomatic decisions in this time period were the result of very complex and often convoluted logic. It was often not as simple as "our relations with X are bad, so we will declare war on them". Intricate and detailed calculations preceded many decisions, and I wonder if the game model is going to be even close to realistic on this matter.
Some examples. During this period, the Ottoman Empire was slowly decaying, slowly falling apart. One might think that the hungry, expansionist Tsarist Russia would leap at the chance to tear away chunks of Ottoman territory whenever possible. (Hell, sounds good to me!) But in fact, Russian policy with respect to Ottomans was often very restrained (despite periodic wars) and there are many times when the Russians intervened strongly on behalf of Ottomans in order to prop them up. Why in hell would they do that? Well, the answer is that many of tsarist policymakers were afraid that if Russia engaged in a wholesale destruction of Ottoman Empire, then other more mighty European powers would step in to take away other chunks of Ottoman territory. Then the result would be that Russia would have more territory but would also have a bunch of powerful neighbors on its borders (dangerous!) instead of the weak and flabby and safe Ottomans. The preferred course for this group was to pick away tiny pieces of Ottomans over a very long time while propping them up in order to have a weak neighbor and relative security along the country's south/southwestern borders. Now that is some pretty complex logic, I must say. We can argue separately whether it was wise or not, but the bottom line is that this is exactly how the tsarist policy was made on this point. Is the game Victoria going to be able to model this very complex and convoluted logic?
One more little example seems appropriate. In late 1800's, France and Russia had united in alliance against the "Triple Alliance" of Germany, Austria, and Italy. France and Russia were also united in vast colonial games against the grand imperialist British in places of Africa and Asia. Anyway, the key thing that I want to say here is about GERMAN policy. The Germans in this period were very wanting of a firm alliance with England against France and Russia. They wanted it very bad. (Side note--this strong desire for alliance with Britain as the solution of Germany's pre-WW1 problems is also well reflected in Hitler's book My Struggle, where he mocks Imperial Germany for embracing Austria-Hungary instead of England). However, the English did not want to tie themselves down--their culture has a strong tradition of diplomatic freedom of action. Therefore, the English consistently refused any firm alliance with Germany. This made the Germans very angry, and the result was that they deliberately made a diplomatic policy of provoking and frustrating England whenever possible in terms of colonial matters. They thought that if they made things bad enough for England throughout the world, then the English would come "crawling on their knees" to the Germans, begging for an alliance, at which time the Germans could dictate whatever terms they wanted. Big mistake, as many argue anyway. In fact, the British became very resentful of the meddling, bombastic, bothersome Germans so much that in the end they in fact embraced France and Russia. A policy which totally backfired, we can safely say. The more that the Germans provoked, the more that the British turned away from them rather than toward them. The Germans may have made bad policy, but we can argue that elsewhere. The point that I make here is that the German policy was the result of some pretty complex, intricate, and convoluted logic. And here is the big question: is the Victoria diplomatic model going to be able to model ANYTHING even close to this sort of logic? If it is going to be realistic, it should.
Some examples. During this period, the Ottoman Empire was slowly decaying, slowly falling apart. One might think that the hungry, expansionist Tsarist Russia would leap at the chance to tear away chunks of Ottoman territory whenever possible. (Hell, sounds good to me!) But in fact, Russian policy with respect to Ottomans was often very restrained (despite periodic wars) and there are many times when the Russians intervened strongly on behalf of Ottomans in order to prop them up. Why in hell would they do that? Well, the answer is that many of tsarist policymakers were afraid that if Russia engaged in a wholesale destruction of Ottoman Empire, then other more mighty European powers would step in to take away other chunks of Ottoman territory. Then the result would be that Russia would have more territory but would also have a bunch of powerful neighbors on its borders (dangerous!) instead of the weak and flabby and safe Ottomans. The preferred course for this group was to pick away tiny pieces of Ottomans over a very long time while propping them up in order to have a weak neighbor and relative security along the country's south/southwestern borders. Now that is some pretty complex logic, I must say. We can argue separately whether it was wise or not, but the bottom line is that this is exactly how the tsarist policy was made on this point. Is the game Victoria going to be able to model this very complex and convoluted logic?
One more little example seems appropriate. In late 1800's, France and Russia had united in alliance against the "Triple Alliance" of Germany, Austria, and Italy. France and Russia were also united in vast colonial games against the grand imperialist British in places of Africa and Asia. Anyway, the key thing that I want to say here is about GERMAN policy. The Germans in this period were very wanting of a firm alliance with England against France and Russia. They wanted it very bad. (Side note--this strong desire for alliance with Britain as the solution of Germany's pre-WW1 problems is also well reflected in Hitler's book My Struggle, where he mocks Imperial Germany for embracing Austria-Hungary instead of England). However, the English did not want to tie themselves down--their culture has a strong tradition of diplomatic freedom of action. Therefore, the English consistently refused any firm alliance with Germany. This made the Germans very angry, and the result was that they deliberately made a diplomatic policy of provoking and frustrating England whenever possible in terms of colonial matters. They thought that if they made things bad enough for England throughout the world, then the English would come "crawling on their knees" to the Germans, begging for an alliance, at which time the Germans could dictate whatever terms they wanted. Big mistake, as many argue anyway. In fact, the British became very resentful of the meddling, bombastic, bothersome Germans so much that in the end they in fact embraced France and Russia. A policy which totally backfired, we can safely say. The more that the Germans provoked, the more that the British turned away from them rather than toward them. The Germans may have made bad policy, but we can argue that elsewhere. The point that I make here is that the German policy was the result of some pretty complex, intricate, and convoluted logic. And here is the big question: is the Victoria diplomatic model going to be able to model ANYTHING even close to this sort of logic? If it is going to be realistic, it should.
