FAKE : Victoria III - Napoleon's Legacy Reveal Trailer

[Trickrs]

But the events of the napoleonic wars is what causes the victorian age, it should really be called the post napoleonic age. Really what did victoria really do except inheriting throne.

Nothing, however she was the monarch during the zenith of British power, hence the name "Victorian Age", same for today, Elizabeth II did pretty much nothing as a ruler, however Britain still lives the "Elizabethan Age".

What I meant is that the "Victorian Age" as we know can be pretty much butterflied away by a major divergence on the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars. Would Britain have the hegemon she did if the War of the First Coalition has suceeded? The term has to do with the scenario rather than the person.

 

[TheDungen]

Nothing, however she was the monarch during the zenith of British power, hence the name "Victorian Age", same for today, Elizabeth II did pretty much nothing as a ruler, however Britain still lives the "Elizabethan Age".

What I meant is that the "Victorian Age" as we know can be pretty much butterflied away by a major divergence on the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars. Would Britain have the hegemon she did if the War of the First Coalition has suceeded? The term has to do with the scenario rather than the person.

Well yeah brittains position in the vic era is a result of the outcome of the napoleonic wars, but really why would people be all tht intresting in playing a scenaartio that skewed? Wouldnät napoleon be better then since it actually begins with a somewhat balanced start, you can always have a few later start date.
As for the name not fitting what the game actually is, well sign right up along with titles such as crusader kings and europa universalis.

 

[Aquae Sulis]

But the events of the napoleonic wars is what causes the victorian age, it should really be called the post napoleonic age. Really what did victoria really do except inheriting throne.

Whilst Victoria herself probably didn't do a great deal, her reign is marked in British history as a time of relative global stability and, of enormous social upheaval.

Heck, I'd be happy to call the game Pax Britannica (as this world view is what the game truly represents) but to separate that mechanism from the monarch just seems pointless.

As for Napoleon, I agree that the tail end of EU4 is not the place for it - but nor is the start of Vic. Though the place for WW1 is not the tail end of Vic either.

I can only begin to imagine the outcry when the outcome of the Napoleonic wars becomes a scripted event - because if you didn't script it, the mechanisms of Vic would be diluted, at best.

 

[TheDungen]

Whilst Victoria herself probably didn't do a great deal, her reign is marked in British history as a time of relative global stability and, of enormous social upheaval.

Heck, I'd be happy to call the game Pax Britannica (as this world view is what the game truly represents) but to separate that mechanism from the monarch just seems pointless.

As for Napoleon, I agree that the tail end of EU4 is not the place for it - but nor is the start of Vic. Though the place for WW1 is not the tail end of Vic either.

I can only begin to imagine the outcry when the outcome of the Napoleonic wars becomes a scripted event - because if you didn't script it, the mechanisms of Vic would be diluted, at best.

Why? the industrial revolution in no way depended on the outcome of the napoleonic wars. It only really make a diffrence to brittain and france for everyone else it's just trading having to deal with the pressence of one supoerpower for another.

 

[Zsar1]

I fail to see what a not-French-defeat would tangibly change. After all, this is far away from a British-defeat. The continental blockade was untenable and would have been untenable with or without a nominally-agreeing Russia.

The British Empire already held India and would have continued to hold India. A Russian invasion after Russia's defeat by France? Probably not. The supply lines would have turned it into a reversed Crimean War, a land connection without infrastructure is worse than a sea inbetween. Ships, after all, can be moved from any sea to any other, given time. Streets, on the other hand, do not tend to walk.

Furthermore, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution would certainly have to be dated earlier than 1836. As I noted before, 1821, savely after the Napoleonic Wars, is already a much better date. Napoleonic Wars included, as a precursor to the later Great Wars, should not be able to break too much (esp. not in the cultural, social and technological aspects; the changes would be mainly diplomatic in nature), so they may as well happen in-game. Looking at the Sixth Coalition and how many former (short-term) allies of France it included, the best of alternative outcomes would probably be a Status Quo anyway. Seeing how the Grande Armée had, if memory serves, lost more than half of its strength before its first great battle (this seems to work quite well in EU4, by the way; I would assume that winter attrition would be a serious threat in a hypothetical V3).

For the explicit goal of modelling the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, one would, I dare say, obviously have to select a date suitable for the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Which would put a start date solely concentrated on that aspect to, what, 1780? 1760?
That's probably a bit too early for setting the political stage though, with Napoleon still an eleven-old (or not even conceived).

A date right inbetween the Coalition Wars, say 1810 (Russia quits the Continental Blockade) or 1812 (France starts the Sixth Coalition War vs. Russia) seems to be the literal non-plus-ultra for starting a game like this: Britain is already well-industrialised, a major political decision affecting all of Europe is about to escalate, most of the rest of the world has not yet decided on a stance towards industrialisation (but most european countries have started to adopt initial movements in that direction) and Britain is already the economic world power thanks to its cotton trade. It really is perfect, is it not?

 

[TheDungen]

The napoleonic wars also fit thematically, they are basically a war of ideology somethign that belongs in vic and HoI but not in EU. It's the old powers responding to first the rise of the french republic and then to this new emperor who while from the nobility still sets a dangerous example for revolutionary forces all across europe.

 

[Aquae Sulis]

The napoleonic wars also fit thematically, they are basically a war of ideology somethign that belongs in vic and HoI but not in EU. It's the old powers responding to first the rise of the french republic and then to this new emperor who while from the nobility still sets a dangerous example for revolutionary forces all across europe.

I disagree, French expansionism belongs perfectly in EU4s frame. Once British hegemony was exerted there was no possibility for any country (except maybe Britain) recreating that kind of conquest.

Vic is not primarily a war simulator (sure you can but its not the primary focus). Stick a giant war at the beginning and you have significantly altered one of the key premises of the game.

Do you think if Napolean (or the player) had been successful they'd be happy conquering the odd state and unciv here or there?

 

[TheDungen]

I disagree, French expansionism belongs perfectly in EU4s frame. Once British hegemony was exerted there was no possibility for any country (except maybe Britain) recreating that kind of conquest.

Vic is not primarily a war simulator (sure you can but its not the primary focus). Stick a giant war at the beginning and you have significantly altered one of the key premises of the game.

Do you think if Napolean (or the player) had been successful they'd be happy conquering the odd state and unciv here or there?

I think that if the french had been sucessfull they'd have acted the same way the brittish did, if not more so (in fact both acted much the same as the Holy roman emperor had in ages past). And france didn't expand all that much they set up puppet leaders in regions and countries rather than adding them to france. That's represented by sphereing and ore puppeteering large parts of europe in vic, while not well represented in eu4 at all since you're limited to a certain number of vassals there.

 

[Nerva]

I prefer Paradox games to start after a major historical event, and then climax with another major tectonic shift. So I favor CK to start in 1081 and build to the Mongols and close with the fall of Constantinople and the end of the Crusades era, EU to start in 1453 and climax with the American/French revolutions and Napoleon, and Victoria to start in 1821 (after the Congress of Vienna) and building towards a climax with WW1.

 

[TheDungen]

I prefer Paradox games to start after a major historical event, and then climax with another major tectonic shift. So I favor CK to start in 1081 and build to the Mongols and close with the fall of Constantinople and the end of the Crusades era, EU to start in 1453 and climax with the American/French revolutions and Napoleon, and Victoria to start in 1821 (after the Congress of Vienna) and building towards a climax with WW1.

Well the major event is the revolutions not the napoleon wars, they were just wars like the rest of the wars in the vid era. In fact more like the ones in the vic era than the ones in the eu4 era since napoleon mainly set up puppets instead of conquering land.