Proposal(s) for Victoria 3

[grommile]

colonies should not become states,

The requirements for converting a colony into a state (1% primary-culture bureaucrats) are already pretty tough to meet in most of the places where it would actually be worth bothering - and frequently when you can meet the requirements in such a place, the details of the situation make it look like there are tuning errors in the migration algorithms.

 

[Rostan]

The requirements for converting a colony into a state (1% primary-culture bureaucrats) are already pretty tough to meet in most of the places where it would actually be worth bothering - and frequently when you can meet the requirements in such a place, the details of the situation make it look like there are tuning errors in the migration algorithms.

Yes, but in reality, in the Victoria timeline, colonies-to-states (almost) never happened. Algeria is a big exception (but even here only the colonists enjoyed citizenship), while Dominions (possibly eligible states) were demi-sovereign states. Colony-to-metropolis and colony-to-colony migration was very rare (am looking at you 75% Hidustani Australia) The only case in which this was attempted on a large scale was by France after 1945, but that was after the time scope of Vicky 2. Furthermore, African colonies in particular have overestimated populations and far-to-easy criteria for industrial development. A Bantu-majority Germany with a second Ruhr in Cameron was quite normal in my games.

 

[Caewil]

Colony-to-metropolis and colony-to-colony migration was very rare (am looking at you 75% Hidustani Australia)

Actually, colony to colony migration occurred - just for certain colonies (ie: not the white ones which restricted immigration by race). British East and South Africa, Malaya and the West Indies had quite a lot of Indian immigrants. Malaya also had lots of Chinese immigration, to the point they became majorities in many areas. That said most inter-colony immigration occurred between adjacent colonies.

 

[grommile]

Yes, but in reality, in the Victoria timeline, colonies-to-states (almost) never happened.

I'm half-agreeing with you, really. I think it should be possible on a basis that isn't pure historical railroading by decision, but the mechanics that make it feasible should be properly tuned so that it isn't ludicrously easy.

 

[Prince Ire]

If colonies can't become states, how do you reflect things like the US's western expansion? Most of those territories were states by game end.

 

[Rostan]

If colonies can't become states, how do you reflect things like the US's western expansion? Most of those territories were states by game end.

These were adjacent to the main US territory, settled by migrants coming from the other states, and having the same composition. The areas were sparsely populated and settlers soon formed majorities (unlike, say, India or Nigeria which had as many people as all of French West Africa). The same goes for the Australia outback, Siberia, etc. Their case is very different from European colonies in Africa and Asia.

Ok, you could possibly tune the system to make states in overseas territories possible (as Grommile hinted, not easy though), but surely you should not have it easy to have a non-European majority and no reaction whatsoever, or to be able to move half your industrial base to Africa within 30 years of colonization.

Actually, colony to colony migration occurred - just for certain colonies (ie: not the white ones which restricted immigration by race). British East and South Africa, Malaya and the West Indies had quite a lot of Indian immigrants. Malaya also had lots of Chinese immigration, to the point they became majorities in many areas. That said most inter-colony immigration occurred between adjacent colonies.

It did, but the migration was of small scale. Rarely did new migrants become numerically significant (e.g. double digits), except in highly particular cases (Mauritius, Reunion, etc.). Furthermore, Chinese migration to Malaysia is a bit different: it started even before British colonization, and it came from an independent state, not from a different colony.

In Victoria 2, I ended up with majority-Indian colonies in many games. And I mean big colonies.

 

[luxfelix]

Would it be useful to distinguish between ethnicity and culture/language?

For example, I've heard that the spread of the English language (and administration) in India helped to keep modern India from splitting into the various ethnic regions (likewise for modern African nations with borders often established without regard to ethnic/historic boundaries).

 

[General WVPM]

Would it be useful to distinguish between ethnicity and culture/language?

For example, I've heard that the spread of the English language (and administration) in India helped to keep modern India from splitting into the various ethnic regions (likewise for modern African nations with borders often established without regard to ethnic/historic boundaries).

Would probably overcomplicate the POP system. Teaching someone a new language is also rather easy. A person can have multiple languages (Corsica French & Italian, Belgium Dutch & French, Alsace German & French). Changing someone's culture is quite hard (ethnicity impossible without dna altering ). I think paradox made the right decision to tie pops to culture and religion, although in the balkans they mixed the 2, using religion to differentiate 2 groups of the same culture. As for India and Africa, they are beyond the timezone and in order to draw new borders, you'd need to have bloody wars. Africa isn't shy of bloody wars, but they are mostly about who can dictate a geographical area (I'm not even gonna call it countries).
That can already be simulated using the ideological rebels, although it sometimes may seem more like pretender rebels.

 

[Antiboyscout]

A culture group or similar culture mechanic would be nice. German immigrants to the US assimilated a lot easier than Chinese. Also I'm tired of the various Pacific Islands being easier to colonize for the UK than Hawaii that is right in the middle of the darn ocean. Not to mention the so close yet so far cultures of Polynesian Micronesian ect. Plus, when I do manage to colonize an island with majority Polynesian pop they all decided to just move to the capital. That's good for my industry, not for my plans of expansion. Finally, resources over all need a face lift and those Pacific islands need more than just fish.

 

[ithillid]

Culture and culture group mechanics should definitely be in the game.
My thought looks something like this.
1. Every nation has one or more primary cultures. The US for instance, should have two or so cultures.
2. These primary cultures are part of a larger culture group, call it Northern European. This would be Great Britain, France, Germany, and some of the Baltic countries.
3. These culture groups are then themselves grouped into cultural regions (European, South East Asian, maybe three kinds of African, so on and so forth)

If the Pop that migrates in shares a culture group, they adapt to the primary culture fairly easily. If they share a cultural region, they can turn into the primary culture over time. If they share neither of them then it takes a long time, and goes beyond the scope of the game in most cases.
In some cases, the nation can choose to adopt or accept new cultures if they are major enough.

 

[Rostan]

Would it be useful to distinguish between ethnicity and culture/language?

For example, I've heard that the spread of the English language (and administration) in India helped to keep modern India from splitting into the various ethnic regions (likewise for modern African nations with borders often established without regard to ethnic/historic boundaries).

It might get complicated. For most areas, the current system works. The place where languages are sorely missing are the Americas: you have dozens of cultural groups, yet most speak 3 languages (English, Spanish, Portuguese).

 

[Woifee]

Would probably overcomplicate the POP system. Teaching someone a new language is also rather easy. A person can have multiple languages (Corsica French & Italian, Belgium Dutch & French, Alsace German & French). Changing someone's culture is quite hard (ethnicity impossible without dna altering ). I think paradox made the right decision to tie pops to culture and religion, although in the balkans they mixed the 2, using religion to differentiate 2 groups of the same culture. As for India and Africa, they are beyond the timezone and in order to draw new borders, you'd need to have bloody wars. Africa isn't shy of bloody wars, but they are mostly about who can dictate a geographical area (I'm not even gonna call it countries).
That can already be simulated using the ideological rebels, although it sometimes may seem more like pretender rebels.

Ethnicity has nothing to do with genes.

 

[General WVPM]

Ethnicity has nothing to do with genes.

Ethnicity to me seems to be made up of:

• Descent/blood/DNA
• Language (already separated by Luxfelix)
• Culture (already separated by Luxfelix)
• Religion (assumed separated because it is in V2)

So the only thing that could fall under ethnicity as Luxfelix said it could be genes.

Edit: Other things which are sometimes considered part of ethnicity:

• political identification (assumed separated because it is in V2)
  
• nationality (assumed separated or not modeled because it is in V2)

 

[Zavaleta]

"Ethnicity" is used by Paradox because "race", the most popular notion for identity in the 19th century, would prove too controversial and get them accused of racism.

No, ethnicity does not have to do with genetics. Especially not in the 19th century when no one knew genes existed. It is a general term, that denotes cultural identity. So it can refer to anything from language, customs, or heritage. And no "heritage" does not necessarily mean genes. Heritage can be imaginary, as people may claim heritage that has little basis in biological descent.

In terms of proper definition, "race" is the term that refers to bloodline. Not ethnicity.

Ethnicity works as a general term. Best keep it simple and general in my opinion.

 

[General WVPM]

"Ethnicity" is used by Paradox because "race", the most popular notion for identity in the 19th century, would prove too controversial and get them accused of racism.

No, ethnicity does not have to do with genetics. Especially not in the 19th century when no one knew genes existed. It is a general term, that denotes cultural identity. So it can refer to anything from language, customs, or heritage. And no "heritage" does not necessarily mean genes. Heritage can be imaginary, as people may claim heritage that has little basis in biological descent.

In terms of proper definition, "race" is the term that refers to bloodline. Not ethnicity.

Ethnicity works as a general term. Best keep it simple and general in my opinion.

First of all, let us avoid derailing this thread into a debate about the meaning of ethnicity in general.
I replied to Luxfelix who made a distinction between ethnicity and "culture/language". He was wondering how it would affect gameplay and if it was usefull to add.
Citing the English language(/culture?) having played a part in keeping old colonies together, such as India* and African nations.
As Luxfelix made that distinction, he can't have been referring to ethnicity as a term to denote culture or language (see my previous post).
Other factors which are sometimes related to ethnicity have also been separated from it, such as religion (again see my previous post).

So the ethnicity Luxfelix was referring to would logically be blood/genes/race.

Note that (as explained in my first post about the matter) my opinion is that ethnicity and language should be left out of a V3 POP system, while culture and religion should be kept.

*apart from Pakistan & Bangladesh which left for religious reasons.

 

[Tob.Ristlin]

Another way to avoid wildly unhistorical Africa & Asia and mitigate some of the problems would be to fill them with primitive states' cores, that way the local pops wouldn't assimilate to the metropolis' accepted cultures. Rules for internal migration should also be redrawn to allow for some exceptions. North and South Africa did see some sparse examples led by the UK and France (Spanish Rif was not too far off, and Italy tried to pull something similar in Lybia), maybe an earlier German unification could have led to a more assertive colonial policy and perhaps areas like Namibia could have been turned into something different... To summarize, I think the possibility of turning colonies into states should still exist, it just needs to be made more difficult.

 

[Tob.Ristlin]

Also, I am not sure this has already been discussed, but the adaptation of many of the features for controlling subject nations in EU4 could improve a lot the sphere-satellite-colony systems in Vicky 3. One thing that would add a lot of immersion would be to be able to interfere in your subject´s internal policies and governments, as was absolutely the norm back then. Being able to only reinstate the previous government when there is a revolution is not enough, if you change your government you should be able to do the same with your subjects through influence and military pressure. I am thinking specially about late game and fascism/communism. Some way to diplomatically annex your satellites that you have previously sphered could also be doable albeit very costly. I can think of a couple of examples where this happened (Hawaii and some Indian minors for instance?).

 

[Woifee]

Also, I am not sure this has already been discussed, but the adaptation of many of the features for controlling subject nations in EU4 could improve a lot the sphere-satellite-colony systems in Vicky 3. One thing that would add a lot of immersion would be to be able to interfere in your subject´s internal policies and governments, as was absolutely the norm back then. Being able to only reinstate the previous government when there is a revolution is not enough, if you change your government you should be able to do the same with your subjects through influence and military pressure. I am thinking specially about late game and fascism/communism. Some way to diplomatically annex your satellites that you have previously sphered could also be doable albeit very costly. I can think of a couple of examples where this happened (Hawaii and some Indian minors for instance?).

Krakau for Austria. If have to eat 22> Infamy for something in RL happened for free.

Annexing and some kind of diplo vassalising should be limited by size and agreement of a majority of the GPs or something.

Also if vassals wanna become GPs they should go for a war to do that instead just becoming free.

 

[adriankowaty]

[QUOTE="Woifee, post: 21734759, member: 884371"]Krakau for Austria. If have to eat 22> Infamy for something in RL happened for free.

Annexing and some kind of diplo vassalising should be limited by size and agreement of a majority of the GPs or something.

Also if vassals wanna become GPs they should go for a war to do that instead just becoming free.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure, that it was competely for free? I don't think so :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraków_Uprising

 

[Woifee]

[QUOTE="Woifee, post: 21734759, member: 884371"]Krakau for Austria. If have to eat 22> Infamy for something in RL happened for free.

Annexing and some kind of diplo vassalising should be limited by size and agreement of a majority of the GPs or something.

Also if vassals wanna become GPs they should go for a war to do that instead just becoming free.

Are you sure, that it was competely for free? I don't think so :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraków_Uprising[/QUOTE]
That was before, so yeah, it was for free, no infame or such stuff.