Two things. Playing smaller powers and American foreign policy.
In both cases this is more of a formulation of a problem as opposed to a ready solution to it.
*****
Playing a smaller power
Something which I would like to see is good mechanics to allow for smaller countries to make some headway before running into the Great Powers. I don't mean that they should be able to conquer the world but that some headway can be made before a Great Power per necessity steps in. This is something which I've experienced in both Victoria II and also in the more recent Imperator in that it can be damnable hard to find an oppening for a small power to act.
My main example for this is Argentina (which I think I've mentioned before). Since the US rather quickly issues guarentees to all the countries in South America, internal South American wars are impossible since the aggressor will need to tangle with the US, in stark contrast to the many wars in 19th and early 20th century South America. We've previously discussed the Monroe Doctrine might be implemented to allow for the US to counter expansion from beyond the Americas into the Americas, but at the same time allow for wars between American states but I feel this issues stretches a bit further than that.
One solution I could mention is that perhaps wars can be acceptable within spheres? So that if I am sphered by Germany as Denmark, I can still fight it out with countries within that sphere and so gain some room to manouver and expand, as long as I don't try to tackle the Great Power itself. Probably not very historical but its a suggestion I thought that I should mention.
*****
American foreign policy
One of the great problems, in my opinion, is that the US really has no challenger to contend with. China is in a similar situation if they managed to industrialize but I feel its more pronounced with the US. To counter this, and perhaps make it a bit more interesting for the US, is my idea that there's a special mechanic for this country in the shape of a measurement between two extremes of "isolationism" and "internationalism". As I imagine this will mostly be active when the US is a Great Power and so either promote or hamper American politics.
With isolationism colonialism, wars beyond the Americas and alliances with other Great Powers will cost more and actually create dissent. While the opppsite is true. In a Great Power US with high internationalism the people expect the US to throw its weight around on the world scene and make itself felt. And thus failure to "act vigerously" (whatever that actually means) will lead to dissent.
In both cases this is more of a formulation of a problem as opposed to a ready solution to it.
*****
Playing a smaller power
Something which I would like to see is good mechanics to allow for smaller countries to make some headway before running into the Great Powers. I don't mean that they should be able to conquer the world but that some headway can be made before a Great Power per necessity steps in. This is something which I've experienced in both Victoria II and also in the more recent Imperator in that it can be damnable hard to find an oppening for a small power to act.
My main example for this is Argentina (which I think I've mentioned before). Since the US rather quickly issues guarentees to all the countries in South America, internal South American wars are impossible since the aggressor will need to tangle with the US, in stark contrast to the many wars in 19th and early 20th century South America. We've previously discussed the Monroe Doctrine might be implemented to allow for the US to counter expansion from beyond the Americas into the Americas, but at the same time allow for wars between American states but I feel this issues stretches a bit further than that.
One solution I could mention is that perhaps wars can be acceptable within spheres? So that if I am sphered by Germany as Denmark, I can still fight it out with countries within that sphere and so gain some room to manouver and expand, as long as I don't try to tackle the Great Power itself. Probably not very historical but its a suggestion I thought that I should mention.
*****
American foreign policy
One of the great problems, in my opinion, is that the US really has no challenger to contend with. China is in a similar situation if they managed to industrialize but I feel its more pronounced with the US. To counter this, and perhaps make it a bit more interesting for the US, is my idea that there's a special mechanic for this country in the shape of a measurement between two extremes of "isolationism" and "internationalism". As I imagine this will mostly be active when the US is a Great Power and so either promote or hamper American politics.
With isolationism colonialism, wars beyond the Americas and alliances with other Great Powers will cost more and actually create dissent. While the opppsite is true. In a Great Power US with high internationalism the people expect the US to throw its weight around on the world scene and make itself felt. And thus failure to "act vigerously" (whatever that actually means) will lead to dissent.
- 1