I propose to do in the game royal dynasty in countries with a form of government - monarchy, constitutional monarchy, the Sultanate and others. Also included are special options for diplomacy as the royal mariage. It is desirable that the system was similar to the Crusaders Knights or Europa 3 At least. Pleaz do it and the game will be perfect!
Royal Dynasty
- Thread starter unmerged(99870)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The number of states in which the royal family exerts enough power for this to be critically important is fairly small in this game. Besides, if EU3 could get by without dynasties for so long, Vicky 2 clearly doesn't need 'em.
Monarchies declined during this period, as the people started to take their own destinies into their hands, low-born businessmen stated to steal social influence from the aristocracy; individual perseverance and know-how started to be a more valuable personal asset than inherited real estate wealth.
and of course there's the thing about the game duration... both CK and EU3 are games spanning centuries, with dynastic empires falling and rising relatively frequently (game-wise)... Victoria is a much shorter game and set in a much more politically stable time-frame, at least in terms of dynasties being replaced by other dynasties.
sooo... no
and of course there's the thing about the game duration... both CK and EU3 are games spanning centuries, with dynastic empires falling and rising relatively frequently (game-wise)... Victoria is a much shorter game and set in a much more politically stable time-frame, at least in terms of dynasties being replaced by other dynasties.
sooo... no
This is correct. I don't think that dynasties would be an asset to the game.
I don't quite agree, as the replacement of dynasties played quite a large role in this time period. The forming of Germany was brought about becuase of a dynastic dispute. If Germany had not tried to place a Hohenzollern on the throne of France to replace the Bourbons who did not have an heir, then France would not have declared war on them, thus keeping Germany from forming. The minor German states would not have joined Germany if the Franco-Prussian War was not a war of French aggression. Much of French domestic politics during this time was centered around the Republicans, the Bourbons, the Orleans, and the Bonapartes. All of these factions caused the turmoil that France experienced for a greater part of the 19th century. Then World War I was started with the assassination of the Austrian heir. Monarchs also wielded much influence in most of Europe. It was only in England, to some extant France, and the Americas that Monarchs either didn't have almost total power or didn't exist at all. I think the idea of a dynasty would be a great addition, but only in so much as a monarchs control over his (or her in rare cases) heirs. Most monarchs lived 20-30 years on the throne, so thats about 5 monarchs for the average country. There are more examples throughtout the world during this period. I feel that dynasties and monarchs are quite important to this period, as monarchs exerted great influence if not actual power until WWI. This is a economic and political game after all
It's Spain, not France.
Furthermore, the dynasties had nothing to do with it, it was Bismarck. From the Wikipedia article on the Ems Dispatch:
Bismarck took it on himself to edit the report, sharpening the language. He cut out Wilhelm’s conciliatory phrases and emphasized the real issue. The French had made certain demands under threat of war; and Wilhelm had refused them. This was no forgery; it was a clear statement of the facts. Certainly the edit of the telegram released on the evening of the same day (13 July) to the media and foreign embassies gave the impression both that Benedetti was rather more demanding and that the King was exceedingly abrupt. It was designed to give the French the impression that King Wilhelm I had insulted Count Benedetti; likewise, the Germans interpreted the modified dispatch as the Count insulting the King.
Spain was ruled by the Bourbon dynasty though. I do not support the inclusion of dynasties, as they didn't really do much in this period. This period was dominated by Leaders and Monarchs, not by dynasties.
I'm not so sure about dynasties, but I want to see leaders in some form other than the military (like monarchs or advisors).
The effects from the old dynasties would probably already be in, in the form of unions or annexed areas. Like Austria-Hungary, Sweden-Norway etc. These countries i assume would be like in old Vicky, however working differently from EU3:HTTT it might be an idea to add break of union if the countries disbands its monarchy and becomes republic or something. Because the union was tied to the monarchy it wouldnt make sense to have them still in union if that should happen.
Not after 1868.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution_(Spain)
Rebaltion is correct in that the monarchical crisis in Spain was only a prefix for the Franco-Prussian war. The war's true causes lie in Bismarck's views on what was necessary for the unification of Germany and French nationalists' anger at the growth of Prussia's power after the battle of Königgrätz and the conclusion of the Austro-Prussian war. A Franco-Prussian war would probably have occurred even if there was no dynastic conflict over Spain.
I think that dynasties are probably unnecessary for Vicky 2 and would be difficult to implement properly.
Yes well, there's always that difference between what is theoretical and what is practical... Theoretically, the unification of Germany was attempted a million times in a thousand years by a hundred dynasties... but it's the German people who allowed it in the 19ct, isn't it?
Social progress (consciousness of one's interests on a society-wide scale) of the low-born, and not ancient ambitions of ancient courts methinks
i think the way it is being proposed is fair enough, dynasties generally declined during the period of vic 2
I'd rather have a full game focus completely on dynasties (CK2!) than have it implemented as a probably unnecessary minor add on to a game that should concentrate on more important areas for the time frame.
You have to keep in mind that there is limited time and budget. If you add dynasties something else has to go.
You have to keep in mind that there is limited time and budget. If you add dynasties something else has to go.