So, is V2IP (or VIP2) in the works?
- Thread starter unmerged(68110)
- 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.
I see these African states as neccesary for the game
The Empire of Ethiopia ( my personal favorite)
Zanzibar
Zulu
Sokoto Caliphate
Kanem-Bornu (either split or seperate)( so one can't just waltz ino central africa, the french faced resistance)
Benin
Oyo
Kongo
The Boer Republics ( European but in africa)
Wassoulou Empire
Toucouleur Empire
The Madhist State
Liberia
I also think Etheopia needs to civ about 1895-1900 because it gained a lot of respect and technology in this period, it also needs to be represented as an empire and not a tribal despotism or something like that
The Empire of Ethiopia ( my personal favorite)
Zanzibar
Zulu
Sokoto Caliphate
Kanem-Bornu (either split or seperate)( so one can't just waltz ino central africa, the french faced resistance)
Benin
Oyo
Kongo
The Boer Republics ( European but in africa)
Wassoulou Empire
Toucouleur Empire
The Madhist State
Liberia
I also think Etheopia needs to civ about 1895-1900 because it gained a lot of respect and technology in this period, it also needs to be represented as an empire and not a tribal despotism or something like that
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but wasn't the kingdom of the Kongo long gone by then?
Out of curiosity, why does everyone want to see an British india seperated from the UK?
Balancing or just historical?
This is helpful: http://www.africafederation.net/Kongo_History.htm
From my understanding the Kingdom of the Kongo still existed, but largely as a rather ignored protectorate under the Portuguese.
Yes that is true, but I was thinking to put it there to make it more difficult to colonise in the region, so the belgians might actually have to do some diplomatic manuvering to cut through the area to the vast interior of the congo and to represent that there was someone else in the area and that the portuguese never sought to centralize thier control in angola till after the berlin confrence (although they were theoretically in control of most of it) before 1888 they relied heavily on local rulers in angola ( although control in Mocambique was centralized)
I learned to appreciate that after no matter what you did, the UK would always beat your economy because it had India...
Of course, it is open to interpretation which implementation is "correct", but the administration for India was located in Kolkata and not in London. The jewel of the crown required a lot of special cares after all!
It wouldn't be harder... only different. In some ways, an established State makes it easier to colonize, specially when you're dealing with low life rating provinces.
My logic relating to African kingdoms would be somewhere along the lines of 'did it have a central government?' If so, then it would merit inclusion.
If anyone has information about the Kongo Kingdom in the 19th century and the territory it de facto ruled, I would really like to know more about it, because I can't find just an awful lot about it past the 15-16th centuries.
If anyone has information about the Kongo Kingdom in the 19th century and the territory it de facto ruled, I would really like to know more about it, because I can't find just an awful lot about it past the 15-16th centuries.
Nah, anyone who had Chinese Provinces as State is surely #1 China combined had 1,000,000,000 people by the end of game. Turn them all into craftsmans/clerks and the Industrial score of all other guys summed would still not reach a half of your score. The full citizenship party in Japan is just overpowered...
but India is really making a lot of money for Britain, almost too much. (their exports is always crazy) I don't know if it is balance issue or what India all are 5.0 valued provinces and China all are only 2.5 . (but that doesn't matter once you industrialised)
Something i would want to see would be a more flexible mobilization system, which would take into account the will of the people to fight.
For example in ww2 there was a massive call to arms in Greece agains tthe Italian invador, and it is said that the people were happy to enlist (it is argued that this was in part because they wanted to write a new page in history, and move away from the 1922 fiasco).
For example in ww2 there was a massive call to arms in Greece agains tthe Italian invador, and it is said that the people were happy to enlist (it is argued that this was in part because they wanted to write a new page in history, and move away from the 1922 fiasco).
Well, it would be completely imbalanced for the UK to directly govern British India from the start, but at the beginning of the game, it was under the control of the East India Company. In the aftermath of the Sepoy Rebellion, the East India Company was dissolved and the British Crown became more directly involved.
I know the history behind it and everything but alas not being able to play the first game i have no idea why there is /was so much talk about wanting india seperate.
Was it for the reason that with india being controlled by london that it was impossible to win against the UK due to numbers / unfair advantage (I.E Balancing) or is it just purly people wanting it more realistic?
I think VIP did it primarily for realism purposes, though gameplay is always taken into account whenever we make decisions. You'd have to ask OHGamer, though, British India is his baby
India is a large territory crammed with people and loaded with lots of good resources - and because that technological development in Vicky resulted in instant immediate universal benefit. This means that once your agriculture was fully mechanized in the UK, it meant the same in India.
Although there were significant developments to facilitate the exploration of the subcontinent by British imperialism, in Vicky that meant that India was always at the same level or even BEYOND (if you consider that the UK has a tech advantage over everyone in the start of the game) Europe in agriculture, mining and such.
Now imagine for a moment when the UK for some reason or another gets a full citizenship party in power and their industrial score breaks the roof.
Last edited:
India is a large territory crammed with people and loaded with lots of good resources. Because that technological development in Vicky resulted in instant immediate universal benefit. That meant that once your agriculture was fully mechanized in the UK, it meant the same in India.
Although there were significant developments to facilitate the exploration of the subcontinent by British imperialism, in Vicky that meant that India was always at the same level or even BEYOND (if you consider that the UK has a tech advantage over everyone in the start of the game) Europe in agriculture, mining and such.
Now imagine for a moment when the UK for some reason or another gets a full citizenship party in power and their industrial score breaks the roof.
Exactly. The number one industrial state in the world (if you can modernize) is China, certainly. Number two will be Britain if they get a full citizenship party into power (naturally, they have a dearth of full citizenship parties that are particularly easy to get into power, unlike, say, Austria). Numbers three through five will either be the US or Germany, possibly Russia or France.
India was ridiculously productive in terms of just raw materials, too, though. I have a British game I stopped in 1919 (the microing was getting hellacious), and even though I had made some of the Indian RGOs ridiculously large (like, 90-100 POPs large--and these were big POPs, a lot of 30000+ ones) there were still lots of spare POPs lying around...especially in the former Princely states. As a result, I had a couple thousand MP to spare. Soooo...yeah. Victoria 2 looks like it'll probably be able to deal with that better even in vanilla.