I suspect that the concept of extending the status of individual countries or regions is being considered and maybe even work on it is underway, so I would like to add my brick here, maybe some of these ideas will be included in the next patches to the game
And so, in my opinion, the first level of dependence or connection of a state with another should be the issue of the dependence of a state on the sphere of influence of another state and operate on the basis of something like an imposed trade agreement with minor restrictions on domestic policy and diplomacy, such a state would remain out of the market, could not belong to other trading markets, a country subordinated to a country in its sphere of influence would also gain greater investment opportunities in that country. Only the next stage would be a protectorate/march, and then a dominion/vassal, the greater the dependence of a given country, the smaller the scope of diplomatic, military, internal policy independence (some of the laws would be automatically copied from the superior country) regions or countries most integrated with a given country should still have something like autonomy or grand autonomy, for example, Congress Poland for a long time maintained the status of a personal union with the Russian Empire, similarly to Finland at the beginning of the game, but practically until 1918, part of the Polish territory in the Russian, Prussian, Austrian states had more or less autonomy including partial separation of the education system, tax law, etc. Maintaining autonomy should be profitable for the sovereign state, e.g. by reducing social dissatisfaction, radicalism, bureaucratic burdens, costs. It seems to me that military conscription in non-ethnic regions for discriminated/marginalized groups was more limited, for example, in the British army from Ireland, the Russian army from Poland, Lithuania, Livonia, Kazakhstan, Georgia and the game should force states or players to slowly reduce the status of a given state through politics, diplomacy, and in some cases it would be justifiable and profitable to simply maintain a greater or lesser degree of autonomy for a given region.
First of all, apart from colonial areas or the subordination of unrecognized states, the direct inclusion of non-national or ethnic territories inhabited to a large extent by their nationality into a given state would be much less profitable and would involve considerable costs of infamy, anyway, as we have said, the game should focus more emphasis on the possibility of slow expansion through diplomacy and economy, where the use of the military or waging war would be much more profitable to establish any dependence of a given region or country, and then focus on slow integration or increasing the status of dependence, because firstly, it would give very negative modifiers in the province, considerable radicalism that would destabilize the state by reducing the strength of our government cabinet. It is hard to imagine a situation in which a region that is not national or inhabited by nationalities forming the core of a given state, deprived of autonomy, i.e. de facto occupied, was agriculturally and industrially efficient, or was able to provide a normal number of army recruits, did not radically increase the cost of bureaucracy. Thus, it should be profitable for states to maintain for many years, and perhaps permanently, the autonomy of a given region incorporated into its state
This is only a loose proposal of what status countries/regions should have
- sphere of influence
- protectorate
- dominion/company/march
- colony/personal union/vassal
- extended autonomy
- autonomy
Maybe also adding something like a federal state/region would work in the case of the USA, Germany or other countries, but perhaps it is already a matter of system and internal politics in which the government has limited, less powers in general when it comes to all provinces that make up a given country and what is not fully and completely determined by economic law itself for federation countries.
Currently, in the game, apart from the radicalism of a given ethnic group in the state or turmoil in the province, as well as labor costs in the case of discriminated or not discriminated groups, the ethnic structure practically has very little impact on the economy, bureaucracy or state capabilities in a given region. And yet it seems that this should have significant and significant consequences that should to some extent force or encourage states to define the status of a given region, religious or ethnic differences, even if these groups are tolerated, should affect tax revenues or bureaucratic expenditures, not to mention the situation when such groups are discriminated against, it should drastically increase the costs of bureaucracy, maintaining order, education, etc. for example, the autonomy of the Duchy of Poznań within Prussia would mean that Poles would not be discriminated against in autonomous regions, the costs of bureaucracy, which would also translate into institutions, would decrease, tax collection in the region would increase, and army recruitment opportunities would increase.
In my opinion, factors such as nationality, religion, even if they are tolerated, should play a slightly larger role in the game, translating to some extent into the situation in the province or the entire country, the game would then make more sense by sticking to a more historical, geographical line and realism if the artificial intelligence and the player would have to take into account such assumptions.
And so, in my opinion, the first level of dependence or connection of a state with another should be the issue of the dependence of a state on the sphere of influence of another state and operate on the basis of something like an imposed trade agreement with minor restrictions on domestic policy and diplomacy, such a state would remain out of the market, could not belong to other trading markets, a country subordinated to a country in its sphere of influence would also gain greater investment opportunities in that country. Only the next stage would be a protectorate/march, and then a dominion/vassal, the greater the dependence of a given country, the smaller the scope of diplomatic, military, internal policy independence (some of the laws would be automatically copied from the superior country) regions or countries most integrated with a given country should still have something like autonomy or grand autonomy, for example, Congress Poland for a long time maintained the status of a personal union with the Russian Empire, similarly to Finland at the beginning of the game, but practically until 1918, part of the Polish territory in the Russian, Prussian, Austrian states had more or less autonomy including partial separation of the education system, tax law, etc. Maintaining autonomy should be profitable for the sovereign state, e.g. by reducing social dissatisfaction, radicalism, bureaucratic burdens, costs. It seems to me that military conscription in non-ethnic regions for discriminated/marginalized groups was more limited, for example, in the British army from Ireland, the Russian army from Poland, Lithuania, Livonia, Kazakhstan, Georgia and the game should force states or players to slowly reduce the status of a given state through politics, diplomacy, and in some cases it would be justifiable and profitable to simply maintain a greater or lesser degree of autonomy for a given region.
First of all, apart from colonial areas or the subordination of unrecognized states, the direct inclusion of non-national or ethnic territories inhabited to a large extent by their nationality into a given state would be much less profitable and would involve considerable costs of infamy, anyway, as we have said, the game should focus more emphasis on the possibility of slow expansion through diplomacy and economy, where the use of the military or waging war would be much more profitable to establish any dependence of a given region or country, and then focus on slow integration or increasing the status of dependence, because firstly, it would give very negative modifiers in the province, considerable radicalism that would destabilize the state by reducing the strength of our government cabinet. It is hard to imagine a situation in which a region that is not national or inhabited by nationalities forming the core of a given state, deprived of autonomy, i.e. de facto occupied, was agriculturally and industrially efficient, or was able to provide a normal number of army recruits, did not radically increase the cost of bureaucracy. Thus, it should be profitable for states to maintain for many years, and perhaps permanently, the autonomy of a given region incorporated into its state
This is only a loose proposal of what status countries/regions should have
- sphere of influence
- protectorate
- dominion/company/march
- colony/personal union/vassal
- extended autonomy
- autonomy
Maybe also adding something like a federal state/region would work in the case of the USA, Germany or other countries, but perhaps it is already a matter of system and internal politics in which the government has limited, less powers in general when it comes to all provinces that make up a given country and what is not fully and completely determined by economic law itself for federation countries.
Currently, in the game, apart from the radicalism of a given ethnic group in the state or turmoil in the province, as well as labor costs in the case of discriminated or not discriminated groups, the ethnic structure practically has very little impact on the economy, bureaucracy or state capabilities in a given region. And yet it seems that this should have significant and significant consequences that should to some extent force or encourage states to define the status of a given region, religious or ethnic differences, even if these groups are tolerated, should affect tax revenues or bureaucratic expenditures, not to mention the situation when such groups are discriminated against, it should drastically increase the costs of bureaucracy, maintaining order, education, etc. for example, the autonomy of the Duchy of Poznań within Prussia would mean that Poles would not be discriminated against in autonomous regions, the costs of bureaucracy, which would also translate into institutions, would decrease, tax collection in the region would increase, and army recruitment opportunities would increase.
In my opinion, factors such as nationality, religion, even if they are tolerated, should play a slightly larger role in the game, translating to some extent into the situation in the province or the entire country, the game would then make more sense by sticking to a more historical, geographical line and realism if the artificial intelligence and the player would have to take into account such assumptions.
Last edited:
- 2
