The white Dominions

[Duuk]

With all due respect to my Canadian neighbors...

Canada was a fairly autonomous sub-state of the British Empire as far back as 1867. They managed the day-to-day affairs of their own and could be considered a semi-independent state.

However, as far as a strategy game goes...

Units in VIC should have nationality (I believe this has been mentioned), allowing us to know that the 1st Canadian Royal Mounted Guys were actually raised in (Ottowa) province.

Sadly though, the best way to represent Canada, Australia, India, and New Zealand in VIC (in EU2 terms anyway) is as a wholly owned part of the British Empire with different culture. The 30% income penalty would reflect the state taking care of its own issues.

Now, a BETTER way to do it would be to give Canada et al +200 relations with GBR and a vassal status. However, this vassal status should give GBR total control over their military units and allow them no foreign policy of their own.

This can be slowly altered by events. Specifically, the "End of the US Civil War" event should have some wakeevent calls on to Canada's tree.

Depending on how the game engine is modelled, this could be modelled dozens of ways.

But right now, we're all making guesses based on EU2 and HOI game engines, when we've already seen that VIC will be a hybrid of both with new features on top of it.

Let's give Johan some time to think.

 

[saskganesh]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
Originally posted by saskganesh
North Washington.

yech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Stickeen?


__________________


What does Stickeen mean?

i think he means Stikine a large river in northern BC that emerges in the Alaskan panhandle.

on reconsideration, they would probably have called BC plain old "Columbia" and dropped the adjectival "British"

 

[The Andy-Man]

But seriously rather then turning the game into an trading simulation the influence you are talking about could probably be better simulated through industrial power and some kind of sphere of inflence rules.

The problem there is that British economic domminance was commercial, its strength was largley in the fact that nearly all money borrowed in this period was from british banks, over 70% of shipping was british even in the 1890's, and so on.

Industry is really a very overrated thing when it comes the The history of the British Empire.

 

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
I didd not know this, any links or books that you can recomend?

Here is a decent link for you.

http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/2/18/h18-2185-e.html#a


As for a possible name - I don't know if one was ever considered. The rallying cry was for annexation by the US as a means of improving economic prosperity not for the creation of an identifiable region with an established (non-aborigonal) history.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

'Dominion' could be a special status. Like vassal with MC and a veto on any diplomatic manoeuvres the gimp state might make. It would be kool to see the alternatives, like France making a dominion out of Algeria.

'Stickeen River District' was a shortlived early demarcation incorporating the Canadian Pacific hinterland. I agree 'Columbia' is more likely.

 

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by Duuk
With all due respect to my Canadian neighbors...

Canada was a fairly autonomous sub-state of the British Empire as far back as 1867. They managed the day-to-day affairs of their own and could be considered a semi-independent state.

However, as far as a strategy game goes...

Units in VIC should have nationality (I believe this has been mentioned), allowing us to know that the 1st Canadian Royal Mounted Guys were actually raised in (Ottowa) province.

Sadly though, the best way to represent Canada, Australia, India, and New Zealand in VIC (in EU2 terms anyway) is as a wholly owned part of the British Empire with different culture. The 30% income penalty would reflect the state taking care of its own issues.

Now, a BETTER way to do it would be to give Canada et al +200 relations with GBR and a vassal status. However, this vassal status should give GBR total control over their military units and allow them no foreign policy of their own.

This can be slowly altered by events. Specifically, the "End of the US Civil War" event should have some wakeevent calls on to Canada's tree.

Depending on how the game engine is modelled, this could be modelled dozens of ways.

But right now, we're all making guesses based on EU2 and HOI game engines, when we've already seen that VIC will be a hybrid of both with new features on top of it.

Let's give Johan some time to think.

Canada - and I suspect Australia and New Zealand, present special problems because of the time period selected. It is the very time that Canada - and probably Austrlia and New Zealand (sorry for my lack of knowledge regarding downunder) became nation states.

To ignore this fact is to ingore the great changes that were occuring in the British Empire during the time period.

I and others have said before that Paradox is taking on a very big task with this time period. I am confident they will strike the right balance in game terms but ignoring the fact of emerging nations is not the correct approach IMHO.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Originally posted by Duuk
Now, a BETTER way to do it would be to give Canada et al +200 relations with GBR and a vassal status. However, this vassal status should give GBR total control over their military units and allow them no foreign policy of their own.

Here's the problem though. Historically in this period Canada had essentially no independent foreign policy (we had repreentatives in London and Washington, but that's it). But Canada did have full military indepdence. Canadian units (There weren't really any Canadian ships) were under Canadian command and control. The exception was the Boer War and WWI, where the Canadian units retained their Canadian commanders, but were placed within the overall British command structure. Much like in NATO, actually.

 

[crazy canuck]

Just to add to what Barristerboy said - all of which I agree with - In WWI Canadian divisions also fought independantly from units from other nations (example the battle of Vimy Ridge).

 

[Tim O]

Great Link Crazy Canuk. I gather that those favoring U.S. annexation was simply a vocal and politicaly active minority.

 

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
Great Link Crazy Canuk. I gather that those favoring U.S. annexation was simply a vocal and politicaly active minority.

The link I gave you is a to a Federal Government site. I don't think it does justice to just how close B.C. came to being annexed. Union with Canada was actually the politically unpopular thing to do. Reports from the period indicate that popular opinion favoured becoming a State.

This makes some sense given the fact that a large portion of the population at that time was made up of Americans who had come north for the gold rush.

I think you could say that B.C. joined conferation with Canada because a vocal and politically active elite favoured staying with their British routes and Ottawa offered more benefits then a largely disinterested Washington D.C.

This is one example of why I think it would be really interesting if Canada were modelled in the game in a more detailed way then just treating it as a "Vassal" of Britain.

There were lots of opportunities for the map we now know to look much different.

 

[Tim O]

WHy was Washington disinterested?

Possesion of B.C. would deny Canada and the Royal Navy Ports on the Pacific Coast, not to mention a land connection to Alaska. Why buy a then worthless Alaska and then pass on resource rich British Columbia filled with Americans?

 

[saskganesh]

Originally posted by crazy canuck
I think you could say that B.C. joined conferation with Canada because a vocal and politically active elite favoured staying with their British routes and Ottawa offered more benefits then a largely disinterested Washington D.C.

This is one example of why I think it would be really interesting if Canada were modelled in the game in a more detailed way then just treating it as a "Vassal" of Britain.

There were lots of opportunities for the map we now know to look much different.

thats right. BC joined confederation conditionally. building a railroad was one condition. running a regular steamship line to SF was another. (hmm. since THAT clause doesn't seem to be in effect these days, perhaps BC has the legal right to secede now).

i am somewhat swayed by the arguments of my fellow canuckistanians that "dominions" should have a unique status (and yes, dominions sould be formable by any nation under certain conditions. ) so in Canada's case, we are not a collection of national provinces of BE, nor a vassal state and not independent either. but some sort of "gimp" nation with own units.

still, it sounds like a chromed up puppet for purposes of game play. still, getting the "feel" is important. Myself, I'm going to keep banging the drum for the MacPap Fantasy option.

 

[Zagys]

Originally posted by Duuk
Sadly though, the best way to represent Canada, Australia, India, and New Zealand in VIC (in EU2 terms anyway) is as a wholly owned part of the British Empire with different culture. The 30% income penalty would reflect the state taking care of its own issues.

If the British player has control of the territory and has to pay for everything, then it makes no sense to have a 30% income penalty. Where exactly is this 30% going?

 

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
WHy was Washington disinterested?

Possesion of B.C. would deny Canada and the Royal Navy Ports on the Pacific Coast, not to mention a land connection to Alaska. Why buy a then worthless Alaska and then pass on resource rich British Columbia filled with Americans?

I agree that it was crazy to ingnore this corner of the world but I have to admit I am somewhat biased.

But we know this with hindsight. At the time B.C. was just another endless expanse of wilderness that had already had its gold tapped. Annexing would have meant a great deal of expense for the Americans for very little immediate gain. B.C. needed the Americans more then the Americans needed B.C.

The land connection to Alaska through B.C., while good in theory, in terms of transportation didn't even exist prior to the second world war.

 

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by saskganesh
thats right. BC joined confederation conditionally. building a railroad was one condition. running a regular steamship line to SF was another. (hmm. since THAT clause doesn't seem to be in effect these days, perhaps BC has the legal right to secede now).

i am somewhat swayed by the arguments of my fellow canuckistanians that "dominions" should have a unique status (and yes, dominions sould be formable by any nation under certain conditions. ) so in Canada's case, we are not a collection of national provinces of BE, nor a vassal state and not independent either. but some sort of "gimp" nation with own units.

still, it sounds like a chromed up puppet for purposes of game play. still, getting the "feel" is important. Myself, I'm going to keep banging the drum for the MacPap Fantasy option.

I will write my 200th post agreeing with a fellow Canuck. A MacPap fantasy option would be ideal.

BTW in relation to the conditions of confederation, the B.C. government did commence litigation recently against the Federal Crown for breaching the terms of confederation although I don't recall where it stands now. It had to do with the closure of one of the rail lines.

 

[Tim O]

originaly posted by
But we know this with hindsight. At the time B.C. was just another endless expanse of wilderness that had already had its gold tapped. Annexing would have meant a great deal of expense for the Americans for very little immediate gain. B.C. needed the Americans more then the Americans needed B.C.
==============================================

How much could it have cost? Alaska was $7,000,000. Maybe $15,000,000 for British Columbia? It's all about manifest destiny.

 

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
originaly posted by
But we know this with hindsight. At the time B.C. was just another endless expanse of wilderness that had already had its gold tapped. Annexing would have meant a great deal of expense for the Americans for very little immediate gain. B.C. needed the Americans more then the Americans needed B.C.
==============================================

How much could it have cost? Alaska was $7,000,000. Maybe $15,000,000 for British Columbia? It's all about manifest destiny.

It was not so much a case of the purchase price. There was no purchase price per se. When I said cost, I meant the cost of providing the infrastructure promised by the Canadian government. I'm also not saying the American indifference was justified. I am only pointing out the fact that it existed.

 

[Tim O]

Rather than lay rail across 2,000 miles of uninhabited Canada to reach B.C., the U.S would just have to lay track north from Oregon. It couldn't have cost that much, I'm definitly annexing them when I play the U.S.

 

[saskganesh]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
Rather than lay rail across 2,000 miles of uninhabited Canada to reach B.C., the U.S would just have to lay track north from Oregon. It couldn't have cost that much, I'm definitly annexing them when I play the U.S.

and i say trade embargo!

 

[unmerged(5217)]

Yes, after the US annexes canada in 1865 they will be given privilege of fighting alongside their fellow Americans in 1914 against the Brits and frogs. Trust me it you’ll enjoy it I’m sure it will be quite therapeutic for various reasons..... Daddy didn't love me and my family always spoiled Pierre.