This I think is the crux of the issue here - Britain expanding in South Asia and Russia expanding in the Caucasus and Central Asia make perfect sense in the context of the time period the game is supposed to emulate, where Great Powers annexing minors in areas which are in their backyard or zone of influence was very common, and a standard part of diplomacy.
What is not in line with the theme of the period is Great Powers opportunistically attacking one another and grabbing little bits of territory here and there. In the entire period covered by Vicky2 there were a grand total of six wars between what could be termed as European Great Powers, and they were tied to very big, destabilizing processes like German and Italian unification, the erosion of the Ottoman Empire, and then the entire descent into the First World War.
There were deep rivalries between many Great Powers, but there were sizeable risks to prevent major wars, and big networks of collective guarantees to prevent this from happening - and whenever a great power war happened, it was regarded as a massive event, had major geopolitical implications, and also had a great deal of buildup.
I'm hoping there's some way to emulate this more easily than complex MM-style contextual events or National Decision systems (or an expansion pack), but this sort of thing doesn't really bode too well that the vanilla game is really going to cut it.
Awww come on, losing a chunk of the Ukraine and a few thousand serfs is not going to make or break the European balance of power. It's not like losing Rovno would gimp Russia for the remainder of the game, or turn Austria into a superpower. I think it's actually a nice example of a
limited war that still carries some significance, just like the Russian wars against Persia (one state/concession at a time?). In Vic1 the Austro-Russian war would either turn into a massive ten year war, leaving the victor with a grab bag of scattered provinces, or fizzle out as a white peace. A peace with one province changing hands fits very well into the era IMHO.
It's still a game... what would you rather have, an AI hardcoded to prefer peace, falling asleep eventually without the player noticing it? Or an opportunistic AI seeking cheap victories where it may find them, keeping the game exciting even if makes the world look more like a Steampunked cartoon version of the 19th century?
I vividly remember the failings of the old Vic1 engine, where both designers and modders did their best to "railroad" the game to their version of what should make historic sense, and as a result the diplo AIs could fall asleep without anyone noticing, because the game was designed to discourage spontaneity and opportunism. I would rather not play that game again. I want a game that is fun and challenging even in the early phase, a game that is more like a multiplayer game in terms of dynamism and opportunity than a history book reenactment. The single player AI should NOT be designed to be a sparring partner for someone who wants to see the history book reenacted. The AI should have the freedom to choose whether to pursue economical and political expansion, or use temporary military superiority to whack you over the head as an opening gambit.
And frankly it would be a testament to good game design if both make sense... good games are games where you can choose from a variety of strategies, rather than have one strategy forced on you because all the others are artificially discouraged.
Yes this means in the game the concert of Europe will not be depicted historically (i.e. as a club of sleepy headed absolutists afraid of revolutions) but rather as if Machiavelli was behind each throne. All the better in my view.
Real life is where you desire peace and want people to just get along... real life does not make for an interesting game
