VIP - British Isles

[Mowers]

I think events for the later stages of the game (1920+) and also this specific are quite difficult to simulate because there are many things that can change during the course of the games that in most of the game the events won't have much sense.
I think it will be good if you start a bit sooner and try to "help" to maintain UK course of action... so, later, when you make those 1920+ events, they will surelly have more sense.

To be honest, the late game play is so null and void of anything vaguely interesting occuring, or indeed occuring full stop, that some events later in the game might assist!

One, as you suggest, can always add a proviso so that they fiire only if the UK follows a certain pattern.

 

[RossN]

I sort of think that the Daniel O'Connell/Repeal event should be reformatted into a genuine (if small) chance to release Ireland as a Satellite or Dominion.

From Wikipedia

O'Connell also campaigned for Repeal of the Act of Union, which in 1801 merged the Parliaments of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In order to campaign for Repeal, O'Connell set up the Repeal Association. He argued for the re-creation of an independent Kingdom of Ireland to govern itself, with Queen Victoria as the Queen of Ireland. To push for this, he held a series of Monster Meetings throughout much of Ireland outside the Protestant and Unionist-dominated province of Ulster. They were so called because around 100,000 people attended each one. These rallies frightened the British Government and the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, banned one such proposed monster meeting at Clontarf, County Dublin, just outside Dublin City. This move was made after the biggest monster meeting was held at Tara[1]. Despite appeals from his supporters, O'Connell refused to defy the authorities and he called off the meeting.

This did not prevent him being jailed for sedition, although he was released after 3 months by the British House of Lords. Having deprived himself of his most potent weapon, the monster meeting, O'Connell failed to make any more progress in the campaign for Repeal. His followers deserted him in droves to the refrain of "He should have called us out" and the disappointment led to a group of supporters involved in the pro-Repeal paper The Nation forming Young Ireland under Charles Gavan Duffy, John Mitchel, William Smith O'Brien and Thomas Davis (all of whom were Protestants except for Gavan Duffy) espousing more militant means of winning Irish independence though largely sharing his social conservatism.

It seems to me that it was a question of a sudden loss of nerve on behalf of Daniel O'Connell that brought down Repeal. Had he stuck to his guns the situation would be very serious indeed (certainly much more than the tiny later attempts at revolution by the Young Irelanders and Fenians) and Peel would have been forced to choose between possible civil war or a Repeal that went much further than the later Home Rule Bills.

Certainly seems worth more attention than it is now. Maybe have an event to see whteher O'Connell backs down or not and if the unhistoric option is chosen a second event on the British reaction leading either to a big increase in Irish millitancy or a released satellite Ireland.

 

[JRaup]

I sort of think that the Daniel O'Connell/Repeal event should be reformatted into a genuine (if small) chance to release Ireland as a Satellite or Dominion.

It seems to me that it was a question of a sudden loss of nerve on behalf of Daniel O'Connell that brought down Repeal. Had he stuck to his guns the situation would be very serious indeed (certainly much more than the tiny later attempts at revolution by the Young Irelanders and Fenians) and Peel would have been forced to choose between possible civil war or a Repeal that went much further than the later Home Rule Bills.

Certainly seems worth more attention than it is now. Maybe have an event to see whteher O'Connell backs down or not and if the unhistoric option is chosen a second event on the British reaction leading either to a big increase in Irish millitancy or a released satellite Ireland.

This on my "to do list" for VIP. While I have covered some of this, the Repeal Act hasn't been touched. Nor has anything post-1868 as well. IMO though, O'Connell didn't stand much of chance of achieving the "greater result." So, we'd be looking at a very slim ahistorical chance. As such, it will be lower down on the list than the 1st and 2nd Home Rule initiatives, which will receive a more thorough treatment first.

 

[RossN]

This on my "to do list" for VIP. While I have covered some of this, the Repeal Act hasn't been touched. Nor has anything post-1868 as well. IMO though, O'Connell didn't stand much of chance of achieving the "greater result." So, we'd be looking at a very slim ahistorical chance. As such, it will be lower down on the list than the 1st and 2nd Home Rule initiatives, which will receive a more thorough treatment first.

I'm not so sure... O'Connell had genuine mass support behind him (a scary and unfamiliar force in the 1830's) and until he funked a very successful past - he broke the British establishment over Catholic Emancipation after all, a staggering achievement (with the benefit of hindsight we might term Emancipation an inevitable reform but it is unlikely many saw it as such at time).

It also should be said that Ireland was, at least demographically, in a stronger position in the 1830's than it was in the '80's and later. The Irish composed nearly a third of the entire population of the British Isles and very large numbers served in the British Army (again higher than in the '80's and later). All in all I don't believe Peel would have dared arrest O'Connell if he had gone ahead with his meeting - it was a bluff that O'Connell fell for (or, more charitably decided the inevatble violence was not worth it). So really at least in my view it only comes down to O'Connells choice and how Peel responds to that.

On the other hand I don't think the Home Rule bills are nearly so important; hugely misguided and basically unworkable in practice (at least the Gladstonian versions). Not to mention they were legally unsound - but I digress. Suffice to say I consider Repeal fairly important.

 

[JRaup]

I'm not so sure... O'Connell had genuine mass support behind him (a scary and unfamiliar force in the 1830's) and until he funked a very successful past - he broke the British establishment over Catholic Emancipation after all, a staggering achievement (with the benefit of hindsight we might term Emancipation an inevitable reform but it is unlikely many saw it as such at time).

It also should be said that Ireland was, at least demographically, in a stronger position in the 1830's than it was in the '80's and later. The Irish composed nearly a third of the entire population of the British Isles and very large numbers served in the British Army (again higher than in the '80's and later). All in all I don't believe Peel would have dared arrest O'Connell if he had gone ahead with his meeting - it was a bluff that O'Connell fell for (or, more charitably decided the inevatble violence was not worth it). So really at least in my view it only comes down to O'Connells choice and how Peel responds to that.

On the other hand I don't think the Home Rule bills are nearly so important; hugely misguided and basically unworkable in practice (at least the Gladstonian versions). Not to mention they were legally unsound - but I digress. Suffice to say I consider Repeal fairly important.

IMO, I think you are over estimating the "will" of the Irish people in all of this. Memories of 1798 were still with in "living memory," and the collective will for resistance was minimal. I think that O'Connell realized this, as the movement had pretty much reached its peak just prior to his clash with Peel. Even so, there is little chance that Peel could not have followed through with his threat of arrest, it would have been political suicide for him, and the British establishment would never have allowed him any other option.

In my estimation, had O'Connell gone throug with his meeting, Peel would have been forced to arrest him. This would have incited a spate of vioent resistance, but much like all previous efforts (and all those up to the Tan War), would have been crushed. There wasn't enough organization for an armed resistance, as O'Connell and his main backers should be considered "constitutionalists." The chance of the "greater result" is very very limited here.

As for the Home Rule bills, setting aside the legal questions, or even the "feasibility" of them, they could have had a very significant impact. The 1st Home Rule bill is pretty much a dead duck to begin with. Of course it was designed to be such. The 2nd Bill is much more of a real effort at it, but even so was flawed beyond acceptability for the establishment House of Lords. This is the first one that had a serious chance of implementation. It's here that had it been passed by the Lords, and implemented, that history could significantly diverge.

Had Home Rule been granted in 1893, the third Bill never comes into play. Redmond is never disgraced, and several key events in all likely hood never come to pass. Resistance to Home Rule by the Unionists would still be a major factor, but the loss of prestige and power from being unable to block Home Rule would have kept men like Carson from rising to such prominence. There might still be an Ulster Covenant, but I believe it would be significantly less of a turning point. As such, there is no call for the Irish Volonteers to counter balance the UDF, the Republican movement doesn't attract the contitutionalists, never gets wedded to Sinn Fein. This would be a major deoarture from what we know actually transpired.

 

[Kaiser Franz]

ah good to see that Ireland, esp. O'Connell and Parnell are not to be left out, i was kinda disapointed while playing that there were not many Irish events, like m,ore on Repeal, Parnell, the Land war and Home Rule etc etc etc...i've been doing Irish history at College, and it has certainly sparked an interest in me. I do hope that it gets done soon, as i said, i was quite disapointed the Repeal campaign went down to one event!!!!

 

[unmerged(52819)]

War on... (British India)

years ago, while i was watching news, it crossed my mind about playing BEIC without paying huge debt to the lady.
the trigger says that the event happens when BEIC isn't in a war. on the other hand, as long as BEIC is involved in a war, she is excused of paying huge money. first, i felt a bit of cheat on such play. then i thought about a man at "casa blanca", saying "this is the war on...," isn't it the same?
appearantly, the excuse is working: as long as BEIC is in a war, she is excused for the debt. but what happens is that many BEIC events are composed with a trigger, "war = no," which we can not be in a war to have the events.

here are my questions:
1. do you think it is a cheat that being excused on paying divident by being involved in a war.

2. the trigger "war = no" is really necessary?

 

[OHgamer]

years ago, while i was watching news, it crossed my mind about playing BEIC without paying huge debt to the lady.
the trigger says that the event happens when BEIC isn't in a war. on the other hand, as long as BEIC is involved in a war, she is excused of paying huge money. first, i felt a bit of cheat on such play. then i thought about a man at "casa blanca", saying "this is the war on...," isn't it the same?
appearantly, the excuse is working: as long as BEIC is in a war, she is excused for the debt. but what happens is that many BEIC events are composed with a trigger, "war = no," which we can not be in a war to have the events.

here are my questions:
1. do you think it is a cheat that being excused on paying divident by being involved in a war.

2. the trigger "war = no" is really necessary?

The trigger was included so that AI British India (which will be the vast majority of games) will have the funds to fight wars on behalf of the British empire. The last thing we want would be for AI British India to not be able to fight because it keeps sending money to Britain (which in most cases still produces more than enough money to keep up a war even without the Indian contributions).

So yes there may be an exploit here for human players.

However, for VIP:R 0.1 things may very well change in regards to the ENG-IND system. Still testing at this point, but there are some changes being considered.

 

[unmerged(61781)]

I know this would go in the North American topic but it dosnt seem to be there.

Anyway, I am certain there are a lot of events for the US with regard to California.

Has it been considered to cover the fact that British government had their eye on it as well. They wanted to encourage revolt away from Mexico.

This would only be practicle if Britian was controlling Oregon but if they did I am sure they would have made a lot effort to secure the pacific coast.

Just a thought.

 

[Hardstuff]

Just a question, is there an Anglo Irish POP in VIP (Or VIP:R)?

If not, why not?

 

[OHgamer]

Just a question, is there an Anglo Irish POP in VIP (Or VIP:R)?

If not, why not?

There are Irish Catholic and Irish Protestant POPs in Ireland in VIP IIRC. There are also British Protestant POPs in Ireland as well.

 

[Jeck]

What about adding a celtic pop to represent the welsh and scottish pops which weren't assimilated into the (anglo-saxon) british mainstream or alternatively a scottish (gaelic) pop for the highlands and a (island) celtic pop for northern wales and the bretagne?

 

[unmerged(17791)]

I have a general n00b question about POP migration; playing as Britain not a SINGLE man, woman or child has left the UK (yes even Ireland) to go anywhere, nevermind America.

And yes, I watch the ledger like a keen eyed hawk. I even memorize the size of my POPs, throughout the land. Anyway, there's all these events that make Ireland a horrific potato-less place to live, but NO one leaves. The only people that have left my empire were in South Africa - a few 100-size groups went to Argentina, California, etc. And those were the ones that I REALLY ticked off, via events (LET the Boers go, man!! Geez!) I was greedy in S. Africa, every chance I got, and frankly was almost overrun.

Anyway, this doesn't seem right. And on a related topic, in vanilla Vicky, the USA was receiving POPs from throughout Europe like crazy... it was key/vital to their growth (as it was historically). So, how does this work in VIP? I've noticed a lot of the Canadian provinces are gifted to me, and magically the Anglos are already placed there, from the beginning. So, is that how it is w/ the USA? All their POPs are already 'embedded'? No mass exodus? Granted I haven't played to the late 1800s yet, when it really started picking up steam. But so far, that whole "massive Irish move to America" thing hasn't happened whatsoever up to the end of the 1860s. And it's so bad there, I can't even keep my troops present w/o attrition.

But, they stay. And I want to play as America next - I'm concerned about my immigrants!

 

[OHgamer]

Well, if you play well so that your POPs are happy and able to get their needs, you aren't giving them an incentive to leave.

Why did people emigrate? To seek a better life for themselves in a new land.

If you run your country as a stable, prosperous nation with no unemployment and POPs able to not just buy their needs, but also put money away in reserves, and with political rights and social reforms (and the likely prospect of more), then there is no "push factor" for the POPs to migrate.

As for playing the USA - note that the AI is less considerate in how it treats its POPs than the majority of human players are. There are plenty of push factors under an AI-controlled nation to convince large numbers of people to migrate, especiall in the second half of the game in Revolutions when research in commerce and industry techs results in higher amounts of goods needed to fill POP needs. So long as you create the conditions to attract immigrants (high plurality, full citizenship policies, some social reforms, full democracy) you'll become a magnet by later in game as the combined push factors of bad AI mismanagement and the pull factors of you creating a pro-immigrant society work in tandem.

And in the end, because of changes in the way POP needs work and the impact of slavery on drawing immigrants (a major dampener) the result is that the USA in game tends to underperform in attracting immigrants pre-Civil War and then makes up for it and more after 1880. It's the game mechanics, and there isn't alot we can do about them.

 

[unmerged(74473)]

Why can you create Scotland and not Wales

Why are the pops in Ireland called "Irish" but in Wales they are British and in Scotland too called British, It doesn't make any sense! If you are going to have the Irish as a culture why not the bleeding Cornish aswell??

As far as i know, Ireland was apart of the British Isles until 1922, And for 90% of the game the people in Ireland as like in England, Scotland and Wales they was called British..Is this just the usual pro-terrorist Americans thinking they are Irish or something, Trying to change them because its suits your needs

 

[unmerged(17791)]

I'm going to take a wild, insanely speculative guess that it has something to do with the intention to zero in on the Irish woes of the era. E.g., +10 militancy for the Irish! +10 starvation for the Irish! +10 to heck with this, for the Irish! Dominant issue for all Irish in UK set to: We ain't got no potatoes, we're movin' to America! Peace out, yo!

Makes it easier to zero in on the people in question, during a time when lots of bad things were going on - making them feel definitely more alienated than the other 'peeps' in the Brit Isles.

In the event that I am right, then it only goes to show that somewhere deep within me, is a gameplay developer.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

There was a far clearer sense of Irish nationhood than English, Scots or Welsh this period. Nothing to do with plastic Paddyism - it makes perfect sense, at least to me.

 

[unmerged(74473)]

The point is that the Irish was called British just as much as the Scots and the English, Like it or not, They was British!! Just because their potatoes failed to grow doesn't mean we need to make them into a culture.

Why is it that people see this as a nationalist thing?

All across Britain there was nonconformist revolts, The rise of Chartism, What makes the Irish any different? Their crops didn't grow

It funny how people complain about the British being in full control of the Irish people yet i can't even make them into soldiers or clerks, Unless i have "full-citisenship"

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Many places had unrest, but the Irish problem was at least partly cultural. It ended up an independent country. I think it's entirely appropriate you need a free citizenship party to promote their POPs.

 

[Hardstuff]

The point is that the Irish was called British just as much as the Scots and the English, Like it or not, They was British!! Just because their potatoes failed to grow doesn't mean we need to make them into a culture.

Why is it that people see this as a nationalist thing?

All across Britain there was nonconformist revolts, The rise of Chartism, What makes the Irish any different? Their crops didn't grow

It funny how people complain about the British being in full control of the Irish people yet i can't even make them into soldiers or clerks, Unless i have "full-citisenship"

Because 80+% (Edit: To be honest, not even the Unionists said they weren't Irish at this point. It was only around 1910 that the Ulster Scots/British identity was hyped up for the Unionists. Read any piece of literature, any paper, any letters from the 19th Century in Ireland, and everyone on this island will be called Irish. Even religious differences weren't that large back then) of the people did not see themselves as British at all. With high partisan activities, political activism, unrest all around, a seperate cultural identity (far different to that of the rest of Britain, Scotland and Wales were being Anglicised), seperate religious identity (after the persecution of the Irish langauge, this was superseded by religious identity, which was also persecuted). Therefore, we were different, they were trying to make us more like themselves, which then solidified our identity even more.

The Irish were certainly not British at any point. British subjects, yes, British by official documents, yes, actually British? Never.


Though I myself would prefer to see English, Welsh and Scottish POPs.