VIP - Closed discussions of Old Versions

[unmerged(13520)]

Certainly, just that it's too early for doing that right now...

Btw, modding doesn't really require that many programming skills,just some basic research plus a lot of patience and "trial and error".

 

[Alexander Seil]

Indeed. I'm very much in favor of a separate British East Indies Company - this is the way they did it in AON, I believe. It would help us balance the overpowered China, as BEIC wouldn't have to rely on the shoddy British troop-shipping AI anymore.

 

[valisk]

The only problem I have with a seperate BEIC is that as with many other similar 'companies' it was under total control of the British government and in reality was a functioning equivilent of the public private partnership concept of today.
I agree with OH about using a current Indian minor, most were wholly inactive in any real way during the entire time period and existed simply to allow British independent traders access to opium and other Indian products which otherwise were controlled by the BEIC monopoly.

Southern Rhodesia was a self governing colony on Dominion lines from 1923 with its constitutional responsibilities discharged by the Dominion office rather than it's elected government, it was not invited to the Westminster treaty negotiations in 1931. It is just outside our timeframe, but earlier Dominion status was possible, it was discussed seriously from 1900 onwards, as you mention to incorporate it into South Africa but self government was always the counter balance in these arguments and indeed in the referendum of 1922 the Southern Rhodesian's chose independence within the Empire, and refered to themselves as a Dominion, despite not officially being one.
It is a wholly confusing mess, but I would argue that Rhodesia (or at least Southern Rhodesia) was as likely to become a dominion as British Columbia during the games time frame and if a British player is successful in colonising Southern Africa earlier than historically, it should be a real possibility.

On a related but seperate issue, can anyone point me to a nation creation thread, as I can't seem to find one.

 

[Grosshaus]

A problem with new British dominions given tags is that there's no guarantee all those areas will ever be British colonies to start with. Other colonizing nations didn't grant dominions, so for instance for Rhodesia to become a dominion it must be colonized by Britain first. I'd rather focus on other tags, since there's a high chance those will never happen.

 

[OHgamer]

Originally posted by valisk
The only problem I have with a seperate BEIC is that as with many other similar 'companies' it was under total control of the British government and in reality was a functioning equivilent of the public private partnership concept of today.
I agree with OH about using a current Indian minor, most were wholly inactive in any real way during the entire time period and existed simply to allow British independent traders access to opium and other Indian products which otherwise were controlled by the BEIC monopoly.

Southern Rhodesia was a self governing colony on Dominion lines from 1923 with its constitutional responsibilities discharged by the Dominion office rather than it's elected government, it was not invited to the Westminster treaty negotiations in 1931. It is just outside our timeframe, but earlier Dominion status was possible, it was discussed seriously from 1900 onwards, as you mention to incorporate it into South Africa but self government was always the counter balance in these arguments and indeed in the referendum of 1922 the Southern Rhodesian's chose independence within the Empire, and refered to themselves as a Dominion, despite not officially being one.
It is a wholly confusing mess, but I would argue that Rhodesia (or at least Southern Rhodesia) was as likely to become a dominion as British Columbia during the games time frame and if a British player is successful in colonising Southern Africa earlier than historically, it should be a real possibility.

On a related but seperate issue, can anyone point me to a nation creation thread, as I can't seem to find one.

In most day-to-day operations the BEIC governed itself in India, creating its own budgets for operation, maintaining internal security, collecting taxes, promoting education (first in Persian then from the 1830s IIRC in English) and maintained its own military forces. Up to 1858 London's control over Indian affairs was more reactive than proactive - governors-general were replaced after problems arose in India and London became aware of the problem (given the communications at the time this makes sense). It would be the BEIC's actions under Dalhousie in the 1850s that would in the end spark the 1857 Wars that would lead to direct British intervention in India and the dissolution of the BEIC, but even afterward the colonial administration in India controlled most activity regarding internal security, development and defense. What are the limitations for a Victoria "state" when they are a satellite? Perhaps we could use that status to reflect the BEIC in India - local self control but more under control of the British than say a dominion. Either way in this game, even moreso than in Hearts of Iron, the argument is good for having British India being a separate "state" in order to gather the resources needed to maintain and expand British interests in South Asia. Currently I am playing as Sardinia and have annexed Sind and the British did NOTHING to stop me. In real life that would have been a casus belli and British forces in India would have been sent out to expel any invading European force in the subcontinent. Of course, I invaded Sind in 1878, which should have been British for 30+ years by that point, so what would be good is a fairly aggressive British India "state" with targets of some of the bigger remaining native states (Sind and Punjab above all). Perhaps use the IND (Indore) tag for this purpose.

 

[valisk]

OHGamer, a nice and well argued series of points, I am going to concede my resistence, perhaps we could have a BEIC as satellite, which when dissolved in 58 is simply recycled as British India, a Dominion naturally.
So a player interested in developing India can do so from the word go, we could also create events allowing for BEIC/BI to inherit the smaller Indian states according to the historical timetable, and adjust the remaining states to being satellites of BEIC/BI as opposed to satellites of the UK.
I agree that Victoria lends itself to the idea of releasing self governing colonies and semi autonomous states, its only a shame that Paradox did not make Dominion status revokable, as historically it theoretically (and practically, Newfoundland being a case in point) was.

Grosshaus, that argument applies equally to all other future potential states (including the Republic of California and Deseret) who's territories if colonised by people without the right ethnicity and ideology would never have been formed. Also I was thinking that Rhodesia might be an addition to the later scenarios rather than the GC, as given the long term ahistorical outcomes it would seem pointless to add it there.

 

[AllonEU]

It doesn't really apply to California and Deseret since in both cases the territory was under a fairly heavy claim (Both Mexican at the beg. of the game) and most of the world recongized that terrority as Mexican. I argue even if Deseret territory was never under U.S. control then it would of still formed in Mexico and would of probably became independent.

 

[Alexander Seil]

There's no practical in game difference between a Dominion and a satellite, so you'd have to "inherit" BEIC to Britain in 1850s. British India was never a Dominion though...local princes had their autonomy, but those areas directly under foreign control were administered exclusively by the crown-appointed governors.

 

[unmerged(1196)]

I agree, a seperate BEIC would definitely be preferable to the status quo. But I think I'd rather see more Indian revolters if it comes down to the number of tags.

 

[unmerged(2567)]

Originally posted by Ramo
But I think I'd rather see more Indian revolters if it comes down to the number of tags.

Have there already been listed twenty tags...?

 

[unmerged(1196)]

Just sayin'...

 

[valisk]

There's no practical in game difference between a Dominion and a satellite, so you'd have to "inherit" BEIC to Britain in 1850s. British India was never a Dominion though...local princes had their autonomy, but those areas directly under foreign control were administered exclusively by the crown-appointed governors.

Of course, I'm more than aware of that, however, as mentioned, for the sake of balancing the otherwise hugely excessive advantage in manpower that the UK presently enjoys making BI a dominion prevents these troops being built as British in London.

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by aprof

Text: The candidates for president include General Robert E. Lee, Commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, and Mr. Alexander Stephens, first Vice President of the Confederate States of America.
Choice A: Democrat Party in power
Choice B: Whig Party in power
Conditions: election of 1866-70
Effects A: elect Robert E. Lee (D-Virg.)
Effects B: elect Alexander H. Stephens (W-Geo.)

I might be wrong, but IIRC a former vice president would be ineligible for re-election BOTH as president and vice president...

In that case Stephens is not a good candidate. What about Richard Taylor?

 

[Tunch Khan]

It's so embarassing i've never thought of it before: A tag for Lebanon.

Lebanon has much more authonomy and it had become an international problem during the Vicy period with Russians and French being involved continiously and using the Christian populations for their purposes.

France even militarily intervened to secure the authonomy of Lebanon.

I don't understand why Tripoli and Hedjaz that did not exist at that time have tags, while Lebanon doesn't?

They had their own council and elected Christian governor. They sould be a revolter tag with high militancy, core provinces being Bayrut, Akra and Sidon, with Bayrut as capital.

 

[aprof]

Originally posted by Frodon
I might be wrong, but IIRC a former vice president would be ineligible for re-election BOTH as president and vice president...

In that case Stephens is not a good candidate. What about Richard Taylor?

It's true that the CSA Constitution forbade re-election of a man to the presidency, but (and I might be wrong here), as VP I don't think Stephens would have been ineligible to become CSA president.

But just in case...

Text: The candidates for president include General Robert E. Lee, Commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, and General Richard Taylor, son of former US President, Zachary Taylor.
Choice A: Democrat Party in power
Choice B: Whig Party in power
Conditions: election of 1866-70
Effects A: elect Robert E. Lee (D-Virg.)
Effects B: elect Richard Taylor (W-Ky.)

 

[Alexander Seil]

Originally posted by valisk
Of course, I'm more than aware of that, however, as mentioned, for the sake of balancing the otherwise hugely excessive advantage in manpower that the UK presently enjoys making BI a dominion prevents these troops being built as British in London.

Man, will Chinese be happy to know that. Now they'll be able not only to take over India, but also to march all the way to the Mediterranean :wacko:. And, in any case, I'm not in favor of sacrificing historical accuracy because of something that should be fixed in an official patch.

BTW, Tripoli (or its equivalent ) DID exist at that time. Ottomans were barely holding on onto the northern part of the coast.

 

[Tunch Khan]

Originally posted by Alexander Seil
BTW, Tripoli (or its equivalent ) DID exist at that time. Ottomans were barely holding on onto the northern part of the coast.

Hehehe, and may i ask you who these people were? What was it's capital city? Monarch? currency? etc. and where did you hear about them?

 

[unmerged(18282)]

To my knowledge, a Veep could be later elected president, unless he previously succeeded another (while VP, the Pres died, etc.).

I do know for sure, however, that CS presidents were elected for six years, not four.

 

[unmerged(1196)]

Anarcho-Liberalism

This seems like a strange ideology to include. Liberalism makes anarcho-liberalism pretty redundant IMO. And it seems like the original scenarios are streching things to include the "ideology"; in my France game for instance, my anarcho-liberal party is interventionist (with my liberal party being laissez-faire).

I'd suggest turning anarcho-liberalism into anarchism (or alternatively, some generic "left-wing radical" ideology as in HoI), which is actually a genuine and non-redundant ideology, and played an extremely important part in this period. Can this change be done? The name isn't particularly important as anarcho-liberalism and anarchism sound similar enough, but can the specifics of the ideology be changed?

 

[Alexandru H.]

For that period, anarcho-syndicalism is more important and truly significant...and it should hold different specifications from the liberal-anarchist traits