VIP - Closed discussions of Old Versions

[Guinnessmonkey]

Originally posted by irishpony
Wouldnt adding africe minors limi the extent of European expansion over these lands.

This could be circumvented by adding event that force the country into submission of the regional colonizer

Why would events be needed?

In Vicky you can annex an "uncivilized" nation in one war. Special events wouldn't be needed.... As long as we don't go overboard and limit the AI's ability to even get a toehold in Africa we shouldn't have a problem... Just tell the French, British, etc. AI to think of those nations as a target.

 

[pimparel]

Originally posted by Napoleon_VI

U04          Confederation of Ecuador

I nearly finished my research on brazilian revolts, and I need to correct a previous mistake, U04 Confederation of Ecuador was out of Victoria Timeframe, it was set on 1824.

So we can change it to Canudos, a anarchist revolt that happened in the interior, which led to 3 brutal clash among the revolters and the legal troops.

 

[Guinnessmonkey]

Originally posted by pimparel
I nearly finished my research on brazilian revolts, and I need to correct a previous mistake, U04 Confederation of Ecuador was out of Victoria Timeframe, it was set on 1824.

So we can change it to Canudos, a anarchist revolt that happened in the interior, which led to 3 brutal clash among the revolters and the legal troops.

Why would they not just be rebels? Why a seperate tag? I don't think that's necessary....

 

[Grosshaus]

Originally posted by pimparel
So we can change it to Canudos, a anarchist revolt that happened in the interior, which led to 3 brutal clash among the revolters and the legal troops.

Tags should be reserved for possible countries, not to a group of rebels. Was it in their agenda to create an own state, or to have a revolution in Brazil? If the latter, no need for a tag. If the former, how near did they come? Did they actually run a nation for a while, build governmental instutions etc.?

 

[Tunch Khan]

Originally posted by Grosshaus
Tags should be reserved for possible countries, not to a group of rebels. Was it in their agenda to create an own state, or to have a revolution in Brazil? If the latter, no need for a tag. If the former, how near did they come? Did they actually run a nation for a while, build governmental instutions etc.?

According to your description both Turkey and Azerbaijan definately need a tag, since they both were independent nations. As per Syria, they were very close, but were betrayed by the French and remained as a mandate until WWII.

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by OHgamer
The greatest problem, as I have said above, is that we only have 20 user defined tags with which to deal with all of the indigenous nations of the Americas, Africa and Australasia not in the game as well as actual or potential nations that could be created in Europe, Asia and North America, not to mention those indigenous states that rise in Africa and the Americas during the time period of the game. Paradox seems to have done an admirable job with its research on South and Southeast Asia, it is too bad they were unable to access specialists on sub-Saharan Africa or the Americas to give the same kind of detail as given to Asia.

It wasn't a lack of research, it was a deliberate design decision on Paradox's part. We had lists of sub-Saharan nations we wanted in (similar to yours), but we only managed to get the ones we got, and the Mahdists still managed to slip through the cracks...

Oh, and by the way, (6) in your post should be the Shona instead of the Ndebele. The Shona were the ones driven north by the Zulus, and it was they who conquered the native Ndebele and had a hegemony in modern Zimbabwe.

And as GM said, Zanzibar should appear in most games...

 

[OHgamer]

Sorry must've missed Zanzibar tag - time for a new set of contact lenses

Shona would be more appropriate for the state that dominated Zimbabwe in the first part of this era, though by the 1880s the Ndebele (centered in modern Western Zimbabwe and NE Botswana) were independent of the Shona (who dominated the eastern half of Zimbabwe and Southern Zambia) and it would be the Ndebele who would lead the most active resistance to Rhodes & Co in the 1890s, in cooperation with the Shona.

Borno was one of the longest lived states in the central part of the Sahel/Sudan, under the rule of the Saifawa dynasty from the early 1400s until overthrown by a new dynasty in 1846. It dominated the trans-Saharan trade between the Libyan coast and the Congo Basin. In the 1890s a military adventurer from the Mahdist state escaped its collapse and soon rose to power in Borno to lead the resistance against the French in the Lake Chad region until finally destroyed by a two-pronged French invasion (one from the West, the other coming up from the Congo Basin) in 1901.

A good single-volume overview of this era (and the entire sweep of African history) in African history (and the resistance put up by African peoples to colonization) can be found in Kevin Shillington's History Of Africa, 2nd ed (New York:1995), Chapters 16-23.

 

[Guinnessmonkey]

Originally posted by Tunch Khan
According to your description both Turkey and Azerbaijan definately need a tag, since they both were independent nations. As per Syria, they were very close, but were betrayed by the French and remained as a mandate until WWII.

Azerbaijan is a definite one as far as I'm concerned....

Syria is a HIGH probable... I don't forsee it not getting a tag.

Turkey... A seperate Turkey tag would be great, but I'd like to wait and make sure that space doesn't get too tight.

Historical Tags right now:
Mongolia
Sudan
Philippines
Champassak
Azerbaijan

Heavy probables:
Syria
Iraq
Buganda
Borno
Mande
Lozi
Shona
Dakota

 

[unmerged(13520)]

The Rio Grande Republic apparently did exist as such for a good 10 years (1836-1846) in Brazil within the game's timeline though , and thus its existance does seem as justified as that of any other "revolter", early/late game or just hypothetical (besides, it's not like South America's going to get too much attention anyways).

Here's a link for some info on it.

 

[unmerged(8391)]

Why so many bloody African tribes? We already have many in the game, and personally I think that any Euro/American and maybe even asian (depending) country/revolter should get priority over any African.

No offense to Africa, it's a lovely continent with wonderful diversity, and it's sad that most of it's history has been destroyed or denied by greedy evil Euros, but still...isn't Ethiopia the only one that stays independent?

I also don't think civil wars should get a second tag. If the carlists wanna take Spain, then have a massive bunch of revolts and high militancy and such, and if they win change the political parties and the flag and such. But there is no need for a seperate Carlist tag. And don't bring the 'War of Northern Aggression' into this, the Confederacy were attempting to make a completely new state (and one that would have been much more powerfull, most likely, than a independent Carlist Spain).

*EDIT: Also, I don't think countries that were only possible at the VERY end of the game and weren't of major importance should take precedent over countries that could have formed much early in the game. Why deny a county that *could* form in 1840 for one that *could* form in 1919 but not before?

 

[Generalisimo]

Originally posted by Scythe
The Rio Grande Republic apparently did exist as such for a good 10 years (1836-1846) in Brazil within the game's timeline though , and thus its existance does seem as justified as that of any other "revolter", early/late game or just hypothetical (besides, it's not like South America's going to get too much attention anyways).

Here's a link for some info on it.

again my "pesimist" perspective...
I think, first of all, after assigning a TAG to a country there must be an event ingame to create the country, if not, there is no sense... because why give a TAG to a country that cannot exist?
so, before asking for a TAG prepare an event with conditions and effects (one of them obviously the independence of the country) and then, we can think if the event can happen or not...
Right now, for example, the Rio Grande Republic is not more than the Federales vs Unitarios in Argentina, both fought for power during a great civil war, but none of them are in game... with current discussion, we should add both...
Plus, we need a Carlist Republic vs Christinos Republic (to put a name for both ) to represent better the civil war... and i can think a lot of them...
So, first, we must decide how to create a country, and the only posibility is with an event... so start thinking conditions and effects, if not, there is no way to include them, it is just a waste of time and a TAG.
I have seen with the CORE mod a lot of people that comes, say "X nation MUST be in!! IT IS historical!!!!" .... but they never come back, so the tag finish unused and finally removed...
A better thing was when we worked with mfigueras and nachinus designing FIRST the complex net of events that will result in an independent EUSKADI and CATALUNYA, and then i reserved the TAG, if we cannot finish the events, why reserve a tag?...

 

[unmerged(13520)]

Originally posted by Generalisimo
I think, first of all, after assigning a TAG to a country there must be an event ingame to create the country, if not, there is no sense...

because why give a TAG to a country that cannot exist?
so, before asking for a TAG prepare an event with conditions and effects (one of them obviously the independence of the country) and then, we can think if the event can happen or not...

if we cannot finish the events, why reserve a tag?...

Yes, you have a point, but at this point in time, very few of the suggested/approved tags have "finished events", and that hasn't stopped anybody, has it? (besides, only beta-testers or scandinavians have the proper information to do so correctly at this moment).

Theferore, this would apply to most of the suggested / approved tags too.

Right now, for example, the Rio Grande Republic is not more than the Federales vs Unitarios in Argentina, both fought for power during a great civil war, but none of them are in game...

Well, call me an ignorant of Argentinian history ( ), but I'd suppose that, if the Federales/Unitarios *each* held independent & stable lands as their own for the duration of the "great civil war" (how long was it?), then you could perfectly well argue for their existance to be simulated, IMHO (even if just using one extra tag). I don't see a problem with that (others might, but that's not my fault).

 

[Guinnessmonkey]

Originally posted by Scythe
Yes, you have a point, but at this point in time, very few of the suggested/approved tags have "finished events", and that hasn't stopped anybody, has it? (besides, only beta-testers or scandinavians have the proper information to do so correctly at this moment).

Theferore, this would apply to most of the suggested / approved tags too.

Well, call me an ignorant of Argentinian history ( ), but I'd suppose that, if the Federales/Unitarios *each* held independent & stable lands as their own for the duration of the "great civil war" (how long was it?), then you could perfectly well argue for their existance to be simulated, IMHO (even if just using one extra tag). I don't see a problem with that (others might, but that's not my fault).

Combatants in a civil war that did not intend to form a seperate nation will not get tags. Period. If we did that we'd have to triple the number of tags...

Only groups trying to declare an independent nation should get tags..........

And most of the nations included in my "Historical Tags" list already DO have events... They're events that come with Vicky which can be modified to include this..... Or they are simply revolters that will probably come about through event (Sudan).

 

[unmerged(13520)]

Originally posted by Guinnessmonkey
Only groups trying to declare an independent nation should get tags.....

Well, on first glance, it seems like the Brazilian one could fit that criteria.

And most of the nations included in my "Historical Tags" list already DO have events... They're events that come with Vicky which can be modified to include this..... Or they are simply revolters that will probably come about through event (Sudan).

I am corrected, then...I was thinking more of the "heavy probables" and those mentioned by other posters. Without having Vicky available I cannot seriously dispute this, and well...it's your call (and command) after all.

 

[OHgamer]

Originally posted by Jeno
Why so many bloody African tribes? We already have many in the game, and personally I think that any Euro/American and maybe even asian (depending) country/revolter should get priority over any African.

No offense to Africa, it's a lovely continent with wonderful diversity, and it's sad that most of it's history has been destroyed or denied by greedy evil Euros, but still...isn't Ethiopia the only one that stays independent?

Two reasons I can think of :

1) Leaving most of Africa blank suggests that there was simply no one there, just empty land ready for the plucking by imperial advernturers. A complete injustice to the "tribes" who had developed flourishing cultures in the region over the millenia and I think suggesting that the peoples of the region were simply incapable of doing anything in face of the Imperialist challenge which, given the history of resistance against establishing European control and continued resistance following the establishment of European control, is patently false.

2) Having more states in sub-Saharan Africa would make it just a bit more difficult for players of countries like the USA, Japan or Russia to simply walk in at the start and gain access to Africa's resources from which to build their ahistorical global domination. The African states may not be able to defeat imperialist invaders in the end, but it will slow down the process enough so that it doesn't become a "cheat" human players (or the AI) could take advantage of. I'm all for alternative history BUT sub-Saharan Africa as empty as it seems to be (from reading the AARs posted so far) could easily invite complete ahistoricity.

 

[PMLF]

Originally posted by Scythe
Well, on first glance, it seems like the Brazilian one could fit that criteria.



I am corrected, then...I was thinking more of the "heavy probables" and those mentioned by other posters. Without having Vicky available I cannot seriously dispute this, and well...it's your call (and command) after all.

They (Rio-Grande) were trying to get independence and they were more or less independent for a while. Even today, there are people in this region of Brazil that still want independence.

 

[PMLF]

Originally posted by Guinnessmonkey
Azerbaijan is a definite one as far as I'm concerned....

Syria is a HIGH probable... I don't forsee it not getting a tag.

Turkey... A seperate Turkey tag would be great, but I'd like to wait and make sure that space doesn't get too tight.

Historical Tags right now:
Mongolia
Sudan
Philippines
Champassak
Azerbaijan

Heavy probables:
Syria
Iraq
Buganda
Borno
Mande
Lozi
Shona
Dakota

Wouldn't be possible to ask Paradox to add more tags or the above tags in a future patch?

 

[Guinnessmonkey]

Originally posted by PMLF
Wouldn't be possible to ask Paradox to add more tags or the above tags in a future patch?

No.

If it was possible it would have been in by 1.00 or 1.01.

I MIGHT (absolutely 0.000000 promises) be able to get a few more user defined tags, but I vaguely remember this being shot down, too. Apparently every tag increases computational load, or something like that....

So, No.

 

[Jayavarman]

Remember also, GM, that there are obsolete tags available. Well, only one of the top of my head (DAI), but there could be more!

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by OHgamer

2) Having more states in sub-Saharan Africa would make it just a bit more difficult for players of countries like the USA, Japan or Russia to simply walk in at the start and gain access to Africa's resources from which to build their ahistorical global domination. The African states may not be able to defeat imperialist invaders in the end, but it will slow down the process enough so that it doesn't become a "cheat" human players (or the AI) could take advantage of. I'm all for alternative history BUT sub-Saharan Africa as empty as it seems to be (from reading the AARs posted so far) could easily invite complete ahistoricity.

Or adding African states could have an effect similar to that of the added American countries in EU II in making it easier for players to achieve rapid colonisation via going to war with and annexing the new countries.