-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I haven't found any indication that the Sepoy Rebellion is in the game. Have anyone had it when you played / found events for it?
In two games (yes, not exactly a large sample), I haven't noticed one, and I couldn't find any Indian Mutiny events when I looked through the UK's event files. I'll try to script some events up soon.
Initial ideas on reorganizing South Asia
Based on the discussion in the VIP Tags thread here are some proposals for how to reorganize South Asia
1) Create a separate, playable British India with status from 1835 on as a "dominion" (this is only in the Victoria sense of the game due to the military limitations of "satellite" and does not reflect the term as it developed historically. See Tags thread for discussion of why British India should be a separate playable state). Use name "British India" for the whole game, flag change from the East India Company flag to the flag of the Viceroys in 1858 in wake of 1857 Rebellions.
2) Reorganization of the Princely States into larger units:
a) Unite Jaipur, Jodhpur, Mewar, Bikaner and Jaisalmer into Rajputana being a satellite of Britain. Use Jaipur tag to represent this
b) Unite Bhopal, Indore and Gwalior into Holkar-Scindhia being a satellite of Britain. Use Gwalior tag to represent this (and use the now free IND tag for British India)
c) Ladakh and Kashmir were part of the Sikh state of Punjab (Kashmir from the 1820s, Ladakh conquered in 1835 by the Dogra governor of Kashmir on the authority of Ranjit Singh in Lahore). Kashmir tag should be kept so that it can be created as a satellite of Britain as part of the treaties ending British-Punjab wars in the 1840s. Ladakh devolves to Kashmir afterwards, so not needed. Note : Peshawar should not be part of Kashmir - Peshawar itself was captured by Ranjit Singh in the 1820s and afterh the British conquest of Panjab it became the center of the Northwest Frontier Province to secure the Khyber Pass from Afghan (and potential Russian) inroads into the Indus valley.
d) Merge Makran and Kalat into one Kalat state, as the amirs of Makran were feudatory to Kalat (with Muscat claiming authority over Makran as well).
e) Simla should be part of British India from the start as it was ceded to Britain by Nepal in 1819 and, of course, became the summer capital of the British in India.
Also as a way to remove the problem of China rolling into British India in wake of the Opium Wars, provinces 1509 (Gauhati) and 1516 (Dibargath) should be left as empty, unclaimed territory. The British did not claim the territory until 1837 and did not effectively occupy them until 1880s.
All other territories leave as they are.
Result would therefore be :
Jaipur tag ------> Rajputana
Gwalior tag ----> Holkar-Scindhia
Indore tag -----> British India
Kashmir tag ----> save for creation in 1840s
Kalat tag -----> Kalat & Makran
Tags freed up :
Jodhpur
Mewar
Bikaner
Jaisandar
Bhopal
Simla
Makran
Ladakh
Another issue that needs to be dealt with - there is no Sikh religion in the game and the rulers of Punjab were Sikh. Posted problem in the Bugs section but needs to be dealt with as the Sikh were a vital component of Panjab's population even after the British conquest.
Based on the discussion in the VIP Tags thread here are some proposals for how to reorganize South Asia
1) Create a separate, playable British India with status from 1835 on as a "dominion" (this is only in the Victoria sense of the game due to the military limitations of "satellite" and does not reflect the term as it developed historically. See Tags thread for discussion of why British India should be a separate playable state). Use name "British India" for the whole game, flag change from the East India Company flag to the flag of the Viceroys in 1858 in wake of 1857 Rebellions.
2) Reorganization of the Princely States into larger units:
a) Unite Jaipur, Jodhpur, Mewar, Bikaner and Jaisalmer into Rajputana being a satellite of Britain. Use Jaipur tag to represent this
b) Unite Bhopal, Indore and Gwalior into Holkar-Scindhia being a satellite of Britain. Use Gwalior tag to represent this (and use the now free IND tag for British India)
c) Ladakh and Kashmir were part of the Sikh state of Punjab (Kashmir from the 1820s, Ladakh conquered in 1835 by the Dogra governor of Kashmir on the authority of Ranjit Singh in Lahore). Kashmir tag should be kept so that it can be created as a satellite of Britain as part of the treaties ending British-Punjab wars in the 1840s. Ladakh devolves to Kashmir afterwards, so not needed. Note : Peshawar should not be part of Kashmir - Peshawar itself was captured by Ranjit Singh in the 1820s and afterh the British conquest of Panjab it became the center of the Northwest Frontier Province to secure the Khyber Pass from Afghan (and potential Russian) inroads into the Indus valley.
d) Merge Makran and Kalat into one Kalat state, as the amirs of Makran were feudatory to Kalat (with Muscat claiming authority over Makran as well).
e) Simla should be part of British India from the start as it was ceded to Britain by Nepal in 1819 and, of course, became the summer capital of the British in India.
Also as a way to remove the problem of China rolling into British India in wake of the Opium Wars, provinces 1509 (Gauhati) and 1516 (Dibargath) should be left as empty, unclaimed territory. The British did not claim the territory until 1837 and did not effectively occupy them until 1880s.
All other territories leave as they are.
Result would therefore be :
Jaipur tag ------> Rajputana
Gwalior tag ----> Holkar-Scindhia
Indore tag -----> British India
Kashmir tag ----> save for creation in 1840s
Kalat tag -----> Kalat & Makran
Tags freed up :
Jodhpur
Mewar
Bikaner
Jaisandar
Bhopal
Simla
Makran
Ladakh
Another issue that needs to be dealt with - there is no Sikh religion in the game and the rulers of Punjab were Sikh. Posted problem in the Bugs section but needs to be dealt with as the Sikh were a vital component of Panjab's population even after the British conquest.
I oppose having India as a satellite. In Victoria satellites don't give goods to their master, so ripping UK from all the things produced in India would cripple it considerably.
Considering that India had a separate tariff regime from the UK it was not as if Britain could freely extract resources from India for use in their factories back home in the first place. I will do some testing to see what kind of impact this has, but given Britain's huge lead in economic development from the start it should not be that great a hindrance. And the revenue saved by Britain NOT developing India's resources out of the British budget, but rather having it done by British India itself, should be a help, not a hindrance, to Britain's development. And British India would be a dominion in the game, not a satellite, just to clarify the terms.
Have run several tests using both normal ENG and ENG without British India for the first eight years to see what impact India's removal would have.
Date- Full ENG Industry- Reduced ENG Industry
1/36- 137- 135
7/36- 138- 136
1/37- 143- 143
7/37- 160- 155
1/38- 166- 163
7/38- 172- 165
1/39- 195- 185
7/39- 208- 191
1/40- 215- 192
7/40- 217- 195
1/41- 225- 197
7/41- 226- 198
1/42- 236- 201
7/42- 238- 204
1/43- 245- 205
These are averages from observing each version while being a minor country. If ENG got involved in a war the growth rate for the ENG economy slowed dramatically both with and without India's output.
In the same period, British India Industrial output rose from on average from 46 in 1/36 to 56 by 1/43, and this with a minor country's AI, a country specific AI that encourages economic development would likely produce higher results.
One interesting result I found with all tests, with India or without ENG drops from #1 industry to #2 within 2 years, first to France and then to Prussia, with Prussia's economy going gangbusters - average industrial output was 430 for Prussia. US also already catching up rapidly to England by 1843, with the USA constructing railroads in places like Nebraska and Wyoming(!). I think those countries AI need to be checked out. But while the UK is falling behind industrially in both scenarios, it remained #1 in prestige and military power so overall its rating remains #1. What this all means is hard to say. Yes British industrial levels drop overall, but this can be balanced by better, more focused economic development in India that can support a large military and produce raw materials for the export market, dropping their cost more rapidly and thus lowering cost to produce finished goods.
Date- Full ENG Industry- Reduced ENG Industry
1/36- 137- 135
7/36- 138- 136
1/37- 143- 143
7/37- 160- 155
1/38- 166- 163
7/38- 172- 165
1/39- 195- 185
7/39- 208- 191
1/40- 215- 192
7/40- 217- 195
1/41- 225- 197
7/41- 226- 198
1/42- 236- 201
7/42- 238- 204
1/43- 245- 205
These are averages from observing each version while being a minor country. If ENG got involved in a war the growth rate for the ENG economy slowed dramatically both with and without India's output.
In the same period, British India Industrial output rose from on average from 46 in 1/36 to 56 by 1/43, and this with a minor country's AI, a country specific AI that encourages economic development would likely produce higher results.
One interesting result I found with all tests, with India or without ENG drops from #1 industry to #2 within 2 years, first to France and then to Prussia, with Prussia's economy going gangbusters - average industrial output was 430 for Prussia. US also already catching up rapidly to England by 1843, with the USA constructing railroads in places like Nebraska and Wyoming(!). I think those countries AI need to be checked out. But while the UK is falling behind industrially in both scenarios, it remained #1 in prestige and military power so overall its rating remains #1. What this all means is hard to say. Yes British industrial levels drop overall, but this can be balanced by better, more focused economic development in India that can support a large military and produce raw materials for the export market, dropping their cost more rapidly and thus lowering cost to produce finished goods.
Last edited:
In general, I agree that the suggestion of freeing up those tags would be preferable. But I also agree that it would not be a good idea to grant India satellite status.
Perhaps something else we can look into would be some fantasy events for Mughalistan.
Perhaps something else we can look into would be some fantasy events for Mughalistan.
Grosshaus said:
Ferguson in his 'Empire' provides economic cites which show that overall Britain took about 2% of the total product of the Indian Empire over it's whole duration.
So if this causes Britain problems now it's only because Britain is underpowered in some other way.
Have done some more testing with a British India separate from Britain as a dominion. UK remains top-5 in economic development and British India able to buildup a military force that can be used by the British in their wars overseas, so that does not affect the ability of the British to create armed forces, it does more to balance out the British presence because with the UK controllong India the result tends to be a denuding of India of British forces. I will try to come up with a test mod for people who would like to try it over the weekend.
Culture
OHGamer,
what cultures are you giving the Raj? I feel that British would be correct rather than any Indian cultures as that will limit the financial and military power of the Raj.
Sorr if this was already discussed...we have so much going on in the VIP it is hard to keep up with all of it and still test my resource & pop changes!
Michael
OHGamer,
what cultures are you giving the Raj? I feel that British would be correct rather than any Indian cultures as that will limit the financial and military power of the Raj.
Sorr if this was already discussed...we have so much going on in the VIP it is hard to keep up with all of it and still test my resource & pop changes!
Michael
I have been testing with a British India that has British and several Indian cultures altogether. This is one area that I am rather sketchy on, as I come from HoI and have never played EU2 so the whole idea of cultures is something I have a hard time grasping. I was thinking giving BI some Indian cultures would make extraction of resources from territories held (or later acquired, such as Punjab) more beneficial And it would reflect the reality that except at the top levels, British India depended upon thousands of South Asians to staff the bureaucracy and military. But if someone could enlighten me further on the role of cultures then that would help me with determining what should BI have for national culture.
Well I think we can scratch the idea of a dominion/satellite for British India - neither satellites nor dominions can launch offensive wars 
So there is no way for a player of British India to complete the conquest of the Raj unless they are an independent nation, and that is simply not going to reflect the history properly. Oh well, at least I got some ai scripting practice so not a complete loss. I still think reducing the number of native states makes sense and as VIP seems to be running short of Uxx tags they can be recycled for other areas. So at least something good has come out of this.
Best solution I think will be to focus on tweaking the UK ai so that India does not get left undersoldiered so that Britain can have millions of soldiers stationed in the Home Counties :wacko: Another problem with the AI is that it will be quite difficult to simulate the expansion of export crop industries in places like India with the current factory model that lumps all agricultural and industrial production ratios in one section. Bother!
So there is no way for a player of British India to complete the conquest of the Raj unless they are an independent nation, and that is simply not going to reflect the history properly. Oh well, at least I got some ai scripting practice so not a complete loss. I still think reducing the number of native states makes sense and as VIP seems to be running short of Uxx tags they can be recycled for other areas. So at least something good has come out of this.Best solution I think will be to focus on tweaking the UK ai so that India does not get left undersoldiered so that Britain can have millions of soldiers stationed in the Home Counties :wacko: Another problem with the AI is that it will be quite difficult to simulate the expansion of export crop industries in places like India with the current factory model that lumps all agricultural and industrial production ratios in one section. Bother!
OHgamer said:
This can be fine actually, the East India Company didnt DoW every country nearby. You could have events to historical DoW's.
In addition, it shouldnt be named "British India" that is unhistorical. The land belonged to the East India Company on behalf of the Crown. So if it is to be independant, it hould be calledthe British East India Co. (I know its long, but its correct. Then in 1857, when the company is disbanded, then it should be inherited by UK, a (GAME OVER) box. Of course, their should be an option to avoid it for the East India Player (if this happends then it could possibly then their should be a tag change to the 'British Raj')
(note: i'm not actually a VIP, so take my advice with a grain of sault).
I'm all for having the "East Indian Company" as a seperate dominion-dependant entity in india up until the first mutiny (could it somehow start off the game paying war indemity to britain?). At that time Britain should have an event like so,
"There are rumbles of discontent in Indian and some of the more ambitious Rajahs have allready rebelled"
Option A: The East Indian Company is obviously incompetant, we shall place india into the stewardship of a viceroy
Rebellion in province: historical, increased discontent in India for 6 months, Britain Annexes East India Company
Option B: Impertinant Wogs, (Worthy Oriental Gentlemen, mind you, not the racial insult) Direct Control of India is the way to go!
Britain Annexes East India Company
Much Larger rebllions than usual
Great Britian is at war with all her Indian Sattelites (or maybe the more rebellious ones, it's late so maybe i shall post more tomorrow)
Also we should give them some irregular divisions to fighty Britain with
Option C: The East India Company shall endure, with only a smidgeon of help!
Smaller Rebellions than normal
East India Company gains 10,000 Pounds,
British take calcutta?
I'm all for having the "East Indian Company" as a seperate dominion-dependant entity in india up until the first mutiny (could it somehow start off the game paying war indemity to britain?). At that time Britain should have an event like so,
"There are rumbles of discontent in Indian and some of the more ambitious Rajahs have allready rebelled"
Option A: The East Indian Company is obviously incompetant, we shall place india into the stewardship of a viceroy
Rebellion in province: historical, increased discontent in India for 6 months, Britain Annexes East India Company
Option B: Impertinant Wogs, (Worthy Oriental Gentlemen, mind you, not the racial insult) Direct Control of India is the way to go!
Britain Annexes East India Company
Much Larger rebllions than usual
Great Britian is at war with all her Indian Sattelites (or maybe the more rebellious ones, it's late so maybe i shall post more tomorrow)
Also we should give them some irregular divisions to fighty Britain with
Option C: The East India Company shall endure, with only a smidgeon of help!
Smaller Rebellions than normal
East India Company gains 10,000 Pounds,
British take calcutta?
The only problem I see with these ideas on BEIC is that the player of India will only be able to play to 1857 which would not be an optimal solution. If we are going to have a human-playable British India it should be playable for as long as possible, much like the human player of Austria in Hearts of Iron can reject Anschluss and remain in the game. Perhaps with 1857 have two events, one for the human player that allows the human player to play on beyond '57 all the way to 1920 and the other for the AI that defaults direct UK takeover of the BEIC.
I rather did like my event C choice, perhaps the BEIC can have an event that such as
"Accept British Intervention"
(trigger british events)
or
"Assert East India Company as an asset independant from the crown"
(Massive revolt risk, -100 relation with GB, no longer a dominion/satellite)
Also the satellite nations of india should be satellites of Great Britian and NOT BEIC.
"Accept British Intervention"
(trigger british events)
or
"Assert East India Company as an asset independant from the crown"
(Massive revolt risk, -100 relation with GB, no longer a dominion/satellite)
Also the satellite nations of india should be satellites of Great Britian and NOT BEIC.
Alain-Masque said:
The results of the 1857 Rebellions was not so much the liquidation of the BEIC as its "nationalization" - most of the BEIC employees in both the civilian administration and military defense of BEIC territories remained in their posts to serve the new crown administration after the British state takes over directly in 1858. As I've stated in previous posts, in 1858 the British didn't create a new administration for British India from scratch, but changed the leadership at the top. In terms of gameplay I think the following series of events would work :
1) Breakout of rebellion (I'd argue for the use of the MUG tag for the rebellion as the revolters in Meerut and Delhi rallied around the pensioned Mughal prince and viewed their movement as the restoration of Mughal authority. Thus we can create the rebellion as an "independence" event similar to how the Spanish Civil War is handled in Hearts of Iron).
2) Event 1 triggers event 2 - BEIC requests reinforcements from England. More of a cosmetic event in that since BEIC would be a satellite of England the outbreak of rebellion would mean that MUG and ENG would be at war anyways, but we could use it to create British units to represent the sending of British forces to help the company.
3) After the fighting is nearly over (upon loss of Delhi by MUG) an event that would represent the end of BEIC company rule in South Asia. For the human player, this I think could be symbolized with a name change from BEIC to "British India" and flag change from the BEIC flag to the flag of the British Viceroy (A Union Jack defaced with the Star of India) but allowing the human player to continue to be an active player in the game - finish quashing the 1857 rebellion and continue development of India's economy, final conquest of Burma in 1884-85, more intervention in Afghanistan and Tibet, etc. For an AI controlled BEIC probably the best would be simply to have Britain annex BEIC territories although some AI scripting could create a post-1857 AI British India as well.
Alain-Masque said:
Up to 1857 I would disagree since it was the BEIC that kept the satellites under close scrutiny, not London. After the change from BEIC to Br India it would be less important, but the rajas, sultans and nawabs still looked to Calcutta more than London in their day-to-day relationship with the British so keeping them satellites to British India would not be that much of a problem.
OHgamer said:
I oppose this (a, b, d) and will not support it. No problem with the c, e.
C.N. said:
Care to elaborate why - up to now most of the comment has been that there are too many small Indian states and that it would be better to coalesce the smaller states into larger units (or abolish them altogether). These ideas were meant as a compromise and is based on the British practice of grouping the smaller states together into larger units (Rajputana and Holkar-Scindia) in the structure of administration & oversight.