Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Vicky Aberration

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Yeah, it's probably better to keep the extra tags for when and if we need themAnd if Swiss becomes an extra tag, I'm sure we can find use for it somewhere else.

I was turning the Byzantine political parties over, just thinking about what ideology fits with what colors. In my previous fiddling, the Blues were conservatives while the Greens were liberal. Purple were reactionary, that being the Imperial colors and all, Reds were Socialists, White were Anarcho-Liberal, and Gold was another, later Liberal party, altough that should probably be communist or something. I'll still have to work on the actual policies of the nations, but for religious, I assumed the Conservative and Reactionary parties would be moralist, the Liberal party would be Pluralist, not sure about the Anarcho-liberal, but I'm leaning towards Secularized, with the Socialist party Secularized and the Commies Atheist. Byzantium was a bit like a theocracy, what with the Emperor being the Vice-Gerant of God on earth and all and it was a fairly heavily religious place and the revolution events don't seem particularly aimed at secularizing things. I don't see that much call to make Byzantium terribly interested in secularizing.

I was also thinking the Liberal party should have Limited Citizenship at the least, so as long as the liberals are in power, but being more accepting of other cultues might be reasonable. Going Full Citizenship and Pluralism would mean there'd be much immigrating into Byzantium compared to other nations, but it being a democracy, that would make sense. Of course, if Byzantium goes autocratic again, then they should be forced into having the moralist resident reactionary party.
 
yeah secularizing Byzantium dosent sound right...Perhaps we can have a struggle between the dynasty trying to reinstitute herself, in say, from Greece, and the revolutionaries from Turkey? ;)
 
Calipah said:
yeah secularizing Byzantium dosent sound right...Perhaps we can have a struggle between the dynasty trying to reinstitute herself, in say, from Greece, and the revolutionaries from Turkey? ;)
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think there'd be many Turkish revolutionaries, since the majority of Turks would probably be Orthodox, citizens of the Republic, and have a hand in the running of things, equal to the Greeks' and Bulgarians' share. My guess is that whatever remains of the Imperial line would be in exile in Ukraine. Certainly not all of them though. I suppose it would be possible to have more liberal members from the various Imperial families actually support the Republic, perhaps even serving it as generals and in a great irony, perhaps even President/Consul/Prime Minister/Whatever.

Also note, no Muslims in the Balkans, although they should probably be replaced with Protestants in the case of the Serbs and Croats, and thus not much would probably change, except it would be the Hungarians riding herd on them.
 
I think both Sicily and Genoa should have some ports in North Africa, which would lead to conflicts with Granada. Also christians in northern Andalus should be able to revolt from Granada.

Granada usually become a colonial Empire so it wouldn't be too farfetched if they were in controll of Mexico, Maya could be in as an moslem nation with good relations with Granada.

Genoa should be able to create "the Italic republic" and gain cores all the way to Rome, which will lead Sicily to ally with Swabia and Savoie in an attempt to crush the republican threat and restore the Milanese monarchy (which seems to have been removed).
 
Ive been reading through Byzantine-Abbasid relations in the Middle ages, I advice we use them as a frame for the game.The byzantine army was considerably slow, catracts and what not, but the Arabs, were always in technological par against Byzantium.Dont you think, that the Caliphate should at least have some equalized technology with Byzantium in the terms of war?they could have been bying them from Cordoba,dont want to see the Caliphate acting like a Kabish Fidha "a lamb to the slaughter".Also I think we should have a new world war in the game ;) begining with the crises in Byzantium, with the Caliphate and Hungary marching to deal blows against the new republic, perhaps Ukraine intervening, and Cordoba supporting the Caliphate by attacking the Genoese and sending funds.The conflict would bring in some more nations into the fray to "repel" the muslims.
That would be an intresting conflict, instead of the Balkans being the core of the First World War, we can have Asia minor as the flare of the conflict.Perhaps the assasination of Prince Abu Dullamah of Karbala, diplomat to the Byzantine Empire from the Caliphate to Costantinople, by Orthadox fanatics can begin the war? :p
 
I prefer if Cordoba remained neutral, supporting the Caliphate ;)
 
While it's true that Kataphractoi were slow because of their army, when the Byzantines had a well trained and led Thematic army, they were capable of scary things. That's the medieval army, however, and things have changed. For techs, I wouldn't start the Caliphate at the bottom of the barrel, but they should be lagging behind in Industrial, Cultural, and maybe Commerce techs. I think the Calpihate's biggest advantage should be in manpower. They control a very large area, they would have a very high population. So while Byzantium may have a large Greek, Bulgarian, and Turkish populations, the Caliphate is going to have a very large Arabic population, plus the Kurds and Persians. While I'd eventually have the Kurds and Persians start making trouble over their independence, in the beginning the Caliphate would be a significant threat, but one that Byzantium can at least defend against.

Speak of Granada/whatever we call it, should we grab an unused culture to make Berber, assuming that they running it or a significant part of it? Really, Granada should be the Ottoman Empire of the game while the Caliphate should be very different. I think the Caliphate should be faced with the possibly of modernizing in the face of significant resistance from those who don't want it, or if they they try to remain in the past, so to speak, then the folks like the Kurds, and Persians, and perhaps the Egyptians or maybe the Copts if we can represent them, start aggitating for their own independent nations. Perhaps something like the Habsburg Empire? Hungary doesn't fit well, because it had all the cultural cores for most of everyone it's absorbed, excepting Germans and Romanians, so it should be more stable.

I think the key to state cultures is to remember that those cultures are the ones that have a share in running the nation. That's why Byzantium, even as a democracy, only has Greek, Bulgarian, and Turkish, and not the other minorities in it. One could argue that they're full citizens of the republic, and thus have the right to vote and the right to be part of the national leadership. Full Citizenship as a policy only gives people the right to vote for their leadership, but not take part in it unless they assimilate. A full out monarchy should only start with one national culture, unless there's a good reason to do otherwise.
 
I view the Caliphate as the Russia of the game...

EDIT: Persians, Kurds and Egyptians have been already absorbed into "The Greater" Caliphate.I know Arab physic, being an arab and all, I know they wont demand better representation.What happens most of the time, is that the ruling faction would employ a specific type of people and not employ others.We can make it as a distribution of people in the Empire,Instead of Arab officials in Persia, we have Persians, and so forth.That would make more sense
 
Well, when it comes to alliances, they need to be rational and have very good reasons behind them. That and they start to make things deterministic, which is one of my biggest criticisms of mods like VIP. They're far too deterministic.

So, The North German Federation should be allied with North German Minors, Bavaria should be allied with South German minors, Swabia allied with Burgundy because it doesn't want to get absorbed by Bavaria. Byzantium should probably start off standing alone and have not so great relations with the more conservative and reactionary nations and the mediterranean nations, because that would be the natural sphere of influence for Byzantium. They might have good relations with Ukraine, since correct me if I'm wrong, but Ukraine can have have something like a democracy in EUII Abe, can't it? So Ukraine might be something like a Constitutional Monarchy and more liberal and thus not threatened so much by Byzantium. In the name of peace in the Black Sea, they might very well have a defensive alliance, excluding the Caliphate, since the Ukraine isn't directly threatened, or they could both be allied with Georgia.

Seeing as Byzantium, Sicily, and Genoa would probably be heavily competing over control of the Med. they would make a poor choice for allies. Hungary shouldn't be a major naval power, nor should the Caliphate, and Granada should be busy trying to keep its colonies under control, although perhaps Granada chould be focused more on Africa than on the Americas, since they'd probably have to fight Ireland, Scotland, Brittany, the NGF, etc. over it. Those nations might not like each other too much, but they'd probably like Granada even less.

All said, we should avoid railroading the player into a massive world war or into massive alliances with nations that don't share the same interests. The player should always have choices and options, and massive wars in Europe shouldn't be on the table. Remember, this is alt-history, and we have the chance to write the basics and foundations of it. It's up to the player to write the rest. So there should be events about nationalism and minority unrest. There should be events about Pan-Germanism, or Pan-Slavism, or Pan-Celtism. There should be events about liberalism becoming more and more common and the liberal elements causing problems for the monarchs, and there should be nations eyeing up contested territory and each others colonial empires, but those are logical things. Throwing in a Great War just because isn't.
 
Well there was several talks over the Byzantine surge into the East depending on the Government, that could trigger the war.As a Byzantine Empire in Baghdad, wouls seriously unbalance the world.We can give the player the choice to join the war or not, it wouldnt be deterministic.Cordoba should have the choice of supporting her intrets, as the Genoese and others.
 
Calipah said:
I view the Caliphate as the Russia of the game...

EDIT: Persians, Kurds and Egyptians have been already absorbed into "The Greater" Caliphate.I know Arab physic, being an arab and all, I know they wont demand better representation.What happens most of the time, is that the ruling faction would employ a specific type of people and not employ others.We can make it as a distribution of people in the Empire,Instead of Arab officials in Persia, we have Persians, and so forth.That would make more sense
Click to expand...

Well, the thing is, I assume the Caliphate is Sunni, the Persians are still going to have Shiites and probably some Zoroasterans, which is what I assume the pagans are in Persia in the normal game, the Kurds are still going to have their local religions, and the Copts are still going to be "Orthodox", since that's what the game uses for them. The non-Muslim population are going to be Dhimmis, and in an age of liberalism and nationalism, that's not going to sit well with them, especially when one of the world's only democratic republics is sitting right next door, and knowing Byzantium, they should have the opertunity to fund aggitators in the minorities. While any claim on them should be long gone, the Romantic Byzantophile element within the Republic would probably want to see Egypt, Armenia and the Levant restored to Byzantium, and would be willing to use underhanded means to do just that. Byzantium isn't in a good position to be a colonial power, so if it wants to expand its power, it's probably going to aim at taking old territories that have Christian minorities, like Armenia, the Levant, and Egypt. They would probably have international support in that, since it would mean their not going after the old European parts of the Empire, and I don't particularly see the Caliphate being supported by many in Europe.

The Ottoman Empire, for example, used Greeks in its administration in Europe, but that didn't stop the Greeks from wanting Independence. I don't see why the Caliphate should get a pass on all it's minorities.
 
Calipah said:
Well there was several talks over the Byzantine surge into the East depending on the Government, that could trigger the war.As a Byzantine Empire in Baghdad, wouls seriously unbalance the world.We can give the player the choice to join the war or not, it wouldnt be deterministic.Cordoba should have the choice of supporting her intrets, as the Genoese and others.
Click to expand...

Well, any push East by Byzantium would be into Egypt, the Levant, and Armenia. Justification for anything else would be pretty weak. I don't see there being a world war over that, unless the Caliphate becomes the China of this game, in which case it becomes a mad scramble for everyone to hack off their own piece.

The only probably how are going to have an interest in the Caliphate's territory should eb the people around it, which would include whomever is to the East as well. You don't have to fight World War I in the Vicky Grand Campaign, no need to here.
 
I would be all for that idea with having two splinter Byzantine states, the monarchy (weaker, but on better terms and possibly allied with some of the neighbours against the republic), and the republic (with stronger power base, better manpower and territory, but starting at war with the monarchists and possibly some of the neighbours)... as far as secularization, considering that the roots of the modern Socialist movement are indeed very much based in Christianity (even though the eventual Communists denied the link), providing the Emperor at the time discredits himself, but the Patriarch does not, you could end up with Byzantine Republic that still has a Patriarch who is more powerful than before (due to no Emperor to restrain him), and have the dominant party or two have strong religious links.

Calipah said:
yeah secularizing Byzantium dosent sound right...Perhaps we can have a struggle between the dynasty trying to reinstitute herself, in say, from Greece, and the revolutionaries from Turkey? ;)
Click to expand...
 
The Byzantium will be unified at least at beginning. The Byzantium's revolution in EU2 Abe which can lead to democracy happens before 1750, so it's kinda odd to have them still fighting that 80 years after. :p

Some parties might support secularization, while others fiercely opposing it. Having variance in parties is nice.

I think that having events starting wars is boring. For example, take Crimean War in vanilla GC. You will always know that around 1853 you'll most likely have Russia at war with everyone. More fun to have players and AI start the wars themselves.

Caliphate starts somewhat like Ottoman Empire, but depending on it's choices it might become like China or like Russia. The thing is, having large country with huge population can make things easy and there should always be some challenge involved, no? ;) Somewhat backward in all techs but Army at first and troubles catching up, but it's not impossible to catch up.

Andalucia / Al-Andalus / Cordoba / Granada / Whatever is in my view something like Austria-Hungary, large empire with plenty of minorities and all kind of troubles and possibly it's doom rising from that. Regarding cultures there, I'm thinking about using some culture as "andalucian", for the sunni iberians dominant in the south, then with berbers, arabs and various christian iberians around making trouble in the different parts of the empire.

I think there should be some fluidity in the alliances, making them all static does not an interesting game make. Also remember that alliances are always between two nations only. They are only grouped together when they are fighting a war together against common foe.

I think Granada should not have been a major overseas colonizer, they start so late. Perhaps claims in african coasts and possibly a small colonial possession in Brazil. Most of New World is gonna get divided by nations that broken free from Eire, Scotland, Brittany, Genoa or Sicily. Some burgundians, savoyians, scandics and hanseatics in the mix too. Aztecs are one the things that usually get annexed asap as they are rich and nicely placed for annexion. Having someone who starts going into exploration in 1550s or so get aztecs is a bit far fetched imo. ;)

As said before, it will be possible to unite the realms of France, Germany or Italy. As Genoa has been merchant republic from before 1419, it's kinda silly to have 'em form a republic to get trashed after 1836. :D

Byzantine imperial families would be the aristocrats around the empire. The Abe revolution events don't include things like Reign of Terror or any witchhunts of aristocrats...
 
The East Coast:
eastcoast.jpg


The green in Newfoundland is Ireland. I planned something like this:
- The blue in Canada is a former irish colony, expanded from their first bases in the New World, but it's not larger as irish explorers found rich lands of aztecs and concentrated more there
- The brown in New England would be an union of various nationalities that lived in smaller groups in this area. Mostly germans, french and italians
- The grey in the South is the former scottish North America
- Brittanyans instead colonized along the river Mississippi, until they reached the coasts of Great Lakes and expanded on their shores as well.
 
Well, I'll tear through the cultures and see just what's usable and what isn't, but I like the idea of an Andalucian culture, like an Islamicized Iberian-North African mix.

I know everyone seems dead set on making life for Byzantium hard, but really, considering the fact that it's managed to survive and remain at its current size there must be something holding it together. I think the best the noblity could hope to get is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliment. It's obvious that your average Byzantine isn't about to go Imperial again. So any changes like that should be down the road.

Now, as for politics and Secularization in Byzantium, I'm thinking that the Reactionary and Conservative party remain Moralist, Liberal is Pluralist, Anarcho-Liberal and Socialist are Secular, and Communist is Atheist. It seems like a good spread to me. A smaller role for the church, as opposed to trying to get rid of it.

I like the set up in North America, although I think we should come up with names that are more than "New Scotland" and such. I know in the China EUII Abe thread, hasn't there been the suggestion of a Chinese colonizing nation? Could it be possible that the West coast has been colonized from the East?
 
Everybody but me wants to make Byza hard, they so love the place. :p Byzantium won't be masochist's dream country. Period.

There should be plenty of cultures to use, when considering that some cultures will become unused, like yankee, dixie, texan, anglo-canadian etc and there's plenty of mini-cultures in Africa that could be merged into some bigger or made part of african minor or something. It's kinda irrelevant for the player whether his colonies will have bantus or african minors. At least it is to me.

I'm reluctant to making too large areas of America colonized by late comer colonists, but it's possible to have part of West Coast colonized by some Asian power.

Names for Americans are tough, but preferably they should be interesting.
 
There should be russian nationalist revolts for Finland (revolt nation: North Russian Confederation) and english nationalist revolts for Scotland and Brittany (revolt nation: Puritan Republic).

Also the division of Libya should be very uncertain. Both Granada/Cordoba/Al Andalus and The Kaliphate should claim all of Libya, but only own parts of it. Also Sicily and Genua should have ports on the North African coastline.
 
Well, we should have plenty of cultures to borrow then. The New England area colony is bugging me though. There's few historical names to draw off of for it, since it's a mix of French, Italians, and Germans. The obvious one would be New Helvatia, after Switzerland...but that doesn't exist in Abe. The only other thing that united French, Germans, and Italians was the old kingdom of the Franks at its height. Although you might be able to go with New Lotharingia, since that was located between France and Germany. If it had Dutch instead of Italians, that would probably be perfect.

It seems to me most mods that have Byzantium pick on it mercilessly, it's like people want it to fail. If any nation should have threats of civil war, it's Hungary. Germans, Serbs, Croats, Romanians, Slovaks as "minorities" at the least and sizable ones. Byzantium should be a comparitively peaceful place as far as ethnic troubls go, since the biggest groups have a say in running the government, equal to the Greeks, and the minorities, which would be Albanians, Levantines, and perhaps a few of the groups they border on, would be comparitively small and probably much better off than they would be in other nations. Most of the Multi-Ethnic nations would be hot beds of revolution, excepting the ones willing to make other ethnic groups equal. Byzantium has done that, and I'd think that Brittany should probably have both French and Celtic/Gaelic as state cultures. Of course, Brittany should have trouble because of Pan-Celticism and Pan-Frankism and getting pulled in two directions by it's own people.

This is my dream Byzantium, the core of the old Empire and Democratic, so lets not try and completely destroy it. Of course, that doesn't mean giving it good events and making it an expansionist monster, but giving it opertunities to expand in logical areas, namely Romania and Armenia, aren't too much, because it could have to take those places from large and powerful border nations. Their other focus should be dominating the Med. and perhaps taking the Levant and Egypt from the Caliphate, which would have the side benefit of cutting off the Med. from the Caliphate and thus eleminating a competator. Of course, that shouldn't be easy for Byzantium and they should have large amounts of trouble with the Arab pops in the region. I don't know if theres a way to move POPs through events, but that might be a good area for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back