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.
How about Sicily with a prov in Tunisia and Genoa with a prov in Algiers?

There are russians in Finland, Courland and Ukraine, so it would be sort of Poland-like situation of vanilla.

New England could be Adirondak Union or some other name referring to place names.

Brittany will start with celtic and french cultures, but if it attempts to unify either celts or french, it will lose the other.

I think getting inspiration from South America would be good for thinking up names for those North American countries. How did countries like Venezuela, Ecuador, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil etc etc get their name? Bolivia is from Bolivar, Columbia from Columbus (I think), how the rest got theirs?
 
Argentina comes from the Latin word for silver, Argentum. Paraguay and Uruguay come from local words. Ecuador comes from the Spanish word for Equator. That's all I could find at the moment, although I'm certain there's got to be someone on this board that would know for sure.
 
Giving Sicily a province in Tunisia and Genua a province in Algiers may secure their need for harbors in North Africa. Still I think the two major arabic empires should argue about Libya.
Byazntium could very well be the nation with less minority troubles, however I think there could be greek princes trying to restore the monarchy, that's causing problems. (no major civil war, just some small revolts that can cause small greek minors to pop up). The turks and the slavs are probably more loyal to the new democracy than the greeks.
 
Well, it's obviously a call for some imagination then for names to NA countries. Quebec is a bit too french to my taste, Canada would be fine if I would know what that is based on. New England is obviously inappropriate, like is United States and Confederate States. Louisiana is again too french. Texas could be Texas and Mexico perhaps Mexico. Same with California, unless there are better ideas...

Caliphate will likely feel a need to subjugate all other sunnis and Cordoba will likely want to take advantage of possible Caliphate's weakness. So they can easily come to conflict, for Libya or for other places.

The more conservative parts of aristocracy might want to limit voting rights into just wealthy or even just landed and breed problems if their demands are not heard.
 
anyway I go against any occupation of Northen Africa, the Caliphate of Cordoba is pretty strong, and in EU2 Ab they normaly kick out any Italians from Tunis and Algeirs, except Libya and Cyrenia :confused: :p
 
Remember that provinces in Victoria are smaller than in EU2, so having italians with two ports in North Africa isn't that impossible. Though what purpose do they serve? Encourage Cordoba to fight Genoa & Sicily?
 
Borrowed from Wikipedia: "The name "Canada" is believed to have originated from a Huron-Iroquoian word, Kanata meaning "village" or "settlement" or "collection of huts" [1] (http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/o5_e.cfm), referring to Stadacona, a settlement on the site of present-day Quebec City. Maps made by early European explorers show that the name River Canada was given to the Ottawa River, and the Saint Lawrence River below Montreal. A plausible hypothesis is that the river was named for the village on its banks, and the surrounding country for the river used to explore it."

So using Canada would still probably work out fairly well.
 
Byakhiam said:
Remember that provinces in Victoria are smaller than in EU2, so having italians with two ports in North Africa isn't that impossible. Though what purpose do they serve? Encourage Cordoba to fight Genoa & Sicily?
Click to expand...
Because of that reason alone. Genoa and Sicily can hopefully ally with The Kaliphate and kick Granada's ass since both harbors are in Granada's influence zone. I think Granada should be a more fragile empire than the Kaliphate, which very well could be a solid great power. Also Genua and Sicily probably don't have too many colonies and might want to dominate the mediterranean by securing harbors in North Africa, it's all about prestige.
 
Ok, the top blue country in NA screenie will be Canada.

Well, I'll give Genoa a prov in Algiers (Oran?) and Sicily prov in Tunisia (Medjera or something?) then.
 
Billdo said:
Northern India will be under the boot of a large Hindu government that is woefully under developed. (it will be in Muslim tech group.) It should have pushed into Persia, southern and northeastern India.

Southern India is Buddhist and under the control of Ceylon (Sri Lanka, maybe the 3 most southern EU provinces). Ceylon is an advanced (well for a ROTW nation) trader nation with colonies in Indonesia and maybe as far as northern Australia.

In northeast India is a open area with a minor nation that might be a protectorate of some European power. (Bengal) Should only really control the eastern Ganges River valley and not much else.

Any questions, just ask. I know the events are hard to follow, and there are alot of them, but they will thin out a little after this. :)
Click to expand...

Here is a quote from the India forum about where India will be in 1836. Basically I should elaborate a little:

1. A vast majority of India is under control of a Hindu power, (name suggestions??) that while rich and vast in manpower is far behind in the tech race and industry. While you can push it ahead, in the mean time, European countries have a chance to pick off colonies from the coastline.

2. Bengal is ripe for puppet state status, if is not already. It only really controls EU II provinces Ganges, Howrah, Koch, Bihar, and Odisa, everything else is under the major Hindu power.

3. Ceylon (Sri Lanka) is an advanced Buddhist country that controls a small section of southern India (which is Buddhist), and has colonies in Indonesia, and as far as northern Australia.

Ceylon is probably the best bet for a ROTW major power in India. It’s going to be set up as an Innovative, trading nation that is a relatively open society. Personally I don't know how Vicky works (never played it) but I hope this helps.

PS. is vicky worth buying with the new patch. All I can find is that with out the patch, it is a somewhat broken game. Just figured I'd ask.
 
Last edited:
Just some more thoughts on the Balkans/Near East region...

Do we want to keep the Romanians as called that? Part of the reason they called themselves Romanians has to do with having been part of the Byzantine Empire/Medieval Romania. Before the 19th Century, I'm pretty sure they would have been called Vlachs, which is where Wallachia comes from and with Byzantium/Romania still existing, they might not see the need to call themselves Romanians. Either way, there should be a small minority scattered throughout the Macedonian region, although there are some linguistic differences with the people in Romania proper.

Also Nationalism in Byzantium should probably be limited to the groups that aren't represented, like the Albanians and any Levantines, both of whom would probably want their own nation, Albania in the obvious place and then the Levantines in Cilicia and Cyprus. A lot of the nationalistic issues in the 19th Century did stem from a lack of representation in the government, and as Byzantium gives that to the Greeks, Bulgarians, and Turks, those groups should be trouble free.

What should plague Byzantium, on the other hand, should be Pan-Orthodoxism, at least for the southern and eastern Orthodox peoples. The Finns and the Ukrainians both have powerful states, and a unified Orthodox state would be a bit much, considering the sheer size and population it would have. Instead, Byzantium should probably have it's citizens pushing it to become the protector of the Orthodox peoples in the Balkans and Holy Lands, as there should be some, notably the Serbs, Romanians, Armenians, perhaps Levantine if that's being used to repressent the christian population in general in the Holy Lands, and there should be something repressenting the Coptic population in Egypt. They are a fairly significant minority and definately not Arabs. So Byzantium should probably be pushing for either inclusion in the Empire, in some cases, or to create satellites out of them, preferably on a case by case basis. This is mainly because Byzantium isn't in a particularly good position as a colonizer and so this gives them opertunities to expand at home. Opertunities being the key word there, as if they choose to go with Satellites or integration it should be by no means a free ride.
 
Byzantium also should have interrestsin Georgia, which is in the game, and try to get the georgians in the byzantine influence zone instead of the ukrainean. I still think Byzantiums biggest problems shouldn't be national diversity, but greek princes trying to restore the monarchy and the aristocratic rule.
 
yourworstnightm said:
Byzantium also should have interrestsin Georgia, which is in the game, and try to get the georgians in the byzantine influence zone instead of the ukrainean. I still think Byzantiums biggest problems shouldn't be national diversity, but greek princes trying to restore the monarchy and the aristocratic rule.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Byzantium would have been a Republic since the 1740s, 1742-1743 if I read the files right, that means they would have been a democratic republic for almost 100 years at the start of the game. While there might be some trouble with the monarchy and those want to restore it, the general population is very likely to be of a democratic mind set now. It's kind of like arguing that Germany should still be having issues with the Hohenzollern family trying to make Germany into a Monarchy again. Or the Habsburgs attempting to make Austria into their own little Empire again.

At best you'd see a Constitutional Monarchy, probably like the ones the British have. Plus there should be a lot of Bulgarians and Turks as well, and they're certainly not going to support a monarchy if that means losing their rights. There's been roughly four generations since Byzantium became a republic, and most of the people who were children then would have died. There's not going to be some great Byzantine Civil War, because the monarchists would lack support. The Republic has not only survived for almost a hundred years, but it's obviously strong enough to keep Hungary and the Caliphate from snaching up parts of it, so that means it's been relatively successful.

If the Monarchy is reestablished, it's going to be, at best, a Constitutional Monarchy with a Senate holding the real power. Remember, the Reactionary party in game terms would be the one seeking to restore the Emperor and his power, Conservatives favor the Status Quo, and the Liberals are the trouble makers, pressing for reforms and the like.

Now, I know that there's some king of "Screw Byzantium" groupthink on the forums, but seriously, is it so hard to believe that you could create a stable democratic Byzantium? There needs to be a center of the Liberal movement, and it needs to be a Democracy, and the events in Abe leaves us with few options there. This makes Byzantium the logical choice to be the center of Liberalism, at least in Eastern Europe. They should have enough trouble with their neighbors, but that they've survived this long means there is internal strength there.

As for Georgia, that would be a good idea, although Byzantium lacks a border with them. Perhaps, if Byzantium absorbs Armenia, then they could me given the option, otherwise Ukraine makes more sense, as Georgia and Ukraine share a border. Unless Georgia and Ukraine have poor relations.

Although I'd argue that Ukraine and Byzantium should have good relations, because they've no territory to fight over, and the Ukraine would need good relations to keep the Black Sea open to trade. Romania should be an issue, because the Ukraine is looking to the east for expansion.
 
Naturally the Roman Republic would be interrested in freeing the christian armenians from moslem overrule, and they'd probably like to manipulate Georgia to help them, but then they need to have Georgia in their influence zone and not Ukraines, because Ukraine probably wouldn't want to have any problems with the moslems.

There could even be an event where christian armenians ask the senat for help.

And even if the republic was created in the 1740s there has been aristocratic families in about 100 years that hasn't been very pleased with the democracy. One problem the byzantines have is that most of europe still has monarchies and the idea of a monarchy and a strong monarch to lead his people to glory is not dead. nd there are greeks who doesn't like the facts that they now share power with "lesser" people, and would support a monarchistic revolt. I think there should be serious attempts to restore the monarchy in Constantinople.
 
Last edited:
yourworstnightm said:
And even if the republic was created in the 1740s there has been aristocratic families in about 100 years that hasn't been very pleased with the democracy. One problem the byzantines have is that most of europe still has monarchies and the idea of a monarchy and a strong monarch to lead his people to glory is not dead. nd there are greeks who doesn't like the facts that they now share power with "lesser" people, and would support a monarchistic revolt. I think there should be serious attempts to restore the monarchy in Constantinople.
Click to expand...

My real issue with that is that if you look at the aristocracy throughout the Empire, it was not dominated solely by the Greeks. The Empire because Greek only in the end because that's all the had left, while the general principle was that if you learned Greek, you could get anywhere within the Empire. I must point out that there's research that indicates that Justinian I was decended from Vlachs, the Macedonian dynasty, I believe it was, was Armenian. The Emperor who changed the administrative language to Greek was from North Africa. And look at some of their greatest generals, Belisarius was a Slav and Narses was an Armenian, etc. This doesn't mean that ethnic relations would be warm and open all the time, but there is a greater history of ethnic openness.

And really, I don't see "unhappy with the lesser people having a say" equalling "Lets restore the monarchy." At this point, democracy is going to be heavily ingrained with the people. That and giving citizenship to the Bulgarians and Turks would have had to have been decided democratically, meaning that there was at least majority support of it within just the Greek population. Considering the Greeks at this point would see themselves as Romans, this attitude makes some sense, because it's coming from a tradition that's more open to accepting different ethnicities on some level.

This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be trouble, but I'd argue against an major civil war, because most of the population would be opposed to the restoration of the monarchy or might support it, but only if they're limited by a constitution and subserviant, in at least most ways, to an elected body.
 
my 2 Eurocents... I think Canada should not be called Canada, for people would try that way to make the country the way it is IRL...

And the name BraSil comes from the "pau BraSil" a very exotic wood found in Brazil... But the first name of Brazil was "Vera Cruz" or "Terra de Vera Cruz" named AFAIK the name saint that had his "day" in the day...

So You may call what is now Brazil the name of some Eirish Saint :p
 
SethEng said:
My real issue with that is that if you look at the aristocracy throughout the Empire, it was not dominated solely by the Greeks. The Empire because Greek only in the end because that's all the had left, while the general principle was that if you learned Greek, you could get anywhere within the Empire. I must point out that there's research that indicates that Justinian I was decended from Vlachs, the Macedonian dynasty, I believe it was, was Armenian. The Emperor who changed the administrative language to Greek was from North Africa. And look at some of their greatest generals, Belisarius was a Slav and Narses was an Armenian, etc. This doesn't mean that ethnic relations would be warm and open all the time, but there is a greater history of ethnic openness.

And really, I don't see "unhappy with the lesser people having a say" equalling "Lets restore the monarchy." At this point, democracy is going to be heavily ingrained with the people. That and giving citizenship to the Bulgarians and Turks would have had to have been decided democratically, meaning that there was at least majority support of it within just the Greek population. Considering the Greeks at this point would see themselves as Romans, this attitude makes some sense, because it's coming from a tradition that's more open to accepting different ethnicities on some level.

This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be trouble, but I'd argue against an major civil war, because most of the population would be opposed to the restoration of the monarchy or might support it, but only if they're limited by a constitution and subserviant, in at least most ways, to an elected body.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about a massive civil war, just some aristocratic coup attempts, and small revolts, and perhaps an event, where there is a possibility an emperor is crowned, a gesture especially against still moslem turks in eastern Anatolia. Most greek probably do not care if they share power with slavs, turks and armenians, but there probably will be a small group of nationalists that could ally with the aristocrats in their coup attempts. If the empire is re-established there should be attempts to re-establish the republic too, and perhaps a military threat from the imperial army in the early 1900s to establish a military dictature, with perhaps an emperor and perhaps not an emperor as symbolic leader.
 
I Killed Kenny said:
my 2 Eurocents... I think Canada should not be called Canada, for people would try that way to make the country the way it is IRL...
Click to expand...

Good point. Back to the drawing board then.

I'll get back to drawing the rest of borders when HOI2 lets it's hooks out of me. ;)
 
About the names of places, why not call the scotish "america" like "Newfoundland" but in Scotish, or something like that. And instead of America why not call it the name of a aberration discover who did found it? ( I know it was not Americo Ves(something) who found it but okay )
And Brazil and etc.. found by the irish could be called "Lusitania" or "Portugalia" in honor for the Great Support the Portuguese Did... etc... etc... :)
 
The problem is, at least a majority of people should support democracy, especially if the Republic is set to universal sufferage, and having a small minority of people crown an Emperor without the approval of the democratic system would likely lead to a brief civil war with the monarchists being over thrown.

What should happen, on the other hand, if it can be done, is to have said events only fire if the Reactionary party gains control of the Republic, which would signify majority support. Then just code the event to turn Byzantium into a Constitutional Monarchy.

Also, after looking at the map, just about all the Turks are going to be part of Byzantium, most of the territory to the East should be Kurdish or Armenian. Now there might be a Turkish Muslim minority within the Republic, but there's not going to be many Turks outside the Republic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back