Britain easily winning

[tux]

I am still playing Japan and Britain is close of winning (97% of PP and four times the second (19800:4520)). I think the PP concept is misleading like in Victoria2.
It is unhistoric. I think it would be better, when each country had their own goals to meet like winning territory, get market leader, or so. The miniquests are quite that right.
In fact don't forget, the 19 century was a civic one with the economic and political power slowly but unstoppable shifting from the aristocrats to the middle class. In 20. century the laborers were included in this. So all what this people didn't like was war. There were only few wars between grandpowers after 1815 in europe. So i think, each contry should have their own diplomatic goals, for Britain and France, go for a cheap victoria against tribes in Africa or Asia, for Prussia and Italy go for unification, for Russia and Japan go for modernisation and last for Austria hold your line. And USA go for destiny.
But avoid wars against each other.

[Ironchancellor]

Dont forget the wars' Bismarck fought against Denmark, Austria and France in this period. The wars in the Balkans and the imperial power struggles around the world that could have easily led to a major war up to WW1. So in a way there were a number of international wars and imperial wars by proxy around the world. When i read this period there seems to be numerous international wars between the major powers. Maybe not as destructive on the populations as the wars in the 20th Century. But i agree they still shouldnt get too carried away with international wars and have a more complex diplomatic engine to make majors wars as a last resort.

[caranorn]

Dont forget the wars' Bismarck fought against Denmark, Austria and France in this period. The wars in the Balkans and the imperial power struggles around the world that could have easily led to a major war up to WW1. So in a way there were a number of international wars and imperial wars by proxy around the world. When i read this period there seems to be numerous international wars between the major powers. Maybe not as destructive on the populations as the wars in the 20th Century. But i agree they still shouldnt get too carried away with international wars and have a more complex diplomatic engine to make majors wars as a last resort.

Add to that the conflicts between S-P, France and Austria. Also the Crimean War. The Luxembourg Crisis which easily could have set off the Franco-Prussian war early. Numerous other continental wars and tensions which could have led to additional conflicts. Sometimes colonial/overseas conficts that could have led to European wars (Boer Wars come to mind)...

[Ironchancellor]

The other thing i have to dispute with the first post about the 19th Century being a civic age. I assume you mean in the major powers societies as well with the different classes. But on a broader front i would disagree on all points. Im not a dyed in the wool lefty who considers what the European powers did as the incarnation of evil on the rest of the world. And all the major powers left much good infrastructure for the later nations to build on. But one has to accept that nearly all the major powers carried out some sort of ethnic cleansing on the territories they moved into in the name of progress. And also started to wage dirty wars on those that wage guerilla wars against their occupiers, i.e setting up internment camps for the local people that became the precursor of the concentration camps. The sad fact is that all what happened in the 20th Century was already being laid out in the 19th Century. The only civic virtues in that age was amongst the European established class enjoying each others company.

[tux]

Allright, but I think, the PP concept is wrong. When starting 1850, of course, Britain was leading in economy, developement and power. This was shown at the first world exhibition 1851. There, the gap between Britain and the rest of the world was greatest. From then, the gap closesed. In 1900 there was a head on head by Britain, Germany, USA and France. In the game Britain gets more and more PP than any other. Thats not correct.
It should be perhaps, when sticking with the PP, that Britain has eg. 10000 PP at 1850. But it has a handicap of eg 0.5 for gaining more PP's and the competitors even a modifier of (from 2nd to 7th) of 1 to 7 or whatever. It cannot be, that Britain gets even more PP than the other.
Or quit the PP and give any nation a goal for 1920. It isn't fun to play a game only to see losing at 1859 or whatever, when a nation has most points.

[Ironchancellor]

Hello thats alright sorry if i got carried away and misread what you was really getting at about the main goals of this game. So in simple terms you are arguing that Great Britain has too much of an advantage at the beginning of the game for the other major powers to be able to catch up on? Because of the PP point system. I agree with your point about the latter part of the 19th Century when quite a few European and the US were starting to catch up on Britain economically. If its that bad then really you need to take it up with the game designers. But the trouble is as some players here and on the Victoria 2 forum have said. Its not so much winning the game that is so important but enjoying building up your nation within certain parameters you yourself set. I know some players boast about winning with any countries they play and i certainly havent. And some feel they are terrible at running a major country and see it falling apart. Maybe the developers will take note and see if you have a valid point.

[marcusjm]

Well, there is a reason why this period was called Pax Britannica. The United Kingdom was at their peak during this century and it is more than fair to compare with the Roman Empire during their peak.

As Japan your chances of disrupting UK.s plans are minimal so it is more the case of AI doing it better. I mainly see France and Prussia as the UK rivals.

The Industrial Revolution should of course play a huge role here, there was a competition for inventions as well.

I know it sounds silly but if there was a "winner" for 19th century, it certainly was UK, closely followed by Germany and France. Meaning that anything BUT victory for UK would actually not be historical, unless it was those other 2.

[tux]

It's not whe problem of winning or losing, the problem is a sudden death and end of game at about 1858. You cannot play further. Over. Out.
I like it very much to build up a country and economy, but I like it to play it to the end, whoever will win. I think, the sudden death by PP should be skiped. Or even dropped. I think ageod should stick only with the teritory goals. This would be more historic and could be challenging.
Assume this: There is the Mahdi revolt in Sudan and it is the goal of Britain or France to cope with this. You cannot send an army, it would vanish in the desert. You have to build a railroad first from Suez to Khartum like it was historic. Only then you can send an army with all supply to fight the Mahdi army.
In my current game i have searched in the saved files for the PP of Britain and cut them of to play further as Japan.

[marcusjm]

Good point. There should be an option to play on like in Civ, maybe without scores or something?

[willgamer]

Good point. There should be an option to play on like in Civ, maybe without scores or something?

+1 Especially until all the little scripting bugs are squished....

[Schattensand]

As Prussia it must be possible to win over UK by attacking the british soil.
Will give them a terrible setback in VP and a decent shifting of colonies to get their homeland back.
But I agree with you all, better a defined, but versatile goal for every nation.