I would like to see this be available dynamically. Most historical ideas or peace deals dont make much sense in an alternative timeline. Pretty sure though you will be able to select just the ones you like from the workshop.


1.Austria winning the brothers war against Prussia, and retaining its dominant position in Germany . 2.the central powers winning ww1(kaiserreich basically). 3.mexico defeating the USA and becoming the main regional power in North America.


I'd say that in that scenario Mexico would be an equal to the U.S. No way for it to become a North American hegemon. Unless the Union loses the Civil War, but in this timeline, without Texas, the Confederacy would be even weaker, and more population would be concentrated in the North.


Mexico never stood a chance because of how it was setup post independence.


Also the other imperial powers, especially Britain and Russia, were also looking to take a chunk out of Mexico (specifically California).


Where they?


John Eisenhower (son of the president) goes into it in his book “So Far From God.”


Isn't that adventure fiction?


No, its a regular work of military history.


Russia had forts in California they were trying to settle and claim it


The main things 19th century America has going for it aren't its land mass or military might, it's religious tolerance, secularism, decentralized state, strong separation of powers, individual property rights and all of that sort of thing. The US had massive immigration from Europeans from an absolutely huge mix of different Christian denominations, many who were fleeing persecution in their home countries but were highly skilled and educated. Many of the immigrants who came over had very liberal views on the government and were strong supporters of democracy, and these communities are absolutely vital to the growth of America. That doesn't go away if America loses, and neither does the industry in the North-East and the Westward expansion. Mexico on the other hand had extreme wealth inequality that was entrenched after hundreds of years, massive corruption and a pretty weak grip on the 'American' parts of Mexico. You're going to have American immigrants flooding into those less centralized parts of Mexico because border security and documentation isn't what it is now. Whether they are looking to settle or work, it doesn't matter. These are also people with a lot, lot of guns. And then later on you have extremely wealthy American industrialists who are moving Westward. That would cause an absolute shitfight, and if America for whatever reason decides not to try to go to war again then I reckon you have a scenario where American capitalists have powerful Mexicans in their pocket/are funding uprisings/straight up don't respect Mexican sovereignty. People think of America as becoming a superpower after WW2, but it was the largest economy in the world by 1880, when the Mexican states they captured like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico basically had the population of American towns. Unless Mexico has some crazy French Revolution style event where landowners are beheaded, Catholic churches are burnt and statues of John Locke are erected, then it shouldn't really be possible for Mexico to become the main NA power


True, but a successful Mexican defense would definitely be a legitimizing factor for the government, which could possibly result in more centralization for the northern territories.


>Unless Mexico has some crazy French Revolution style event where landowners are beheaded, Catholic churches are burnt and statues of John Locke are erected, then it shouldn't really be possible for Mexico to become the main NA power True, but we are talking about a game where you can possibly conquer the world as some backwater shithole, so why shouldn't this be possible as well?


I agree with you that if that then Mexico should be able to but I disagree that either should be in the game I would want to see a more realistic game paradox has been really bugging me with its absurdities like in eu4 natives being so strong or how India is extremely hard to conquer. In Vic II I’m annoyed by far less to be honest but I feel that’s because the games in the past were more historically based but now they are more for mainstream gamers not alt history strategy gamers. Ck3 is a perfect example the entire game is ridiculous now. In my opinion paradox should make games that are open to realistic change only not ones where Luxembourg is able to world conquest


Victoria 2 already exists.


I'd much rather the Victoria series be within the realm of possibility and focus much more on the economics, politics, diplomacy and similar aspects instead of just blob across the map. Alt history is fun, but asking for it to be kept within the "plausible" realm for the base game is a fair ask. I think it's more fun to explore the what ifs of history than to have a game where any OPM can become the world superpower within a century or two. Mods exist for people who want that kind of stuff as well as for the really out there alt history.


but in the end what do we consider as plausible? what is our limit? The reality is that vic2 was a very empty game and almost every hour I played it (which were not few) was with mods like HPM or TGC, where they added a lot of alternative history like Spain recovering its colonies or a unification between the empire Austrian and German Empire. Also a lot of the most absurd alternative history was vanilla (like the restoration of the Babylonian empire)


Mexico could possibly intervene on the confederate side tho aand thus further cripple the US


Doubt it, they would likely still be preoccupied with internal turmoil and would have border tensions with the CSA. Even then the Union's industrial power would still likely overwhelm them.


Any force that Mexico could send into the war would be a laughable pittance. The Civil War is a great example of latent (and rapidly growing) American power at the time that wouldn't be used again until WW2. You had *3 million* enlisted men over the course of the civil war. That includes over a million men on the field at the peak. The Mexican American war, just 12 years earlier, had 75,000 US troops. Mexico was too wracked by internal problems and disorder to really make a play for continental dominance by that point. Gotta keep in mind that Mexico wasn't just the USA with different borders, it was a country with political and economic organization much, much worse than the US. The social contract was weaker and the central government had less control (hilarious considering the Civil War).


I mean in game it might happen not that Mexico could have actually done it. As I understand the game mechanics with civil war a foreign power can back a side so a player Mexico in a stronger position than otl could do so as well (unless the game doesn’t allow that for the Civil War).


Conversely, Prussia intervening on Hungary’s side during the 1848 Revolutions, and potentially winning a Central European conflagration that sees the formation of a liberal, democratic GrossDeutschland


While it makes sense from a realpolitik aspect it doesn't from an ideological one, Prussia wouldn't have intervened as they were very much into both the Treaty of Vienna and Absolutism. Not only that but they were plenty busy during 1848 themselves fending off Nationalists, who were the ones fighting in Hungary.


From my reading of the situation, Wilhelm I was personally a liberal, was largely overruled by his junker ruling class when it came to reforms, was hailed by the people of Berlin as the Emperor of Germany, and could quite possibly (in a great man of history manner), seized the opportunity to unite all Germans under one flag. Now I understand that that possibility is slim, but I still think it’s possible and I think it’s strictly unfair to dismiss as impossible. I think it’s important to remember that when we’re talking about liberals at this time, we’re not talking about contemporary NPR listeners. A German liberal at this time would have been pro colonization, pro Navy, and very pro German. He (or she) would almost have more in common with todays conservatives than anything all things considered. But back to the original point German liberals generally favored a unified German state under a constitutional monarchy lead by a strong monarchy actively involved in the nations affairs. I really don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that the King of Prussia could not have seized this moment to override his conservative nobles, align with the people, win popular support via military victories over the Russians and Austrians and quite possibly create a German state in a Bonapartise fashion.


Wilhelm I wasn't in power during 1848. I also don't really think I'd call him a liberal, but that's not important. Frederick William IV was in power during the 1848 revolutions, and he was absolutely not a liberal. He at first kinda went along with it seeing that Prussia could perhaps benefit and eventually did create a Constitutional monarchy, but he explicitly rejected a crown from the Frankfurt assembly as he didn't view a 'Crown from the Gutter' as legitimate. While if Vicky started much earlier or some RNG left William Frederick dead its possible, but he wouldn't have supported it. And he was still very much in favor of the Treaty of Vienna, and majorly upsetting it by attacking another Great Power, basically dismantling them if Hungary seceded, and then getting invaded by the Russians and potentially French for doing so would not have been Vienna-cocher.


This would be a cool one. A negotiated middle between Hapsburg territories but liberal governance.


Any "[X] country becomes the new USA" timeline is really interesting to me. If the Western Hemisphere immigration magnet had been portuguese-speaking Brazil, or BIG Mexico, or maybe even some kind of Caribbean confederation... idk its just fascinating to think about.


The problem with that is that Spanish/Portugese and French colonies didn't inherit British religious tolerance and strong property rights. By the time the liberal enlightenment starts happening in the 18th century these places in the America's are very well established with wealth and power concentrated in a select few families and the clergy. And America just has fucking great geography. The Mississippi, Great Lakes, St. Lawrence and Hudson River, Manhattan having a deep harbour and being surrounded by the ocean, plus the US is just across from Europe. I think the closest you get it some sort of big Argentina, or a North South American (weird to say) power that gets really rich from oil.


Other places have some pretty phenomenal geography too, and I think (at least as far as the game goes) it shouldn't be impossible for other countries in the Americas to liberalize. I do agree that no other country really has the incredible, vast areas of rich farmland readily-available like the US has in the midwest, and homesteading probably cannot be a phenomenon in quite the same way anywhere else. However, its not like that land actually totally filled up, and in the right historical circumstances I can see another country taking up that mantle. Argentina and some parts of Brazil have those extensive, rich plains, the mineral wealth of a reborn Gran Colombia would be incredible, and if Mexico held on to the northern states I think it could see a homestead rush all its own. The Caribbean confederation power is probably the least really doable, I just like the idea, being from the Caribbean myself. Its interesting to think of the lesser antilles having large cities and industries, and its not totally absurd because some of those islands *do* have a history of heavy industry even if they haven't really experienced urbanization.


Look up the land clearances and all the land the queen still owns, going with a essentialist view of British hegemony is a mistake imo. The issue wasn't religion, it was centralism vs federalism and Britain never being conquered.


Central powers victory shouldn't look like Kaiserreich. The Raj existing independent of Britain is absurd, and the imperial remnants should have zero prospect of reconquering the core territories. The US civil war should also be easy to avoid diplomatically. The Germans using concentration camps and mustard gas to crush their colonies like Mussolini did in history would be a plausible addition.


They probably should’ve had the Raj collapse in on itself instantly like Mittelafrika


It should have collapsed long before the start. Some Anglo-Indian remnants could be left allied to the princely states if there are any princely states left at that point; in reality, India and Pakistan violently subjugated the princely states after decolonisation, especially Hyderabad and Kashmir.


> The Germans using concentration camps and mustard gas to crush their colonies like Mussolini did in history would be a plausible addition. It would be very plausible, since it actually happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide No chemical weapons though, because a) they hadn't been developed yet and b) why bother when you can just drive a bunch of people into the deep desert and let them die of dehydration?




What revolt? That happened in 1848, long before the Brothers War and frankly, the only reason Austria-Hungary came to be was due to Austria losing the Brothers War. If the Austrians won, there would be no Austria-Hungary


Some more: •Rivalry between an independent Confederacy and United States, possibly a Southern “Golden Circle” •Pax Americana: America going full Manifest destiny and getting Canada, Cuba, and more •Options for Yucatán an the Dominican Republic to be annexed by the US (based on actual proposals •No WW1/Stalemate •Alternate African colonies


It would definitely be interesting if Austria and Hanover win against Prussia and partition the German Confederacy as a result. Also a less dramatic German Unification althistory: France allowing Prussia to annex Luxembourg and thereby letting Germany to unite without the Alsace-Lorraine question.


Another intriguing pair of alt-history options: in late 1836, an ailing William IV has a pragmatic sanction forced through in the Kingdom of Hanover, lifting the Salic Law prohibition of women inheriting the throne and making Victoria his heiress-presumptive in Hanover as well as the United Kingdom. Or, alternatively, Victoria tragically dies of a sudden illness in late 1836; when William dies shortly afterward, his brother Ernest Augustus stands to inherit both of his thrones. In both cases the personal union of the UK and Hanover continues, but in both cases there are major potential problems. If Victoria inherits both thrones, her position in Hanover would face challenges from both directions. Ernest Augustus is unlikely to take being disinherited lightly, and could challenge the pragmatic sanction's legality, with support from Hanoverian conservatives and perhaps foreign interests. Meanwhile, Hanover's large and influential liberal population would prefer the popular viceroy Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge. Historically he was quietly approached about whether he would consider being acclaimed king over his brother Ernest Augustus, but he declined and returned to a quiet retirement in England - could his answer have been different if it were his young niece he was challenging rather than his older brother? Meanwhile, Ernest Augustus historically was a very politically active monarch in Hanover; his first order of business after his coronation was to dissolve Parliament, suspend the Constitution of 1833, and demand new oaths of allegiance from all officeholders. (The Gottingen Seven university professors, including the two Brothers Grimm, refused and were expelled from Hanover in an incident that fanned the flames of German liberalism and nationalism.) Would Ernest Augustus try to reverse some of the limits on the British monarch's power, and seek to restore a prominent role for the monarch in the UK's day-to-day government? That would certainly not please the Whig majority in the Commons, and if Ernest Augustus persisted, it would set the stage for a level of conflict between King and Parliament not seen since James II was deposed in the Glorious Revolution...


.4. The US annexing all of Mexico, and then the series of disasters that would have caused.


Add to that China winning the Opium wars, France winning the Franco Prussian war, Denmark winning the Schleswig war, Russia winning the Crimean war, Japan losing the 1st Sino Japanese war, and Russo Japanese war. Maybe even the Indians fighting back and winning against the UK, or the Revolt of 1857 being victorious.


WW1 Takes place so far out from the start of they game you would have to be pretty lucky for it to happen at similar to how it played out IRL. It will be Possible for Austria to beat down Prussia and for Mexico to beat USA but that probably means they are Comparative in strength rather then Mexican dominance.


The Shogunate winning the Boshin War


Partitioning of some small countries. For example Belgium between the UK, France and Germany, which was proposed at some point.


Wouldn't it make more sens to have the Dutch instead of the UK ?


The UK in that plan would get Antwerp and this is a point of time in which Prussia/the German states haven't gotten way more powerful and France has just had 25 years of war. The UK call the shots. It also makes more sense contextually when you remember that nation states/national identities are still in a toddler phase at this point, and they already control the Kingdom of Hannover and Heligoland.


Guess it could be a possible variable in the event, it's just that the original proposition included the UK instead (it was right at the time when Belgium became independent and France intervened against the Dutch to liberate them, and the Netherlands was in a delicate diplomatic position, being seen as overambitious and obsessive with the territory. They tried to go for it some years after that in fact, and that's when in return France, Germany and Belgium partitioned most of Luxemburg).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flahaut_partition_plan_for_Belgium This plan was mooted in 1830, after it had became clear that the Dutch couldn't hold any part of Belgium, defeated as they were in the Belgian War of Independence.


I mean, the Netherlands did actually defeat the rebels. But France came to attack along, and thus the government was forced to acknowledge the situation eventually.


Depends on how the dutch treat catholics.


Too real :(


I’d love more details about this tbh, trying to work on a mid to late game mod and didn’t know that the Dutch were like this at home. (I just assumed they were boring in Europe and the definition of evil every else except for Aruba)


I've also seen a UK, France, Netherlands partition proposed.


It's not nice or good or moral but the slave empire as imagined by the most radical Confederates would certainly have changed Central America and the Caribbean.


Can I read about this somewhere?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_Golden_Circle Here you go, friend.


I think all of us will have to do a max-expansionist USA at some point, incorporating Canada, Cuba, Mexico, Hispaniola, and so on. Would made it extra interesting to keep trying to do the OTL free-state/slave-state balancing. How many sides can we get in the American Civil War? I doubt it will be in the game on launch, but I'd love to see modders take on a multi-sided civil war, with the free states and slave states going at it as usual plus independence factions based out of Canada or Mexico/Cuba if the US has gone full manifest-destiny in the first half of the century


This is a great idea! I'd love to do a mega civil war with a Mexico and Canada


Thanks, mate!


I’d also recommend “This Vast Southern Empire” by Matt Karp for some of the more recent scholarship on the antebellum South and it’s foreign policy. It’s part of a larger reevaluation of the nature of the Peculiar Institution as being much more dynamic and capitalist in nature than is traditionally thought. For instance the Southern planters were convinced they were in an international struggle against Britain to see if slave or wage labor would be the dominant force in the emerging industrial economy.


Loved this book! Really glad I read it. It also really shows you how Southern elites and aristocrats had massively outsized political influence in the nation. For the decades leading up to the civil war it was the slaveowning class who controlled the federal government, and these southern elites built up the very instruments of state and military power that would soon be used against them (such as expanding and modernizing the navy that would come to blockade the south). It's a radical departure feom what most people know today regarding the south and "states rights." Southern elites were more than happy to infringe on states rights using federal power because they believed they would ALWAYS be at the helm of that national strength. And then once Lincoln and the Republicans won they were aghast. Also interesting is how Karp points out the Southern elite as being some of the most educated, cosmopolitan people in the world. These weren't backwards hicks or ignorant tyrants. They knew about the world, had a coherent vision for how it ought to be, and saw events in a global context.


I don't know how that is surprising tbh, in most slaver societies in the americas the plantation owner didn't even live on his plantation half the time. The genteel rural aristocrat thing was the ideology they pretended to maintain for cultural reasons, not what they actually did.


I'd like more details about that, i thought the planters supported no tariffs and free trade, which inevitably meant integration into the british market.


I’ll do both play throughs at some point, in the USA. Probably Union first to become an industrial power house for WW1 then later on the Confederacy for some alt history RP. Only problem I see is that with the current war system I don’t see how it would possible to win as the south. The frontline mechanic definitely favors whoever has the largest population and industrial base, which is obviously the north, and doesn’t play to the south’s advantages they had at the start of the war at all, the longer the war goes on, it’s simply inevitable the Union will win. I don’t know much about how generals work in the game, because that’s about the only thing the south had going for them at the beginning, they retained a large number of good, experienced officers from previous American wars, and the southern troops at the beginning of the war had a lot veterans in them. I have no idea how, or if, that’s even applicable in the current war system, because if the south can’t force peace quickly they will always lose.


Yeah, I'd expect the South to have a harder time as the game drags on, but I'm also curious if it will mirror the South's early advantages, such as catching the North completely off guard in regards to just how large the war would be. Also the South likely could have just walked into DC in the begging after their initial big wins, but didn't due to fears there would be a large force there. I'm also curious about diplomatic plays. In real life the South did a "self blockade" (before the actual blockade) with their cotton, in order to convince Britain to come help im exchange for letting cotton flow. Instead, Britain ended up importing Egyptian cotton. What options will North and South have to encourage/discourage foreign intervention?


Exactly, the diplomatic play is what’s gonna drive the south to victory here. IRL we know no other GP’s really helped the south in any major way, in Vicky 3 a powerful ally like Great Britain, or maybe even Spain or Russia could be an absolute game changer. If they can secure a major ally quickly after the war starts, and siege Union industrial centers down quickly using their advantages at the start ( if it’s modeled properly) I could see the Confederacy have a quick in and out war were they hold onto their territory and eventually peace out and expand to Central America.


>Only problem I see is that with the current war system I don’t see how it would possible to win as the south. That's easy. In the original civil war, the south's early advsntage derived from the disproportionately high number of souther men that were officers and soldiers in the american army. In victoria 3, we can expect something similar to happen naturally-- because it is relatively more attractive for dixie men to become soldiers and officers (since, due to slavery, the south will have smaller amounts of less efficient industry to draw dixie workers into industrial jobs, and southern farming and laboring is also less attractive because of the competition for labour against slaves). So the south will start with the better army, and if they can win enough critical early battles to cripple the mobilization of men and material for the union they can win, particularly if war support drops low enough. From a player perspective, it's also a matter of how much the player pisses off specific interest groups, because there's going to be a tradeoff between boosting the economy and power of northern support bases and when/under what conditions the south secede. Plus, there's always outside intervention as a possibility-- you never know whether the union will start a war over a pig.


The interest groups seem really cool I’m excited from them. My point really was that I understand what the south’s advantages were at the start of the war, I just don’t know how the game is going to replicate that. Like, I don’t know a lot of about the generals aside form the have skills I think. I’m just wondering how PDX is going to implement the south’s advantages at the beginning of the war with the frontline system, when warfare wasn’t really fought in frontlines at the time.


The thing is a slave empire just wouldn’t make sense in an industrial timeline. You now have a huge class that doesnt have any money, doesn’t pay taxes, and can’t fuel a consumerist society. Your country would just be economically and politically stagnant. As this would mean a country with only a few having wealth a virtually no middle class. Sounds like a bases for a revolution, that would also again be supported by European powers.


Where did I say in my post that I thought it was a *good idea*? In any case, a "consumerist society" as such is a product of post-World War II politics as much as anything and therefore not really a part of the game's timeline.


I didn’t say you said it was good. I simply stated that it would be unfeasible.




1. Forming large latin american tags (Gran Colombia, Andes Federation, La Plata, ect.) and having to deal with the centralization process of such large states and rebelious provinces 2. Spain reconquering the american colonies 3. Egypt succesfully westernizing and trying to form its own colonial empire in Africa


Could not Egypt be considered a colonial empire? if we cheat and forget that they were an Ottoman province then we can say that it was already a colonial empire


Metternich succeeding with his holy alliance.


The last thing we need is for Belgium to be any bigger! I'd love to see a way to peacefully form Scandinavia and hopefully less peacefully form a Nordic Empire after that. I want to play a game where I finish with all that land + all of Schleswig-Holstein and all of Finland and Karelia. I think it'd be interesting having to play a game where both the Germans and Russians have a bone to pick with you!


I did this, sans Holstein, in Vicky 2. One hopes it'll work again.


Perhaps if the Swedish Dual-Monarchy is still around they could form some kind of personal union with the monarchy in Denmark after the Schleswig war, leading to a peaceful unification under a Constitutional Monarchy and then reclaiming Schleswig from the Germans. Finland and Karelia would be harder, that one you might just have to take or wait for Russia to collapse.


Any of the other German/Italian states forming Germany/Italy. Bharat/Hindustan being able to break free from Britain. China being able to westernise and dominate the region. Kurdistan being able to form. Scotland/Catalonia/Occitania being able to break free.


Occitania as a concept was already dead at that point.


Occitania is the new Byzantine meme for some reason


/gsg/ seems to think its the next phase of white genocide or something.


hardly new; it was added to HPM around the same time byzantium and babylonia were.


I could see it being cut out after a World War, if someone wanted to balkanize France or there was a West/East Germany type situation


Confederates, France being the baddie again, Qing Westernizing (might break the game), or Argentina surpassing the US in influence


Infamy-be-damned France was such a fun challenge in Vicky 2. Eastern border? The Rhine Piedmont? Subservient Catalonia? Rightfully French Canada? More like Canadien British India? French China Oh yeah, its Napoleon time


\-A League of Nations mechanic post whenever the first Great War happens. With the chance it becomes what it was supposed to be rather than just an even more toothless proto-UN. \-A Russian Civil War feature as immersive as the American Civil War is, where White Russia and the Soviet Union could potentially become independent nations in the case of a White Peace \-A scenario where Korea successfully modernized and became a regional power in the early 1900s before Japan could annex them. \-Ability to form Makhnovia (Ukrainian Anarchist "state") \-Revolutionary Waves like what happened in 1848, only they could actually work. \-Capacity for non-Western nations to be more effective at asserting themselves and resisting European domination through skillful play and a little bit of luck. That existed in Vicky 2, but unless you were one of a few nations (Egypt, Persia, Japan, China) it was exceedingly unlikely you'd "civilize" in time. \-The really big one: a scenario where you begin in 1833 in a world where Napoleon won. How that would look like I can't even say (probably most of Europe being French tributaries kind of like the Chinese states are to Qing) but it would change everything. \-Native American federations larger and better organized than any we ever saw IRL. Powerful enough to hold back Manifest Destiny.


Did you ever play Napoleon's legacy mod for vic2? Literally the scenario you described.


Russia winning the Crimean war, leading to the collapse of the Ottomans in Europe 70 years early. Spain not being a complete clusterfuck the entire era and becoming a power on the level of Italy. A communist revolution in Western Europe as Marx envisioned. Prussia not being able to beat France, which asserts itself as a military hegemon in Europe.


I always wondered why Spain, who had an similarly massive colonial empire like GB never could really get the ball rolling in this time period. They have the colonies, I assume they had a pretty good population in continental Spain, you’d think it would be possible for them to become an industrial powerhouse at least in game.


By 1836 Spain's American possessions were long gone and GB got the edge due to their naval supremacy (something the Spanish had long lost at this point) and the natural resources in Britain, combined with a strong industrial and middle class that led to modes of production being far more advanced and subsequently a much stronger economy.


I see, learning a lot today about Spain in this time period. Wonder if it’s possible to turn it around for them in Vicky 3? I’m been heavily considering a play through as Spain for my first country when the game launches.


Spain was fun in Vicky 2. In mods like HPM/HFM you could reclaim the colonies albeit with a ton of Infamy and them hating you. With the right colonial possessions bringing in the goods you'd need to industrialize it was very possible to be a superpower Spain and do things like conquer Portugal. Definitely a fun playthrough and hopefully will be in 3!


you don't really need to reclaim all of south america, just win the chincha islands war and have the reconquest of santo domingo be a success.


I mean that leaves Spain with the Chincha Islands and a very pissed of Santo Domingo. Better than how it ended for them irl, but still pretty behind the other European powers.


Spain was (and still is) much more sparsley populated than Britain. Also, Spain had recently lost the vast majority of it's colonial empire in a series of expensive wars. Not to mention that England had for centuries been developing it's democratic institutions, while Spain stayed an absolute monarchy with a comparatively marginalized bourgeoisie class. To top it all off, the Carlist wars, which started in 1833., definitely didn't help the situation.


Interesting, thanks for the history. I’m remaining hopeful that a player can turn it around in Vicky 3, I didn’t want to play an OP nation to start with so I’ve been thinking Spain or, depending on good Russia is at the start, then or China.


It was relatively easy to develop Spain in Vic2, though becoming a world power was difficult due to the limited population. The leaked beta includes an Iberian Union formable, which can definitely catapult you to a high great power ranking.


You're oversimplifying the Spanish monarchy issue, the issue is that Spain couldn't maintain a republic due to be split between intrasigent radical republicans and more gradualist and outright bourgeois ones. The assassination of the lib-progressive leader didn't help matters.


Spanish republicanism only became a thing in the second half of the 19th century.


Spain tried to reincorpate the dominican republic in 1863ish and had a war with south american countries around that same time period. I think they flirted with it at other times as well, but i might be conflating it with liberalism in general.


Also, when Spain did have its empire it did not develop its own economic base. Instead of nurturing local industry, it simple purchased the goods it needed. This helped England and France as some money was going them for goods. Which is why Spain, did not industrial like its neighbors. It simply didn’t have the history or potential industrial yet. It’s a case of investing one’s money and have fun later vs simply spending it all and have fun now.


No reasurces bad governance


Egypt leading a pan-Arabic unification, successfully modernising and building one single railroad from Morocco to Oman.


A secular pan-Arab federation would be pretty cool to see


i think to re-unite Denmark Norway or a reunited Byzantine Empire


Byzantium is in the game, formable by Greece


That usually comes with the vanilla version. The only game that doesn't have the roman empire as formable is stellaris and for obvious reasons




Hungary-Romania Dualmonarchy. Buffer Alsace-Lorraine or Alsace-Lorraine becoming part of a neutral switzerland or Luxemburg. Swiss intervention in the transfer of Savoy to France.


Being able to make more duel monarchies in general would be super fun


Swiss Savoy would be neat, especially if pushed by France's rivals


Creating custom states is one of the few features that I liked about EU4. For example, annexing the Rhineland and creating a Rhenish puppet state in it as France is one of the original stipulations of Versailles.


I would like the Rhineland to be a releasable nation in the game, since one balance thing I didn't like in Vicky 2 was that there wasn't really a vanilla way to neuter Prussia as an enemy, and uniting Germany as the Rhineland sounds like a fun run.


I'd really like dynamic great war capitulations for all the great powers. Britain loses a world war? United Ireland, free Scotland and Wales, good bye colonies and have a nice naval treaty. Germany loses a great war? Say goodbye to any province with a non-German minority, all your colonies, and things like an international Rhineland to keep their economy neutered. United States? More like naval limit treaties and free Oregon or something.


Portugal recovering Brazil


The united kingdom when you take Brazil as Portugal exists.


im sure that will be left to the modders.


China not being pathetic. If the Qing hadn't cut naval funding to pay for the empress's 60th birthday party and had their fleet divided among corrupt warlords who had officers selling gunpowder for sawdust, they could have beaten Japan in 1894 and prevented a lot of horrific things from happening afterwards. On paper, their fleet was supposed to be better.


info on that please. The turning point for the qing navy should probably be a different sino french war.


The Qing fleet at the Yalu River had 2 ironclad battleships, while Japan had only cruisers and smaller ships. On paper, the Chinese navy had the better force. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00253359.1964.10657787


Paris Commune winning i hope


I'd like to see that "Tsar of all the Slavs" event from Vicky 1 return


Scandinavia will probably in game but I would like many forms of pan nationalism that did exist irl but never played out. Alternate events for Crimean War, Arabian events for creating the planned full Arabia historically.


I would love to see [the United States of Greater Austria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austria) take form.


revive the holy empire. It sounds fanciful, but it would be great to be able to revive the holy empire and take its old territories, or maybe austria has the decision to reform it to prevent prussia from taking all of west germany


Didn't some guy want to that in Germany? Origin of the "crown from the gutter" quote. So not that fanciful


I just checked it out and it's true. What one learns on reddit


Most of the suggestions here aren't "decisions" they're just a result of a historical war having a different victor or a country invading a country they didn't in history. This can happen anyway and wouldn't and shouldn't need to have decisions or events model it


I want to liberalize Austria, kick the Hungarians who made AH dysfunctional as hell in the teeth, and form DNB. So we can be a big, happy, multiethnic empire.


Ottoman resurgence. Keep the empire alive


Decentralization, being able to turn a country into an ancient Greek/HRE style collection of united microstates.


Mine is septemberprogramm which is roughly what germany would get from ww1. In game if you have all teritiories shown here, you will get prestige and assimilation factor or something


I would love to see flavor for it, but I don't think you should get like, an assimilation bonus for it or anything. Germany would have been the pearl of the world in terms of prestige, but I think that's already handled. I would more like to see stuff like, what are Germany's goals now? What are the problems of trying to control and administer all these territories that are probably not sitting super comfortably under their new German hegemon? That kind of flavor


Minus liberty desire would be a great reward from this decision


I don't understand why there would be less liberty desire though. Why would doing the same expansion Germany tried to do historically result in people being more satisfied with the overlord/subject relationship? I'm not interested in having this kind of pat-on-the-head EU4 achievements->bonuses in Vic3. Maybe make it something understandably related to the actual thing done, like a big prestige bump from becoming undisputed military hegemon of Europe. However, most flavor should be about "what now?" Have new journal entries about the new goals of mega-Germany, and about maintaining its hegemonic power. Other post-war issues, like naval treaties and reparations payments and occupation should come up, but with Germany in the European driver's seat instead of Britain/France


Septber programme is preety unrealistic i doubt they would take much in the west nesides arloon luxemburg and some border concesions from france


The chances of a historical ww1 even happening are near 0% so having an event or decision for what the Germans would so after winning doesn't make much sense


I'd like to see the [Intermarium](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermarium) as a formable, it was a proposed federation of states in Eastern Europe, meant to be a balance between Germany and Russia. Could be a fun challenge to form, given that most of the involved countries are in a pretty rough state in 1836.


The Danubian Confederation plssssss


Since you're asking about decisions: 1. A decision for the CSA to get rid of slaves once and for all by shippign them to africa (liberia) or shipping them into a single province in the south (think a bantustan basically) once it becomes clear that the slavery-based economic model is no longer viable (perhaps past 1870 or so but I'd like the requirements for the decision to be based off economic numbers, such as number of factories/their levels or indeed number of (unemployed) slaves as percentage of the total population


Israel in madagascar


Ah the old pin the Zion on the Planet game.


TBH I'd prefer my alt history content to focus on the smaller powers and what decisions they could make Spending a lot of time on the strongest land power of the time period just feels... unneeded?


I want to see some crazy alt-history, like a different result from the Great Migration (Gothic empires, Western Rome still around, Hunic Byzantium, stuff like that); a victorious Al-Andalus reshaping the world's politics; failed empires like the Mughals, Majapahit and Khmer persisting one way or another; the colonization of the New World failing to gain traction allowing the Aztecs, Inca and other such realms to reform and create new world powers and all the ramifications it entails... You know... Fun stuff.


There's so many interesting What Ifs that deserve some love, and it would be so great for replayability and make the counterfactuals so much more immersive. Just a few for the very first decades: \- Egypt under Muhammad Ali should be so interesting in the first decades of the game. What if he does manage to conquer Istanbul and gains control of the attempts to revitalize the OE? Will the Great Powers actually move in to drive him out as they threatened to do? What if he's defeated and the OE regains full control of the Levant and Egypt? \- Alternative ways for China to deal with the Opium Crisis/Opium Wars. This could include paths, for instance, that could end up with China embracing the Taiping Rebellion/Hong Xiuquan with all the consequences that would have (a fanatically Eastern-Christian China!?), embracing the opening of trade to the west resulting in a potential Westernization decades before Japan (or an even worse conservative backlash). There's so many possibilities that deserve some love if the events play out in their favour. \- Texas/Mexico/American Civil War also offer lots of What Ifs ... \-1848 revolutions sweeping Europe, with a real risk of virtually every European power taking a different course depending on which side wins, and in which way ... And that is just the first few years. At the very least, they should take a look at which scenarios happen reasonably often/are reasonably likely in game and give these scenarios some love.


Ik it’s very memey but I’d like to see Ottomans form Turan


I would like them to implement tech from slightly outside the timeframe of the game. If i'm laserfocused on vehicle engineering from 1836 to 1936, i want my people to have '63 Mustang level cars available to them, or jet fighters, or high speed rail, respectively.


I think that’s more than ‘slightly outside the timeframe of the game’


With the right alt history, I could see it. at the same time, I don't think its necessary to go that far, maybe push it to immediately post-WW2 tech. I just don't want the Vic2 problem where tech was *only* up to 1936, and if you focused on advancement you just got to the end of the line and couldn't do anymore research for years.


That is a good point. In my Scandanavian games, I always max out the tech tree by like the late 1920's


I just want a late game that does away with planned obsolecence because the Union can't avoid disposable light bulbs. That and rail cars, rail cars everywhere.


Yeah, latest feasible tech should be things like early jet engines, mass produced TVs, very early computers


In a 100 year timeframe, thats just 30% on top. If my whole civilization is obsessed with going FAST i dont see why they wouldnt be able to do it. There a decades where nothing happens and there a months where decades happen, etc


Conversely, a lot of countries need lower starting tech bases. There are tags which didn't even have a system of writing at the start. It would take lot longer than 100 years to modernize.


Neo crusade if the ottomans persecute Christians It would be interesting to see new world Catholics in a crusade


Another Mongol invasion, nvm, that’s just the Ottoman Empire


Industrialized China, liberating and industrializing my home country (Bulgaria) ahead of schedule.


negotiate spilt of Schleswig in sted of the second Schleswig war.


I will eventually try to win as the CSA, then play other nations with different forms of slavery, because I am genuinely curious how viable the slavery system can function throughout a full playthrough


The January uprising succeding.


European intervention in the ACW


war of 1812 2 so i can bring freedom™️ to canada


Imperial Federation 💪🦁


There should be different tags and flavor for unifying countries with unconventional unifiers. For example unifying Italy as the Pope or Two Sicillies should look different from unifying as Sardinia. It would be a nice reward and good immersion. Same applies to Germany, Japan, and warlord China.


The British annexation of California.


I see you kaiserreich, get back where you belong!


Big Germany = Small D*ck


Kalmar union! Pdx gives scandinavia not enough love


Gernany being able to claim all of former hre lands and getting the dutch, swiss and flanders as accepted cultures. Big Yugo. Gran Colombia. USCA. France integrating Wallonia. Scandinavian union with claims to the baltics, karelia and ingria.


Switzerland to be able to form Germany.


Federal/ Confederal Habsburg Monarchy


The French Commune spreading into Spain and Italy, nondisestablismentarian mega harumph reactionary Britain.


Some of the more realistic alternate history things I'd like would include. 1. Ottomans getting their act together 2. Egypt restoring a united Arab Kingdom including Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, and Arabia 3. Peru-Bolivia Confederation turning into a powerful Andean state. 4. Mexico successfully stands up to the USA 5. Qing China manages to learn their lesson and reform instead of spiralling into oblivion.


Pretty vanilla but I want to play Ethiopia and pull a Japan-esque Westernization and development. Gotta have that [Bab-el-Mandab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bab-el-Mandeb) be a center of international intrigue.




North America splintered like Europe instead of USA Mexico and Canada


United provinces of the Netherlands if you annex Belgium


I’d love to see a bunch of kinda believable formable nations. Less of this “restore Rome” and “reunite Poland-Lithuania” stuff and more stuff like a united Benelux, untied Iberia, and other stuff that actually kinda makes sense for the time period. Doesn’t have to make total sense, just stuff that actually kinda works with the time period and what people would have actually done in these situations rather than just reviving centuries-dead nations for no good reason


The max irredentist paths available for every country. Give me big USA, give me France with its natural borders, give me Italy with it's Adriatic cities. I don't care how stupid of an idea it will be to pursue, just let me try


I would like some sort of Scandinavia to be in the game with some buffs to overcome it's population disadvantage.


Bavaria or Hanover uniting Germany Also Britain should be able to retain Hanover


All of them


What if ottomans won the siege of Vienna (Sultanreich) :P


polish lithuanian commonwealth as poland or lithuania


Netherlands keeping/regaining the entire Benelux


Dynamic civil wars where nations of too unstable will have civil wars. Great powers can exert money and influence to cause civil wars and rebellions. This makes sense irl with examples being the US influence and support in rebellion of Colombian Panama or Spanish Cuba.


More alternate German formable nations. Hanseatic League, Confederation of the Rhine, German Confederation, Holy Roman Empire, Frankish Empire. Rather than just North German Federation, South German Federation, and German Empire


Bavaria rejecting unification and building their own cultural Identity.


What of the big things I would like to see for Alt History is reasons to stay as smaller countries. I’d like formables such as the Hanseatic League, Xinan, or Biafra, but there’s no reason not to go with their larger alternatives of Germany, China, and Nigeria respectively.


literally anything. obviously some added flavor is nice but anything should be dynamically possible regardless of how realistic it is.


I would like to see Prussian eupen and malemedy


I'd like to see missions for natives (Africans, Indians, Polynesians) to push the Europeans out of their homelands/continents.


It’s less about certain decisions being made, but moreso the game reacting to your actions. If I as the U.S, declare war on Canada and take it over completely, I’d love some events to appear that ONLY appear if those conditions are met. Same with other scenarios or other countries.


What system is the game using for missions/decisions/national focuses? Has it been explained?


more greece expansion