My own view of this, from the perspective of CSABadass's mod, is that the outcome at Gettysburg was a CS victory or stalemate.
Officially, Sharpsburg is the point of divergence: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6700353&postcount=1
My own view of this, from the perspective of CSABadass's mod, is that the outcome at Gettysburg was a CS victory or stalemate.
I really can't conceive of a CSA of that period that's still not dominated by officers wanting to cast themselves in the Jeb Stuart or Stonewall Jackson model. Of course, any of them even hinting at themselves as R. E. Lee reborn would be tarred, feathered, hanged, drawn and quartered for heresy. Some icons, you just don't touch if you know what's good for you.
1) In the political events that pop up, there seems to be a pattern pointing to the CSA being tugged between the two primary command economy models of governance that were popular in that period. The socialists and the fascists.
2) Where did you picture the CSA ending up toward the end game? Or, am I misreading the general drift of the political events that spawn earlier in the game?
3) Also, some popups mention liberal. Is that meant in the modern sense or the classical?
It had always been my understanding that the south was deeply oriented toward the Jacksonian philosophy of personal honor, personal achievement, family loyalty, understanding of the difference between private and public war with some civil/legal acceptance of vendetta, public war tending toward total war and broad citizen involvement in governmental direction.
4) In your own mind, while you were creating this mod, where did you see the CSA ending up? Command economy socialist, either fascist, marxist/trotsky or moderate? Inclined toward isolation or intervention? During the succession war, the CSA was, pretty much, a good definition of a closed society. Did you see that changing as the time passed from its birth? The closed aspects were defensive oriented, in my understanding and as need to defend lessened, opening up wouldn't have been out of character, but...
5) As to the forum issue. Have you considered starting up on another forum? There might be an existing HOI mod forum that would host you, or, if there are still free to use forums, one of them might give you the growing room you need?
5) The main advantage of these forums remains: HoI players see them. While I am frustrated (to say the least) at how mods and modders are treated here, my faith in good sense abides. I believe I'll live to see a day when the CDCP mod--which adds a ton of value to Armageddon and didn't cost PI a cent--is accorded at least as much respect as the long-dead Grand Battle mod 'round these parts.
Hope this answers your questions!
Is it even possible to download the grand battle mod?
Question:
War with Mexico. I've seen some chit chat about a war with Mexico in the '38 time frame.
I've never had an event fire off that started a war with Mexico. I've had them demand territory, but they backed down easy enough.
Is war with Mexico something a player chooses to start his own self? Or am I messing something up and not putting the proper tickle to the trigger for it?
i've just started playing, and have realised that the leaders for the Confederacy are both rather thin on the ground and rather crap. i presume theres logic behind it which i wont challenge though it means i can only maintain about 6 fleets. my point in posting this though was to say that when i played this last, which was at least a year ago, (and presumably an earlier version?) i'm sure there were decent army leaders like patton on the confederate side. no sign of them here though, unless they pop in later on (i'm still in '36)
edit: i've just noticed that it says at the start this is for armageddon 1.2, and i'm on 1.nothing. does this affect it in any way (it is playing fine so far as far as i can see)
i've just started playing, and have realised that the leaders for the Confederacy are both rather thin on the ground and rather crap. i presume theres logic behind it which i wont challenge though it means i can only maintain about 6 fleets. my point in posting this though was to say that when i played this last, which was at least a year ago, (and presumably an earlier version?) i'm sure there were decent army leaders like patton on the confederate side. no sign of them here though, unless they pop in later on (i'm still in '36)
edit: i've just noticed that it says at the start this is for armageddon 1.2, and i'm on 1.nothing. does this affect it in any way (it is playing fine so far as far as i can see)
i wasnt having a go at you CSABadass, i cant even imagine how hard it is to make a mod while juggling several other things, so i wasnt calling you lazy or whatever. thanks for answering the question, i had guessed that more would appear. i'm not using the patch because i always forget to patch stuff - i was gagging to play your mod!
A possible solution would be to make the assumption that command and staffing issues would have flowed differently in the alt history you've created.
With the CSA as it's own national entity, it's military would have found greater need to promote from within at an earlier date.
Any officer in the US military that existed at the time irl that was Dixie born could very easily have found his place in the general ranks of the sovereign nation of the CSA by the time of the mod, if you choose to put them there.
You could also invent some out of whole cloth. It's not hard to imagine that the society and culture of the CSA wouldn't express its pride in its new found place in the world by attracting men to the colors that may not have made the choice in the real time line.
You have Quantico, The Citadel and, iirc, VMI. 3 of the best institutions of martial instruction in America. Wouldn't it be rather safe to assume that such institutions would take on even more prestige and importance of the CSA won its independence?
Personally, I don't find the lack of early leaders to be a problem. I also find it a fair accurate representation of the general lack of American enthusiasm for keeping large standing armies between wars.
Much changed with the Cold War on that, but prior, the US, and by extention, I would assume the CSA, really was loath to keep a large military on hand when not necessary.
Oh wow, I didn't certainly mean to come off as angry or anything. Please allow me to apologize to you, good sir!
I blame the egg nog.
Seriously, the dearth of leaders at the start is a valid point. I just don't know what else I can do about it.
Thanks for trying CA--hope you enjoy it!
I also find it a fair accurate representation of the general lack of American enthusiasm for keeping large standing armies between wars.