• 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.
There's a lot about the ACW event chain that still confuses me. Like -- what are the effects of making new states Slave or Free? I can't tell if going one way or the other changes militancy. Not to get back into history, but the question of slavery in new states was a major point of contention b/w the North and South. (And actually it makes it a little jarring that the ACW doesn't seem linked to the outcome of the Mexican War at all). Do these decisions speed or slow the rise of the Confederacy, or just alter which states join it?

How does one possibly push the date of the war back? I've done everything I can to keep CON down (other than the "Conquer Cuba" decision), but every random slavery-related decision seems to wipe those effects out again. I've kept taxes low and the economy growing. What else can you do to avoid that liberal upper house?

I also agree that the Confederacy tends to be underpowered. It needs some Vicky 1 style events that strengthen it up (some volunteer soldier POPs, etc...). Even as someone who prefers to play the Union, the ACW is not nearly as satisfying when the Confederacy is so easy to roll.
 
When you make a new state a slave state, it gives the state a chance that one of its provinces will get a "Secessionists" event that will then make the state core territory of the CSA. Free states do not get this event, and, thus, are never eligible to become cores of the CSA.

Another massive problem with the ACW is that inventions and activations are not transferring to the newly created CSA. I took the CSA option in my last USA game and was shocked to discover that while I "technically" had all of the USA's research advances, I did not have any of the requisite inventions. Half of the games factories that are activated by invention are not availoable and the only troops I could build were irregulars. Eventually, the inventions come rolling in, but it takes a while. The destruction of most southern factories may be attributable to this. Would need to test more to confirm. I tried adding some inventions into the CSA revolter file, but it doesn't seem to have done any good.
 
To contribute to the historical discussion, to say that the Confederate secession was not about slavery is rubbish. State's rights was code for slavery. I concede that the concept of State's Rights is rooted in non-slavery economic issues, but by 1860, there was no more 1830's discussion of secession over protective tariffs. It was all about slavery. All one needs to do is examine the articles of secession passed by the Confederate states to see that slavery is prominently mentioned in all but 1 or 2. For example, in Georgia's Articles of Secession, slavery is mentioned 35 times in a 3 page document.

The Confederate Constitution was virtually identical to the US Constitution. There were a couple changes, notably in the slavery language and in the granting of the Confederate President with a line-item veto. The Confederate Constitution expressly forbade the Confederate government from abolishing slavery or confiscating slaves. It also contained the same provision that was in the US Constitution and forbade importation of slaves from outside the Confederacy.

For those who have an interest in this kind of stuff, a copy of the Confederate Constitution can be found here. Another copy can be found here which compares the two documents, USA and CSA side by side such that differences can be seen. This is the more informative version, IMO, but it is less readbale due to the ugly color schemes.
 
Oh, the sort of "happily ever after" for the Afro-American POPs following the ACW is a little jarring too. Not sure how easy it would be to simulate Tilden-Hayes, but Reconstruction at least should be more complicated than its current incarnation. It would be interesting to have a "Segregation" flag similar to the "Slavery Question" one under certain circumstances (say like, Republican loss w/ >5% Reactionaries in the Upper House?). Not to get political, but this is kind of an important feature of American history in this period...
 
I always thought the centralisation vs decentralisation debate also had a lot to do with the secessions. Wasn't it the Lincoln election that brought about the federal government, and centralised military, econimic system, etc?

The confederates were, as the name implies, still using the decentralized state-centric method of government. If I remember correctly, didn't each individual state control its industry, weapon making, and the military direction of their corps?

Of course, the Lincoln election did make it obvious to people of the time that slavery was about to be abolished.
 
Another thing, if the CSA manage to win the civil war and end up taking a lot of american territory (I did this and switched to the AI), they instantly outlaw slavery, and when they finally annex the USA, they immediently form the USA again because there's a decision which allows any power in control of all US states to form it.

Uhh, what? Doesn't that destroy the entire point of the civil war in the first place if they outlaw slavery and just reform the USA after defeating them? (Assuming some alternate history when the CSA won against the union and decided to just continue pressing against the USA in several wars and taking over the whole thing)
 
There's a lot about the ACW event chain that still confuses me. Like -- what are the effects of making new states Slave or Free? I can't tell if going one way or the other changes militancy. Not to get back into history, but the question of slavery in new states was a major point of contention b/w the North and South. (And actually it makes it a little jarring that the ACW doesn't seem linked to the outcome of the Mexican War at all). Do these decisions speed or slow the rise of the Confederacy, or just alter which states join it?

How does one possibly push the date of the war back? I've done everything I can to keep CON down (other than the "Conquer Cuba" decision), but every random slavery-related decision seems to wipe those effects out again. I've kept taxes low and the economy growing. What else can you do to avoid that liberal upper house?

I also agree that the Confederacy tends to be underpowered. It needs some Vicky 1 style events that strengthen it up (some volunteer soldier POPs, etc...). Even as someone who prefers to play the Union, the ACW is not nearly as satisfying when the Confederacy is so easy to roll.

I think the happy trigger that why it fires so early now is that Liberals gain 40% or greater . I seem to remember that being key for the ACW firing.
 
To contribute to the historical discussion, to say that the Confederate secession was not about slavery is rubbish. State's rights was code for slavery. I concede that the concept of State's Rights is rooted in non-slavery economic issues, but by 1860, there was no more 1830's discussion of secession over protective tariffs. It was all about slavery. All one needs to do is examine the articles of secession passed by the Confederate states to see that slavery is prominently mentioned in all but 1 or 2. For example, in Georgia's Articles of Secession, slavery is mentioned 35 times in a 3 page document.

The Confederate Constitution was virtually identical to the US Constitution. There were a couple changes, notably in the slavery language and in the granting of the Confederate President with a line-item veto. The Confederate Constitution expressly forbade the Confederate government from abolishing slavery or confiscating slaves. It also contained the same provision that was in the US Constitution and forbade importation of slaves from outside the Confederacy.

For those who have an interest in this kind of stuff, a copy of the Confederate Constitution can be found here. Another copy can be found here which compares the two documents, USA and CSA side by side such that differences can be seen. This is the more informative version, IMO, but it is less readbale due to the ugly color schemes.

This thread is a nice summary of why I couldn't ever really get into Vicky 2. The ACW is just too screwed up for me to take it seriously (well, that and CK2 exists, and still owns my soul). I've spent the last few years working on a MA->PhD in 19th Century U.S. History, so perhaps I never would have been happy with the way the US was handled in Vicky2. But still: When I start up Vicky2 to see U.S. Grant commanding the Army of the Potomac in July 1861 (at that point Grant was a Colonel) and Phil Sheridan commanding the Army of the James (he was a Captain at that point), Jackson commanding the Army of Tennessee, etc....., well, I just don't know what to say.


Each time I get the itch to give Vicky2 a real try, I see this setup and think, SURELY there's a mod that's fixed that, or at least a big discussion thread, but nope, not one that I can find.

Instead I see threads like this one, which go on about how the South seceded 'cause they wanted small government, Lee was "anti-slavery", the CSA constitution limited slavery, etc. The main complain there doesn't seem to be that the setup is totally insane, but that the South should have more of a shot to win....

In my opinion, the idea of the South ever winning was always a long shot. It relied on the North not caring about them leaving, or on the UK risking a European-wide conflict to protect slavery (The UK and France supporting the CSA could have easily triggered Russia and maybe even Prussia to pounce on them on the side of the USA). Once the border states didn't secede, the South was doomed. With them went a huge portion of the white South and an even bigger portion of Southern industry. (Freehling's The South vs. The South is a great source on this. He points out that if you include the border states as "southern", then half as many southerners fought for the Union as for the Confederacy. Meanwhile, a tiny number of folks from Union states fought for the CSA.) The CSA had a small base of white manpower to work with, and a portion of that was required to stay home and prevent a slave uprising. Meanwhile, even with the massive manpower requirements of occupying a territory the size of the CSA, the USA barely touched their potential in manpower (similar to in WWII). Once the hotheads in South Carolina prevailed, slavery was doomed IMHO.

Though bonus weird points to the poster who claimed that the Emancipation Proclamation was only done because the Czar made Lincoln do it. That's a new one, and I've seen my fair share of crazy stuff about Lincoln.

Just glad that I could see a few folks come in with the sane arguments, like Stonewall. :)



Oh, and also: The in-game description of Sherman's March to the Sea reads like it was written by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Seriously? We're reducing pops? It's not like Sherman was executing white civilians (hell, the March and the burning of Atlanta have been much exaggerated over the years. Atlanta was a tiny town back then, and even then only parts used for the war effort were burned. People hear "Atlanta" and they picture the metropolis it became, not the tiny county seat town it was back then.). The event as it is in game makes it feel as if Sherman was leading a group of Einsatzgruppen or something, not just tearing up railroad tracks and foraging off the land. Heck, the guy hung Union soldiers who were caught stealing valuables instead of grabbing foodstuffs. *sigh*

/rant
 
This thread is a nice summary of why I couldn't ever really get into Vicky 2. The ACW is just too screwed up for me to take it seriously (well, that and CK2 exists, and still owns my soul). I've spent the last few years working on a MA->PhD in 19th Century U.S. History, so perhaps I never would have been happy with the way the US was handled in Vicky2. But still: When I start up Vicky2 to see U.S. Grant commanding the Army of the Potomac in July 1861 (at that point Grant was a Colonel) and Phil Sheridan commanding the Army of the James (he was a Captain at that point), Jackson commanding the Army of Tennessee, etc....., well, I just don't know what to say.


Each time I get the itch to give Vicky2 a real try, I see this setup and think, SURELY there's a mod that's fixed that, or at least a big discussion thread, but nope, not one that I can find.

Instead I see threads like this one, which go on about how the South seceded 'cause they wanted small government, Lee was "anti-slavery", the CSA constitution limited slavery, etc. The main complain there doesn't seem to be that the setup is totally insane, but that the South should have more of a shot to win....

In my opinion, the idea of the South ever winning was always a long shot. It relied on the North not caring about them leaving, or on the UK risking a European-wide conflict to protect slavery (The UK and France supporting the CSA could have easily triggered Russia and maybe even Prussia to pounce on them on the side of the USA). Once the border states didn't secede, the South was doomed. With them went a huge portion of the white South and an even bigger portion of Southern industry. (Freehling's The South vs. The South is a great source on this. He points out that if you include the border states as "southern", then half as many southerners fought for the Union as for the Confederacy. Meanwhile, a tiny number of folks from Union states fought for the CSA.) The CSA had a small base of white manpower to work with, and a portion of that was required to stay home and prevent a slave uprising. Meanwhile, even with the massive manpower requirements of occupying a territory the size of the CSA, the USA barely touched their potential in manpower (similar to in WWII). Once the hotheads in South Carolina prevailed, slavery was doomed IMHO.

Though bonus weird points to the poster who claimed that the Emancipation Proclamation was only done because the Czar made Lincoln do it. That's a new one, and I've seen my fair share of crazy stuff about Lincoln.

Just glad that I could see a few folks come in with the sane arguments, like Stonewall. :)



Oh, and also: The in-game description of Sherman's March to the Sea reads like it was written by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Seriously? We're reducing pops? It's not like Sherman was executing white civilians (hell, the March and the burning of Atlanta have been much exaggerated over the years. Atlanta was a tiny town back then, and even then only parts used for the war effort were burned. People hear "Atlanta" and they picture the metropolis it became, not the tiny county seat town it was back then.). The event as it is in game makes it feel as if Sherman was leading a group of Einsatzgruppen or something, not just tearing up railroad tracks and foraging off the land. Heck, the guy hung Union soldiers who were caught stealing valuables instead of grabbing foodstuffs. *sigh*

/rant

4Zeah.jpg


Jeez, dude. You revived nearly a four year old thread.
 
How did you even come across this? :laugh:
 
This thread is a nice summary of why I couldn't ever really get into Vicky 2. The ACW is just too screwed up for me to take it seriously (well, that and CK2 exists, and still owns my soul). I've spent the last few years working on a MA->PhD in 19th Century U.S. History, so perhaps I never would have been happy with the way the US was handled in Vicky2. But still: When I start up Vicky2 to see U.S. Grant commanding the Army of the Potomac in July 1861 (at that point Grant was a Colonel) and Phil Sheridan commanding the Army of the James (he was a Captain at that point), Jackson commanding the Army of Tennessee, etc....., well, I just don't know what to say.


Each time I get the itch to give Vicky2 a real try, I see this setup and think, SURELY there's a mod that's fixed that, or at least a big discussion thread, but nope, not one that I can find.

Instead I see threads like this one, which go on about how the South seceded 'cause they wanted small government, Lee was "anti-slavery", the CSA constitution limited slavery, etc. The main complain there doesn't seem to be that the setup is totally insane, but that the South should have more of a shot to win....

In my opinion, the idea of the South ever winning was always a long shot. It relied on the North not caring about them leaving, or on the UK risking a European-wide conflict to protect slavery (The UK and France supporting the CSA could have easily triggered Russia and maybe even Prussia to pounce on them on the side of the USA). Once the border states didn't secede, the South was doomed. With them went a huge portion of the white South and an even bigger portion of Southern industry. (Freehling's The South vs. The South is a great source on this. He points out that if you include the border states as "southern", then half as many southerners fought for the Union as for the Confederacy. Meanwhile, a tiny number of folks from Union states fought for the CSA.) The CSA had a small base of white manpower to work with, and a portion of that was required to stay home and prevent a slave uprising. Meanwhile, even with the massive manpower requirements of occupying a territory the size of the CSA, the USA barely touched their potential in manpower (similar to in WWII). Once the hotheads in South Carolina prevailed, slavery was doomed IMHO.

Though bonus weird points to the poster who claimed that the Emancipation Proclamation was only done because the Czar made Lincoln do it. That's a new one, and I've seen my fair share of crazy stuff about Lincoln.

Just glad that I could see a few folks come in with the sane arguments, like Stonewall. :)



Oh, and also: The in-game description of Sherman's March to the Sea reads like it was written by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Seriously? We're reducing pops? It's not like Sherman was executing white civilians (hell, the March and the burning of Atlanta have been much exaggerated over the years. Atlanta was a tiny town back then, and even then only parts used for the war effort were burned. People hear "Atlanta" and they picture the metropolis it became, not the tiny county seat town it was back then.). The event as it is in game makes it feel as if Sherman was leading a group of Einsatzgruppen or something, not just tearing up railroad tracks and foraging off the land. Heck, the guy hung Union soldiers who were caught stealing valuables instead of grabbing foodstuffs. *sigh*

/rant

Yeah, it's an old thread - but I actually agree with everything in your rant.

And an ACW mod would be awesome, but the game has already passed its peak of interest among modders I think, so that probably won't happen.
 
Ummmm...... This Thread is more then 4 years old.....
 
The CSA should be rewarded for having slaves. For some reason, it never occurred to the South for plantation owners to donate their slaves to be used in the war. The government could have paid the owners for it, and recommend better jobs for the better soldiers. Imagine the three million slaves of the CSA as an army force. Read this: http://www.civil-war.net/census.asp?census=Total it says there were almost four million slaves. I can almost guarantee at least two million were in the south. What if they had one slave for each free soldier, to prevent a mutiny? Maybe half a million young male slaves could make a difference in the war.
Or maybe there could be a rebel faction for the ACW: The Separatists. The Jacobins get there own; why not the ACW rebels?