Because the US states have a fair amount of autonomy, and the American people have liberty and rebellion pretty deeply-rooted. And it's a big country.Originally Posted by keynes2.0
And because it was fun to write, just like the China break-up. I'd do a similar system for a Russian civil war-style event series, if I had the time.
Well, I'm not experienced at creating events, but I could certainly make the countries if they're wanted.
That also works, but I personally like the idea of an Ideological Civil war more.
Well, it could be possible, though I doubt we would want to create a Communist or Fascist version of every country for this to happen with. I think there is a good case for it for the USA though as it's such a massive country with divergent local politics, though it would also certainly be cool if something like this could be done for Russia as well, you could have the Soviet Union as a separate tag and have (White) Russia and the USSR fight it out.
The US might be a vast country, but large parts of it are pretty sparsely populated during this time frame. And except for southern exceptionalism, US regionalism was pretty tame compared to the regional rifts in France or Germany during this time period. We don't model the regional anti-communist revolt which actually did happen in Bavaria in this time frame as a separate state. It's modeled with the rebel system. If you want to model a hypothetical Minnesotan resistance to a communist or fascist government then use the rebel system. After all, what you are talking about is rebels rising up to replace the government.
Every winter my Uncle Bilbert used to go out and buy clothes for his entire hobbit family. I remember the first year I came along with him shopping. His tongue was swollen up so he was unable to speak but my uncle Bilbert was not concerned. He simply took me and my cousins to town and proudly presented his young relatives to the shopkeeper. The wise old clothesmaker just smiled and started taking measurements. After so many years of business he didn't hesitate to in fur my uncle's hobbits.
This isn't ideological. This happens whenever the USA becomes non-democratic, not just when it becomes communist.
And it works quite nicely. I'll happily take suggestions on how to improve it, but I'm not going to toss out the entire thing and start from scratch based on... well, based on the fact it's suddenly come up in conversation despite having been in the mod for many, many months now. It's just meant to be a cool thing that can happen if the USA has an unexpected turn.
What I like about a Russian civil war is that there are already lots of tags, there's historical plausibility (many of those countries separated during the actual civil war) and it need not be deterministic. I'll probably propose something after AHD comes out-- though I suspect when that happens there will be a lot of other stuff on our plate just to catch up (and hopefully a few more tools to work with).though it would also certainly be cool if something like this could be done for Russia as well, you could have the Soviet Union as a separate tag and have (White) Russia and the USSR fight it out.
Yeah, but everyone knows the Rebel system if fairly crap and doesn't actively simulate a Civil War (which is why the ACW isn't done with just Southern Rebels).
As for Bavaria, don't you mean a Pro-Communist revolt? The Bavarian Soviet Republic, but I think they intended to be just a part of a general Communist revolution in Germany, not a separate country.
Yeah, that's what I meant. I think that's pretty much what an ideological rebellion in the US would look like if it were to happen.
Every winter my Uncle Bilbert used to go out and buy clothes for his entire hobbit family. I remember the first year I came along with him shopping. His tongue was swollen up so he was unable to speak but my uncle Bilbert was not concerned. He simply took me and my cousins to town and proudly presented his young relatives to the shopkeeper. The wise old clothesmaker just smiled and started taking measurements. After so many years of business he didn't hesitate to in fur my uncle's hobbits.
Yeah I get that, and it sort of works well for the 19th Century US (where if a President becomes a right-wing dictator, or even declares himself King, States might break away, like in Mexico), but I just don't think it makes a lot of sense for a real ideological driven thing like a Communist or Fascist takeover.
Ok, well perhaps there's an alternative way to do it post-1900. Say if the USA becomes any kind of dictatorship they loose cores on the whole country, all the State and ideological country tag's cores appear and everybody gets a heap of militancy (except those who ideologically support the dictatorship). Then we wait about a month until everyone joins their chosen rebel groups (which may be regional nationalists or the ideological versions of the US), then whichever rebel group has the most support in each state secede and becomes part of that tag.
So maybe if you have a Fascist Dictatorship take power, California and New England declare independence and neutrally, the South supports the Fascists and most of the North supports the USA or the USSA and they duke it out. I’m just brainstorming, but something like that.
It works the same way with a Presidential Dictatorship or a Monarchy, should one come to pass. I'm certainly not going to write another entire different chain of events for Communists or Fascists.
There are no commands that relate to rebel support or rebel groups. So I have no idea which pops have elected to join a rebel group, never mind how large it is.Ok, well perhaps there's an alternative way to do it post-1900. Say if the USA becomes any kind of dictatorship they loose cores on the whole country, all the State and ideological country tag's cores appear and everybody gets a heap of militancy (except those who ideologically support the dictatorship). Then we wait about a month until everyone joins their chosen rebel groups (which may be regional nationalists or the ideological versions of the US), then whichever rebel group has the most support in each state secede and becomes part of that tag.
Well I know I'm coming late to this into an already established mechanic, but I've never actually experienced this happening in any of my games so I'm not totally sure of what actually happens. I'm just not sure that it makes logical sense for the USA to break up into so many small states when it becomes a Dictatorship, at least not in the 20th century when things were much more about ideology.
So how do you currently decide what states breakaway and what areas the USA keeps? Is it just completely deterministic? What governments do you give the new states, etc, and how is that decided?
If you've never seen it in action, I'm not sure how a judgment can be made on it, exactly.
Insofar as how the mechanic works, once the cores have been established there is a separate "Sons of Liberty" province modifier (timed) that gets slowly applied to provinces that have high consciousness and liberal percentage. Whenever any single province is either rebel-controlled or has a very high militancy, and the rest of the state is very liberal and also has high militancy, then the state may secede. This is accelerated as seceded states cause nearby provinces to get the modifier more quickly.
The new states start off exactly as in their history file-- all democratic. This is about democracy versus dictatorship, nothing more.
The uruguay situation would be one of the few where some kind of exception would be needed. Perhaps only apply a timed modifier in one of those recognised cases.
That would include uruguay/Argentina, Colombia/Venezuala/Ecuador, USCA/Panama, Columbia/Canada, US Civil War 2. I don't think you'd need to apply such a time if Sardinia Piedmont conquered Tuscany, as there's pan-nationalism going on there. It may be good to do something about Prussia/Austria though...
[/quote]
Well I've got bad new on that front for you, since the current setup allows the Great Powers to Diplo-Annex any African Uncivilized country, no matter how big they are. Though I think the event works like a chance, where the GP demands annexation, but the African state can either accept (and be annexed) or reject (in which a war of conquest starts), if the African country is strong enough they can resist militarily.
[/quote]
Only happens after the scramble for Africa.
Here's a little suggestion : until the completion of the Panama canal, Valparaiso was a major hub down there and it's position made it a big demographic and economic center for Chile, maybe a tiny decision or event could be crafted, which would give major life rating and migrant attraction once a level 2/3 naval base has been build in Valparaiso.
On the subject of the Panama canal, what about an alternate history canal in Nicaragua? IIRC, the choice of Panama over Nicaragua was largely political.
Ottoman Empire reform track to make them the cultural unifier for all Middle Eastern/North African cultures.
This is untrue for Post-ACW America. The states are only allowed to pass laws if they aren't already covered by federal law. Likewise, their national guards can be and have been turned over to federal control.
Especially since the federal government had undisputed control of the military, I suggest the United States only falling about if it is neither a democratic state nor a Great Power.
It's also interesting to note that if the United States becomes a dictatorship, especially communist or fascist, then it was either voted in or the result of popular revolution. The people of early communist/fascist states tended to trust their governments, and by the time they realized that their situation sucked, it was too late do to anything.
The Ottoman Empire was simply too broken at this point to suddenly jump back, defeat the European empires (particularly Austria and Russia) and then seize the entirety of the Muslim world.
Very few people outside the empire recognized the sultan's claim as caliph, and it total modernization and victory isn't achieved for the Ottomans by the late-1870s, then it's almost guaranteed to fall into chaos.
The inverse should be more focused upon, giving more events for the early collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
Last edited by ZomgK3tchup; 17-11-2011 at 18:54.
Well if communists/fascists got elected to government there's be the very substantial numbers of people who didn't vote for the party who'd be likely to secede, similiar to how the CSA seceded after republicans came to power. If a republican victory can lead to half the heavily populated US seceding, then surely a socialist victory would as well.
I think however we should wait until some of the changes that will come with AHD before we do more. In AHD certain parties will have "strongholds". So the great lakes region could develop into a stronghold for socialists, and so if a second american civil war took place over communists taking power, then it the lakes region would be the center of it's power, while other parts of the US with a preference for other parties would secede, the south and west would usually secede in that case. So a reactionary dictatorship with it's popular base in the south would see northern areas secede. etc. etc.
This is a bit minor but I think Siam really needs to be a different colour. At the moment since it's white it doesn't show up on a F12 generated map since white is also the colour of the sea. Perhaps a nice red?
I don't disagree that the Ottoman Empire was broken, but this isn't a game about historical determinism. A vigorous, dedicated, and determined leader can make impressive strides, and this can and should be modeled in game - which it is, to a large degree.
I would note that the Empire DID undergo considerable efforts aimed at reform before they were crushed by external forces in the first World War. Ottoman Nationalism was a real movement they were promoting not only among ethnic Turks, but among their subject peoples as well. (Heck, just taking Syria for example, a person walking around Damascus at the time of the breakup could have found propaganda material related to pan-Arab, Ottoman, and Syrian nationalism without much effort.)
I suppose Arabia fulfills the function of pan-arabism, somewhat, but why not let the Ottomans undergo an intensive track of integration as it did, in fact, attempt to pursue (albeit too late to matter IRL)?
If a player fails to pursue that course (and can't stop the collapse), by all means add events that emphasize that,
what about the alliance problem with oe alliance problems.even if oe is not great power and oe gets worse in the first and the middle part of the game oe has 3+ alliances with great powers(rusia too )plus some other natioms while at the first part of the game i have only 2 sicilies alliance and in the
middle part of the game one great power(maybe)
Such a god emperor type individual as you imagine might have just as well have resurrected republican France and unified western europe under one banner... Or achieved an "Empire of Liberty" USA that encompasses all of North America... or made the Hapsburg Empire stretch from the Baltic to the Black Sea...
Any one of these accomplishments is possible in the game (some more possible then others). But the game shouldn't have mechanics to make such ideas easy. Rather all the mechanics that make huge 'illegitimate' empires hard should apply to exactly these sorts of fanciful notions. This was the age when empires were falling and nations were emerging. If you are trying to fight history, expect the mechanics to work against you.
Every winter my Uncle Bilbert used to go out and buy clothes for his entire hobbit family. I remember the first year I came along with him shopping. His tongue was swollen up so he was unable to speak but my uncle Bilbert was not concerned. He simply took me and my cousins to town and proudly presented his young relatives to the shopkeeper. The wise old clothesmaker just smiled and started taking measurements. After so many years of business he didn't hesitate to in fur my uncle's hobbits.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
