Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Historical Inaccuracies in AHD

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Victoria 2 17560 After Action Reports (AAR)
Seek75 said:
Podcat posted a screenshot of Taiping in the Why No Taiping Rebellion? thread. So any statement that they won't add new countries is false.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, I hadn't seen that. It's a hell of a turnaround after arguing for several days that they weren't going to do it. Maybe this proves the Devs are susceptible to mass community pressure... Maybe it's time to demand all those other things they said they wouldn't do, like getting only your core provinces from the acquire core CB...
 
Hibernian said:
Oh wow, I hadn't seen that. It's a hell of a turnaround after arguing for several days that they weren't going to do it. Maybe this proves the Devs are susceptible to mass community pressure... Maybe it's time to demand all those other things they said they wouldn't do, like getting only your core provinces from the acquire core CB...
Click to expand...

I think it's that kind of talk ("they caved to that demand, so we should all start demanding what we want!") that will lead them to just issue a blanket "no" in the future. Personally I think they're well aware that there's people who would really like core-only CB's.
 
In the 1861 game, Paraguay is much too weak. They have a military power of 2 or 3 and are the second weakest power in South America, Brazil has military 9 and Argentina has military 7.

In reality, it took Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay acting together in this period to beat Paraguay. I'm not saying Paraguay should be some superpower or anything, its armies would probably best be depicted in game as irregulars and weak artillery, but it should still have more military power than those other nations.
Paraguay: 70,000 troops
Triple Alliance aggregate: 26,500 troops (Brazil: 16,000 troops, Argentina: 8500 troops, Uruguay: 2000 troops)
 
Also on Paraguay, it should, in my opinion, have Guarani as either its primary culture or an accepted culture. Today, Paraguay is the only Latin American country where the native language is spoken even by people of no Guarani ancestry. Dr. Francia's dictatorship, the Jesuit rule before that, and the nation's general isolation made the "pureblooded Spanish" elite in Paraguay virtually nonexistent by 1836 ,and it was one of the first countries in Latin America to have a unified national identity among Spaniards and indigenous peoples alike. A Guarani accepted or primary culture would be a very simple and historically accurate change that would put Paraguay in its historical setting - a very minor power, but one with a couple starting advantages in 1836.
 
Rylock said:
I think it's that kind of talk ("they caved to that demand, so we should all start demanding what we want!") that will lead them to just issue a blanket "no" in the future. Personally I think they're well aware that there's people who would really like core-only CB's.
Click to expand...

Since they've already basically said a blanket no to it several times, I doubt making them angry will make any difference, but community pressure might. And BTW, why is it you always seem to take their side on these things? I mean do you want that feature or not?


Anyway, I'll post that list of map errors as a bug report unless someone has more suggestions. I think I'll make it just a map issue, but if other people want to report other stuff like technologies and balance I guess you can post there (or start a different bug report).
 
Hibernian said:
Since they've already basically said a blanket no to it several times, I doubt making them angry will make any difference, but community pressure might. And BTW, why is it you always seem to take their side on these things? I mean do you want that feature or not?
Click to expand...

A) I sympathize with their position. There's a lot of people who all have their agendas, screaming for attention-- none of whom particularly seem to care what the vision is that the developers have for their own game (which is as a sandbox game, not a historical simulation, and they have stated that numerous times).

They're doing their best to fix issues and provide other things the community is asking for, when it's not that difficult to do so-- and presumably when it doesn't interfere with their other plans. Every issue a community member comes up with is the most important thing in the entire world, and evidently "really easy to do"... but, easy or not, the developers usually have bigger fish to fry than whether or not someone acquires neat, historical borders.

B) I don't really care whether they implement a core-only CB. It's not that big an issue to me. There are certainly players who want it, and they're the ones that speak the loudest about it, but a bunch of loud people on a community forum does not and should not automatically translate into it being an issue for a developer.

Neither of these things should mean you shouldn't report things you think are bugs. I'm just wary of community members talking like they sense blood, and that now is the time to descend upon the developers like a pack of wolves in the hope that finally their personal issue with the game will be solved. I'm glad they're participating in the discussion and implementing at least some of the changes we're asking for, and would like to encourage the healthy exchange to continue. That's all there is to it, really.
 
CaptRobau said:
Makes it more likely for them to lose every major battle in that area, like they did in RL.
Click to expand...

There was barely any fighting in West Virginia, nobody had any real desire to control it at the time as it was basically just a bunch of undeveloped mountains. The only major battle in the state was at Harper's Ferry on the Virginia border where Stonewall Jackson captured over 12,000 Union troops. And the Confederates definitely had control of the area until they basically abandoned it in late 1861 to reinforce armies in more valuable areas.

And the politics of West Virginia tend to be REALLY misunderstood by folks. They contributed more soldiers to the CSA than the USA, but the secession convention(from Virginia) voting was essentially limited to landowners... which were a distinct minority in the area.
 
Last edited:
I guess since this is a thread for disputing the starting accuracy of the 1861 scenario I shouldn't be adding to this. But according to both Wikipedia and general historical searches I've made, the United States of Central America was never actually called that. It was first called the United Provinces of Central America, then formally became the Federal Republic of Central America until it fell apart completely around 1841. Normally I'd change the name myself but I don't know how.

I know this probably doesn't fit too much to the thread since the accusations are towards the 1861 starting date and the UPCA is split up by then, but I figured it couldn't hurt.
 
I really wish people wouldn't nitpick but actually focus on serious stuff but lets do dis.

- Romania... Im pretty sure they should have flintlock rifles, the water wheel and techs similar to at least the Ottomans... -_-
- 1836 start, US never fights Mexico and takes it's cores from Manifest Destiny anymore.. dunno
-
 
RedStarMafiya said:
West Virginia should be a Confederate state until June 1863, when it seceded to the US.
Click to expand...

West Virginia shouldn't exist before the Civil War, full-stop. I hope the next game introduces a level of dynamic change to provinces, as it would allow for a whole Virginia prior to the war, and only redraw the province borders when West Virginia gains statehood.
 
Disco Stick said:
In the 1861 game, Paraguay is much too weak. They have a military power of 2 or 3 and are the second weakest power in South America, Brazil has military 9 and Argentina has military 7.

In reality, it took Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay acting together in this period to beat Paraguay. I'm not saying Paraguay should be some superpower or anything, its armies would probably best be depicted in game as irregulars and weak artillery, but it should still have more military power than those other nations.
Paraguay: 70,000 troops
Triple Alliance aggregate: 26,500 troops (Brazil: 16,000 troops, Argentina: 8500 troops, Uruguay: 2000 troops)
Click to expand...

Indeed. In the current state of the game, Paraguay tends to get annexed by Bolivia really early 90% of the time.
 
RedRalphWiggum said:
Ehh... no it doesn't
Click to expand...

I can only speak from my experiences.

EDIT: In my games, South America tends to follow basically the same path into the 1870s or so every time unless I get involved myself:

- Chile will go to war with Argentina over regions 2 or 3 times
- Bolivia will annex at least part of Paraguay
- Peru and Ecuador will infrequently shift borders a bit, mostly content to sit and glare at each other
 
CFG9000 said:
You've never seen Netherlands annex Belgium either? Seen that a couple times, much less often than the Paraguay situation.
Click to expand...

Well, that's true, but that's because the Netherlands has cores on all of Belgium. Same with USA & CSA. But no, I've never ever seen the situation you describe. To be honest, I'm almost certain you are misremembering, unless you are playing with some mod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back