AHD DD1 – A House Divided
- Thread starter Darkrenown
- Start date
-
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.
If dev diaries were sausages, it'd be illegal to call this one a sausage as it has so little meat to it.
Ohwell, atleast we know the sausage factory is open.
If dev diaries were sausages, the EU would object to this one being classified as one. It has so low meat content that it would be classed as a meat pie.
(There's actually a brand of Finnish sausage that gets exactly that treatment from the EU)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_Territory_in_the_American_Civil_War
The layout of the provinces in New Mexico and Arizona don't allow the Confederate Arizona Territory as it was. For gameplay reasons it's not a bad choice as well, as the CSA needs to be able to trade space for time in the West. The war in that area simmered took a long time. The extra territory helps accomplish that ingame, I'd think.
The whole West Virginia thing, I think it's a fair approximation. Once again it's partially due to province layout (it's split in the middle instead of along the Blueridge Mountain, aka diagonal) but the Union seemed to have a better foothold in the area. There were more volunteers, etc. Plus the CSA lost most of its battles in West Virginia. Having to fight on enemy soil would help simulate that (of course, could it have gone otherwise?).
Luckily the mod community will fix these things quite quickly. I can feel an 1861 Improved idea bubbling up already.
For me, that doesn't count as an attempt to spread the revolution. Rather, USSR (sorry, I don't have their exact and so long name at the time) was trying to regain territories that were to the Russian Empire until Brest-Litovsk treaty. That however bring me at some diplomatic questions. As this game currently cannot do such a thing as a contested treaty, would we be able to break such a treaty if the situation change? And please, could we remove the hardcoded 5 years truce lenght?
defend would be better, so then it would hunt anyone besieging your provinces, be they rebel or enemy army.
As for communists getting CBs to make nations communist, shouldnt all government type branches? The stability as the start of the game was imposed by the threat that revolutions in any country would be crushed by international intervention, especially russia. A Concert of Europe CB to allow Great Power Monarchies restore monarchies following revolutions.
Last edited:
Real problem isn´t the 5 year truce, is the impossibility of influencing countries you have a truce with. That makes forming the NGF a nightmare sometimes (truce with Austria, Baden and Bavaria, Austria takes Bavaria and Baden from the SOI you got from a war and you have to DOW Austria again... if somehow another needed country was lost from your influence and you couldn´t form the NGF in the interlude)
Both Austria and Russia are too quiet on the home front, need more turmoil. Austria in particular. Also, shouldn´t country leader traits be considered?
Both Austria and Russia are too quiet on the home front, need more turmoil. Austria in particular. Also, shouldn´t country leader traits be considered?
I quite like how PDM does that, an official version would be pretty awesome
Turkey is too quiet if any country is, it wasnt called the sick man for nothing but in the game its as healthy as any other
A Revolution casus belli is playing with fire. If you add a CBlike that there needs to be an equal CB or a way to form a coalition to counter somebody like say Russia, from steamrolling Europe and Asia 1 by 1.
I'm not sure exactly of Vicky's diplomacy as I do not own the game but have long been interested in buying it. If only my good looks bought me stuff.
I'm not sure exactly of Vicky's diplomacy as I do not own the game but have long been interested in buying it. If only my good looks bought me stuff.
If a revolution CB gives infamy you dont need a seperate CB, containment should take care of it.
Indeed. A revolution CB should allow for annexing or puppeting or impose regime change on a whole country at once, but at an appropriate infamy cost.
Have you finally introduced a way to declare your independence as a satellite state?
Expansion of the Boer Wars would be nice (there's only two decisions for Transvaal/Oranje that are listed in the files under "Boer War" and neither really have much to do with the Boer Wars).
White Australia Policy much? An interesting addition to be sure.
And what about the inverse, with countries forbidding their people to leave? I'm not sure, but did the Soviets limit emigration after they took to power?
Well, it might be quiet, but how often is it anything other than a Russian or Austrian punching bag in the game? The only reason Egypt doesm't punch them around in-game is because Egypt is kind of unhistorically weak in 1836 (or the AI kills its soldier POPs via attrition, which causes the ahistorical weakness). I mean, if you don't think it's the Sick Man of Europe right now, what else would you like to see?
The only times it isn't a punching bag is when it falls into the SOI of a GP. But with the Ottomans in an SOI, they are even weaker than their historical counterparts.
Tell you what - the South can have WV, but the North gets AZ and NM. As the Arizona-New Mexico Territory wasn't even a state, there is no valid claim for their seceding from the Union.
Anyway, West Virginia didn't gain independence through 'right of occupation.' The western counties seceded from Virginia after they declared independence and formed their own government. THEY applied for admission, which the Union accepted. Normally Article IV of the Constitution would indeed prevent this, but as the Virginian government claimed to no longer belong to the US, they forfeited any such claim. (Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 US 39 (1871))
I agree with CaptRobau: Expanded claims in the west help mimic the slow nature of the western conflict and protect the CSA from being wiped out early, while 'West Virginia' mimics a pro-Union populace and the CSA's difficulty there.
been visiting the site since the expansion was announce, oh man am having a O, I need more info about everything particularly in the aspect of warfare, make it more realistic in WW1 era.
There should be more complex decisions that country's can have on a one to one basis so that it enhances the game in the multiplayer aspects and the dynamics of different plausible outcomes.
An ideal Victoria 2 game should always end in a World War in the late game. There should be some sort of build up in the mid-late game, a series of random events that happen to random countries which affect their neighbors and the way they ally and such which would lead to a major war in the late game and a realignment of Great Powers.
Perhaps even chances for "great depressions" to happen in late game after researching several commerce technologies where your Populations shift into unemployed or lower their social strata.
Also there should be an option to either forbid or allow foreign countries or certain countries to not travel through your canals like the Suez canal, Kiel canal, or Panama canal and every time a ship passes they pay gold from your treasury. This would make countries want to try to either buy their way into having access or declare war to get access or steal the canal.
The Free, Independent, and Strictly Neutral City of Kraków[1] (Cracow) with its Territory (Polish: Wolne, Niepodległe i Ściśle Neutralne Miasto Kraków z Okręgiem), more commonly known as either the Free City of Kraków or Republic of Kraków (Polish: Rzeczpospolita Krakowska, German: Republik Krakau), was a city-state created by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and controlled by its three neighbours (Russia, Prussia, and Austria) until 1846, when in the aftermath of the unsuccessful Kraków Uprising it was annexed by the Austrian Empire. It was a remnant of the Duchy of Warsaw partitioned between the three states in 1815.
Kraków get in Austria
Kraków get in Austria