It will happen only with big decentralisation (3) and innovativeness (7) --
What do you think about it?
Stay tuned.
What do you think about it?
Stay tuned.
-
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.
i'm not sure where you're getting casuality from here.
population of belarus: 10.3 million (according to the CIA)
population of the US: 293.0 million (also from CIA)
even if EVERYONE from belarus came to the US, this is only a population increase of 3.5%, which is roughly the percent of homosexuals or jews in this country. the areas you mentioned in "where to send them" happen to be the 1st, 2nd, and 4th most populous states, and the "southern coast," if a state, would probably rant 2nd or 3rd. if every refuge went there, they would obviously have a larger impact, but
1. why would all 10.3 million go there?
2. why would they stay?
3. why would they make people of any of those regions upset? every one you mentioned has more or less gotten used to huge numbers of immigrants over the years
as for the ending parts of the event, things get even more confusing. i know we already had the discussion apart how things could be different in 50 years, the US might fall apart if it got more decentralised, etc, but i think most of this is from a misunderstanding of how the us government and its people work.
1. the us is already more decentralized than you let on. on a modern day scale, it would be a 4-6, depending on resent court cases among other things. right now we are probably about a 6 because of the partriot act, other clinton/bush policies.
2. america has a LOT of nationalism. since the average lifespan of americans is about 77 years, and since most people get more conservative (and more nationalist) as they get older, at least for the next 50 or so the US will pretty nationalist.
3. just because some immigrants show up would hardly change how the us functions. i think we get about 1 million immigrants a year, still, and that hardly registers on anyone's mind anymore. even if EVERY person from belarus showed up, which they wouldn't*, it would only be 10x the average yearly increase. most americans, again, would hardly notice. right now we spend about 20-25% on social security for about 10% of our population...if we did something similar to this for the immigrants, our budget would be able to absorb the impact.
*The people of belarus are running from SOMETHING, probably a war. this means some of the 10.3 will be soldiers. some will die from combat. some will not want to leave. some will flee to neighboring countries. some will kill themselves. all told, i would estimate only about 25% at most would actually come to america, about 2.93 million people, or only 1% of the current us population.
if you want to destroy the us, pick the growing gap between liberals and convservatives
-Matt
population of belarus: 10.3 million (according to the CIA)
population of the US: 293.0 million (also from CIA)
even if EVERYONE from belarus came to the US, this is only a population increase of 3.5%, which is roughly the percent of homosexuals or jews in this country. the areas you mentioned in "where to send them" happen to be the 1st, 2nd, and 4th most populous states, and the "southern coast," if a state, would probably rant 2nd or 3rd. if every refuge went there, they would obviously have a larger impact, but
1. why would all 10.3 million go there?
2. why would they stay?
3. why would they make people of any of those regions upset? every one you mentioned has more or less gotten used to huge numbers of immigrants over the years
as for the ending parts of the event, things get even more confusing. i know we already had the discussion apart how things could be different in 50 years, the US might fall apart if it got more decentralised, etc, but i think most of this is from a misunderstanding of how the us government and its people work.
1. the us is already more decentralized than you let on. on a modern day scale, it would be a 4-6, depending on resent court cases among other things. right now we are probably about a 6 because of the partriot act, other clinton/bush policies.
2. america has a LOT of nationalism. since the average lifespan of americans is about 77 years, and since most people get more conservative (and more nationalist) as they get older, at least for the next 50 or so the US will pretty nationalist.
3. just because some immigrants show up would hardly change how the us functions. i think we get about 1 million immigrants a year, still, and that hardly registers on anyone's mind anymore. even if EVERY person from belarus showed up, which they wouldn't*, it would only be 10x the average yearly increase. most americans, again, would hardly notice. right now we spend about 20-25% on social security for about 10% of our population...if we did something similar to this for the immigrants, our budget would be able to absorb the impact.
*The people of belarus are running from SOMETHING, probably a war. this means some of the 10.3 will be soldiers. some will die from combat. some will not want to leave. some will flee to neighboring countries. some will kill themselves. all told, i would estimate only about 25% at most would actually come to america, about 2.93 million people, or only 1% of the current us population.
if you want to destroy the us, pick the growing gap between liberals and convservatives
-Matt
So, first of all, the event about Belarusians emigration is big misunderstand. At the beginning I wanted to do event sequence in Eastern Europe, then some conflict between Belarus and USA and when I decided to script desintegration of USA I foolishly left the part about Belarus 
I admit, it is my oversight.
My idea in general was to create something offensive (the most obvious idea is to struck into American nationalism) towards particular states/places with player to chose which one to offend. The resented (good word? resentful I mean...?) state would revolt and lead to one big desintegration. Probably choosing where to test Huge Doubled In Power Nuclear Bombs would be better idea
I admit, it is my oversight.My idea in general was to create something offensive (the most obvious idea is to struck into American nationalism) towards particular states/places with player to chose which one to offend. The resented (good word? resentful I mean...?) state would revolt and lead to one big desintegration. Probably choosing where to test Huge Doubled In Power Nuclear Bombs would be better idea
If the USSR recreates, the US should get some events to go to war. If they lose that war, disintegration should be distinct possibility.
I also purpose leaving the USA in as a country, to save tags and to get a New England-type country.
I don't think Mexico wouuld try and grab territory, since this would be more problems to Mexico than not. Cananda might grab som northern terriroty, though.
I also purpose leaving the USA in as a country, to save tags and to get a New England-type country.
I don't think Mexico wouuld try and grab territory, since this would be more problems to Mexico than not. Cananda might grab som northern terriroty, though.
Those backward Canadians? No kidding.
Obvious provocation, I hope no one will be offended [especially Canadians]
Obvious provocation, I hope no one will be offended [especially Canadians
]
Help or keep slient.
edit: If you want, I can send previous version of this post too, but you can feel offended by cruel truth.
edit: If you want, I can send previous version of this post too, but you can feel offended by cruel truth.
Last edited:
TheLoneTaco said:
Taste of your own medicine!
Seriosuly though, I like the event chain about the CSA but, the problem is there is no way to avoid disintegration, which I think there should be. The instability must be triggered somehow!
HoChiMinh,
Maybe that event chain as an interlude to next part of desintegration caused by - let's say - third world war? Or third war war caused by the desintegration?
Maybe that event chain as an interlude to next part of desintegration caused by - let's say - third world war? Or third war war caused by the desintegration?
TheLoneTaco said:
That's one possibility, another would be the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor. America is on the path of losing her middle class with a wealth distribution skewed to the top so bad that it is the worst among Western industrialized nations with the exception of the UK. The return to Reaganite economic formulas this will certainly continue. With an ever dwindling middle class and thus a huge lower class (as people obviously aren't moving to the top all that much), it is possible that something akin to the French Revolution could occur.
In game terms, I'd tie it to high centralization (tons of government interference is generally disliked in America and would represent the wealthy forcing laws to be passed protecting wealth and the wealthy and skirting around the US Constitution to do it), high serfdom (which could represent this growing lower class) and free trade (the US idea of 'globalization' forcing American jobs to overseas nations thus further ensuring that the lower class expands).
What would happen on the world stage while the US was waging a war upon itself is an interesting idea. Would China's dynamic economy continue to grow and without fear of retribution use its military to help spread its ideology in Asia? Would European Imperialists come out of their closets in a wave of reactionism and seek to restore their former glory or will Europe take a more enlightened path? Would the current proto-Fascist government of India seek territories formerly under their rule? Would the Arab world smite Israel without the traditionally strong US military aid? Or would Israel embark on a preemptive war? What about Japan? So many variables to think about.
I doubt losing a war would cause the US to breakup, btw. We are a violent and vengeful lot really (see our crime figures
) and wars seem to galvanize America not fill us with defeatism. We even turn defeats into victories much like the UK did... You also need to think of Great Britain but on a bigger scale. The UK was able, by strength of her navy, to keep herself safe. The US is no different today except we have those huge, lovely oceans and a Navy stronger than the rest of the world's navies combined. Assuming the unlikely event (personally I would find it ridiculously impossible as the world stands today, not arrogance or nationalism talking there, just the evidence at hand) that an enemy lands in the US then they get to deal with a populace armed to the teeth with personal weapons they are proficient with. Assuming one could force the US to seek terms, partisan attacks would likely be a huge harassment for an occupying army. No, if the US is going to topple it is more likely from internal forces or pressures, not external.
Woe to someone attacking the US during those troubled times though as I am rather certain that it would force a reconciliation to unite against a common foe.
Just some of my thoughts, anyways, for what they are worth.
rich vs poor for massive rebellion/government falling scenario like china has in the GC
liberal vs conservative for something akin to the ACW (red states vs blue states)
-Matt
liberal vs conservative for something akin to the ACW (red states vs blue states)
-Matt
TheLoneTaco said:
Problem with Red v. Blue is that in the worst of divides, the greatest disparity in voting patterns was 70-30 (excluding DC). The states, in reality, are all purple.
Even in the harshest situations, I haven't found a liberal who wants to take up arms against America; the largest form of anti-patriotism is a desire to emigrate. Possibly in the future, but the divide would more likely occur in cities/suburbs vs. suburbs/rural rather than in any particular state.