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.
Nope, zero chance of that. Hints, or indeed details, shall be given in today's DD.
Assuming it's ready in time anyway :s
Assuming it's ready in time anyway :s
Presidents, monarchs, ministers, cabinet, etc...
I would like to see this in the expansion...
I would like to see this in the expansion...
Me too. I can understand if it doesn't happen, but I'd really like to see it.
Id really love a naval war improvements DD, it was a huge aspect of the Victoria II time frame and Paradox has put alot of detail into it in the Hearts of Iron series, yet in Victoria II it is reduced to just two statistics, guns and hull, and is just a simple numbers game around these and ship costs.
Any chance you can add back in the naval bombardment ability for big ships which is present in Victoria 1 and the Hearts of Iron series but is missing for some reason in Victoria 2?
Some other simple naval features. some of which which could be easily ported over from the Hearts of Iron series, are:
needing to have a good ratio of light ships (screens) to big ships in a navy to not receive penalties,
fleet size limits which when passed extra ships added to the fleet only have a fraction of their power,
the ability or the game to recognize attacks on land provinces from the sea (amphibious assaults) so that forts and certain units can give a special bonus against them,
a distinction between sea provinces and coastal water terrain provinces, so that monitors and coastal defense ships (which were common in the Victoria 2 period) can be correctly modeled, having good firepower for their cost at the expense of not being able to travel through blue-water areas or having severe penalties when doing so,
elaborating on the current "total_amount_of_divisions, total_amount_of_ships, total_sunk_by_us, and total_of_ours_sunk" modding commands so that types of ships and land units can be used in place of all land or naval units, and that it can also be filtered by nation and since the start of the most recent war.
Thank you.
Last edited:
Quite right. If it was let to release to Israel why it is not let to Belarus.
I am not debating if Belarus should be a country in V2, I was stating that Belarus is not shown in the linked screenshot since a poster said he saw it there. Rather he saw the borders on the nationality mapmode and (I suppose) assumed it was the political mapmode showing a new nation.
First note that I haven't read the whole thread so others may have had similar or better ideas.
Now the rebels start fighting, rebels should only fight in rebel provinces and when there is only one type of rebel left the province will take its rebel type from that, or if in the unlikely event that the types of rebels in the province go from more than one to zero, the general political beliefs of the province will judge the occupational "authority".
If rebels of multiple types convene in an already occupied province, any rebel of the province type will immediately defend it, but lacking the type of the province the rebels will try to occupy it before infighting.
As far as I see it, rebels would always fight each other, but not in the same sense as ordinary armies would, rather they would use any force to occupy the province first, be it royalist, communist, fascist or any other, and the province will be marked as a rebel province, but without a type.
Now the rebels start fighting, rebels should only fight in rebel provinces and when there is only one type of rebel left the province will take its rebel type from that, or if in the unlikely event that the types of rebels in the province go from more than one to zero, the general political beliefs of the province will judge the occupational "authority".
If rebels of multiple types convene in an already occupied province, any rebel of the province type will immediately defend it, but lacking the type of the province the rebels will try to occupy it before infighting.
Haven't got so much to say here than that, it would boost the patterns of historical revolutions during this era.
I added that a year ago in my Victoria 2 cold war mod. The problem for the Victoria 2 timeframe is that few cities would cover a plurality of a province land area, with some notable exceptions such as London. It's not worth adding if itonly going to apply to 10 provinces. Also, terrain can't change during the game, hich isn't a problem for the hoi timeframe but isfor the longer Victoria time frame.
I have two questions:
1) Is it going to be possible to avoid the American Civil War?
2) Are the causes over the Civil War going to include other issues besides slavery? The Civil War was in reality a dispute over ideologies and which powers state/federal gov should have.
The Citizenship policy could become a political reform and be replaced with a federalist/anti-federalist or perhaps centralized/decentralized policy (my opinion).
1) Is it going to be possible to avoid the American Civil War?
2) Are the causes over the Civil War going to include other issues besides slavery? The Civil War was in reality a dispute over ideologies and which powers state/federal gov should have.
The Citizenship policy could become a political reform and be replaced with a federalist/anti-federalist or perhaps centralized/decentralized policy (my opinion).
I'm not quite sure that is completely so;
"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
- Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America.
I'm not saying slavery was not an issue; I'm saying the main cause of the war was their differences in ideologies, slavery was perhaps the biggest issue in a whole list of grievances. There were many slave owners in the North (Ulysses S. Grant!!!??! and his wife for example -among others). Also there where many freed African-Americans in the South (about 250,000), many who fought for the Confederacy. The Southerns may have been persuded to abolish slavery if different tactics would have been employed instead of forcing an ideology on them. Lincohn decided to end slavery by force whatever the cost, he expected a quick victory and instead got a bloody one.
Not sure you needed to bump this thread for this, but no, they won't.