Nevermind that the US was one of the most Industrialized countries in the world when the Civil War broke out, or that the War destroyed an estimated 10 years of accumulated national weath.
-
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.
Nevermind that the US was one of the most Industrialized countries in the world when the Civil War broke out, or that the War destroyed an estimated 10 years of accumulated national weath.
I thought the whole notion of this thread was to close the door on the whole Civil War debate, and all the great things it did, and perhaps put a little focus on other events.
I would like to know how they are going to recreate the setting for the Crimean war. The french and Russian power struggle in the Sultans court, the challenge of the accord of straits convention from 1841 by the Russians. Also is it really necessary that wars that actually happened must be played out in the game.
I would like to know how they are going to recreate the setting for the Crimean war. The french and Russian power struggle in the Sultans court, the challenge of the accord of straits convention from 1841 by the Russians. Also is it really necessary that wars that actually happened must be played out in the game.
Re: effects
*undoes his post because, yes, we should shut up about the ACW.*
*undoes his post because, yes, we should shut up about the ACW.*
Last edited:
I did not intend for this to turn into another civil war thread...all I wanted was to discuss some other things as I am sick of hearing about the war and worried it will be overrepresented in terms of effects and importance
this is not to say that it is not important
it is just to say that other things are important too
and even if one grants that from the year 2003 perspective the ACW was perhaps the most important occurance in the victorian era, I doubt many would have thought it so during the victorian time period itself (imagine telling someone in the UK or germany that in 1900 or so)...before the great war the us was still not taken very seriously by the other first rate powers
this is not to say that it is not important
it is just to say that other things are important too
and even if one grants that from the year 2003 perspective the ACW was perhaps the most important occurance in the victorian era, I doubt many would have thought it so during the victorian time period itself (imagine telling someone in the UK or germany that in 1900 or so)...before the great war the us was still not taken very seriously by the other first rate powers
I would certainly hope it is better represented than just a few events. But then, that's because I hope all the medium and major nations have a good supply of events to be guided by. Far closer to EU2 than HOIs lack of events, I hope.Originally posted by Avernite
I want the ACW have only 5-9 events!
After all, the 80 years war has few more events, if you exclude the copy-pasting for all the majors.
Maybe all threads from now on should have a notice at the top saying, that if the thread creator wants it, any talk about the ACW is 'hijacking' it. 
All this talk about ACW and how it should be represented in the game is quite silly, because the game will have its own dynamics. The ACW, WWI, the Crimean War, German and Italian Unification are all nothing more than possibilities. Not history dictates, the player does. Maybe ACW will begin in 1850 or in 1878 or won't happen at all if the US player acts in the right way. Maybe CSA will consist of more or less states, technologies might be more advanced or rudimentary compared to the real ACW. Maybe the British intervene. The possibilities are endless. This goes for any war fought in the time frame chosen for Victoria.
I don't wanna play Russia and know there will be a Crimean War, a war against the Ottomans in 1877 and a WWI which will see a Communist Revolution. I want to have the right to make my country crash already in 1836 due to very poor decision making or make it a serious competitor of Britain in the quest for power and glory. The only date on which everything should be historically correct, is 1835. After that, I'll take over myself.
I don't wanna play Russia and know there will be a Crimean War, a war against the Ottomans in 1877 and a WWI which will see a Communist Revolution. I want to have the right to make my country crash already in 1836 due to very poor decision making or make it a serious competitor of Britain in the quest for power and glory. The only date on which everything should be historically correct, is 1835. After that, I'll take over myself.
Re: effects
I think my history professor would strongly disagree. Before we went on to ww1 he said: "No other conflict in history has changed the structure of society as much as this war did. The world in 1918 was a totally different place compared to 1914"
Originally posted by czaralex
If you look at the effects of WWI on the modern world, you see that that are very few in any. There are no more colonial empires that WWI was fought over, no arms race between Germany and England, no Soviet Union that was formed because of it, nothing.
On the other hand if you look at the effects of the American Civil War, you seem them everywhere from: Kabul to Baghdad, from Moscow, Paris, and Berlin, where the respective leaders are basically begging President Bush to forgive them like little toodlers begging their parents for forgiveness, to New York, where the economic future of the entire world is decided. (This is probably the worst run-on sentence I have ever written
The American Civil War was the catalyst needed to turn an Isolationist Agrarian republic into the United States of America that we know and love today.
I think my history professor would strongly disagree. Before we went on to ww1 he said: "No other conflict in history has changed the structure of society as much as this war did. The world in 1918 was a totally different place compared to 1914"
The former greenskeeper is about to become the Masters Champion...
It's in the hole!
Suvorov brings up the real point of the game. We play these games to change history, not replay it. How many people play EU or HoI strictly by a history book?
It's in the hole!
Suvorov brings up the real point of the game. We play these games to change history, not replay it. How many people play EU or HoI strictly by a history book?
Cinderella boy!
Yes, ultimately I do agree with Peever Pompous that Suvorov has it right. These events may or may not happen. The game is alternative history based on our decision making.
Yet, if these events do happen, don't we want them to be "faithful" to history?
And I'm really asking here, not positing my view in the form of a rhetorical question. Is Victoria a "historical simulation" where we can change historical events with certain choices or a "sandbox" where we write everything that happens in the world after 1835.
Thus if the former, we do need events tied to the likely flow of history if we fail to make wise/different choices; if the latter, historically related events are irrelevant, meaning we don't need a specific "Lincoln is Assassinated" event -- though we could use a universal event "World Leader is Assassinated".
Yes, ultimately I do agree with Peever Pompous that Suvorov has it right. These events may or may not happen. The game is alternative history based on our decision making.
Yet, if these events do happen, don't we want them to be "faithful" to history?
And I'm really asking here, not positing my view in the form of a rhetorical question. Is Victoria a "historical simulation" where we can change historical events with certain choices or a "sandbox" where we write everything that happens in the world after 1835.
Thus if the former, we do need events tied to the likely flow of history if we fail to make wise/different choices; if the latter, historically related events are irrelevant, meaning we don't need a specific "Lincoln is Assassinated" event -- though we could use a universal event "World Leader is Assassinated".
Last edited:
Ehm, Lincoln wasn't exactly a world leader. But I bet you meant country leader is assasinated
Re: Re: effects
You are absolutely right, but notice that I said in "today's" perspective. Are there a lot of signs of the 1918 world, existing today? Soviet Union, British Empire, France as the most powerful land Military nation, etc: Where have they all gone?Originally posted by christianx
one of the main changs of the great war was to make the us drastically more powerful relative to europe than it was before the war...and this is still with us it also earned the us respect
it also earned the us respect
Re: effects
). The only thing that Civil War did IMO is that it did end the inner quarrels between the various states once and for all. But US expansion outside North America did not kick off until the very end of the 19th century.
If you look at US history after the Civil War, you will see that it was only one of a great many factors who fostered US expansionism (and imperialism
). The only thing that Civil War did IMO is that it did end the inner quarrels between the various states once and for all. But US expansion outside North America did not kick off until the very end of the 19th century.
Suvorov I find it very hard to envision how seccession of the south and the war that almost certainly follows can be avoided by starting in 1835. This was an ideological war that just built up more steam every year untill the boiler exploded and combat shifted from the congress and press to the battle field. The Crimean War however was all about power politics, a player of one of the nations involved might see his interests differntly and not intervene, meanig no Crimean War as we know it. But nothing a player can do should keep the south from secceeding. One could let them go peacefully, but not stop them from going. The ground swell of popular support of the abolition movement in the north despite all efforts of the government in the 1830-50s to suppress it ment this clash of ideology was inevetible.
Re: Re: effects
The Civil War made the US a strong federal state, instead of a sourt of Confederacy. The states had too much power before 1861. And strong centralized power is a must in an expansion the likes of which the US had in the late 19th Century.Originally posted by Tambourmajor
If you look at US history after the Civil War, you will see that it was only one of a great many factors who fostered US expansionism (and imperialism
Well I am sure a player from the Great State of Mississippi could find a way to keep the south from secceeding!
I am sure it wouldn't be a NAACP endorsed plan, but its a plan nonetheless.
In response to the person who mdae the point that it wasn't considered major by Brits or Germans in 1900;
Why should a game made in 2003 have a major event neutered because the staff officers of 1903 were too pigheaded to see the implications the ACW had on modern industrial warfare?
Why should a game made in 2003 have a major event neutered because the staff officers of 1903 were too pigheaded to see the implications the ACW had on modern industrial warfare?
You don't see the full power the player has, obviously!
When playing the US, I can make slavery a non-issue, just by making the North don't give a sh*t. No conflict, no seccession, no war.
When a European player, I could support the Union immediately after the slavery debate starts heating up. Brits landing in Lousiana as soon as the CSA proclaims independence. There will be a war, but it won't look anything like the real ACW.
The possibilities are endless...