Just to note, a player Mexico doing well would never lose Utah in the first place, they would be even more opposed to the Mormons than the Americans.
- 2
-
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.
Yes, I didn’t think the borders through there.
That brings up an interesting thought though. What if the US doesn’t go to war with Mexico in the first place? Do the Mormons still settle there? Or do they go somewhere else in the United States? This all presupposes the Mormons are in the game to begin with, but it might be good for modding either way.
Mormons hit the Great Salt Lake during the Mex-Am War, so kind of hard to say. The border was very pourous however, so it's very possible they pull a Texas and just move in regardless of what Mexico City says.
- 1
You should get the option as Mexico to encourage the migration. That’d be cool.
It makes the most sense, I think, as a buffer state carved out of the US or Mexico by another power, such as Britain or the Confederacy. But it might also make sense to represent Deseret after the LDS settle it as autonomous puppet that the USA can integrate, or not, like Oregon was in Vicky 2.
There definitely should not be in every case an independent Deseret nation, but there should absolutely be some good content about the Mormons and dealing with them as they were a significant issue during this period with far ranging repercussions. In England, the games namesake, there was significant Mormon conversion and migration to the US, and there were Sherlock Holmes stories later written about Mormons.
It would be very cool if in the rare case that the player handles the spread of Mormonism VERY poorly they become a rebellion trying to establish and independent state, either in Iowa or Utah. Conditions for this could be persecution of Mormons in particular + over-aggressive secularization of society OR over-aggressive attempts at protestant homogeneity.
In general I would like to see the possibility for the player to mishandle America badly enough that the country fractures all over the place, in the 19th century this was obviously a real possibility with the Confederacy being the big example, but more severe general failures could have more severe consequences.
It would be very cool if in the rare case that the player handles the spread of Mormonism VERY poorly they become a rebellion trying to establish and independent state, either in Iowa or Utah. Conditions for this could be persecution of Mormons in particular + over-aggressive secularization of society OR over-aggressive attempts at protestant homogeneity.
In general I would like to see the possibility for the player to mishandle America badly enough that the country fractures all over the place, in the 19th century this was obviously a real possibility with the Confederacy being the big example, but more severe general failures could have more severe consequences.
- 4
Much more talk about small independent republics in place of the USA and Vicky 3 could be Crimson Skies
- 1
There were only 60,000 Mormons in the world in 1860. Where are they meant to get the pops to sustain the viable state, army and economy to stand against the US?
- 3
This. Even if the US wanted to exterminate the Mormons for some reason instead of just annexing their lands as a state (which the Mormons wanted) it wouldn't have been a war so much as a general crime against humanity. There is a better chance for an independent native American state in the middle of the US than an independent Mormon state since at least there were a few hundred thousand natives in the US.
- 1
A response to everyone who keeps saying there weren't enough Mormons at the time to justify a state:
First, a Vic 3 1860, or whatever date, population might be totally different than the actual historical population. There might be zero Mormons or a million in a game! You can't lock yourself into historical determinism -- if you do, why are you playing Vic 3?
But more importantly, if low numbers are a concern, then is non-state representation (First Nation or African tribes) already in game? These groups already exist on the game's map, and they weren't fielding massive armies or had giant populations. The reason those nations are in-game is because they are historically interesting -- just like the Mormons and Deseret. If a small tribe can be represented, then so can the Mormon state.
In Summary: Deseret is justified due to it being historically interesting. It could be an organized state, Deseret had the same or more population than states already in the game, and it would be a fun "what-if?" for North America.
First, a Vic 3 1860, or whatever date, population might be totally different than the actual historical population. There might be zero Mormons or a million in a game! You can't lock yourself into historical determinism -- if you do, why are you playing Vic 3?
But more importantly, if low numbers are a concern, then is non-state representation (First Nation or African tribes) already in game? These groups already exist on the game's map, and they weren't fielding massive armies or had giant populations. The reason those nations are in-game is because they are historically interesting -- just like the Mormons and Deseret. If a small tribe can be represented, then so can the Mormon state.
In Summary: Deseret is justified due to it being historically interesting. It could be an organized state, Deseret had the same or more population than states already in the game, and it would be a fun "what-if?" for North America.
- 7
- 1
- 1
To play a semi-realistic historical grand strategy game.
I doubt they would be executed well if they are. Representation for conflicts can be better represented than through wars between the "Apache Tribes" with 3 brigades total and the US with 120 brigades and the native tribes never had any real international acknowledgement. This would probably just slow down expansion unrealistically and pointlessly.
It detracts from immersion by being completely unrealistic. I mean using that logic I suggest that if France and Prussia take to long to end the Franco-Prussian war than they can agree to form Lothringia by combining Alsace-Lorrain, the Rhineland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg into a single nation. The game also needs representation for Vermont declaring independence from the US, and lets not forget Brittany and Normandy breaking off from France, and what if the Ottomans decided to lean into their Anatolian history and reform the Hittite Empire? That should happen sometimes.
- 3
- 1
- 1
The Mexicans did encourage immigration. The result was Texas. Suffice to say, I don’t think they’d be too excited to try it out again.
- 2
I mean player freedom and stuff, but yeah I don't see why an AI Mexico would support it.
- 1
There were at least double that number of Comanche in the early 1800s.