I don't think the deep south would be screwed. Sure, there would be a lower population compared to today, but parts of the deep south were very populated well before AC (Atlanta, New Orleans, Etc.)
Post-Apocalyptic Mod
- Thread starter LordInsanity
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
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 don't think the deep south would be screwed. Sure, there would be a lower population compared to today, but parts of the deep south were very populated well before AC (Atlanta, New Orleans, Etc.)
I'm confident the south would possibly actually do better than in its northern counterparts in such a scenario. The whole rural dominance would certainly work in their favour if we wish to keep the reasoning simple 
.
The Great
.The Great
I kinda thought the whole point of this exercise was that everyone was screwed.
As for the pre-AC populations of Atlanta and NO, keep in mind that in 1880 humble Cleveland had 160k. Atlanta was still under 40k. By 1950 the situation was somewhat better, but Cleveland still had double the population of Atlanta. New Orleans is slightly better off, but it's still about half Cleveland's size until AC appears.
Nick
I'm confident the south would possibly actually do better than in its northern counterparts in such a scenario. The whole rural dominance would certainly work in their favour if we wish to keep the reasoning simple
The Great
Why would rural dominance be an advantage?
Rural areas tend to produce one type of food in massive quantities. They have no native manufacturing capabilities. This are built so that the only practical means of transportation is automotive.
So what's gonna happen to the corn an IA farm on the Mississippi produces?
It can't get to the next County over because there's no such thing a s a strategic draft horse reserve and the pickups everybody relied on are dead. OTOH the Chicago ship canal works fine. So does the Erie Canal. The Mississippi remains a viable trade network.
What's more likely, that the farmer will trade his corn to the guy 30 miles down the road, who has jack-squat, and can't even get it home because the electronical doohickeys that kept his car going are D-E-D dead; or that he'll put the excess put it on a barge, send it to Chicago, and trade it for Michigan apples on the Mercntile Exchange so he can eat a balanced diet?
There're a couple areas that would retain population:
1) Trade routes that can be used with Midieval tech. Rural areas are, almost by definition, not on trade routes that could be used before 1870 because most places on those trade routes are now cities.
2) Rural areas with diversified agricultural economies, and lots of horses to move them around. A place that produces apples, corn, wheat, and pork is gonna be fine as long as it can get the goods off a farm into a market. Unfortunately for rural areas there aren't a lot of counties where all those products are produced, and there are even fewer with the horsepower avaliable.
Nick
Here's a map of a 38-State United States based more along geographical boundaries.
I think the Count-level titles could correspond to something like an American county, and smaller states would be Duchies and larger areas and states being Kingdoms. And the federal government is an Empire.
I like your map so far, and agree the counties would be the easiest way to break it down. Though I'd split the Dakota area in half and make the southern Dakota area Black Hills and then leave the northern Dakota area as Dakota. I'd also suggest you add in Canada and Mexico (maybe the Carribean) to take the place of the Arabs and Africans in the game (pretty much places to call a crusade on). I'd make from Bonnieville (which you might want to consider naming The Badlands) and West the New Age areas and then the rest would be Protestant (or Orthodox and Catholic if you want to stick to standard game mechanics).
youd have to decide on what the apocalypse was before deciding what parts of the continent would do better than others.
to base things on current agricultural viability means ruling out nukes, or any massive climate catastrophes and going with something like a super virus or mass infertility or something that wouldnt screw up the environment so much.
to base things on current agricultural viability means ruling out nukes, or any massive climate catastrophes and going with something like a super virus or mass infertility or something that wouldnt screw up the environment so much.
This sounds like a really interesting mod idea.
My US geography isn't really good enough to follow most of the previous discussion, but something that occurred to me reading the thread is that river systems would be hugely important in a post-apocalyptic America. Off the coast, everything would either have to travel by river or be humped on animal back, and the difference in efficiency between the two methods is huge.
I would see the great powers of the new feudal system arising by dominating the trade on river systems. Only by boat could bulk cargo be transported any significant distance, and he who controls a major river would control and tax all trade through his territory.
So I would see, inland at least, the new 'kingdoms' being based less upon pre-apocalypse administrative areas, and more upon warlords who have spent generations trying to extend their control along the natural trade routes. The process of trying to expel their rivals from taking any percentage of 'their' trade would lead to the natural (ie de jure) kingdoms being formed around the tributary networks of the great rivers.
Great cities would form in the natural positions to extort money from the river trade, and I can't see rivers forming borders between kingdoms, since that would be an inherently unstable situation - both sides would attempt to dominate the river traffic, a situation that would lead inevitably to war.
My US geography isn't really good enough to follow most of the previous discussion, but something that occurred to me reading the thread is that river systems would be hugely important in a post-apocalyptic America. Off the coast, everything would either have to travel by river or be humped on animal back, and the difference in efficiency between the two methods is huge.
I would see the great powers of the new feudal system arising by dominating the trade on river systems. Only by boat could bulk cargo be transported any significant distance, and he who controls a major river would control and tax all trade through his territory.
So I would see, inland at least, the new 'kingdoms' being based less upon pre-apocalypse administrative areas, and more upon warlords who have spent generations trying to extend their control along the natural trade routes. The process of trying to expel their rivals from taking any percentage of 'their' trade would lead to the natural (ie de jure) kingdoms being formed around the tributary networks of the great rivers.
Great cities would form in the natural positions to extort money from the river trade, and I can't see rivers forming borders between kingdoms, since that would be an inherently unstable situation - both sides would attempt to dominate the river traffic, a situation that would lead inevitably to war.
My opinion on this is that a new Dark Ages game set specifically in North America should try to maintain not only the unique elements of American culture, but also landscape, meaning that the setting would actually "feel" like North America and not just Generic Wasteland #935893. For that reason, my vote would be towards something like a supervirus, mass infertility, widespread violence & chaos (more likely, a combination of these factors) setting the stage for this new Dark Age.
Not my map, by the way. Got it from here.
I also found a website for a now long-abandoned mediaeval America project.
There are some interesting ideas there, like the US federal government surviving as a Republic of Venice-like state, capital in Baltimore, exerting economic hegemony over the cities of the Eastern Seaboard, the Mormons ruling as a "hydraulic dictatorship" over much of Utah and Nevada, and everything from the Mississippi to the Rockies being populated by nomadic herdsmen.
The pages on Trade and Population are particularly interesting.
There are also some really dumb ideas, like the dominant religion of California being Scientology and the Gulf Coast becoming a Voodoo matriarchal meritocracy.
This is the kind of thing that happens when you try to shoehorn in all sorts of "American" flavor without regard for plausibility.
Personally, I don't know why a post-apocalyptic medieval America needs to feel like modern America at all. Did the Frankish Empire feel like Roman Gaul? Did Seljuk Persia feel like the Sassanid Empire? Did the Tang Dynasty feel like the Han? Cultures change a lot even when there isn't a nuclear war/societal collapse.
Last edited:
its middle ages, not dark ages, the CK game mechanics are set up for civilisation, not the gulf between the fall of one and the rise of the other.
As to Calanctus, yes the middle ages felt like rome. HRE ring a bell? But more to the point, why bother setting in america if its going to have no grounding in reality?
As to Calanctus, yes the middle ages felt like rome. HRE ring a bell? But more to the point, why bother setting in america if its going to have no grounding in reality?
Because a Medieval Europe mod would be redundant.
i think you'll find there will be hundreds of those made anyway though. i still want a space mod more but a post-apocalypse one would be awesome too.
If its a 'Jeremiah' like apocolypse where the survivors still have living memories of the past world then you could have it being basically modern america and the legitimacy mechanics and fixed-geography-kingdoms and same province names while still having the freedom to have entirelly new empires carved out by the overly ambitious. Although for most the mechanics to work it would have to start after societys rebuilt itself and with all that technology on hand it probably wouldnt work so well.
So probably its best to have a seriously apocalypse that knocks out civilisation for centuries like a nuclear war, and then have the new civilisation established on a foundation of a romantisizied view of modern america. So that way you have restorationists, but you also have technology being at a 1066 level. and maybe mutants.
hahaha...Despite what you may think Lots of people live in the deep south (Alabama, Georgia, Lousianna, ect.) and don't have air conditioning OR electricity currently. There are people that live in Texas and Nevada that survive without AC or electricity.
As for West Virginia not being able to export or import things. Due to the snow that is untrue. Coal miners and lumberjacks took ore and GIGANTIC trees out of WV for decades before electricity just fine. West Virginia doesn't get the kind of snow that blocks up everything like in Colorado because, 1) There's no major body of water to the west of WV (the direction winds come from) 2) The mountains help break it up. 3) Mountains aren't high enough to get avalanche level snows on them. Now every once and awhile you'll get the freak storms that ruin everything, but not to often.
and if youre in the middle of a continent you get more extreme weather than you do closer to the edge.
But if WVs been turned into a nuclear wasteland where nothing can grow, then it wont watter if it snows there or not
Ought unplayable normads, maybe using mongolian rules and mechanics control the great plains? or atleast the northern bits of them? thatd do the giving someone to crusade against requirement and make sense cos its all flat severely effected by seasons.
I say that the game take place solely on the Eastern seaboard, or only slightly in. The United States are HUGE, and if you ended the boundary at say, the Great Plains, that would be more than large enough to count for all of Western Europe. Another suggestion? put in Mexico! Having South of the United States fun with Catholic duchies, who might decide to go on a crusade against the Protestants. They might be allies with duchies and counties in Louisiana (large catholic population), or other catholic outposts in the US.
Also, the Deep South being not fit for human habitation without Air Conditioning? Who grew the Tobacco in the 1700's? The Northeast? No, the South might not have as high of a population as the North, but people can withstand 100 degree days (much like anyone living in the equatorial zone without air conditioning). Also, the South has much more fertile land than in the North, and they don't have to deal with the heavy winters that the Northeast does. Also, the main reason the Northeast was so successful in the 1700s was that it relied on manufacturing and TRADE, two things that aren't going to be as needed in the post-apocalyptic world. Big Ports are useless when you're focusing solely on North America. The only ways I can see the Kingdoms of the North prospering is using Old Age technology, and working to restart the factories of old, so they can manufacture things the South doesn't have access to. Otherwise, the Northeast will have no claim to fame.
Also, the Deep South being not fit for human habitation without Air Conditioning? Who grew the Tobacco in the 1700's? The Northeast? No, the South might not have as high of a population as the North, but people can withstand 100 degree days (much like anyone living in the equatorial zone without air conditioning). Also, the South has much more fertile land than in the North, and they don't have to deal with the heavy winters that the Northeast does. Also, the main reason the Northeast was so successful in the 1700s was that it relied on manufacturing and TRADE, two things that aren't going to be as needed in the post-apocalyptic world. Big Ports are useless when you're focusing solely on North America. The only ways I can see the Kingdoms of the North prospering is using Old Age technology, and working to restart the factories of old, so they can manufacture things the South doesn't have access to. Otherwise, the Northeast will have no claim to fame.
If you don't have working automobiles, trains, telegraphs, or radio then then the eastern seaboard will be a gigantic place to fight over. The plains states would almost certainly become migratory cultures as the soil won't support uneducated farming. The dust bowl will return and these people will starve or leave. Eventually most likely trickle east to the Mississippi. The rockies will support very little life. It's very unlikely any government hundreds of years later will be able to control more than a handful of states without current communication and transportation technology. Most of life will focus on the waterways, and the caribbean will become the center of all american civilization similar to the Mediterranean and later the Baltic fueled growth and stability for millenia. The caribbean isn't nearly so kind, especially in the summer hurricane season, but the north, central, and south american territories that border it will by necessity use it to move goods and armies quickly. New Orleans, or a site nearby, would be well suited to be the most influential location in the former United States, as the Mississippi will provide for a large stable population along its shores.
I could see a strong southern state based around the northern rim of the gulf of mexico struggling against the mexican version of itself, likely centered in the Yucatan. An appalachian entity that cannot be displaced by the flatland people around it, a state or series of free cities based around the great lakes, and a Northern Kingdom from around Pennsylvania/Maryland up through Nova Scotia. Those along the Mississippi will be under the protection of the Gulf state, protected from the fierce appalachian to the east and the migratory plains to the west.
The Golden Circle concept of american territory that began in the time of the american civil war. An empire from Florida to the Yucatan would have a very strong capacity to conquer and re-populate both to the North and the South. These lands have the advantage that the north doesn't, winter isn't coming. The gulf states will never die to famine or the cold. Survival, what so many will have to fight for, will be a given. They'll be free to educate, govern, and fight.
I could see a strong southern state based around the northern rim of the gulf of mexico struggling against the mexican version of itself, likely centered in the Yucatan. An appalachian entity that cannot be displaced by the flatland people around it, a state or series of free cities based around the great lakes, and a Northern Kingdom from around Pennsylvania/Maryland up through Nova Scotia. Those along the Mississippi will be under the protection of the Gulf state, protected from the fierce appalachian to the east and the migratory plains to the west.
The Golden Circle concept of american territory that began in the time of the american civil war. An empire from Florida to the Yucatan would have a very strong capacity to conquer and re-populate both to the North and the South. These lands have the advantage that the north doesn't, winter isn't coming. The gulf states will never die to famine or the cold. Survival, what so many will have to fight for, will be a given. They'll be free to educate, govern, and fight.
I actually love that map. The circle, and maybe a few provinces outside of it, would be a perfect size, and perfect territory. The United States would be Protestant, while facing a catholic central america and carribean, with a few protestant states in the carribean (Aruba, etc.) I feel that Cuba and Hispaniola should be kingdoms, while Puerto Rico, and Jamacia should be duchies. Trinidad and Tobago should be a seperate kingdom, and there should be an empire of Central America. This looks awesome.
You mean like that site someone linked where Scientology was the state religion of California?
When you say "grounding in reality" what you really mean is "grounding in the present"--you want there to be lots of current-day references. You want it all to be a big joke, essentially. But if you do this, you fall into the same pit that Fallout 2 did. Grounding the mod in our present means that you have to sacrifice plausibility and thematic consistency so you can have (rather lame and unfunny) references to people and events of the present.If there ever were a nuclear war, the culture that emerged from the ashes of our civilization would look very different from ours. Oh, sure, you could certainly find some commonalities--maybe the clergy and intellectuals of the future would read and write in "Old American English," or maybe some strongman ruling out of Maryland/North Virgina would style himself the "President" and attempt to assert hegemony over his neighbors--but these are largely superficial. Contra your point about the HRE (an entity which generally didn't even include the city of Rome within its borders...), the Europe of the Middle Ages was a vastly different society from that of Classical Rome. Medieval Europe had a different faith, a different socioeconomic basis, different types of governments, different armies, different technology, etc. Just because there was a "Roman Empire" running around in the Middle Ages doesn't mean it had anything to do with ancient Rome. (And please, fanboys, don't even start on the Byzantines; at least the Western Europeans actually used Latin.)