-
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.
Someone mentioned avoiding the Civil War, but I think that would be pretty difficult to do, as the Missouri Compromise had already taken place, and either way you go in 1854 you make enemies.
But then, I can see it not happening by not initiating the Mexican-American war, although that's *probably* gonna happen if you want Texas. Or perhaps, the states might solidify if you were to adhere to the "Fifty Four Forty or fight!" slogan and invade Canada.
But then, I can see it not happening by not initiating the Mexican-American war, although that's *probably* gonna happen if you want Texas. Or perhaps, the states might solidify if you were to adhere to the "Fifty Four Forty or fight!" slogan and invade Canada.
I think:
1835
1848
1861 ( for the civ war fans )
1898 ( might as well have a turn of the century war )
1914
that will be enough
1835
1848
1861 ( for the civ war fans )
1898 ( might as well have a turn of the century war )
1914
that will be enough
I'm curious to see what they have for Northern secessionist movements. I remember hearing that there was talk, during the War of 1812, of the Northern states seceding in protest over the decline in Atlantic trade due to British impedance.
I think it's possible that a war over Oregon would provoke much the same sentiments.
I think it's possible that a war over Oregon would provoke much the same sentiments.
Originally posted by Duuk
Two Words: Turtle Dove
Let those two cursed words never be spoken again! Seriously, he's a terrible writer...
Imp,
Agreed, by the time the game starts, the events that forced the War were already in place. For game purposes I 'might' be willing to entertain a scenario that avoids it. But it would have to be so extreme that it would be just as crippling in it's own right.
Agreed, by the time the game starts, the events that forced the War were already in place. For game purposes I 'might' be willing to entertain a scenario that avoids it. But it would have to be so extreme that it would be just as crippling in it's own right.
Blasphemy! I swear next thing we'll know you'll be saying something about Johan in which case we may have to substitute the firing squad for flaying you alive.
j/k
Seriously, though I think most of what he’s written to be quite good there are of course a few exceptions. I mean he’s not considered to be the master of Alternative history for nothing any particular reason you must bash him so?
yes, we want civil wars!
ACW covers roughly 6% of Victoria time scope.
Surely it needs to be in game.
But I wonder what will happen to the Russian Civil War, ended in 1921.
I'm hoping The Finnish Civil War will be in as in WW1 scenario.
Though, I doubt there will be no WW1 scenario.
-
ACW covers roughly 6% of Victoria time scope.
Surely it needs to be in game.
But I wonder what will happen to the Russian Civil War, ended in 1921.
I'm hoping The Finnish Civil War will be in as in WW1 scenario.
Though, I doubt there will be no WW1 scenario.
-
I wouldn't quite say Turtledove was terrible, but he isn't really a good writer. He has great ideas I will grant you, but while the histories he constructs are very interesting, you have to often get through hundreds of pages of mediocre character development and tedious details of battles to actually get to the fun stuff. Any Harry Turtledove book could be written up in 1/4th the length and be just as enjoyable, if not moreso.
What we also need, when playing US in the grand campaign, is the ability to choose sides in the event of a civil war!
It's a pain if you have to save and edit etc. in order to play the Confederates.
It's a pain if you have to save and edit etc. in order to play the Confederates.
You don't have to edit anything. Just save and go back and right click and select CSA in place of USA.
Maybe
This probably won't happen....
Prior to 1812, there was more secessionist talk in the north than the south; most of the presidents at that time came from Virginia, and the Jefferson embargo devastated the shipping. But that was the high point, and shipping had never recovered to the same extent, as far as I am aware.
Also, the north's economic situation and the US's political arena had changed greatly by that time. The embargo itself encouraged the manufacturing which Jefferson disliked, and the 1840's and 1850's were when the north's resources were converted much more rapidly to railroads and industrialization than to shipping. True, they need plenty of places to ship those products, but that's where the south comes in...
The 1828 Tariff of Abominations had already enraged the south, and the 1832 compromise did not go far in mending relations ( nullfications and jackson ). As such, I can see a war with Canada and Britain being much more irritating to the south than the north: they'll absolutely HAVE to buy northern products, at any price. And to make up for the loss of overseas trade, I can definitely see northerners raising their prices drastically on the rural south.
Now, say you don't go to war with Mexico, try to avoid that Kansas mess.......
Much like the north called the Mexican-American war a "Southern plot" ( although that's not really true ), the south would undoubtably call a war with Canada a "northern plot". The addition of new territories strictly to the cold north would be outrageous; the south needed Texas and the other territories just to keep pace with the North's population and electorial majority. One reason that the civil war took place was that the south could not doubt that the north would win effective majority in the next five, ten years. Take ontario, quebec, etc, and they have no chance whatsoever by 1860.
As I see it, the north will probably not be the one to secede in any case, for the game starts too late.
But if anyone wants the south to win the civil war, I suggest starting it in 1850 >=)
This probably won't happen....
Prior to 1812, there was more secessionist talk in the north than the south; most of the presidents at that time came from Virginia, and the Jefferson embargo devastated the shipping. But that was the high point, and shipping had never recovered to the same extent, as far as I am aware.
Also, the north's economic situation and the US's political arena had changed greatly by that time. The embargo itself encouraged the manufacturing which Jefferson disliked, and the 1840's and 1850's were when the north's resources were converted much more rapidly to railroads and industrialization than to shipping. True, they need plenty of places to ship those products, but that's where the south comes in...
The 1828 Tariff of Abominations had already enraged the south, and the 1832 compromise did not go far in mending relations ( nullfications and jackson ). As such, I can see a war with Canada and Britain being much more irritating to the south than the north: they'll absolutely HAVE to buy northern products, at any price. And to make up for the loss of overseas trade, I can definitely see northerners raising their prices drastically on the rural south.
Now, say you don't go to war with Mexico, try to avoid that Kansas mess.......
Much like the north called the Mexican-American war a "Southern plot" ( although that's not really true ), the south would undoubtably call a war with Canada a "northern plot". The addition of new territories strictly to the cold north would be outrageous; the south needed Texas and the other territories just to keep pace with the North's population and electorial majority. One reason that the civil war took place was that the south could not doubt that the north would win effective majority in the next five, ten years. Take ontario, quebec, etc, and they have no chance whatsoever by 1860.
As I see it, the north will probably not be the one to secede in any case, for the game starts too late.
But if anyone wants the south to win the civil war, I suggest starting it in 1850 >=)
A few comments about an ACW scenario and its intergration into the Grand Campaign. I sincerly hope that as much, if not more, effort is taken by beta testers, researchers, historians et al on the 1860 or whatever scenario as is done with the Grand Campaign. I believe this is more necessary than with EU and HoI in that, unlike with those games, it may possibly be that the 1860 scenario will be the more popular than the Grand Campaign, at least in the US. If care isn't taken to make sure it is properly balanced, starting conditions right, etc., well, Paradox has yet to see how rabid we Amis can be when it comes to such things (the American Revolution and even WWII are minor footnotes compared to the ACW to most Americans ).
Second, I think it is necessary for the American player in the Grand Campaign to be allowed to choose whether to continue on as either the Union or Confederacy, when it happens, as it must despite the possibility of alternate histories.
Which brings me to my last point, care should be taken, through events or whatever, to make sure that an AI controlled USA in the Grand Campaing heads inexorably to the Civil War. This may mean a higher that 85% chance that certain event choices will be made. Only if a human is playing the USA in the Grand Campaign, should the war be avoidable. Might be tough to do, but I think it is doable.
Damn, sure wish I had known about this game early enough to have applied for beta. Good luck to all you beta testers, I'll be looking over your shoulder.
).Second, I think it is necessary for the American player in the Grand Campaign to be allowed to choose whether to continue on as either the Union or Confederacy, when it happens, as it must despite the possibility of alternate histories.
Which brings me to my last point, care should be taken, through events or whatever, to make sure that an AI controlled USA in the Grand Campaing heads inexorably to the Civil War. This may mean a higher that 85% chance that certain event choices will be made. Only if a human is playing the USA in the Grand Campaign, should the war be avoidable. Might be tough to do, but I think it is doable.
Damn, sure wish I had known about this game early enough to have applied for beta. Good luck to all you beta testers, I'll be looking over your shoulder.
Originally posted by MacGregor
A few comments about an ACW scenario and its intergration into the Grand Campaign. I sincerly hope that as much, if not more, effort is taken by beta testers, researchers, historians et al on the 1860 or whatever scenario as is done with the Grand Campaign. I believe this is more necessary than with EU and HoI in that, unlike with those games, it may possibly be that the 1860 scenario will be the more popular than the Grand Campaign, at least in the US. If care isn't taken to make sure it is properly balanced, starting conditions right, etc., well, Paradox has yet to see how rabid we Amis can be when it comes to such things (the American Revolution and even WWII are minor footnotes compared to the ACW to most Americans
THey should work harder on this scenario not only because of the American Civil War, but because the wars of Italian and German unification all take place in the 1860s.
Succession of the North was dead by the time this game starts. Their leader got killed in a duel, and New York refused to have anything to do with it (Without New York, New England was be dead quicker the Confederacy). Nice thought though, could have been fun.....
No it wouldn't the North wanted the Oregon territory to balance out Texan and Mexican gains.
Yep Tim, it would have relieved a lot of tension to just take both, but from a forgien point all that would have happened was that the US would have been fighting a war on two fronts, and the Mexicans would not be so weak with British help. Polk knew this and that is why he set a boundary to the North before declaring war in the South.
Last edited:
Polk signed a treaty setting up a boundary with Britain because he knew if he attempted war with Mexico while his country was still screaming about war with Canada then Britain would have no problem supporting the Mexicans and might even enter the war actively. Attacking one and then the other was just not an option because both seen the US a very real threat to themselves, and would see war on the other as an opportunity to get ride of that threat.