Well, considering all the threads that have sprung for this subject, well, I, at least am pretty sure that US Civil war will be included, as a scenario at least. From that point on, well, only imagination is the limit.
-
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.
Hi long time lurker in EuII and here. 
One thing about ACW that got me thinking alot is about the resolution of it. Won't the major problem be that if you play the GC Victorian equivalent you will usually get both a Confederation and a Union?
What i mean is if a player doesn't play either side the Ai will probably fight a few battles then settle for a handful of cash or a state or two then declare peace.
I'm not a "It must always follow what really happened" person but the fact that it seems like you will almost always end up with both states rather than one or the other bothers me.
Hope Johan and the beta testers can find a resolution to this without making the end of the war a scripted event.
One thing about ACW that got me thinking alot is about the resolution of it. Won't the major problem be that if you play the GC Victorian equivalent you will usually get both a Confederation and a Union?
What i mean is if a player doesn't play either side the Ai will probably fight a few battles then settle for a handful of cash or a state or two then declare peace.
I'm not a "It must always follow what really happened" person but the fact that it seems like you will almost always end up with both states rather than one or the other bothers me.
Hope Johan and the beta testers can find a resolution to this without making the end of the war a scripted event.
Actually I don't think so. I can't go into too much on that. But it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Well, the war could have ended quickly. In fact, had the Union forces managed to win the first Bull Run, the war probably would have come to a close much sooner, and as an upshot, slavery would have remained intact. That is a pretty interesting scenario itself.
Originally posted by Jerzy !
Hi long time lurker in EuII and here.
One thing about ACW that got me thinking alot is about the resolution of it. Won't the major problem be that if you play the GC Victorian equivalent you will usually get both a Confederation and a Union?
What i mean is if a player doesn't play either side the Ai will probably fight a few battles then settle for a handful of cash or a state or two then declare peace.
I'm not a "It must always follow what really happened" person but the fact that it seems like you will almost always end up with both states rather than one or the other bothers me.
Hope Johan and the beta testers can find a resolution to this without making the end of the war a scripted event.
That would suck. But I'm sure it can be avoided by using the Victorian equivlent of EUIIs ferocity setting when they are fighing each other so that the North really goes to total war extremes to get back the South. The North should win 9 times out of 10.
I think they will model the game so that it accounts for the fact that no nation recognized the Confederates as legitimate, and as such the Union should be able to annex after they win. Or at least that is how it should be.
That's what everyone thought at the time on both sides, with the notable exception of General Sherman. However, a Union victory at First Manassas is unlikely to have been the death nail for the Confederacy. First, it was by far the smallest of the "major" battles of the war, with only 5000 casualties total for both sides. If it had not been the first battle of any size, it would have only been a footnote, along the lines of Pea Ridge. Second, the Union army would have been in even worse shape trying to follow up victory than the South was. It would have still been almost a hundred miles from Richmond, a rugged terrain filled with inhospitable folks. And many members of it's Army would have seen there 90 day enlistments run out almost immediately (in fact, one reason why the move was made by the North to go into battle when it did was to insure that the battle could be fought before a large percentage of the Union army melted away due to their expiring enlistments). Thirdly, it is implied that a Union victory in this first battle would have broken the South's will to fight. The twin diasters of Getteysburg and Vicksburg in July, 1863 were infinately more devastating in terms of the South being able to wage war, but had almost negligible effect on the populance's willingness to continue the fight. It is hard to see how a Union victory at First Manassas could have had a greater effect. Once the die was cast, this was going to be a long and costly affair. Sherman was right, as history proved.
I agree with MacGregor, I don't think that a Confederate loss at Bull Run would have doomed them any more than the loss IRL doomed the Union. However, if it was a complete decimation of the army, I can see that ending the war fairly quickly. But you could probably say that about any number of battles in the east.
The only campaign that "could" have ended the war quickly was the Penninsula campaign. At that point McClellans's men heard the bells of the Richmond towers.
If little Mac would've even had adequate intelligence and held his positions, they could've forced a siege of Richmond. But Pinkerton was sending him numbers that inflated the size of the Confederate forces by 100%.
If little Mac would've even had adequate intelligence and held his positions, they could've forced a siege of Richmond. But Pinkerton was sending him numbers that inflated the size of the Confederate forces by 100%.
Maybe the South (or parts of it) could start out as US vassals and then eventually revolt. It's not as if anyone actually planned to leave the Union ... it just sort of happened.
The game also needs to be able to handle the Paris Commune and similar 3-way fights. And, of course, pan-Scandinavian anti-German sentiment in 1864...
The game also needs to be able to handle the Paris Commune and similar 3-way fights. And, of course, pan-Scandinavian anti-German sentiment in 1864...