States?

[unmerged(5336)]

everyone wants to play (atleast once) as there country, and if individual states are made it's more fun. not every state virginia (the biggest state of 13) nc, sc, ga, ny, ma, pa, delaware and mary=1,vermont conet=1,maine,nj, and i don't know were r.i. is but it can go with another. but it is not realistic to have every country in present germany and not 13 provinces resembling 13 states. even if virgina is to big (remember there is no wva) they could split it up because there are two seperate climates and terrains. also i would like the names of the states to be normal for english but different for other countries. populations should be larger too, not just in america, also asia (indonesia) va was the most populus state and ny would be a good commercial center of trade. the goods are reasnably well planed already atleast in the south. also what about the capitol, washington could be seperate, va, or mary.

not life or death and i'll probably buy the game anyway, but i might not if it is too focused on europe. not that i don't like being in europe, but i would like the option of being the home team aswell.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Originally posted by nobody inpartic
but it is not realistic to have every country in present germany and not 13 provinces resembling 13 states.

not life or death and i'll probably buy the game anyway, but i might not if it is too focused on europe. not that i don't like being in europe, but i would like the option of being the home team aswell.

It's based on a map in 1419, and not even every country in 1419 Germany is on the map. As for every country in 1419 northeast america - there weren't any, just a bunch of tribes hunting buffalo, so the point is moot. If you want a game that you can sensibly play the USA in, look for something that starts after 1776

There's no good reason for altering the provinces. Just because things happened to turn out one way doesn't mean it was inevitable that it would do - in fact if you could run the scenario over again a million times, you'd be lucky to see the exact same set of borders even once.

 

[unmerged(4807)]

in case your wonderin, imeant it ends in 1892 instead of 1792.

 

[unmerged(5336)]

Originally posted by Heyesey


It's based on a map in 1419, and not even every country in 1419 Germany is on the map. As for every country in 1419 northeast america - there weren't any, just a bunch of tribes hunting buffalo, so the point is moot. If you want a game that you can sensibly play the USA in, look for something that starts after 1776

There's no good reason for altering the provinces. Just because things happened to turn out one way doesn't mean it was inevitable that it would do - in fact if you could run the scenario over again a million times, you'd be lucky to see the exact same set of borders even once.

but they sort-of did exist. have you heard of native americans. first of all some had languages and alphabets and there aren't bufolos in the east for the most part. very rude, to insult a culture because they are a little behind you. not all indians were uncivalized.the pohatan, iriquois, seminoles and cheroke controled the land. many states curently were divided into indian cultures. virginia and maryland= pohatan, carolina-georgia=cheroke, and fl.=seminol. i've heard talk of being able to buy provinces from others, so why can't a country by provinces from the indians (not saying all of those need to be included, but some natives). it is very sensible to split states up, but they should have some vague outline resebling it as it happend.
explorers from any country would have split the states up this way for a reason. regional culture and geography helped in the choice borders. the colonies were sensibly created, and whose to say that would have changed if, say china colonzed new york? why would they have chosen it any diferently. everyone should be able to be their country, if it exzisted, america didn't at the time. but why can't it be shaped as it is now?

ps. who says they can't make a scenario that starts 1775 (not 6) i don't even want to play the cival war that much, but i figured that it would last past 1820 anyway.

pss. did i miss the memo about this being EUROPA universalis, and therefore only about europe. well universalis is universe and n. america is part of this universe, and if they decided to add the rest of the world why not make america able to be played also?

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Originally posted by nobody inpartic


but they sort-of did exist. have you heard of native americans. first of all some had languages and alphabets and there aren't bufolos in the east for the most part. very rude, to insult a culture because they are a little behind you. not all indians were uncivalized.

Civilised has very little to do with it. If they aren't organised into something approximating a nation state, then all you have is bunches of natives, and - hey, look! - we already have those in north america. They're not countries, just a bunch of tribes. I don't understand why you would think that calling them tribal means I think they're all illiterate, or uncivilised, but what the hey.

 

[unmerged(5336)]

well im not an expert but most of these tribes had leaders and so i don't see a problem with including a few more. but i see your point, natives are apropriate for the most part, but some places need to have an indian nation to create diplomatic relations ie france-indian or indian-indian.

and, just out of curiosity,why do you care if it looks like the current america (at least the first 13)? i don't see it ruining either sides (euro-usa) gaming experiance either way but i'd just like to see i map i can relate to. but even if they don't change the borders, they should rename some provinces any way. america(the nation) may not have existed for more than 100 fears of the game, but it could, if it is colonized earlier.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

well im not an expert but most of these tribes had leaders...

I would imagine so - without a leader, it's not even a tribe
My point is this: a tribe occupying a single province, as far as the colonising nations are concerned, is no more "the owner" of that province than the plants are, and the land is there for the taking. If the tribe is peaceful, it's likely to get simply absorbed by the colonials; if not, there'll be violence. But the concept of a "nation state" wherein if say Spain attacks people in one province, all of the others will fight back - are there any grounds for representing the native americans in that way in the US/Canada area? It doesn't seem to have happened much.

and, just out of curiosity,why do you care if it looks like the current america (at least the first 13)?

Occam's razor. If a change doesn't add anything worthwhile, then don't make it. Also the fact that some of the modern-day states are way too small to be included in a map which is divided into EU-sized provinces, where others are way too big.... I just don't see it working out properly.

 

[John Poole]

Well if we go on some alternative history here for North America it could have easily been a situation where each of those 13 states were independent. I mean each one did have their own currency, armed forces, foriegn policy, and constitution under the Articles of Confederation. It was just a trick of fate that the USA happened to become a unified nation. The title of President could have easily been as ceremonial and inneffective as HRE. The French had 13 ambassadors to the USA after the revolution for example. Having all 13 states on the Eastern seaboard could add alot to a late 18th early 19 century scenario...but naturally the chances of the USA forming as it did historically in the GC is approximately 1 in 1000000 (maybe not even that good ).

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Heyesey
well im not an expert but most of these tribes had leaders...

I would imagine so - without a leader, it's not even a tribe
My point is this: a tribe occupying a single nation, as far as the colonising nations are concerned, is no more "the owner" of that province than the plants are, and the land is there for the taking. If the tribe is peaceful, it's likely to get simply absorbed by the colonials; if not, there'll be violence. But the concept of a "nation state" wherein if say Spain attacks people in one province, all of the others will fight back - are there any grounds for representing the native americans in that way in the US/Canada area? It doesn't seem to have happened much.

In the East, it makes sense for at least the Iroquois and the Cherokee. The Iroquois go without saying as a result of their appearance in the original EU. The Cherokee, as a result of having to deal with problems resulting from the European settlement of Georgia, began to unite and form a true nation in the 1720's and 1730's. They soon had a completely developed political system, eventually created their own form of writing, and even later (in the 1820s) had a system modeled on the US with representative districts and an elected legislature. President Jackson wouldn't stand for this, of course, and forced them to resettle in the west with great loss of life (the infamous "Trail of Tears"). In EU terms, the Cherokee should start out as a primitive, disorganized nation, with the potential of becoming a fairly organized state.

From what has been revealed so far, it appears that there will be only a dozen or so new Native American nations in North America. I doubt that they will even come close to filling up all the North American provinces, so there's no problem in colonial expansion. You just have to deal with organized neighbors from time to time, which is certainly historical...

 

[unmerged(1095)]

Intermission

A good discussion.
The post that tried to be insulting has been edited out. That also meant that people who replied to it have also had posts deleted (or it wouldnt have made sense to a new reader). So people have lost a few posts from the "Post Count" - dont bother replying to posts like that, I will get around to them.