The United States

[unmerged(126297)]

Everyone who speaks Greek is civilised, every one else is a barbarian (because when they talk they just go 'bar bar bar'). End of discussion.


As for the US ingame, I think only a PC game starting with the Revoloution, and focused specificaly on the US political structure and situation etc etc could evr really provide a realistic outcome. In game, an EU/ Rome style colonisation would probably be good enough, though one would need to ensure that it is hard for anyone else to take it first, even though many did or had claims (Mexico, British/Canadian claims etc.)

Maybe a pop migration rule which allows pops to move themselves into the area, establish themselves then fire an event to become a part of the union?

What ever the case, something needs to prevent the rapid colonization of the entire US, and also one which maybe allows the player to persue a Jeffersonian America.

But as I said at the beggining, modeling the 19th C USA will never be an easy task.

Well, no, I was thinking more along the lines of a civilization being one that depended upon agriculture, had a transportation system, had long-distance trade, writing, standards of measurements, art, math, astronomy, architecture, and some sort of legal system. And I guess it does actually matter since you can annex uncivilized nations outright.

 

[unmerged(126297)]

And, just to be clear, I'm not attempting to be a smart-alec or troll. I also don't mean that as an insult. It's just a recognition that the Indian cultures of North America weren't as advanced as some Central American, South American, European, and Asian cultures.

 

[Yakman]

the structures of their societies evolved based upon on the internal needs and desires of the people who lived in them. Whether one can call that civilization or not is a topic for separate debate. What I was referring to was instead the whole idea that the Western introduction of "civilization," as in Western models of social, political, economic and cultural structures, being by default an improvement in the lives of these peoples in and of itself. That is why I put the term civilization in quotations. It was in reference to the Western conceptualization and the arrogance of superiority implicit in the 19th century understanding of the term that resulted in the use of quotation marks, not a statement on the native societies own internal elaboration of such structures before the establishment of Western domination over their societies.

Yes, but then again, this is Vicky, and so it should be Civilization, not "civilization."

After all, if you aren't Protestant and speaking English, then you might as well be an unwashed Hindoo, trapped in a Stygian darkness of barbarism.

My main hope for the American West and the other vast, "unclaimed" territories in the game is that there's some penalty associated with building in them until a certain population exists within a territory--that way one can model Australia, Brazil, Africa, and the other areas where it took time for Europeans to begin developing industries, infrastructure, etc., without disrupting the fact that political control in many places was a fact long before the railroads and factories started showing up.

 

[Aragos]

I think what is needed is an increased threat to colonies/settlements. Regardless of the opinions about 'civilization,' Native Americans in the 19th century were never a realistic threat to the existence of the United States. Some 'uncivliized' nations (Zulus, Ashantis) could put up a good fight. The best the Amerindians did was the Seminole War(s), the 1862-64 Minnesota uprisings, and the 1876 Lakota War. And those were against relatively small conventional forces.

No, what should happen is you have a handful of major uncivilized nations (Zulus, etc.) but the bulk of the unsettled areas should be either of low or high native threat. Higher the threat, the more need to put troops in the region to allow for settlement.

Let's be honest here, raising the US's threat in VIP based on their conquering/annexing native owned areas (and then having to fight the Russians, French, Germans and British due to high badboy) was a bit silly. Those countries would have applauded such action as 'bringing civilization to the unwashed masses' sort of thing.

This was the Age of Imperialism, after all.

 

[unmerged(47160)]

I think what is needed is an increased threat to colonies/settlements. Regardless of the opinions about 'civilization,' Native Americans in the 19th century were never a realistic threat to the existence of the United States. Some 'uncivliized' nations (Zulus, Ashantis) could put up a good fight. The best the Amerindians did was the Seminole War(s), the 1862-64 Minnesota uprisings, and the 1876 Lakota War. And those were against relatively small conventional forces.

No, what should happen is you have a handful of major uncivilized nations (Zulus, etc.) but the bulk of the unsettled areas should be either of low or high native threat. Higher the threat, the more need to put troops in the region to allow for settlement.

Let's be honest here, raising the US's threat in VIP based on their conquering/annexing native owned areas (and then having to fight the Russians, French, Germans and British due to high badboy) was a bit silly. Those countries would have applauded such action as 'bringing civilization to the unwashed masses' sort of thing.

This was the Age of Imperialism, after all.

Don't forget that the American conquest of the west was often romanticized in Europe.

 

[Minchandre]

Maybe implement a system where Badboy is only accrued through conflict with "civilized" (read: Christian) nations? There are flaws, though, I guess: is it wrong to conquer Ethopia? Is it okay to make war on the Ottomans?

 

[Arilou]

An interesting point that happens in the 19th (and not earlier) is the phenomenon of settlers moving *ahead* of armies. And armies being dispatched to protect (and to some extent control) settlers already living there.

I'd like to see settlers moving in even without government control/help with fighting the natives, but letting them do it all by themselves would increase the risk of them simply setting up thier own state rather than joining yours...

 

[unmerged(109898)]

Considering we have POPs in the game already it shouldn't be that hard, there only has to be a good function of POP movement. For example, encouraging internal settlement through goverment grants, poster campaigns and such. And then the profitability of the new settlement would in turn influence both POP growth as well as the chance that POPs decide to re-settle. Native resistance and attacks would in turn decrease the chance of re-settlement as well as the growth of the already existing settlements and the state (player) would thus have an incentive to go wack some natives (just as the good old US). Hell, we might even add in different ways of handling re-settlement and natives, alternating between pure genocide to peaceful integration of natives. My advice is that people should see how the Magna Mundi-team has solved this for colonization in EU3. You could even find a good description on it in the manual, saving you the danger of picking up Magna Mundi and becoming addicted.

 

[Shabz]

I'd like to see settlers moving in even without government control/help with fighting the natives, but letting them do it all by themselves would increase the risk of them simply setting up thier own state rather than joining yours...

As they would have every right to do if their country doesn't help them overcome adversity and initial stages of settling wild teritorry. And of course, unaided settlers would quickly perish, assaulted from all sides by hordes of natives.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Considering we have POPs in the game already it shouldn't be that hard, there only has to be a good function of POP movement. For example, encouraging internal settlement through goverment grants, poster campaigns and such.

Incentives to private colonial interests were something lacking in Vic 1 as well as in EU3 except as an abstraction ('Land of Opportunity').

Large areas of virgin Kansas were sold to private interests by the government for a song, on condition that the buyers would finance the construction of a certain railway planned to be built through that territory. One of my forebears was in on the deal, and raised the necessary money by using his contacts in the vaterland to arrange to settle German Mennonites on the land. A sterling example of private enterprise wedded to national interest.

 

[unmerged(144548)]

Get real about US

Some one needs to do some research about the US in the 1830-1860 period economically. The unrealistic economy and growth modeled in V 1 made the game boring as hell, as did by the way, the unrealistic power and ability of Mexico. Love the management and options, but lets fix this slow, unrealistic growth. The eastern seaboard , particulary the North east experienced rapid growth during this period. It was this that enabled the North to crush the south.

 

[unmerged(144548)]

not likely

As they would have every right to do if their country doesn't help them overcome adversity and initial stages of settling wild teritorry. And of course, unaided settlers would quickly perish, assaulted from all sides by hordes of natives.

Were that a real possibility the midwest Us would still be buffalo and Native Americans.... not an all together unpleasant thought.

 

[unmerged(56465)]

Were that a real possibility the midwest Us would still be buffalo and Native Americans.... not an all together unpleasant thought.

Oh yes, it'd be just wonderful if the entire American west looked like some combination of an Indian Reservation and a zoo.