Things I love, and hate, about vicky

[Mowers]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
Be nice, Mowers. The least you could do would be to point out that I am actually a rather defensive-minded player in MP who tends to devote too much time to the economy and does not go out of his way to attack player nations. In other words, the perfect neighbour.

I was being nice, in fact rather complementary.

I fear you underestimate me.

The wording was “ridiculous things“. I am not inferring that you are a warmonger, far from it as we both know very differently; rather that your style of MP play can deliver stunning results that are much more fearsome and amusing that conquering the world as trazibond….

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Mowers
I was being nice, in fact rather complementary.

I know. It is just that I am getting tired of having new players fear being my neighbour [something that has occasionally been observed in EU2MP]. I vastly prefer them to know that so long as they they do not provoke me, they are liable to live long and prosper. I just wanted to point out the distinction, as your original formulation was a bit vague and could be interpreted as an indication of me being a warmonger.

 

[unmerged(11750)]

2) In the specific case of the ACW, the CSA are almost always outclassed by the US from the very start. IIRC historically they had an equal, or even slightly larger, army at the outset of hostilities. At least nothing near the 10:1 odds I see before conscription. Could partially be attributed to the mad expansion in 1)

Well, to be completely accurate, at the outset of hostilities the Union possessed 12,000 men under arms, to the Confederacy's zero. Lincoln's initial call for volunteers was intended to add 75,000 men for a three-month campaign ... Davis scrapped together about 70,000. So yes, they were more or less equal, and most of the Union's advantages were potential ones that had to be realized. Alas, that sort of situation is hard to model in a game. I haven't played Victoria yet, but my guess is that the USA engages in mass conscription much earlier than IRL and thus uses its 4:1 manpower advantage to overwhelm the rebs.

 

[Mowers]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
I know. It is just that I am getting tired of having new players fear being my neighbour [something that has occasionally been observed in EU2MP]. I vastly prefer them to know that so long as they they do not provoke me, they are liable to live long and prosper. I just wanted to point out the distinction, as your original formulation was a bit vague and could be interpreted as an indication of me being a warmonger.

lol

Mpers should frighten their children with stories of when PE goes bad....

Anyone who is your neighbour should read the goon story.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Mowers

Anyone who is your neighbour should read the goon story.

Poland and Lithuania deserved what they got for ganging up on the Teutonic Order. A clear-cut case of self-defense.

 

[Mowers]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
Poland and Lithuania deserved what they got for ganging up on the Teutonic Order. A clear-cut case of self-defense.

My entire point

not only did you do it in an effective way against good countries but it was also deeply amusing.

 

[Aragos]

Two comments

First, the solution to the US colonization problem may be a worse Civil War. Remember that the South wanted to colonize Cuba, Mexico and Central America BEFORE the war in order to expand slavery. A good balance might be making any external US colony either 1) a member of the CSA upon start of the ACW (to include any units, naval or land in the colony) or 2) the possession of any province past the 1836 start point increases the chance of a civil war (it was the expansion of the slave/free issue into the new territories that set the spark for the war). This way, the USA has the option to colonize upper botwanaland if it wants, but pays the price by having to fight a crapload of CSA troops with a stronger resource base when the war starts.

Secondly, when it comes to forces for the USA and CSA at the start of the historical war, the CSA actually had the advantage. Read Richard McMurry's Two Great Rebel Armies. In it, it notes that the South, in general, had a better militia/volunteer system than the North and was able to field troops quicker. It wasn't until Lincoln's second call for troops in 1861-62 that the Federal forces grew substantially over the Southern forces. Most of the battles in 1861 were fairly well matched (especially those in the Western and trans-Mississippi theaters). Maybe Vicky needs some sort of brake on US military expansion before the Civil War; lower soldier POPs perhaps or some sort of penalty for war weariness,etc. if a large army is created before the Civil War.

Just some ideas

Bob

 

[Duuk]

Most of us Yankee-Pigdog-Imperialists have been saying the US should focus almost exclusively on North and South America as targets of Imperialism. It's what we did, and it's hugely valuable property.

Probably an AI fix for 1.02, so not a game-breaker as of yet.

The ACW needs to be sure that the Union will focus entirely on destroying the Confederacy while it exists. The only way the Confederates would even get a white peace from the Union would be if the CSA had a massive warscore advantage. Basically, the CSA needs to either lose completely or win convincingly. There should be no "CSA has accepted peace with USA on the following terms: Virginia to USA."

 

[Aragos]

Duuk,
Excellent point. Maybe if Lincoln loses the 1864 election then a 'CSA surrenders Virginia to USA' type of peace could be settled. That is about the only way I can see that happening.

For the CSA, I'd make it a victory-or-death sort of thing. Maybe they have to take DC and several other key major cities before independence, or a combination of city conquest and UK or French recognition/intervention. Just an idea.

I dont see Lincoln ever making peace with a still existant CSA. However, I can see a 'white peace' in which the CSA 'rejoins' the USA but keeps slavery.