Say America/Mexico/Ebbesen's Paraguay conquers all of North and South America by 1880. How should it compare to European powers?
-
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.
South America, consisting mostly of mountains and rain forests, would be a pain to connect to a railroad network, and thus prone to revolts that would be difficult to put down because of said difficulty to connect the provinces to the homelands (be they USA, Mexican or Paraguayan).
North America might be easier to manage, and the US, with its abundant ressources and population, will probably be the core of any kind of American Empire.
Overall, the Empire would of course dwarf any European power (and probably all European powers combined) in both population and natural ressources, and if it managed to pull off a successful industrialization of the whole continent (which will be a major achievement, given the aformentioned difficulties in terrain & politics) it would be a truly frightening power, being able to probably conquer the rest of the world with ease.
OTOH, it could easily go down in constant revolt and ugly civil wars.
North America might be easier to manage, and the US, with its abundant ressources and population, will probably be the core of any kind of American Empire.
Overall, the Empire would of course dwarf any European power (and probably all European powers combined) in both population and natural ressources, and if it managed to pull off a successful industrialization of the whole continent (which will be a major achievement, given the aformentioned difficulties in terrain & politics) it would be a truly frightening power, being able to probably conquer the rest of the world with ease.
OTOH, it could easily go down in constant revolt and ugly civil wars.
I think the way to say this would be: A unified North America would have the ability to become the most powerful nation in the world, by far, but would have to first invest heavily in modernizing the backwards parts.
A unified North and South America would probably collapse due to the huge costs required to modernize the large areas in need of industrialization.
An interesting thing to try...
Steele
A unified North and South America would probably collapse due to the huge costs required to modernize the large areas in need of industrialization.
An interesting thing to try...
Steele
That's a whole lot of supositions if you ask me, especially for someone who haven't seen the game. It's as frivoulous as Liberacee's shows.
I think we have found our Byzantium so to speak.
Although Ill go with Greece and a re-Hellanized Byzantine Empire.
Although Ill go with Greece and a re-Hellanized Byzantine Empire.
Depends on what you mean by "advanced"...in any case, the difference between them and the rest of the continent, at scenario start in 1836, wasn't huge.
Originally posted by Faeelin
Nor was the difference between them and Argentina.
"Elementary, my dear Watson".
That's why the rest of the 19th century is so important.
Those were educated guesses pulled out of my head/ass. I haven't seen more of the game than a few screenshots, and my knowledge of American history in the time frame is not entirely complete.
But given the fact that no one except the betas and the programmers has actually seen the game, we all aren't doing anything but making educated guesses and giving uneducated opinions.
So if you don't like this please keep this to yourself and don't go around pissing on other people.
Thank you.
i might lean towards america being weaker if it conquered south america because it surely would have much difficulty keeping it under its control, and would barely benefit much from those territories. part of the reason america was so powerful durring WW1 was because it was 100% behind the war effort. Now, if half its troops have to stay at home and put down rebellions, its affect on the war would be much lessened
I think it should be hard to conquer a large empire in civilized world. When I am speaking civilized world I mean the christian world and large nations like China or Japan which have enough manpower, organizational abilities and tech to resist the conquerors. As far as I know there were many revolts against the new hosts in that time. One example is the Great Mutiny in India in 1857 and the other one the resistance against Napoleon III´s plan to build the French Empire in Mexico.
I think the player may conquer large land areas but he should also expect fierce revolts against his yoke. So the player needs to garrison his conquests and he needs forces to achieve new conquests. As a result he needs quite a much manpower to achieve his goals.In that way one can unify America as Paraguay but he needs a large army to control his gains. I think the economical efficiency should be reduced in the recently conquered areas if they have different religion and/or culture just like in EUII.
The difference between Victoria and EUII is that the POPs in Victoria will slowly assimilate in their conquerors religion and culture but until that and the industrilization of that area the conquered area only produces resources and some taxes for the empire.
I think the player may conquer large land areas but he should also expect fierce revolts against his yoke. So the player needs to garrison his conquests and he needs forces to achieve new conquests. As a result he needs quite a much manpower to achieve his goals.In that way one can unify America as Paraguay but he needs a large army to control his gains. I think the economical efficiency should be reduced in the recently conquered areas if they have different religion and/or culture just like in EUII.
The difference between Victoria and EUII is that the POPs in Victoria will slowly assimilate in their conquerors religion and culture but until that and the industrilization of that area the conquered area only produces resources and some taxes for the empire.
I agree, a united North & South America would be an economic & political disasater waiting to happen.
