I'm sure the original victoria wasn't that precise, and if it is, then the mod could just use that.
US Civil War ?
- Thread starter unmerged(17675)
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
I'm sure the original victoria wasn't that precise, and if it is, then the mod could just use that.
There is already the data necessary in the 1861 scenario for Victoria. The POP files would have to be corrected for the addition of bureaucrats and artisans, though.
I am a European, and I think ACW provides a great platform for many types of games, (I always play the Conf
) and I would love to kick some yankee ass in Vicky under fairly historical accurate terms.But naggy is right. Focus on the main game.
And if time is given at the end of development phase, then this I think should be an issue to be dealt with.
And having looked at the 1861 POP files from V1 before, I can tell you they need much more work than just adding bureaucrats and artisans.
Much, much more work.
True dat--I corrected just the Southern US POPs in the SR mod, and if they are any indication, OHGamer is absolutely right.
You mean the population compositions and numbers are inaccurate? If so, I know, but if that data was good enough to be included in Victoria 1 and to make the game more enjoyable to ACW lovers, then it should be good enough for V2 as well. It is far better to have a somewhat inaccurate 1861 scenario than to have none at all.
Meh I'd rather have a mod to the quality and depth of VIP for the grand campaign than a slightly later start with a civil war scenario. I think most modders would rather work on adding new ideas and expanding the original game than converting a load of data from one form to another.
Why don't you guys just play the USA from 1836 to 1861, work hard to make the ACW come about as historically as possible, save the game in March 1861 and then use that save game as your scenario?
You can at least once play it as USA, and once as the CSA. Without playing twice from 1836-1861.
And CSABasass or other modders can then use that 1861 save game as the start for their modding efforts... surely modding a save file is no harder than modding a scenario file?? Surely someone can do the initial work, like extracting the POP data into their own files, from a 1861 save game file as easily as from a set of 1836 scenario files?
You can at least once play it as USA, and once as the CSA. Without playing twice from 1836-1861.
And CSABasass or other modders can then use that 1861 save game as the start for their modding efforts... surely modding a save file is no harder than modding a scenario file??
Surely someone can do the initial work, like extracting the POP data into their own files, from a 1861 save game file as easily as from a set of 1836 scenario files?
Why don't you guys just play the USA from 1836 to 1861, work hard to make the ACW come about as historically as possible, save the game in March 1861 and then use that save game as your scenario?
You can at least once play it as USA, and once as the CSA. Without playing twice from 1836-1861.
And CSABasass or other modders can then use that 1861 save game as the start for their modding efforts... surely modding a save file is no harder than modding a scenario file??
The only problem with that is that in game by 1861 the world may completely different than it was in reality. Some people may want a Turtledove-style scenario where the only thing different about the world after the war is that the Union lost.
Depending on how major the changes elsewhere in the world are, you could edit them to be more historical, or you could try to replay to 1861 a few times to see if you can get something better. It's still a quick method of getting some sort of base for later scenarios, instead of having to start editing the GC straightaway.
If you really start to do a dedicated scenario, you may eventually want to start editing everything from scratch, but this is the way you can get some sort of ACW scenario and start spreading it to the community in the first week from release or so.
If you really start to do a dedicated scenario, you may eventually want to start editing everything from scratch, but this is the way you can get some sort of ACW scenario and start spreading it to the community in the first week from release or so.
In Victoria 1, it wasn't that different if you kept your hands off of it. History usually started to diverge by 1870s with Germany, Austria, Italy and all that stuff.
Editing a 1861 savegame to undo some of the weirdness outside North America is probably still easier than writing a scenario from scratch.
I played VIP once. Quit because it had no 1861.
Damn the Union and damn the Yankees!
The South will rise again.. God bless KFC
~On a different note... this argument is strange. I don't understand why this thread is stickied, when it feels more like deserving to be closed. I think PI could have imagined that some ppl want more scenario start dates in the vanilla version, they seem to be a bright bunch. But thanks to their bright minds, they decided to prioritize: try to make a better platform upon which better mods can be better made.
~On a totally different note: I love it when the Confederacy survives the war. The game becomes so much more entertaining for some reason (probably cause the US is weakened) Being from the Balkans, an underdog region of the world, I guess that might be why I dig it when separatists succeed (See Hungarian/Croatian/Italian revolts in V1-VIP)
I hope the ACW is incorporated into the game better than it was in the vanilla Victoria.
Also, lol @ Euros on this thread who think they understand even a fraction of what the American Civil War was, is, or means to Americans.
Also, lol @ Euros on this thread who think they understand even a fraction of what the American Civil War was, is, or means to Americans.
It isn't sticked. Maybe you got confused by it having a Paradox symbol next to it, but that's just because someone from Paradox posted in it.
Really, all you've got to do to make most Southerners happy is to do this.
1, Make the CSA a literal country. None of this rebellion stuff, for the entire 1861 to 1865, let them be their own nation.
2. Three main generals of the South. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Longstreet. Make sure you put them in the game! If the game doesn't have Robert E. Lee, I will be crying for CSABadass to buy the game to mod it in.
3. Add an event that raises the revolt risk in a random southern state for a certain amount of time. The event should go as follows, we'll use South Carolina as an example.
"The citizens of South Carolina openly reject President Theodore Roosevelt as their leader, claiming Jefferson Davis as their rightful ruler.
+2.00 Revolt Risk
1, Make the CSA a literal country. None of this rebellion stuff, for the entire 1861 to 1865, let them be their own nation.
2. Three main generals of the South. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Longstreet. Make sure you put them in the game! If the game doesn't have Robert E. Lee, I will be crying for CSABadass to buy the game to mod it in.
3. Add an event that raises the revolt risk in a random southern state for a certain amount of time. The event should go as follows, we'll use South Carolina as an example.
"The citizens of South Carolina openly reject President Theodore Roosevelt as their leader, claiming Jefferson Davis as their rightful ruler.
+2.00 Revolt Risk
If you're going to be designating leaders to have the CSA AI (or player) get off the bat, why would you include one army and two corps commanders who were, for the majority of their involvement in the war, attached at the hip to said army commander? Far more logical would be to simply have all of the high-level leaders added for the CSA--Joe Johnston, Albert Johnston, Braxton Bragg, R. E. Lee, Pemberton and P. G. T. Beauregard.
This does, of course, bring up the issue of how the leader organization will work--IE, if multiple leaders will be capable of adding bonuses/negatives to an army or if a group of units will merely be influenced by a single commander.
1. CSA will be a real country once it forms, USA is a country tag with the whole of (modern-day contiguous probably) USA as cores, CSA will have the South, probably there will be at least a Northern non-Union country tag and Texas, California, etc. They need to rebel from the USA to form it. Which is what happened, it was a part of the Union until 1861.
2. I had a peek at the leaders.csa-file for Vicky, and the entry for Lee is as follows:
Code:
leader = {
id = {
type = 6
id = 14200
}
name = "Lee"
category = general
date = { year = 1848 }
deathdate = { year = 1870 }
personality = brilliant
background = natural_born_leader
picture = lee
}I could write an entry such as this, given an example of the syntax, despite never looking inside the leader-files before. It is that easy, and while I'm certain Lee&co. will be available as generals for the CSA, it would be ridiculously easy for modders (or heck, anyone) to write them in anyway.
3. This is artificial, and exactly the sort of thing they're trying to get away from. I get the impression that they'll be doing their damnedest to make a 1836 scenario where the cultural (ideology&issues, combined with the economic and political environment) schism between Dixie and Yankee states is so strong (maybe culture will make POPs lean towards certain ideologies/issues too, and not just POP type?), that a player will have to try extremely hard AND be lucky if he wants to avoid the ACW. Better than them living together peacefully and then the South getting a MIL boost out of nowhere, for no apparent reason in that alternate timeline.
For the first, I'd be willing to bet on it, going by King's statement that they're giving it extra attention, and the new rebellion system is a completely different animal from the old one.
For the second part, I'd like to state that that sort of statements are pretty close to a very important and not at all flattering stereotype of Americans(modern-day US), which is a near-permanent undercurrent on the way we "Euros" view Americans, and which has effects all the way up to international politics (why do you think we preferred Clinton&Obama to Bush): Arrogance.
Furthermore, I'd like to give another example of a civil war pretty damn important to the country it happened in, and a comparison to the ACW: a quick peek at wikipedia for the ACW tells me that the USA and CSA had a total population of about 30 million, total armed strength of about 3 million (10% of the population), and ended up with totals of 620k dead and over 400k wounded (about a third of the fighting forces, and the USA suffered the majority of the casualties). You probably already know this.
Finland declared independence from Russia in December 1917, and from January to May 1918 (~90 years ago, not ~150) fought a civil war between the Whites (Constitutional Monarchists & supporters of a Republic/Democracy) and the Reds (Socialists and Communists). The population was about 3,1 million in 1917, both sides had 80-90k troops (over 5% of the population), as well as some 10k Russians fighting for the Reds and 15k Germans for the Whites. Casualties included 10k dead in battle, 10k executed, 14k dead in prison camps (disease&hunger) plus missing persons etc. for a total of about 37k dead. The thing to note is that the Reds suffered disproportionate casualties, especially from prison camps and executions. The amount dead was the same as in the ACW, about 20% of the fighting force.
The Finnish Civil War had a major toll on a country that had just gained it's independence (much of which is attributed to Lenin granting it to Finland with the idea that the revolution of the proletariat would happen and we'd rejoin the USSR voluntarily, as well as the fact that the Bolsheviks were still not fully established in 1917), was only taking it's first steps towards industrialising, and at the same time, the Spanish flu was making it's rounds. Finland and it's people only truly left it behind and unified when we had to fight the Soviet Union during WWII (or so the legend goes).
Are you saying that this was not an important, nation-shaping time? Yet, to be honest, I doubt you had even heard of it before (well, maybe on these boards), yet most Europeans probably do know some basics at least of the ACW. And the Finnish Civil War is not by any means the only example.
/rant, and my apologies to bystanders for the massive post.
Thanks for the info, but the Finnish civil war is not going to make or break this game unless 50% of the Finnish population buys this game. The ACW is a couple orders of magnitude more important.
However, as King has noted, the goal is to make it more organic to the game. At no point as King (or Paradox) said that it would be ignored.
And I would love to see similar revolutions and civil wars such as the Finnish Civil War modeled, as otherwise, it's too easy to coast through the game after a certain point. Rather than hound the devs, I'd rather give them a chance to work on the product...
- Status