US Civil War ?

[King]

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.

Our aim is to drive the Finish civil war thorugh our rebel system. A coordinated uprising of communist Rebels should give a Finnish player a pretty good civil war experience. The reason we have the ACW driven through a scripted system is because we could not capture the forces that drove the American Civil War through standard game mechanics.

 

[Snaake]

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.

The point wasn't to demand it to be in the game, or how much it's going to affect sales. It was to illustrate that the ACW may be important to Americans, but they really aren't alone in having this sort of history happen during the era. And for some, the revolutions and processes their country went through are probably more important than the ACW is to Americans these days.

As for King's comment, I'm intrigued by this exception to making everything organically driven. But it really isn't a game-breaker for me, I'll be buying the game anyway, I'll play it (maybe as the USA to test this scripting out), and then make a judgment on whether I think the scripting and the ACW was artificial, and whether the game was better or worse for it.

 

[unmerged(76802)]

And for some, the revolutions and processes their country went through are probably more important than the ACW is to Americans these days.

Not likely, though I don't dismiss it. The ACW fundamentally changed the US. Nearly everything our government does nowadays ties directly back to the bloating of federal power that came out of the ACW.

 

[unmerged(58627)]

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.

I'd just like to point out, you're not arguing with Americans, you're arguing with Southerners. There's a difference.

 

[naggy]

Not likely, though I don't dismiss it. The ACW fundamentally changed the US. Nearly everything our government does nowadays ties directly back to the bloating of federal power that came out of the ACW.

Or at least, some people like to believe it does.

Many things Americans like to tie back to are really just cover for obstinacy, one of America's foremost traits. And if it's not, we'll just rewrite history so it does.

One can still be proud of their state/region/country without buying the bullcrap.

 

[Weijun]

Forgive me if it has been asked and answered, but will modders be able to create a scenario with a different start date? If so, I would not be surprised to see work on an 1861 scenario and a 1914 scenario.

 

[Garak]

And for some, the revolutions and processes their country went through are probably more important than the ACW is to Americans these days.

I quite agree with your point in general, but as you can see from some of the responses in this thread, the type of answer you get to this still depends on whether the American in question is from the North or the South. The tensions evident in the conflict never went away, and still drive our politics and culture to this day.

 

[Weijun]

Or at least, some people like to believe it does.

Many things Americans like to tie back to are really just cover for obstinacy, one of America's foremost traits. And if it's not, we'll just rewrite history so it does.

One can still be proud of their state/region/country without buying the bullcrap.

Sure, there is always mythologizing, but I would not understate the significance too much. The Civil War was the most critical test for Enlightenment era thought. For the first half of the 19th century, American republican institutions were still widely seen as experimental.

For Northerners, it was putting the very principle of republican government to the test. If a discontent minority could secede, then majority rule would be untenable in the long run.

For Southerners, it was a matter of invoking the right to revolution when the federal government abrogated natural rights, thereby violating the social contract. If they failed, then that meant the American revolution was just a fluke, and that the people do not have any last recourse against tyranny.

"Europeans cannot understand" is too harsh. Perhaps a more charitable way to put it would be: given that so few Europeans are sympathetic to contemporary American issues over property rights, it seems unlikely that they could relate to 19th century issues. Even Americans have a hard time relating, since property rights are so much weaker now than they were 100 years ago.

Back to the game, I am glad to hear that there will be a scripted system. Especially since slavery policy is at the country level, not state level, it seems that the Civil War will need to some extra help.

 

[Sir_Robert]

How so? The USA civil war was pretty easy to avoid. There were so many ways. Let me think of a few.

- Not deny the states their rights and follow the constitution.
- Buy all the slaves and free them? Quite cheap compared to a war. Oh right, the war was never about slavery.

(But let's say that the secession was inevitable)

- How about NOT invading and occupying territory the Confederation? You know, not initiating an unconstitutional undeclared war of aggression upon a sovereign (confederation of) state(s).

totaly agree war was totaly inevitable if only America honored there rules and let the south live hummm sounds like a ahistorical game......

 

[Orinsul]

Should Slavery be the only way to have the Civil War, could it not happen for other reasons?

Just say the US becomes a Presidential Dictatorship, or the Satellite of france or england. That could spark an event chain whereby the states slowly one by one ask for independence from the Union as is their constitutional right, the Union denies it as it would which leads a larger number of states to become angry with the central government, causes a major split to occur, and as such the Confederacy breaks off in the civil war, but it might not have anything to do witht he north-south divide, although probably itd be for the best if states neighbouring the CSA were more likely to join it.

But that way, the Civil War could still be a constant, but happening for completely different reasons. the standard already written Slavery road would still be in there as well obviously, but this would give a good alternative track.

 

[HMS Enterprize]

^i actually like that idea and would make for some interesting civil wars.

 

[Orinsul]

thank you, i wrote it better in another thread but now i cant find that one. hope the devolopers like it too as id like to see it.

 

[Garak]

...the states slowly one by one ask for independence from the Union as is their constitutional right

This is still a very touchy issue for us, and is probably best left unspoken about. Particularly by someone not in a position to be intimately familiar with the nature of the union.

In general, though, I think you have an interesting idea.

 

[Fintilgin]

You know what I'd like to see in this vein? An alt-history revolter state for African-American slaves. Then if the US never has a civil war and keeps slavery, or if the Confederacy wins, they can launch their own revolt, rise up like Toussaint in Haiti, kill the filthy inhuman slavers, and establish a glorious New African Republic in the American South.

Dear Paradox, please, please, please make my special Christmas dream come true.
Love you forever,
your friend,
Fintilgin

At length they were discovered, and a party of soldiers being sent, the whole were seized with the exception of one old woman, who, sooner than again be led into slavery, dashed herself to pieces from the summit of the mountain. In a Roman matron this would have been called the noble love of freedom: in a poor negress it is mere brutal obstinacy.

 

[Orinsul]

They were believed to have a consititutional right and even knowing, and caring as little as i do about america, should all go to hell, Communists taking washington or foreign domination or just great friction, it seems clear to me any justification that could be scrambled for would be take to tear themselves from such a fallen washingtons control and that one is sitting right there. And id like to see the states a seperate revolter nations in the game as itd be such beastly fun tearing the giant occidential apart.

DO you need a new tag for the blacks? could they not just be Lousiana or some other souther state or even the CSA with a flagname=Negro giving them a new name and flag? Racially motivated nations are probably the wrong direction to go in, as far as being P.C. is concerned, and i know it stands for something different but the pun is just lying there asking for it, it is a PC game after all.

 

[LlywelynII]

@Presidential dictatorship, etc, leading to state successions
Yes, absolutely.

@AfroAm revolter state
Er... Frankly, don't see it happening, though it would be a great story.

You'd need to expand the proportion of slaves way beyond their historic level by reopening trade with Africa, but many of the slave owners themselves had an interest in maintaining the ban on transatlantic importation: it kept the value of their 'property' high. And I don't know what the practical limits would've been: at some point, there'd be no use for further slaves since every plantation would already be working at capacity.

@Constitutional right
I don't know what's contentious about it. The South lost, so the Supreme Court mentioned in passing that it had been an treasonous rebellion based on... bupkis. If the South had (somehow) won, the North still would've clamped down on secession to prohibit the West from going its own way but the South would've certainly published plenty of judicial opinions and learned commentary about the rightness of its own course.

@Other issues
As Abdul argues pretty persuasively, the immediate cause of the secession was well-founded fear by the Southern socio-economic leaders that the North was about to force through a protective tariff.

My own personal wishlist would be to see tariff policy have an effect on POPs and foreign relations commensurate with its historical importance. (High tariffs bother aristocrats, farmers, laborers & all states, esp. UK, allies, and neighbors; low tariffs bother players, capitalists & possibly their employees.)

 

[yourworstnightm]

How so? The USA civil war was pretty easy to avoid. There were so many ways. Let me think of a few.

- Not deny the states their rights and follow the constitution.
- Buy all the slaves and free them? Quite cheap compared to a war. Oh right, the war was never about slavery.

(But let's say that the secession was inevitable)

- How about NOT invading and occupying territory the Confederation? You know, not initiating an unconstitutional undeclared war of aggression upon a sovereign (confederation of) state(s).

Yeah but in Vicky the Civil War usually happened if the Republicans were elected into power, which they usually were. I was able to avoid the Civil War once by never taking side in a slavery debate (and a strong Socialist Party appeared and beat the Republicans, freed the slaves anyway, but the South didn't seem to care).

In Vicky 2 as I understand the Civil War will happen if the differences between North and South become too wide, and the South feel antagonized enough.

 

[naggy]

As Abdul argues pretty persuasively, the immediate cause of the secession was well-founded fear by the Southern socio-economic leaders that the North was about to force through a protective tariff.

I think the key point is that the Civil War occurred because there were a whole raft of fundamental differences between the North and South in 1861 - economic, lifestyle, cultural, slavery, position on tariffs, etc. Even if slavery issue is not taken care of, if the USA manages to bridge some or most of the other issues, then it should be possible to avoid the war.

For example, if you set foci in the South for industrialization and railroads and get a decent # of factories and railroads built, that would mitigate some of the economic issues, as now the South would have a shared interest in tariffs with the North that they otherwise didn't have.

On the flip side, if you manage to tightrope through the slavery issue and don't fix anything else, you should have a decent change to have the Civil War, because you still haven't dealt with all the other issues.

 

[Orinsul]

Paradox has already said, maybe in the latest DD but it might have been one of the other ones that good management of the situtation by the player can avoid the Civil War.

 

[Garak]

I think the key point is that the Civil War occurred because there were a whole raft of fundamental differences between the North and South in 1861 - economic, lifestyle, cultural, slavery, position on tariffs, etc. Even if slavery issue is not taken care of, if the USA manages to bridge some or most of the other issues, then it should be possible to avoid the war.

For example, if you set foci in the South for industrialization and railroads and get a decent # of factories and railroads built, that would mitigate some of the economic issues, as now the South would have a shared interest in tariffs with the North that they otherwise didn't have.

On the flip side, if you manage to tightrope through the slavery issue and don't fix anything else, you should have a decent change to have the Civil War, because you still haven't dealt with all the other issues.

Not likely. Antagonism between abolitionists and pro-slavery types was very high, and was bound to get worse as the abolitionist movement grew. Barring some other major event intervening, it's highly unlikely civil war in some form would have been avoided so long as the slavery issue persisted.