VIP - North America - Canada, Mexico, USA, + Revolters

[unmerged(1047)]

Just a thought about the November 1860 election thing....

If the command "hold election" causes the election to happen that day, rather than starting a campaign, couldn't we simply have a no-choice event with a single command to do so in November 1860?

In fact, if it does work that way, we could rig all of the US elections that way (except that it would disable all of the existing campaign events, as the game would never force-start a campaign.)

 

[Theodotus1]

Sorry to bring this back, but this is a little off, cause to a clever player, he can, as I have done, reach the 1st position in prestige, allowing me to buy ANYHTING that I want in WM. As for example Machine Pieces, starting the industrial revolution very early, cause I can run in debt for a long time.

This is true. I've pondered this. I'm not certain that it's a bad thing. (Not considering multiplayer -- in multiplayer this could be a significant problem, I don't know.) For a Texas player, being able to buy things more easily is a benefit, of course. (And industrializing fairly quickly is not necessarily ahistorical -- my personal perception is that machine parts are more scarce in the game than they actually were historically. I've never come across a source which recounts any incidents of factories not being built in North America due to a shortage of parts.)

What leads to the high amount of Texas prestige is two things, basically:

1) The amount of prestige gained for claiming Colorado (which is 47, I think). This is what catapults Texas into so much of a prestige lead. This gets balanced out as time goes on and other countries claim states and colonies, though it does seem like an aberration at first. (USA claims Oklahoma after the trade, and gains a lot of prestige, too.)

2) The 25 prestige gained when the Treaty of Velasco happens. I've debated the amount gained here with myself, but I can't say I find it too high, given that Colorado is worth 47 points.

I've thought a fair amount about what prestige represents in the game. Given the way it seems to work, all things considered, I'd say it represents something akin to world perception, indeed a version of a popularity contest, though this contest is based more on perceptions of strength and power than on popularity. What plays into a high early prestige score for Texas, in my mind, is a combination of owning a huge amount of territory (with Colorado we're talking something akin to the size of western Europe -- since New Mexico alone is the size of the old Bundesrepublik Deutscheland), and having beaten a large power such as Mexico so spectacularly (never mind that in fact it was a fluke brought about by too many forced marches ordered by Santa Anna, combined with the Mexican custom of the siesta and a failure to post any sentries whatsoever).

The amount of prestige gained for beating Mexico can be adjusted downward from 25, if necessary. (Changing the prestige amount for claiming territory is more far-reaching, and not something I'm totally comfortable with.) Any consensus on what's appropriate?

 

[unmerged(17938)]

Some suggestions and a hello for the thread

I finally managed to read the entire thread, and have now the courage to make a few suggestions which I've been thinking about.

I think that there should be a number of post-ACW events for both CSA and USA to shape CSA-US relations after the war (in the case that CSA actually wins and in the case that the Union survives). One thing which I've been thinking about is an US event in which the US player needs to pick a strategy for dealing with the CSA, with the choices being either aggression, distancing from the CSA or opening diplomatic relations. However, what would be the likelyhood of a beaten US normalizing relations with a victorious CSA?

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Theodotus1]

Just finished running a hands-off test through 1871 with my test files. I noted some issues, which I'll list below. Overall, I'm very pleased. The first Mex-Am War happened when Texas joined Mexico, and Mexico chose to fight USA, England and France all at once, since they were all allied. Mexico lost badly. England surged up from Belize and took Mexico City, then signed a separate peace that gave USA half of north american Mexico, and gave most of Nevada and a bit of Arizona to England. Then France signed a separate peace. When USA finally concluded peace, it got the remainder of North America, except for the lower half of California. San Francisco later revolted and went independent as the Republic of California. USA fought a second war with Mexico in the 1850s, which ended in 1857, with USA taking the rest of California (except independent San Francisco). The third Mex-Am War promptly started about a year after the ACW was finally over.

The ACW was very realistic, and lasted into 1866. The CSA moved it's capital to Atlanta when Richmond was besieged, and Atlanta held out for a long time. The fighting there was fierce. New Orleans also held out for a long time. The USA finally had to overrun all of CSA territory to end the war.

One interesting thing about Mexico was that the Federalists won after the Rio Grande Republic revolted, and thus the liberals ruled the country for most of the time, and Santa Anna never came back into power, and the Texas-Mexican raids of 1842 never happened. Very, very interesting.

Issues I found:

1) The CSA "Right of Slavery" event has an unknown string problem.

2) Cuba was bought by the USA in the 1850s, but didn't take sides in the ACW.

3) The "Henry David Thoreau" event fired twice on July 25, 1854.

4) USA offered Lee supreme command several years into the ACW, on September 27, 1866. (A most interesting development.)

5) The New Orleans Falls event triggered several months after that province was controlled by the Union.

6) The Election of 1860 event fired, and then a few months later the game had it's own election.

7) The CSA "Have We Sacrificed Enough" event made Texas independent again, even though the Union had it firmly under control. (I will fix this myself.)

There are also some problems with Texas events, and I'm going to attend to those later tonight. (The Santa Fe Expedition is still busted, and I need to review the 1842 events and the events in which Texas supports rebellions.

 

[Aragos]

My perception on this issue is that the South would have supported secession by other regions, but only in cases where the South itself was holding onto the possiblity of its own secession as a way to secure its goals. In other words, in cases where the South is not politically ascendent, it would support the principal of secession. (If the South wants the option to secede, it would likely advocate it as a right possessed by other regions as well.)

However, if the South is politically ascendent at any given point in time (in other words, if it has sufficient federal legislative and executive power or influence to secure the continuation and expansion of slavery), then my perception is that secession by other regions would not have been supported. (If the South is in control of the trajectory of the country, why would it favor allowing that country to grow smaller? Additionally, why support the existence of any separate country with an orientation toward abolition? If the South had achieved political control, I expect it would have been as strongly against secession as the North historically turned out to be.)

My studies of this issue have left me with the perception that the South would have followed whichever policy was opportunistically appropriate for it at any particular point in time. The goal was the continuation of the right to own slaves, and whatever facilitated that would have been pursued. (Having been born and raised in Texas, I know how much there is circulated about Southern principles. But as far as I'm concerned, it's propaganda. A lot of effort gets roped into the attempt to divert attention from the fact that the South's core value was the idea that it was acceptable to own people as property, but that doesn't make the actuality any less ugly.)

Theo,
Just got a bit of time to read what you fellows have been doing. Great work!

A few recommendations: read Gary Gallagher's The Confederate War and Gabor Boritt's Why the Confederacy Lost. Just a note to you guys, I have a PhD in History and taught military history at West Point for three years before being sent to Purgatory (ahem, the Pentagon).

So, having said that, I think that the CSA would not have survived the post-ACW era taking the antebellum "hey everybody do your own thing!" approach to government. Example: After the Battle of Pea Ridge in early 1862, Davis ordered the remaining CSA forces into Mississippi & Tennessee--a sound strategic decision. In response, the governor of Arkansas, understandably, protested to Davis--and threated to secede from the CSA and make a separate peace with the USA.

Imagine a post-war CSA where every state makes its own decisions, vice the federal system that actually evolved in the CSA during the war. In retrospect, the CSA was MORE of a federal system, than well, the Federals were until the 20th century. Centralized, state controlled industries; the first national draft in American history; a fairly reactionary court system. All together, it gave Davis more power than Lincoln ever had. In reality, the vaunted States Rights, by 1863, were of secondary importance to the CSA war effort. Personally, I doubt that the antebellum political system of the South would have survived long after the war, giving way to a modern, federal democracy. The South, according to most historians, lacked the cohesive nationalism that the USA had--they were upholding upper class interests such as slavery and states rights and trying to sell the idea to yeoman farmers, many of whom had never even seen a slave, much less owned one. In essance, the USA had the 'home field' advantage--Southerners, then and now, were very patriotic and for many it was a major shift in loyalties that never truly shifted from the USA to the CSA. The post-war South, abeted by writers, musicians and propagandists, managed to create the whole 'Lost Cause' myth--that the South was more noble, that their soldiers were better, etc. but it was only that they were overwhelmed by the Blue Hordes. This has been disproven time and time again by historians but the myth still lives on....

Bottom line, the CSA, if it wins the ACW and gains independence, should be a relatively unstable place, filled with unruly slaves and states that are constantly wanting to either be independent or rejoin the Union. In consequence, their production efficency and taxation should be fairly inefficient and wasteful (to reflect differing trade regulations, tariffs and fees varying from state to state) and a high level of popular agitation. Then hit them with the Populists in the 1890's and watch the structure crumble or turn despotic...

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Theodotus: Go with including Nevada in Deseret, then. I was obviously off base on that.

In regards to $1,000 Victoria equalling $1,000,000 IRL, I think that is sound. My sale of Alaska events will need changing, then, to $7,000. That does seem a bit low, though. Thoughts?

Steele

 

[Theodotus1]

Theo,
Just got a bit of time to read what you fellows have been doing. Great work!

A few recommendations: read Gary Gallagher's The Confederate War and Gabor Boritt's Why the Confederacy Lost. Just a note to you guys, I have a PhD in History and taught military history at West Point for three years before being sent to Purgatory (ahem, the Pentagon).

So, having said that, I think that the CSA would not have survived the post-ACW era taking the antebellum "hey everybody do your own thing!" approach to government. Example: After the Battle of Pea Ridge in early 1862, Davis ordered the remaining CSA forces into Mississippi & Tennessee--a sound strategic decision. In response, the governor of Arkansas, understandably, protested to Davis--and threated to secede from the CSA and make a separate peace with the USA.

Imagine a post-war CSA where every state makes its own decisions, vice the federal system that actually evolved in the CSA during the war. In retrospect, the CSA was MORE of a federal system, than well, the Federals were until the 20th century. Centralized, state controlled industries; the first national draft in American history; a fairly reactionary court system. All together, it gave Davis more power than Lincoln ever had. In reality, the vaunted States Rights, by 1863, were of secondary importance to the CSA war effort. Personally, I doubt that the antebellum political system of the South would have survived long after the war, giving way to a modern, federal democracy. The South, according to most historians, lacked the cohesive nationalism that the USA had--they were upholding upper class interests such as slavery and states rights and trying to sell the idea to yeoman farmers, many of whom had never even seen a slave, much less owned one. In essance, the USA had the 'home field' advantage--Southerners, then and now, were very patriotic and for many it was a major shift in loyalties that never truly shifted from the USA to the CSA. The post-war South, abeted by writers, musicians and propagandists, managed to create the whole 'Lost Cause' myth--that the South was more noble, that their soldiers were better, etc. but it was only that they were overwhelmed by the Blue Hordes. This has been disproven time and time again by historians but the myth still lives on....

Bottom line, the CSA, if it wins the ACW and gains independence, should be a relatively unstable place, filled with unruly slaves and states that are constantly wanting to either be independent or rejoin the Union. In consequence, their production efficency and taxation should be fairly inefficient and wasteful (to reflect differing trade regulations, tariffs and fees varying from state to state) and a high level of popular agitation. Then hit them with the Populists in the 1890's and watch the structure crumble or turn despotic...

Excellent information. (I've only got a BA in history, myself.)

 

[Mettermrck]

Bottom line, the CSA, if it wins the ACW and gains independence, should be a relatively unstable place, filled with unruly slaves and states that are constantly wanting to either be independent or rejoin the Union. In consequence, their production efficency and taxation should be fairly inefficient and wasteful (to reflect differing trade regulations, tariffs and fees varying from state to state) and a high level of popular agitation. Then hit them with the Populists in the 1890's and watch the structure crumble or turn despotic...

Hey, Aragos, good to see you again. That's a good perspective to think about for a post-ACW CSA. Our discussion was hypothesizing a Southern Democrat electoral victory in 1860. If a New England secession occurs as a result (which is the probable result on the path I envision)...would Southern Democrat government put down New England by force, or would they let New England peaceably. I was wondering you think, Aragos, and also Aprof's opinion.

 

[Mettermrck]

3) The "Henry David Thoreau" event fired twice on July 25, 1854.

Silly fix...the NEN event in the vip_NEN.txt file says "tag = USA" instead of "tag = NEN". Corrected and I'll upload it to our new tweaks folder. Are we going to have a new tweaks folder?

 

[Mettermrck]

Excellent information. (I've only got a BA in history, myself.)

Me too, actually. I'm intimidated by Aragos now.

 

[pimparel]

Theodotus: Go with including Nevada in Deseret, then. I was obviously off base on that.

In regards to $1,000 Victoria equalling $1,000,000 IRL, I think that is sound. My sale of Alaska events will need changing, then, to $7,000. That does seem a bit low, though. Thoughts?

Steele

I am having the same problem, Brazil bought from Bolivia and from Colombia territory in the Amazonas, the Bolivian territory costed 2.000.000 pounds, but the prices in Victoria are screwed so I don't have an value.

We should stipulate a conversion value, which should be universal, NA, SA, Europe, etc, etc.

Are you using 1/1000 of the real value?

 

[Theodotus1]

I am having the same problem, Brazil bought from Bolivia and from Colombia territory in the Amazonas, the Bolivian territory costed 2.000.000 pounds, but the prices in Victoria are screwed so I don't have an value.

We should stipulate a conversion value, which should be universal, NA, SA, Europe, etc, etc.

Are you using 1/1000 of the real value?

I think that's what I've been using till now, but we should come up with a unified consensus.

 

[aprof]

Theo,
Just got a bit of time to read what you fellows have been doing. Great work!

A few recommendations: read Gary Gallagher's The Confederate War and Gabor Boritt's Why the Confederacy Lost. Just a note to you guys, I have a PhD in History and taught military history at West Point for three years before being sent to Purgatory (ahem, the Pentagon).

So, having said that, I think that the CSA would not have survived the post-ACW era taking the antebellum "hey everybody do your own thing!" approach to government. Example: After the Battle of Pea Ridge in early 1862, Davis ordered the remaining CSA forces into Mississippi & Tennessee--a sound strategic decision. In response, the governor of Arkansas, understandably, protested to Davis--and threated to secede from the CSA and make a separate peace with the USA.

Imagine a post-war CSA where every state makes its own decisions, vice the federal system that actually evolved in the CSA during the war. In retrospect, the CSA was MORE of a federal system, than well, the Federals were until the 20th century. Centralized, state controlled industries; the first national draft in American history; a fairly reactionary court system. All together, it gave Davis more power than Lincoln ever had. In reality, the vaunted States Rights, by 1863, were of secondary importance to the CSA war effort. Personally, I doubt that the antebellum political system of the South would have survived long after the war, giving way to a modern, federal democracy. The South, according to most historians, lacked the cohesive nationalism that the USA had--they were upholding upper class interests such as slavery and states rights and trying to sell the idea to yeoman farmers, many of whom had never even seen a slave, much less owned one. In essance, the USA had the 'home field' advantage--Southerners, then and now, were very patriotic and for many it was a major shift in loyalties that never truly shifted from the USA to the CSA. The post-war South, abeted by writers, musicians and propagandists, managed to create the whole 'Lost Cause' myth--that the South was more noble, that their soldiers were better, etc. but it was only that they were overwhelmed by the Blue Hordes. This has been disproven time and time again by historians but the myth still lives on....

Bottom line, the CSA, if it wins the ACW and gains independence, should be a relatively unstable place, filled with unruly slaves and states that are constantly wanting to either be independent or rejoin the Union. In consequence, their production efficency and taxation should be fairly inefficient and wasteful (to reflect differing trade regulations, tariffs and fees varying from state to state) and a high level of popular agitation. Then hit them with the Populists in the 1890's and watch the structure crumble or turn despotic...

Aragos, good to see you again. That's the kind of analysis that is needed for that discussion (and why I've mostly kept out of it).

 

[aprof]

Excellent information. (I've only got a BA in history, myself.)

Yes it is.

I have a BA in history, too. (My MFA is Design and Theatre Technology.) I think of muself as more of a "popular" historian, but I believe my BA taught me the methodology to grasp the essentials of most historical subjects I research.

 

[aprof]

Silly fix...the NEN event in the vip_NEN.txt file says "tag = USA" instead of "tag = NEN". Corrected and I'll upload it to our new tweaks folder. Are we going to have a new tweaks folder?

Put it in the "vip_xxx5/Submissions for 0.12" folder with the Phillipine stuff and mark it as a tweak. I send new stuff to Generalismo marked as "vip_usa" "vip_tex" etc. and tweaks as "usa_tweaks" or "tweaks_usa" etc. so he can quickly discern what's what.

You can group everything together into one file to post at Yahoo, but for Generalisimo's ease, I separate everything into individual files for each country.

BTW, Theo: thanks for sorting events by country within each tweak file. It makes things easy to get together. Now the time consuming process for me getting a submission together is making up a list of new IDs to register. We had a lot in the pre-.11 submission.

 

[aprof]

I think that's what I've been using till now, but we should come up with a unified consensus.

I agree with Steele that at a conversion rate of 1/1000 that 7000£ for Alaska seems too low. Would 1/500 be better? (Quick math calculation from reality: drop 3 zeroes then double it. )

 

[aprof]

Hey, Aragos, good to see you again. That's a good perspective to think about for a post-ACW CSA. Our discussion was hypothesizing a Southern Democrat electoral victory in 1860. If a New England secession occurs as a result (which is the probable result on the path I envision)...would Southern Democrat government put down New England by force, or would they let New England peaceably. I was wondering you think, Aragos, and also Aprof's opinion.

Off the top of my head, I'd think that the South wouldn't put up much of a fuss if New England seceded. It would mean the South would have that much more influence vis a vis the remaining non-slave states. I would think Southerners would welcome being rid of a large portion of the abolitionists.

If there were other issues more important to the South that caused New England to secede (trade?, tariffs?, taxes?) then yes, the South would support a move to stop their secession. But I'd think that in 1860, there would still be no other issue more important than slavery.

But that's just a knee-jerk impression without any resort to research whatsoever. "That's just my opinion, I could be wrong..."

(Any bets on when we reach page 100 to this thread? I say by Tuesday of next week.)

 

[Theodotus1]

There are now more fixes up on Yahoo. I'll continue working with my test files in tomorrow, but hopefully these fix what's wrong with Texas. It would be good if these fixes could get to headquarters as soon as possible.

Now I think I need to take a break. :wacko:

 

[IanRacey]

We should stipulate a conversion value, which should be universal, NA, SA, Europe, etc, etc.

Are you using 1/1000 of the real value?

This is a good idea and would be really useful, but we'd have to keep in mind conversion rates between different countries. For instance, the British pound sterling was worth $4-$5 throughout the nineteenth century, so if someone found a source indicating that Mexico offered Alta California to Britain for £4 million (easy number totally off the top of my head), a VIP event would have to set the price at £1000, not £4000.

Ian, whose degree is in Classical Studies. 1500 years too early for any credibility, but running off at the mouth anyway.

 

[Theodotus1]

This is a good idea and would be really useful, but we'd have to keep in mind conversion rates between different countries. For instance, the British pound sterling was worth $4-$5 throughout the nineteenth century, so if someone found a source indicating that Mexico offered Alta California to Britain for £4 million (easy number totally off the top of my head), a VIP event would have to set the price at £1000, not £4000.

Ian, whose degree is in Classical Studies. 1500 years too early for any credibility, but running off at the mouth anyway.

Actually, I can often find sources that give purchase offer amounts which have been converted into U.S. dollars, so we probably just need a consensus on one conversion rate.

EDIT: These are the offers I know the amounts of so far (more research is underway):

USA purchase offer for Alta California (California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona) -- $25 million

Guadalupe Hidalgo (Alta California, except Tuscon province) -- $15 million

Gadsden Purchase (Tuscon province) -- $10 million