Will this game fix the USA?

[Orinsul]

im thinking Manifest Destiny events for the Domaint North American country, be it the USA, CSA, New England, B.C. California, Texas or who knows, maybe Virginia or Louisiana, who knows how many countries we'll get in america. But, An event for the Domainent North American country that gives it Cores on the modern U.S.A. borders

that way it doesnt have to be the USA, but will still give America, whoever that happens to be, the incentive to be historically shaped. to have the land to become the world power the late game needs to mix things up

and if the player doesnt want it, the event or decision would have a no option

 

[OHgamer]

The Mexico AI should still lose Texas, and the USA AI should still go at war with Mexico if that happens. So everything would develop normally if they are both controlled by the AI.

However, a Mexico human player that manages to keep Texas should be able to avoid wars.

Well, in the end the country managed to get itself together, I don't see why a human player shouldn't be able to do it sooner.

Mexico AI should probably not lose the region 100% of the time, especially not if the USA is human-played but even with an AI-controlled USA it should not be guaranteed in every case Mexico will lose the Frontera del Norte.

What % it should lose, though, is one of the great developmental questions in games like this, and there is probably no consensus that will please all players, which is why moddability is in the end a good thing. If you think the base % odds are too low, tweak the files so its higher, including 100% if you want it to happen every time the situation warrants.

 

[Hyzhenhok]

The Mexico AI should still lose Texas, and the USA AI should still go at war with Mexico if that happens. So everything would develop normally if they are both controlled by the AI.

However, a Mexico human player that manages to keep Texas should be able to avoid wars.

Well, in the end the country managed to get itself together, I don't see why a human player shouldn't be able to do it sooner.

You're giving Manifest Destiny too little credit. Texas was just the casus belli; there were greater forces at work.

The only way Mexico should be able to avoid wars is if it has a way to accept US offers to purchase the territory in question, which almost certainly will require modding (as it did in V1).

 

[JoeGiavani]

Mexico AI should probably not lose the region 100% of the time, especially not if the USA is human-played but even with an AI-controlled USA it should not be guaranteed in every case Mexico will lose the Frontera del Norte.

Wouldn't the probability % wise of whether or not Mexico beats the US in a war be a result of a number of complex variables-relative economic strength, military power, military doctrine, manpower base size, that are a)somewhat within the player's control and b)heavily weighted in the US's favour to begin with? The only way a mod could address this would be to artificially boost Mexico or nerf the US, either of which would have ramifications way beyond one war. And that's before you go into what exactly you want to boost/nerf. It'd be kind of weird to artificially give Mexico a few million more people at the '36 start than it had historically, for example.

 

[Orinsul]

but just say, if the player as france on day one invades the U.S.A. and puts lots of subsidies and alliances and other diplomatic aids towards their good friend mexico for the first for decades, all the time chipping away at the united states, then Mexico would become the domainant american power, and so ought to have the US benefits.

just the same as if B.C. conquers most of North America leaving the US with only the states north of carolina and south of new england, then B.C. should take over the U.S.'s flavour events and manifest destiny and all the like.

have them tied to the domainent american power, not to the US

 

[Hyzhenhok]

Wouldn't the probability % wise of whether or not Mexico beats the US in a war be a result of a number of complex variables-relative economic strength, military power, military doctrine, manpower base size, that are a)somewhat within the player's control and b)heavily weighted in the US's favour to begin with? The only way a mod could address this would be to artificially boost Mexico or nerf the US, either of which would have ramifications way beyond one war. And that's before you go into what exactly you want to boost/nerf. It'd be kind of weird to artificially give Mexico a few million more people at the '36 start than it had historically, for example.

The OP doesn't want Mexico to be buffed up; he just wants the AI USA to refrain from attacking Mexico if Texas doesn't win independence.

Mexico should be hard to play, and a Mexico that keeps is northern territories should be especially hard to play. Pretty much every power in North America should be tempted by California if events play out correctly. If the USA is particularly weak, then you might have a Britain that has seized all of Oregon target California. You could even see Russia being the power breathing down Mexico's neck if both the UK and US go pear-shaped.

The only way Mexico should be able to avoid war is if it lets Texas go and then sells the rest of its northern territory. Realistically, Mexico should be one of the most difficult countries to play, as they are the only weak neighbor next to a growingly imperialist USA, and the Great Powers see them as a target of exploitation rather than a country that needs protection.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

but just say, if the player as france on day one invades the U.S.A. and puts lots of subsidies and alliances and other diplomatic aids towards their good friend mexico for the first for decades, all the time chipping away at the united states, then Mexico would become the domainant american power, and so ought to have the US benefits.

just the same as if B.C. conquers most of North America leaving the US with only the states north of carolina and south of new england, then B.C. should take over the U.S.'s flavour events and manifest destiny and all the like.

have them tied to the domainent american power, not to the US

The US were fairly unique for being a very open, free and prosperous society, which happened to also have vast unsettled territories and an insatiable hunger for immigrants. Even if the US lost a couple of wars, got humiliated by the Brits and never expanded west, there would still be enough wide open space in Kansas, Dakota etc and hell even in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan for millions and millions of immigrants.

People didn't move to the US because they liked living in a dominant country, on the contrary many left dominant countries like Britain Germany or Russia because they wanted to live in a free country where they would be left alone by the state and could have a better life than back home. Unless the USA are carved up by Russia and Mexico or become an oppressive dictatorship, I don't see why that should change. The USA could remain happily isolationist and they would still be the most attractive place in the world for immigrants.

I agree that Mexico should be able to become a prospoerous, free and open land of opportunity that attracts millions of immigrants, but that would require hard work to reform them socially and also some years of internal peace and prosperity. Mexico actually got a couple million immigrants from places like Italy, Spain, Portugal and the middle east throughout the 19th century, just not nearly as many as the USA.

I think a nice way to model the push and pull factors behind immigration would be to assign province RGOs with a max RGO capacity (dependent on technology, local prosperity i.e. local POP wealth etc), and have the gap between max RGO space and actually filled RGO space be the driving force for immigration. People would go where there is "free space" for them, i.e. a place where they can make a good living with the least effort.

A desert province would only have a very low max pop, but as the province is economically developed the max pop increases. Climate and suitability for agriculture would be obvious factors that go into max RGO size. But also mineral wealth and accessibility (=infrastructure) of a province. For example in 1848 Nebraska might be a howling wilderness, with a handful of Indians who possess nothing but a handful or horses and their teepees, a low-value RGO and no infrastructure to speak of. An unattractive place, in other words. But as you build roads into the province, the RGO capacity increases, also when Nebraska changes from an low value RGO (cattle) to a better valued RGO (minerals? fruit?). Immigrants start flocking into the province. The immigrants become farmers, the "GDP" of the province increases. Now the rate at which immigrants move in to fill the RGO gap increases, and the trickle accelerates. The gap fills faster. Eventually though, unless the province changes to another yet more attractive RGO or tech changes the max RGO size, the province is "full", and new immigrants will move to some other place. The local POPs' natural growth will still lead to growing population but the immigrant flood heads somewhere else.

The devs already said they are overhauling the RGO mechanisms. Maybe they are going to do the obvious step and connect it to immigration attractiveness, but not in the hamfisted way that Vic1 used (Immigrants would dogpile any gold producing state and never stop coming... Alaska having 20 million Chinese people by 1910 was quite normal :wacko

Having the RGO gap as a driver for immigration would be useful to model why exactly people wanted so badly to go to the US, and not other equally underpopulated countries. They wanted to make a living on their own land. In the USA (or any free country) the strength of attraction of an open RGO would be stronger than in an unfree country. Also since potential RGO size is dependent on technology, underdeveloped countries see less immigration. Lastly taking into account the "local GDP" as a factor in the attractiveness of a province would make it so that immigration will not just head into the first best prairie province, but instead people will seek out the low populated land at the edge of the settled frontier, rather than head straight into the howling wilderness. This could even cause immigration to move like a wave, saturating the frontier provinces before moving on to claim totally new untamed lands in the Indian Country. It would also make a prosperous country of opportunity more attractive than a less prosperous country of opportunity, all other things being equal. Africa may have as much open spaces as America, but people prefer to go to places where they don't have to wipe their ass with sand, so to speak...

 

[Phalanxia]

im thinking Manifest Destiny events for the Domaint North American country, be it the USA, CSA, New England, B.C. California, Texas or who knows, maybe Virginia or Louisiana, who knows how many countries we'll get in america. But, An event for the Domainent North American country that gives it Cores on the modern U.S.A. borders

How many times have you seen New England, B.C., Canada, the CSA etc. become the dominant power in North America without any player interference?

 

[JoeGiavani]

How many times have you seen New England, B.C., Canada, the CSA etc. become the dominant power in North America without any player interference?

None, but that's the point. If Texas was human controlled and managed to beat the Mexicans and stave off the Americans, why wouldn't they be able to expand westward? The US would probably have to be involved in a large war with the UK (which did happen occasionally in Vicky 1, but like all massive and bloody wars in that game just ended up with a white peace), but in the mean time the Republic of Texas would expand to the Pacific Coast. Probably need a new name, though.

 

[Phalanxia]

Isn't the purpose of cores to allow you to expand without gaining badboy? If so, then the act of expanding throughout the West as Texas should increase threat levels for the USA, and hopefully spark a war. I can't imagine a Hyper-Texas and a dwarf USA co-existing peacefully.

 

[JoeGiavani]

They wouldn't. Hence Texas would have to beat the Americans in a war, and/or the Americans would have to be occupied elsewhere, with a war with another major national, almost definitely the UK. There were ample opportunities for the two to go to war in the mid 19th Century, if the US had fared badly it's not beyond the realms of plausibility that a southern north american state, in this case texas, would expand aggressively. Of course, they may have to defeat the Americans in a war at some point, but so what?

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Well if Texas conquers the wild west and stays a free, democratic country, by all means they should get immigration by the boat loads.

Who cares if they defeat the USA... why can't they both be equally attractive to immigrants?? It's not like there needs to be just one super magnet for immigrants. Many countries attracted immigrants in history, Argentina / Uruguay / Brazil got millions of immigrants in the latter half of the 19th century.

German "colonies" in southern Brazil:

 

[Jazumir]

The US were fairly unique for being a very open, free and prosperous society, which happened to also have vast unsettled territories and an insatiable hunger for immigrants. Even if the US lost a couple of wars, got humiliated by the Brits and never expanded west, there would still be enough wide open space in Kansas, Dakota etc and hell even in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan for millions and millions of immigrants.

People didn't move to the US because they liked living in a dominant country, on the contrary many left dominant countries like Britain Germany or Russia because they wanted to live in a free country where they would be left alone by the state and could have a better life than back home. Unless the USA are carved up by Russia and Mexico or become an oppressive dictatorship, I don't see why that should change. The USA could remain happily isolationist and they would still be the most attractive place in the world for immigrants.
[...]
I think a nice way to model the push and pull factors behind immigration would be to assign province RGOs with a max RGO capacity (dependent on technology, local prosperity i.e. local POP wealth etc), and have the gap between max RGO space and actually filled RGO space be the driving force for immigration. People would go where there is "free space" for them, i.e. a place where they can make a good living with the least effort.

A desert province would only have a very low max pop, but as the province is economically developed the max pop increases. Climate and suitability for agriculture would be obvious factors that go into max RGO size. But also mineral wealth and accessibility (=infrastructure) of a province. For example in 1848 Nebraska might be a howling wilderness, with a handful of Indians who possess nothing but a handful or horses and their teepees, a low-value RGO and no infrastructure to speak of. An unattractive place, in other words. But as you build roads into the province, the RGO capacity increases, also when Nebraska changes from an low value RGO (cattle) to a better valued RGO (minerals? fruit?). Immigrants start flocking into the province. The immigrants become farmers, the "GDP" of the province increases. Now the rate at which immigrants move in to fill the RGO gap increases, and the trickle accelerates. The gap fills faster. Eventually though, unless the province changes to another yet more attractive RGO or tech changes the max RGO size, the province is "full", and new immigrants will move to some other place. The local POPs' natural growth will still lead to growing population but the immigrant flood heads somewhere else.
[...]
Having the RGO gap as a driver for immigration would be useful to model why exactly people wanted so badly to go to the US, and not other equally underpopulated countries. They wanted to make a living on their own land. In the USA (or any free country) the strength of attraction of an open RGO would be stronger than in an unfree country. Also since potential RGO size is dependent on technology, underdeveloped countries see less immigration. Lastly taking into account the "local GDP" as a factor in the attractiveness of a province would make it so that immigration will not just head into the first best prairie province, but instead people will seek out the low populated land at the edge of the settled frontier, rather than head straight into the howling wilderness. This could even cause immigration to move like a wave, saturating the frontier provinces before moving on to claim totally new untamed lands in the Indian Country. It would also make a prosperous country of opportunity more attractive than a less prosperous country of opportunity, all other things being equal. Africa may have as much open spaces as America, but people prefer to go to places where they don't have to wipe their ass with sand, so to speak...

I agree. Another point for migration working like this is, that your immigrants will want to work in an RGO, not in a factory. It was an issue at the time (for solving which, they undertook all sorts of efforts), for the ´early´ capitalists, that people arriving in the industrial centers on the east coast would just flow out to the frontier-´RGO´s to live a life of sustainance, instead of working (or at least try to - thereby lowering salaries) for them in their factories.

 

[mg62]

War with Mexico is inevitable in this game for the US.

Having the western states as core provinces allows for after the war creating a satellite in Mexico. This yeilds all of the western states with no badboy.

Having to annex the western states would ring up a lot of badboy points, which didn't seem to occur IRL.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

War with Mexico is inevitable in this game for the US.

Having the western states as core provinces allows for after the war creating a satellite in Mexico. This yeilds all of the western states with no badboy.

Having to annex the western states would ring up a lot of badboy points, which didn't seem to occur IRL.

In Vic1 they had the notorious "Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo" event, which only triggered occasionally. Most of the time, the USA would eat Mexico up piece by piece. The map of North America was a nightmare on the eyes. :wacko:

Let's hope it works better this time!!

 

[unmerged(1180)]

The main reason the US got immigration was because of free land and expensive labour (which was a result of free land), which, ironically, was one of the reasons for slavery to live so long as it did.

Most immigrants were poor - not dirt-poor (they did pay for the trip over and usually prepared for their arrival somehow), but decidedly lower-class. The US was to them the dream of moving up in the world. In the 19th century, being middle class meant that you were either a free-holding, self-owning farmer or an industrial specialist or clerk. The US offered free land, which meant that you could go from being a poor tenant farmer to own your own, fertile land. Quite the social career, by 19th century standards. Or you could go from being a common labourer to a well-paid dito who could dress well on Sundays and send the kids to school, perhaps also taking the time and effort to study on the side (since you had the money) and become more skilled, or a clerk or engineer.

The free land made labour expensive, since if you did not pay labour, they would just move and become their own free-holding self-owning farmers. That was why free men could not replace slaves at the cash crop plantations either.

So the US represented social mobility and possibilities at a time when those options were almost non-existing in Europe, especially as the population grew far faster than the social circumstances available to them.

You need land for this, open land, free for anyone who wants to settle it. If land is in the hands of an aristocracy-like elite, this will not happen.

This is why the south recieved comparably no immmigration compared to the north prior to the Civil War.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Well, Texas and Missouri got boat loads of immigrants but I suppose you're right about the deep south.

 

[unmerged(48056)]

The revolution mechanic will presumably allow players to rename a successful Texas even if you have to fire event 11116 democratic revolution. Texas, IMO, is a regional name and wouldn't continue to apply if Texas managed to conquer California, Utah, Arizona, Mexico, Cuba, et al.


The most accurate name would probably be Fredonian States of America - a spiritual successor in name to the first Anglo-Saxon (Fredonian) rebellion in Mexico.


Much like if I play as an independent Columbia, I'll rename myself Cascadian Republic and later J.S.A (Jeffersonian) if I feel that I have a dominant claim on the American continent.

 

[Andrelvis]

The revolution mechanic will presumably allow players to rename a successful Texas even if you have to fire event 11116 democratic revolution. Texas, IMO, is a regional name and wouldn't continue to apply if Texas managed to conquer California, Utah, Arizona, Mexico, Cuba, et al.

It could, if they conquered those lands. Sometimes this kind of name migration happened in history.

 

[Sebastian Jarl]

The revolution mechanic will presumably allow players to rename a successful Texas even if you have to fire event 11116 democratic revolution. Texas, IMO, is a regional name and wouldn't continue to apply if Texas managed to conquer California, Utah, Arizona, Mexico, Cuba, et al.

Ever heard the history about how the Roman Empire got its name?