ilitarist posted:

Do you think all people on Reddit or here are Americans?

ilitarist posted:

Yeah, it says a lot about our society that people thought this was too ahistorical, but there aren't many posts about Russia annexing parts of Japan or whatever happened to China.

Charlz Guybon posted:

This seems like a big problem

https://www.reddit.com/r/victoria3/...nt=share_button

quote:

If the US civil war is always historical then the CSA always loses. I'd like a game as the CSA where I'm not doomed to lose please.

DrSunshine posted:

Since it's dynamic like that, if someone to mod and give the Legacy Slavery law to other countries, does that mean we could see an American Civil War style Civil War break out at some point in other countries? That'd be pretty fun and lead to some interesting mods, I think.

Quixzlizx posted:

DrSunshine posted:

Since it's dynamic like that, if someone to mod and give the Legacy Slavery law to other countries, does that mean we could see an American Civil War style Civil War break out at some point in other countries? That'd be pretty fun and lead to some interesting mods, I think.

Arrath posted:

My takeaway is to build all my farms in one state and marginalize the landholders elsewhere so when the Civil War kicks off its some puny little rump rebellion.

Fray posted:

The US has some specific journal content that influences how the ACW and its leadup play out, but theoretically any country could have a Revolution resulting from attempts to change its slavery law, because any law change can do that. Legacy Slavery, specifically, could could appear in a number of Latin American states that had slavery but were then pressured by Britain into abolishing further importation. They just might not have a a hard geographical divide between slave and free States like the US had.

Quixzlizx posted:

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

the nugget of truth buried deep down in all the Lost Cause horseshit is that the way things went for the Confederacy was significantly better than any reasonable war planner could expect, and they still lost big time

building a system where ability to win wars emerges from a nation's material ability to wage them, and also the Confederacy can win the Civil War, is a real tricky needle to thread

OddObserver posted:

Pretty sure that's supposed to be simulated by interest groups making it impractical to fire McClellan.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

the nugget of truth buried deep down in all the Lost Cause horseshit is that the way things went for the Confederacy was significantly better than any reasonable war planner could expect, and they still lost big time

building a system where ability to win wars emerges from a nation's material ability to wage them, and also the Confederacy can win the Civil War, is a real tricky needle to thread

ilitarist posted:

This seems like "some testing and balancing" problem.

In this reddit post, I see the same familiar mindset that wants Indian soldiers to be objectively worse than Europeans in 1790s because at that time historically British won wars there. This or that state was abolitionist in 1836 so it's impossible for them to join CSA 20 years later! This is backwards thinking that assumes that real history is the right version of history and even ignores how different that USA on this screenshot from what it really was in history at that point.

guidoanselmi posted:

Is there a non/historical ai option?

Lady Radia posted:

it’s backwards thinking of history to have such an elementary and bad understanding of slave politics in America in 1836 to think it was ezpz possible for Pennsylvania or New York to join the confederacy.

I kind of want to let it lie there with, uh, passive aggression/just aggression, but like, there were extremely entrenched institutions at play in 1836 across both sides of the Mason Dixon line and overall state governments in the urban north were just wholly, wholly unable to want this sort of thing. Yes, even in a situation where urbanization stops immediately at 1836.

There are fuzzy states on both sides - remember the North literally just kept West Virginia, Maryland was weird, you had the western front where the GOAT John Brown tried to help things - and there ahistoricity is totally cool and chill. But New York State? No, sorry, you’re betraying a deep misunderstanding of American history thinking everyone else is dumb.

fwiw I don’t care about it in the context of the game thet much lol. I think some hardcoding or whatever for reasonable CSA is fine, maybe even some elements of state govt being represented in future DLC or whatever to make it hyper dynamic. it was really just the above assumption that one of the most studied and analyzed aspects of the civil war - the north’s hostility to “slave power” - is actually so easy to go anywhere in the world!!!! that bugged me. namaste

A Buttery Pastry posted:

I feel like one aspect of that's being ignored is the timing. The way to make the Confederacy stronger relative to the US isn't to expand it far beyond any historical reason, it's having the war kick off when the south is relatively more powerful early on. I suppose you could also have the North be less committed to the territorial integrity of the US, though I am not sure how realistic that is.

Lance of Llanwyln posted:

If you had an appropriately involved war exhaustion mechanic, then it would be plausible for the North to just kind of give up if the war goes on for a few years, they haven't made much headway and/or have lost Washington D.C., and they've suffered a lot of casualties.

Beyond that, the strength of the CSA depends on questions such as the westward expansion of slavery, whether the USA annexes additional Mexican territory and/or gets into military adventures in the Caribbean vs. possible expansion in the north, and the status of bubble states like Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland. Though in the lattermost case it's impossible to imagine any Union administration not putting Maryland under martial law, because not doing so would basically require them to abandon Washington D.C.
It would pretty much always be an underdog though.

Lance of Llanwyln posted:

If you had an appropriately involved war exhaustion mechanic, then it would be plausible for the North to just kind of give up if the war goes on for a few years, they haven't made much headway and/or have lost Washington D.C., and they've suffered a lot of casualties.

Beyond that, the strength of the CSA depends on questions such as the westward expansion of slavery, whether the USA annexes additional Mexican territory and/or gets into military adventures in the Caribbean vs. possible expansion in the north, and the status of bubble states like Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland. Though in the lattermost case it's impossible to imagine any Union administration not putting Maryland under martial law, because not doing so would basically require them to abandon Washington D.C.
It would pretty much always be an underdog though.

OPAONI posted:

I wonder how fortifications in a province will be represented? By the end of the war Washington DC was a sprawling fortress complex and it was never seriously threatened by the traitor forces at all.

ilitarist posted:

This seems like "some testing and balancing" problem.

In this reddit post, I see the same familiar mindset that wants Indian soldiers to be objectively worse than Europeans in 1790s because at that time historically British won wars there. This or that state was abolitionist in 1836 so it's impossible for them to join CSA 20 years later! This is backwards thinking that assumes that real history is the right version of history and even ignores how different that USA on this screenshot from what it really was in history at that point.

PDXMikael posted:

This is (obviously) a weird outcome that we don't want to happen, and we're actively looking into it. As many have pointed out in the thread, the reason it's happening is because the political power centers in the USA in this particular playthrough have developed in a certain way. For many revolutions this might make sense, but in this case it's over an issue that should not be important to landowners in non-slave-states. This should affect the weighting of the revolting states, but currently it does not.

PDJR_Alastorn-PDS posted:

We've got a few ideas of what to do to get this where its more acceptable.I've been blunt on the forums/discord that I want to consider any "hardcoding" of free/slave states as a last resort. A bespoke code solution will constantly break going forward. We don't want to rule out any historical irregularities, but we also want those irregularities to be reasonable.

The above picture is not considered reasonable but also when we explain why it happened, its not to be confused with us saying we are okay with it - explaining why is to also think through the mechanics of what we can do.

You're conflating things, without understanding the intent of the systems behind them - let me pull from my thread on the discord.

I understand the concerns but a little explanation:

The US is the only nation that has the distinction between Free State and Slave State and the duality of having both exist at once.

For all other countries - Slave State is merely a modifier which means that this state can have slaves and that it will partake in part of the slave trade. There is no mechanic for this in other countries so for the distinction of base code - this difference has been unnecessary.

For the US system to help better reflect its uniqueness we use that modifier as well but it pulls double duty to the player (as we can no doubt see from this feedback) that there is the perception it reflects where people think the full support for the this law is but its not always a 1:1 based on the base system + US specific content.

The Revolution is determined because of IGs who are empowered in the revolt and which Pops support that IG and where they are determines which states flip. We've got some extra code to give adjacency bonuses to try and clear up spots (yet somehow I am looking at you South Carolina which avoided things... sigh).

It looks like we don't look into whether or not a state is flagged as a free state or a slave state or if we do its no longer pulling a majority of the weight because pops are moving around more than they have traditionally when we balanced it.

(This can happen regularly, problem with making such an interconnected game is balancing one thing can imbalance another and the job of balancing is never ending.)

OPAONI posted:

I wonder how fortifications in a province will be represented? By the end of the war Washington DC was a sprawling fortress complex and it was never seriously threatened by the traitor forces at all.

Lady Radia posted:

do any of the devs who haunt this thread as a ghost know if you can release new Africa to play it day 1 or does it have to emerge as an element of the civil war

Lady Radia posted:

it’s backwards thinking of history to have such an elementary and bad understanding of slave politics in America in 1836 to think it was ezpz possible for Pennsylvania or New York to join the confederacy.

I kind of want to let it lie there with, uh, passive aggression/just aggression, but like, there were extremely entrenched institutions at play in 1836 across both sides of the Mason Dixon line and overall state governments in the urban north were just wholly, wholly unable to want this sort of thing. Yes, even in a situation where urbanization stops immediately at 1836.

There are fuzzy states on both sides - remember the North literally just kept West Virginia, Maryland was weird, you had the western front where the GOAT John Brown tried to help things - and there ahistoricity is totally cool and chill. But New York State? No, sorry, you’re betraying a deep misunderstanding of American history thinking everyone else is dumb.

fwiw I don’t care about it in the context of the game thet much lol. I think some hardcoding or whatever for reasonable CSA is fine, maybe even some elements of state govt being represented in future DLC or whatever to make it hyper dynamic. it was really just the above assumption that one of the most studied and analyzed aspects of the civil war - the north’s hostility to “slave power” - is actually so easy to go anywhere in the world!!!! that bugged me. namaste

Lady Radia posted:

There are fuzzy states on both sides - remember the North literally just kept West Virginia, Maryland was weird, you had the western front where the GOAT John Brown tried to help things - and there ahistoricity is totally cool and chill. But New York State? No, sorry, you’re betraying a deep misunderstanding of American history thinking everyone else is dumb.

fwiw I don’t care about it in the context of the game thet much lol. I think some hardcoding or whatever for reasonable CSA is fine, maybe even some elements of state govt being represented in future DLC or whatever to make it hyper dynamic. it was really just the above assumption that one of the most studied and analyzed aspects of the civil war - the north’s hostility to “slave power” - is actually so easy to go anywhere in the world!!!! that bugged me. namaste

AnEdgelord posted:

I wonder if this could be solved by making the southern planters and the northern landholders separate interest groups? That way if the planters revolt they dont pull the northern landholders in unless you somehow piss off both groups.

Hellioning posted:

I'm not sure if they want 2 interest groups that are identical except for one issue.

Arrath posted:

My takeaway is to build all my farms in one state and marginalize the landholders elsewhere so when the Civil War kicks off its some puny little rump rebellion.

ilitarist posted:

The IG system begs for some regional entrenched groups, but it's probably very hard to draw the line. Like it's strange that (I assume) only the official religion has representation as Clergy, but this can of worms is too dangerous to tackle.