• 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
Not open for further replies.

Dev Diary #43 - The American Civil War

16_9.jpg

Hello folks, welcome to another dev diary for Victoria 3! This week we're going to talk about the American Civil War, a dark period in the history of the United States.

Turmoil had been building under the surface of the United States for decades prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, with tension growing increasingly violent particularly in the 1850s. In 1861, several states voted to secede from the Union, and established the Confederate States of America. The Union and the Confederacy fought for four years, to 1865. After the surrender of the CSA, the Union reincorporated the states of the former Confederacy and initiated an era generally known as Reconstruction, a period of ambition, domestic unrest, and, ultimately, a failure to complete some of the most significant social reforms instigated in the wake of the CSA's defeat. The efforts and failures of Reconstruction resulted in Jim Crow laws and the promise of racial equality becoming a generations-long struggle that has carried on well past the end of the Victorian era.

Let's get something established first before we dive into the game: Slavery is central to the Civil War. The authors of secession did not dance around this point. The institution of slavery was singled out time and time again by the people seceding from the Union in their reasons for secession, during their debates over secession, and then throughout the Civil War itself. After the war, rhetoric shifted as the Lost Cause myth developed, but before and during the war slavery was declared as a central element in the rebellion time and time again.

This interpretation of history is built on solid foundations with ample evidence. Victoria 3 uses this approach as its basis for the American Civil War.

Antebellum America's unrest is centered around slavery.
DD43 01.png

The United States of America begins the game with a Journal Entry already underway. In the first years of the game, and historically, the 1830s were already rife with national debate over the issue of slavery, although violence was only just beginning to escalate. At this point on the national level, all the United States can try to do is balance the pressures of abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates, and either limit escalation or come down firmly on the side of one camp or another.

Even a policy of appeasement and reconciliation will not stop rising tensions entirely. Some events will ratchet up tensions regardless of whatever option is chosen; the main difference in choices is determining who will become more mad and who will be more mollified by ensuing government actions.

Iowa has become the front line in the fight over slavery, and will be struck with unrest regardless of the choice picked.
DD43 02.png

As tensions rise, violence will rise, and events will become more and more polarizing. Early events may talk about a single senator's words, or a single death in a city, but as the issue festers, things will just get worse and worse until something gives way. Newspaper debates will turn into arguments on the floor of the Senate, then those arguments will turn into canings, and people will stop campaigning with pamphlets and start campaigning with paramilitaries.

Attempts to ban slavery are more likely to create a reactionary movement in the United States.
DD43 03.png

The most straightforward way to end the debate over slavery may be to just end it, but this carries enormous risks - political movements may emerge in reaction to the potential passage of these laws. Of course, not banning slavery may also lead to a movement emerging explicitly agitating for the abolition of slavery, and that has its own set of challenges.

Triggering the Civil War early caused a slightly different set of states to secede. Florida simply didn't have enough pro-slavery supporters here to join the pre-war movement that formed the basis of the CSA.
DD43 04.png

This is where we've decided to engage with our own revolution mechanics in order to create a more dynamic American Civil War. If the Slavery Debate Journal Entry is active when a revolution over slavery erupts, the revolutionary government will turn into a secessionist government. Secession is determined by what states join the radicalized movements for preserving slavery or banning slavery, which means the strength of the secessionist government will vary depending on which IGs align themselves with the radicalized movement prior to the outbreak of revolution. If pro-slavery Interest Groups had been empowered again and again prior to their radicalization and revolution, then secessionists will control a large number of states, but if those same Interest Groups had been suppressed and their influence limited time and time again, then their government will be far smaller when war breaks out.

Of course there's a train-centered event.
DD43 05.png

The war itself has its own incidents that can complicate the pursuit of victory or give some unique opportunities. Raiders will jump back and forth across the border, causing chaos, while Unionist sympathizers in secessionist-held areas and secessionist sympathizers in Union-held areas will challenge the authority of local governments as long as the war still burns. If the secessionists are pro-slavery but the Union has not finished enacting abolition yet, the country will have a special change to radically hasten the change in law through a certain proclamation.

The war itself plays out the same way

If the secessionists win, then… the secessionists win, and a new country is established in North America. A Union victory, however, will lead to Reconstruction.

Reconstruction varies depending on how the Civil War went.
DD43 06.png

Reconstruction is a long and varied process. Depending on who fought, what laws were passed, and the general shape of the United States at war's end, different journal entries will spawn. Establishing the Freedmen's Bureau and pursuing the cause of equality only makes sense if you fought against slavery. Reconciling the South only makes sense if the South was the part of the country that rebelled. Conversely, it's possible to end up with multiple goals for Reconstruction that end up conflicting.

Escalating violence is still a threat, even after the Civil War comes and goes.
DD43 07.png

Reconstruction will be ugly. Historically, it wasn't a clean and smooth process, and in the game it's not a clean and smooth process. There was a struggle to balance the ambitions of Reconstruction against the resistance of a reactionary coalition that sought to restore their antebellum political power and impose a vision of racial supremacy upon society. Pursuing egalitarian measures will alienate these people and related groups, which may make governance more difficult and more expensive, while currying favor with them will undercut the foundations of Reconstruction and create another alienated population that will have to be contended with for the rest of the game. Every step is fraught with challenges to the government and to the welfare of the people; Reconstruction will be rough.

Frontier justice is a tricky thing.
DD43 08.png

Not all postwar turmoil will be right where the fighting happened. Knock-on effects of the Civil War will be felt across the nation, from the very center of government to the furthest tendrils of the frontier. It's up to you, the player, to decide how the country will face all these myriad challenges. What kind of America do you want to create?

How's that for something to stew on for a week? Next time, we're going to talk more about how you can fight battles, both in the American Civil War and with wars in general, with the one and only KaiserJohan!
 
  • 236Like
  • 88Love
  • 16
  • 14
  • 12
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
What, they think that if they answer questions in the forum of the dev diaries, they'll somehow accidentally type out the entire source code to Victoria 3 and leak it again? You really figure that's the reason they're not answering questions? :rolleyes:

Anyways they did answer a number of questions, as Temir helpfully pointed out, they just weren't compiled into the reserve post.
They specifically said leaks like that make them less likely to engage with the community considering he posted why no dev comments I took his word for it and using there own words came to that answer.

Why would you even reply to me instead of the person who said they didn't post.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
:rolleyes:

Because you were being sarcastic and wrong at the same time.
I was only wrong because he was wrong. If he was right it would have been the most likely reason.
As for the comment in question it was "It damages our ability to have an open dialogue with you" now you may assume im saying that means they wont be as open anymore but to me it means perhaps we should take a step back and communicate in a way that doesn't spread rumor and discord because of the existing mechanics in the leak.

Because even if they are changing most the systems that were leaked it wont ever leave some peoples minds that's how the final game will look so it sounds reasonable to me that they would try to prevent such speculation to occur.
 
  • 1
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Yeah, apparently you have to search for Ofaloaf's name in the "Who Replied?" filter for this DD for some reason, which would lead you to a single post that answers some questions in bulk. Here, I'll link it for you and others.
I assume it slipped past them because Ofaloaf is, for whatever reason, not flagged as a developer on the forums. Normally, there's an option at the time of the post to only show dev posts, but it doesn't catch these for the same reason.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I assume it slipped past them because Ofaloaf is, for whatever reason, not flagged as a developer on the forums. Normally, there's an option at the time of the post to only show dev posts, but it doesn't catch these for the same reason.
I've never really understood why they'd reserve a comment when the 'Show only dev responses' filter was more than enough, but I guess it would've been handy in cases like this. Hopefully we've caused enough commotion by now to make them add Ofaloaf's replies to the reserved post before DD#44 is out.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
What, they think that if they answer questions in the forum of the dev diaries, they'll somehow accidentally type out the entire source code to Victoria 3 and leak it again? You really figure that's the reason they're not answering questions? :rolleyes:

Anyways they did answer a number of questions, as Temir helpfully pointed out, they just weren't compiled into the reserve post.
I mean, a several thousand character source code IS pretty similar to a 2-3 sentence answer to a question…
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I've never really understood why they'd reserve a comment when the 'Show only dev responses' filter was more than enough, but I guess it would've been handy in cases like this. Hopefully we've caused enough commotion by now to make them add Ofaloaf's replies to the reserved post before DD#44 is out.
When they updated a while back the 'Show only dev responses' was acting funny. It doesn't include the main DD post and was being limited to one page, when you went to the second page it was going back to the full set of responses.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
So do I understand correctly that the civil war is predetermined and bound to happen? we cannot avoid war itself only alter it's initial setting?
I mean I will still enjoy the game in such case since im an utter junkie when it comes to your historic strategy games but it sounds like a bit of a shame.

For example in HoI4 there are some really fun focus trees that railroad players to civil wars but sometimes give a bit of room to wiggle and if everything aligns perfectly its possible to avoid political crisis erupting into civil war.
It would be nice if American civil war had similar design. Like it occurs 90-95% of the time in more-less historical setting and time but player has small chance of avoiding it thanks to luck and brinksmanship.

Or alternatively in a scenario where British Empire strikes back to reclaim what rightfully belongs to Her Royal Highness... Will dixies and yankees embroiled in an existential war with their ancient enemy be still bickering about slavery and waging civil wars?
 
So do I understand correctly that the civil war is predetermined and bound to happen? we cannot avoid war itself only alter it's initial setting?
The opposite, actually. If there is a rebellion under the normal game mechanics, in the US, with slavery as its topic, then the ACW content kicks in. If you can keep your people from rising up, then it won't happen. Of course the starting position in 1836 was very much on the brink, so that might not be easy...

Or alternatively in a scenario where British Empire strikes back to reclaim what rightfully belongs to Her Royal Highness... Will dixies and yankees embroiled in an existential war with their ancient enemy be still bickering about slavery and waging civil wars?
Well they certainly aren't going to ignore one existential threat from a deeply rooted enemy just because another one barges in at an inconvenient time.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
In Vic 2 one could win as CSA through good manouvering of the troops. But I don't see how winning against industrial north will be possible in Vic3 where we don't have control over units and everything is decided by economic and technological potential.
Expand your mind and think outside the box, dude. I mean, you can just artificially design the USA so that the CSA states are stronger than the Northern states. Or make all the good generals of the slaveholding Southern variety which is what happened historically.

As the defending nation, the CSA will have an inherent advantage per soldier vs the Union.

Remember that the North never committed as fully to the ACW as the South did because it was the very fate of the South's independence at stake here. This is perfectly and elegantly reflected in the game mechanics. For Revolutionary Diplomatic Plays, the attacker (Union) has to take its war targets and protect its own capital (Washington DC) and ALSO maintain war support to avoid capitation to the South. The defender (the CSA) just has to maintain its home territories and defend its capital (Richmond, presumably). Defensive wars are much easier and bleeding men for gaining time is a very viable way to win wars by outlasting the attacker's resolve to continue the war and press the attack.

Given these inherent advantages for the CSA, it is perfectly reasonable for the North to have a larger economic advantage, both as a model of reality and for game balance. It is also reasonable to assume that victory for the Union is not predestined for these very factors.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Expand your mind and think outside the box, dude. I mean, you can just artificially design the USA so that the CSA states are stronger than the Northern states. Or make all the good generals of the slaveholding Southern variety which is what happened historically.

As the defending nation, the CSA will have an inherent advantage per soldier vs the Union.

Remember that the North never committed as fully to the ACW as the South did because it was the very fate of the South's independence at stake here. This is perfectly and elegantly reflected in the game mechanics. For Revolutionary Diplomatic Plays, the attacker (Union) has to take its war targets and protect its own capital (Washington DC) and ALSO maintain war support to avoid capitation to the South. The defender (the CSA) just has to maintain its home territories and defend its capital (Richmond, presumably). Defensive wars are much easier and bleeding men for gaining time is a very viable way to win wars by outlasting the attacker's resolve to continue the war and press the attack.

Given these inherent advantages for the CSA, it is perfectly reasonable for the North to have a larger economic advantage, both as a model of reality and for game balance. It is also reasonable to assume that victory for the Union is not predestined for these very factors.
I mean outside of foreign intervention victory for the Union was fairly predestined…
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
Peaceful abolition was extremely unlikely to occur in the United States. The reason White southerners and especially White slave owners fought so hard over slavery was their interest in the power and prestige that came with it. Money was important for the planters, but it doesn't explain the entirety of slavery's importance to them, and it certainly doesn't explain the willingness of poor Whites to form political alliances with planters. (White southerners' wages were actually depressed by slavery, particularly in cities where enslaved Blacks were sometimes rented out as day laborers for wages below the market rate.)

In simplest terms, the Civil War happened because White southerners feared an erosion of their political power more than they valued membership in the United States. The antebellum fights over slavery almost always centered on its expansion rather than on shoring up its economic and legal viability. The political and actual fighting over the status of slavery in the Great Plains came despite slave labor being unprofitable in cereal crop agriculture. The pro- and anti-slavery camps weren't fighting over land and money; they were fighting over future votes and future seats in Congress.

This motivation is also evident in White southerners' interest in annexing Cuba: it was perennial and intense prior to the Civil War, and evaporated almost immediately after the war. Southern Whites were interested primarily in political power and only secondarily in economic profit, so much so that when the Dominican Republic petitioned the Grant administration to annex it, Congress voted against the annexation because the population of the new territory would have been majority non-White. In other words, expansion into the Caribbean was only desirable when it would have reinforced America's racial caste system, not when it would have undermined it.


The Republican Party's 1860 platform didn't even call for the abolition of slavery; it only called for slavery to be maintained where it was already legal and preemptively outlawed in territories that weren't yet states. Since slavery would have been ludicrously unprofitable in the arid lands of the American Southwest and the western Great Plains, neither of which were suitable for growing cash crops, slavery as an economic system would have been nearly unaffected.

The Republican Party's victory with support exclusively from states where slavery was illegal, though, clearly spelled the beginning of the end for slavery as a political and cultural force in America. White southerners (correctly) saw no viable route to increasing the proportion of the national vote willing to support pro-slavery platforms. Even though they could have profited off of slavery for decades longer, they decided to cast the die and secede because they had decisively lost the (often violent) culture war over the moral and social acceptability of human bondage.
Even though Southeastern style chattel slavery wasn’t really suited for the US Southwest, the Southerners were very interested in keeping slavery legal there. Politically they frequently defended the local Hispano elites prior to the Civil War. Debt peonage was a firmly entrenched system of unfree labor there, and Northern attempts to ban it were blocked by Jefferson Davis among others. It wasn’t actually wiped out until the 1880s as I recall. There were reasons of racial hierarchy for this (most peons were indigenous), but also political reasons. The South desperately wanted a railroad running to California to access the Chinese market. There was a flawed idea that, if Southern goods and materials could flow directly to China, the wealth that would come back in return would help maintain Southern power in the US. Friendly Hispanos were part of that calculus.
Im sure it won’t be part of the base game, but I hope for DLC better representing the relationship between the US Southwest and South in prewar times. California was widely viewed as the most pro-Southern free state in the country, staunchly Democratic, with attempts to establish slavery in mining communities occurred, and there was even talk of splitting it into a free north and slave south. Kevin Waite’s recent West of Slavery: The Southern Dream of a Transcontinental Empire is a recent and excellent compilation of material on this matter, I’m a little rusty and didn’t do it justice above. :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Discovered this video recently that has some insights into slavery:


(If you're familiar with the common story taught in US schools, he's included timestamps to skip>>)
 
  • 5
Reactions:
I'm in agreement, but "mixed up" suggests that people are innocently mistaken, and while a lot of that does go on, the confusion started as deliberate propaganda, and is used as such to this day. while i am not a professional historian, this abuse of history is the sort of thing that makes me livid. (not you, Donal, you're cool.)
I completely agree Great Lakes! I was trying to soften my language so as to not incite people who held those views, but you're absolutely right that the "Lost Cause
myth started as propaganda and is perpetuated uncritically by people to this day. The founders of the Confederacy did not mince their words, they knew that their cause was about slavery and nothing else. And if anyone ever tries to argue with you that it was about "states rights!" ask them: "Yeah? A States right to do WHAT?"
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.