• 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.
So is PI incapable of producing a new design that would work well as an ACW game? Why are they bound to making EU-style games?

Of course you may be right. If "too limited of a market" is their reason to not make an ACW game then it seems difficult to justify making Victoria III or anything else that is not CK/EU/HOI-based.

Well Victoria III would cover the ACW, plus the more interesting things that happened elsewhere. Victoria 2 was actually quite successful (Frederik got his haircut if you remember). It is just probably outside of the US the ACW seems a pretty boring things (no offense, but you have much more interesting things happening during the time period). What exactly would you want from Paradox that could not be modelled into Victoria III?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Well Victoria III would cover the ACW, plus the more interesting things that happened elsewhere. Victoria 2 was actually quite successful (Frederik got his haircut if you remember). It is just probably outside of the US the ACW seems a pretty boring things (no offense, but you have much more interesting things happening during the time period). What exactly would you want from Paradox that could not be modelled into Victoria III?

Victoria is a macromanagement game while a good ACW game would require alot more micromanagement. The military should be scaled down to at least the regiment level and the game should focus more on production and supply routes rather than technology and diplomacy. Victoria would also not be able to include the interaction between state governments and federal governments which is important for coordination of military recruits and supplies. There isn't enough going on in the short term to provide a good ACW experience in Victoria. Really the only reason to include it in the game is to provide long-term alternate outcomes in case the CSA survives or the USA is weakened enough so they are less of a global influence.

Just because the events fall within Victoria's time frame doesn't mean the game is built to provide a good experience for them. Think of how weak the Spanish Civil War scenario was in Hearts of Iron.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Victoria is a macromanagement game while a good ACW game would require alot more micromanagement. The military should be scaled down to at least the regiment level and the game should focus more on production and supply routes rather than technology and diplomacy. Victoria would also not be able to include the interaction between state governments and federal governments which is important for coordination of military recruits and supplies. There isn't enough going on in the short term to provide a good ACW experience in Victoria. Really the only reason to include it in the game is to provide long-term alternate outcomes in case the CSA survives or the USA is weakened enough so they are less of a global influence.

Just because the events fall within Victoria's time frame doesn't mean the game is built to provide a good experience for them. Think of how weak the Spanish Civil War scenario was in Hearts of Iron.

Interaction between state/federal government could be modeled into a proper political implementation in Vic 3 (I mean similar mechanism is needed for nationalism/revolutions in Europe). For the military management, Vic is probably also due for an overall (the EU model does not fit well anywhere and just go worse as the game progress). That Vic 2 had short coming, does not mean things could not be done properly into V3.
 
Interaction between state/federal government could be modeled into a proper political implementation in Vic 3 (I mean similar mechanism is needed for nationalism/revolutions in Europe). For the military management, Vic is probably also due for an overall (the EU model does not fit well anywhere and just go worse as the game progress). That Vic 2 had short coming, does not mean things could not be done properly into V3.

Anything done at that level for Victoria 3 would be too broad. It wouldn't make sense to add all of those features just to have a better representation of the American Civil War. The pace of the game alone would make it an inadequate representation of the Civil War. Victoria just isn't designed to be an RTS wargame, which is fine because it is good at what it does, but I don't understand why some people insist that ACW (I've heard it said for WWI too) can be fully represented by the parameters of this game just because it falls within its time frame.
 
Even though a stand-alone game isn't likely to happen in the next couple of years, I wouldn't mind a total conversion mod for it. HOI would be the best game for it imo.
 
Too limited of a market.

Ultimate General : Gettysburg which is an indie RTS about the battle of Gettysburg still sold 70k+ units according to steamspy.

But personally i'd rather have a nice Victoria 3 with better representation of Civil War scenarios (anywhere in the world)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Ultimate General : Gettysburg which is an indie RTS about the battle of Gettysburg still sold 70k+ units according to steamspy.

But why do something creative and sell 70,000 when you can do half the work and sell at least double the units?

Seriously though, now that Paradox has a reputation and is well-known by gamers you would think that that they are capable of succeeding with something like an ACW game. Personally I would like to see them do something more unique, though that's hoping for way too much. But its not like the Civil War is an obscure time period compared to the other games that they make.
 
Honestly, I think the American Civil War is a little overdone and it's significance exaggerated. I do enjoy American Civil War games but there's hundreds of them.
I'd rather see a Crimean War game but since neither will happen, I'm quite happy to have what I mentioned before, that being a HoI style game that covers the whole world from 1840-1900 (or even just 1890). Not a replacement or sequel for Vicky but a different franchise.
 
Actually I can't think of a strategic-level RTS on the Civil War. I also have other topics that I would prefer, I'm kind of in a War of 1812 phase right now, but I am much more likely to buy a Civil War game during its year of release than HOI4 after owning both HOI2 and 3.

I'm quite happy to have what I mentioned before, that being a HoI style game that covers the whole world from 1840-1900 (or even just 1890). Not a replacement or sequel for Vicky but a different franchise.

This would be fun, and probably more reasonable to suggest as a Paradox game since they are used to making games for a large number of players.
 
That
I have been thinking, I would like a Paradox American Civil War Grand Strategy.

It take place during the war with a map stretching across North America.

USA, CSA, Britain and Mexico are playable.

It would be a mix between EU4 and Victoria 2.

Battles and graphics of EU4 and simulation of V2.

Building railroads for faster travel and occupying land as in V2.

Using steamships for Naval Battles.

Like MotE but American Civil War.

What do you think?
would be such a short time scope it would be better left as an adapted version of HOIIV rather than Victoria or EUIV
 
Personally i think that the 30 year war, the war of the spanish succession, cold war and WW1 are all more deserving of a game than ACW.
 
I'd love to see a Paradox-style ACW game, but isn't the whole idea of a "ACW grand-strategy game" something of a contradiction in terms? A single-war war game is not a grand-strategy one, surely?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It would be better if they made Victoria III which covers the American Civil War. A specific ACW game would probably sell as bad as Sengoku did.
 
So why do you imply that a Civil War game would not be fun or interesting when past games have created reasonable win conditions for the South?
Well what's a "Win Condition". If a "Win Condition" is defeat the Northern army to a point where they cannot defeat you and retain independence that's not feasable with a historically accurate setup. Even defeating the North to the point where they want the war to end would be inredibly difficult and unlikely (though the first think to do is make Atlanta the capital). The Northern Generals were better trained (a historical starting condition) and had 3 times more troops available than their opponents.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This would be a really one sided game. As an American, every textbook that covers that part of our history makes it quite clear that the South was extremely doomed. Lower population, less industry capacity, fewer railroads, no available diplomatic options (ultimately, Europe just did not care enough to upset the balance of power over there by helping either side, especially once the North made liberation of slaves part of the goal), most of the population was either completely unwilling to fight or would have been in favor of supporting the North, political infighting between the states of the CSA. The only "advantage" most American textbooks gave the South was its starting generals being of better quality, and I dispute this fact. Neither side had generals who were ready for the capabilities of their new weaponry, and the war was an extremely bloody affair as a result. The most the South could hope for is temporary independence, most likely with them being reabsorbed sometime later, or they themselves splitting apart.

So ultimately, the appeal here is small, the outcome is clear, and the conflict would only be more interesting as part of a larger strategy game, to me.
 
  • 4
Reactions: