Not the pig war of 1859! You can't divide a pig into smaller units without completely butchering the concept!
- 4
-
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.
Not the pig war of 1859! You can't divide a pig into smaller units without completely butchering the concept!
It may be. But my main point is that I don't see how, other than regarding diplomacy and factions and stuff, any of the mechanics of a WWII game would be absent in a ACW game just because the numbers are reduced.
- 1
If land occupation is like V2, then all the battles are like V2. Because there's no difference between the battle resolution of EU4 and Vic2. They both have three main unit types until 1900 (cavalry, infantry and artillery), except that Vic2 is more user-friendly in allowing you to mesh different types of infantry (regular, irregular, infantry, guard), cavalry and artillery in your army, while in Eu4 you just have the choice of picking your favorite unit when you reach that technology level (red coat or blue coat infantry?).
I think you just want a Victoria 2, but with smaller timeframe and scope (only 4 selectable countries), and with EU4 graphics. It'd be very boring, IMO. Victoria 2 with EU4 graphics will come up when PDS makes Victoria 3. Then we'll be able to play not only the ACW, but any conflict in that century.
if the ACW deserves one despite being one sided then why not the english civil war or the war of the roses. politically isolated, situated across 4 nations, could've gone either way at many points.
I like the ACW but its a difficult one for a PDS game. Its essentially contained in one theatre, with two candidates for playable nations. PDS is a grand strategy game developer. The ACW as a game works best closer to the operational level. At least its competitive, whereas at the strategic level the CSA could only seek to delay defeat and hope for British intervention to its benefit.
Britain as a playable nation would be overwhelmingly powerful - to truly model its reach and resources in the era would require a Victoria 3 style game with a global perspective, which would defeat the purpose of focusing on the ACW. So Britain has to be an "off-table" wildcard that the CSA seeks to gain support from. A playable Mexico would either be boring or invite entirely bizarre outcomes. I just don't see the game working at the level described. That said, there have been several excellent ACW games, so its not as if fans of the conflict lack options. Even Victoria 2 offers the possibility of fighting the ACW at a grand strategy level.
Britain as a playable nation would be overwhelmingly powerful - to truly model its reach and resources in the era would require a Victoria 3 style game with a global perspective, which would defeat the purpose of focusing on the ACW. So Britain has to be an "off-table" wildcard that the CSA seeks to gain support from. A playable Mexico would either be boring or invite entirely bizarre outcomes. I just don't see the game working at the level described. That said, there have been several excellent ACW games, so its not as if fans of the conflict lack options. Even Victoria 2 offers the possibility of fighting the ACW at a grand strategy level.
There's nothing wrong with having a 1v1 game at the scope of other PI games. If they really wanted to be innovative they would find a way to include multiple players within the two sides so that they had to coordinate across theaters or states or something. But that would be hoping for way too much.
- 1
There's no point in an ACW Grand Strategy. Grand Strategy is for games where there's more than just one war... ruling a country over decades or, in the case of both EU4 and CK2, centuries. Five years? That's just a wargame, like Hearts of Iron or March of the Eagles, but with an even smaller scale.
Heck, I'm not that thrilled with the HOI approach. It'd be nice if there was a game that went from, say, 1899 to 1948, and another from 1948 to 2020.
Heck, I'm not that thrilled with the HOI approach. It'd be nice if there was a game that went from, say, 1899 to 1948, and another from 1948 to 2020.
I don't see how.
What'd be more appropriate is a regular war game, probably one with a substantial politics simulator. Diplomacy could be handled through things like events, and the economy doesn't need to be simulated except as a source of tax revenue and a way to keep the population supportive.
What'd be more appropriate is a regular war game, probably one with a substantial politics simulator. Diplomacy could be handled through things like events, and the economy doesn't need to be simulated except as a source of tax revenue and a way to keep the population supportive.
There's no reason for it to be that simplified. Anyone interested in an ACW game would want to have control over politics and economics. They can easily make a game similar to HOI on the Civil War.
- 2
I'd argue that HOI wouldn't be a Grand Strategy game either if it didn't let you play as any country and didn't start in 1936. Imagine a HOI where all you do is play as America, the UK, Germany, Russia, or Japan, and only from 1939 to 1945.
Economics also hardly matters in a game where you won't be around long enough to see the consequences of your actions. In as much economics impacts the war effort, it's relevant. But otherwise, pointless when you're only sticking around for five years.
Either you make a tightly-knit wargame or you make a sprawling grand strategy. March of the Eagles was a failure for a reason.
Economics also hardly matters in a game where you won't be around long enough to see the consequences of your actions. In as much economics impacts the war effort, it's relevant. But otherwise, pointless when you're only sticking around for five years.
Either you make a tightly-knit wargame or you make a sprawling grand strategy. March of the Eagles was a failure for a reason.
- 1
That doesn't fit your previous definition of "grand strategy".
Since you've played HOI I'm sure you have a pretty good idea of how important economics is toward the war effort, so why should that be any different for an ACW game? Just like any other long-term war you need to acquire and allocate resources, develop industrial and military units, and manage supplies and infrastructure. An ACW game without this stuff would feel incomplete.
MOTE was not a failure because of its scope.
Since you've played HOI I'm sure you have a pretty good idea of how important economics is toward the war effort, so why should that be any different for an ACW game? Just like any other long-term war you need to acquire and allocate resources, develop industrial and military units, and manage supplies and infrastructure. An ACW game without this stuff would feel incomplete.
MOTE was not a failure because of its scope.
MotE had a far greater game than an ACW game would ever have, and Victoria 2 already covers the game we are discussing. There seems to be an unexisting fanbase for this game even in the core forums of paradox. The game is too limited, too railroaded, not enough strategy would be in it, it's aspects would be too limited and finally, there is no reason for Paradox to make, nobody would be the champion.
That and more are the argument against it. Any arguments in favour of it instead of talking about other games? If everybody agrees that this is unfeasible there is no reason to talk about other games in this thread.
- 1
The economy of HOI consists of four or so resources. You have only one type of industry, and it's called Industry. ALL of your private sector is handled by "Consumer Goods." It's piss. Contrast that with EU4, which has the trade system, and V2, which simulates both production and consumption of basically everything. Now CK2 does have an even simpler system, but it has amazing political depth.
What HOI does is logistics.
You could say that about anything if you don't know enough of the time period. This "niche game" argument doesn't really work because PI became known by making niche games. They can succeed with this if they put some effort into it.
I don't really see the point in arguing about labels. All the OP said he wants is a PI-styled ACW game. Whether you want to call it "grand strategy" is irrelevant.
- 1
But nobody in this state has brought forward a complete concept or an idea.
It has just been every single user saying: this would be bad, no thanks or them arguing over details of other PDS games!There are arguments within this thread.
The only other arguments against that I have seen is that ACW is boring, which is a personal preference that is heavily skewed toward non-Americans. PI targeting an American audience is not a bad idea because it can attract the attention of more people that would never consider playing something like EU or Victoria, but after playing PI's ACW game may become interested after learning how to play with the mechanics of a PI game.
The other argument is two playable countries, but it doesn't have to be that way. If PI ever decides to stop regurgitating their older games they could probably do something really cool with this time period. Maybe make each state playable, leaving open the possibility for states like Missouri and Virginia to be very interesting because of their opportunity to join either side. I know that earlier in the thread I said that the only aspect of HOI that would be missing in an ACW game is diplomacy, but after thinking about it this way perhaps it is a possibility.
The only other arguments against that I have seen is that ACW is boring, which is a personal preference that is heavily skewed toward non-Americans. PI targeting an American audience is not a bad idea because it can attract the attention of more people that would never consider playing something like EU or Victoria, but after playing PI's ACW game may become interested after learning how to play with the mechanics of a PI game.
The other argument is two playable countries, but it doesn't have to be that way. If PI ever decides to stop regurgitating their older games they could probably do something really cool with this time period. Maybe make each state playable, leaving open the possibility for states like Missouri and Virginia to be very interesting because of their opportunity to join either side. I know that earlier in the thread I said that the only aspect of HOI that would be missing in an ACW game is diplomacy, but after thinking about it this way perhaps it is a possibility.
There are indeed arguments in this thread, but Johan saying that they won't make one is a pretty resounding "it's not going to happen", so I suspect we should probably assume it won't until the ACW gets a good deal more interesting to a wider audience.
Actually, HoI's economy (and particularly HoI4's) is quite deep, but the depth is on the military side (as you'd expect it to be, given the scope of the game). EU's and Vicky's military economies are much, much simpler than HoIs (again, because those games have broader scopes, so can't dive as deep into the military side without overwhelming the player). I would personally rate EU's economy as simpler than HoIs (don't forget HoI has trade as well), although I don't think there's any argument against Vicky 2 having by far the best fleshed-out economy of any PDS game.
Actually, HoI's economy (and particularly HoI4's) is quite deep, but the depth is on the military side (as you'd expect it to be, given the scope of the game). EU's and Vicky's military economies are much, much simpler than HoIs (again, because those games have broader scopes, so can't dive as deep into the military side without overwhelming the player). I would personally rate EU's economy as simpler than HoIs (don't forget HoI has trade as well), although I don't think there's any argument against Vicky 2 having by far the best fleshed-out economy of any PDS game.