At the tactical level, maybe. Personally, I'd much rather play "the big picture" than abuse the ai in small-scale battle scenarios.
-
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.
At the tactical level, maybe. Personally, I'd much rather play "the big picture" than abuse the ai in small-scale battle scenarios.
The ACW really isn't a very important event in history if you discount that's it the only instance of real open conflict between Continental Americans.
Mexican War?
I'd also argue it was pretty impactful as a united USA had a pretty big role in quite a few events after the ACW and at times during the ACW that outcome was in some doubt.
True. But sometimes you just have an itch to scratch and actually see the thousands that you sent into battle die befor your eyes..
Wow. You really believe that? One doesn't need to be an Americanophile to appreciate the deep impact of the war.
It was a crossroads into a much different western society, and much different America.
Anyway, a creative developer could make a great game out of the subject, there is plenty of material.
It shouldn't railroad the player or replicate the war exactly. It should provide a massive map with various theaters, deep fog of war, and replicate the great change/development of tactics and tech. It would be more interesting to play a smaller part in a larger machine, than have the player micro manage from a large scale.
The ACW is a joke in Vic2. I love the game, but it does not replicate that war or the great war at all.
Ultimate General: Civil War looks great actually...I'm going to go check it out lol!
Last edited:
An ACW game wouldn't be that interesting, just because the two sides were so mismatched. The Confederacy never could have won. The only reason the war went as long as it did was dithering leadership on the Union side during the initial stages of the war. The CSA never had the industrial resources or manpower to compete. It was only a matter of time. Doesn't make for much of a game.
I disagree. The Confederacy didn't have to win the war, they only had not to lose it. The Confederacy could have 'not lost' by achieving foreign recognition and intervention, or inflicted so many casualties that the North decided it just wasn't worth the cost. Both came close to occuring, especially the latter.
Yes Davis, I am aware of the impact of the ACW in preventing the USA breaking into competing states, I meant it really doesn't rank highly in size in the list of 19th century wars, what with 2,500,000 active personal and 400,000 deaths [mostly from the the soldiers poor conditions] over 50 months of conflict. Compare the Taiping rebellion in China which went on for 21 years [by which 30,000,000 were dead] for a really significant civil war.
Your numbers are a bit off. There were 2.75 million active duty personnel in the two armies. And about 720,000 died, according to recent scholoarship. In 1865 the US Volunteers was the largest army in the world. There was nothing insignificant about the ACW.
And the Taiping Rebellion was from 1850 to 1864.
This. And the long-term effects of such a result would quite likely have been far-reaching.
actually one of the first major battles in the ACW was such a colossal ****up for the union that the confederates really could've just marched to Washington D.C totally unopposed in 1861.
between the shock of civil war and the staggering incompetence of the union generals at first, and the disorganization of the southern armies, both sides weren't exactly the brightest at first, but history was made at several points, such as the rather underwhelming first battle between all-metal naval ships.
The Confederates were too disorganized from First Manassas to march on DC. They barely won the battle.
If Sengoku and March of the Eagles had more success then I would say that Paradox may make a game on the American Civil War though I would prefer the Chinese Warring States Period (Zhanguo), but since they didn't I would say that is quite unlikely since most of the player base prefer something on a worldwide-ish scale.
That's making an assumption that is certainly questionable. There could be quite a few reasons other than "most of the player base prefer something on a worldwide-ish scale" that those titles didn't fare particularly well. One that immediately springs to mind is lack of interest in the material covered. Another obvious one is poor quality/reviews. Little or no advertising push/awareness? Etc.
Also, CK II wasn't all that worldwide-ish at release with only minimal territory outside Europe proper included (and most such territory wasn't playable).
Agree with a lot of what you say bu this part is patently not true: V2's military system didn't do justice to any war, it was whack-a-mole stack-zerging. Nothing like period warfare.
There is a lot of room for improvement, they should have put the military system of march of the eagles instead or something similar. That is why I said that we needed V3, among other things which were not good enough with V2.
I can tell those saying that the Civil War was insignificant in history does not fully understand why it happened and the consequences of it. The aftershock of the ACW was felt across the world especially with those trading with the Union or the Confederacy. There was even a naval skirmish with the Japanese at one point during the war; and after the war, the Union's victory would shape Japan and aid Japan in its Civil War. This modern Imperialism would set the stage and go on to hurt the US 70 years later.
Last edited: