American Civil War Grand Strategy

[RB33]

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?

 

[loup99]

No, not much potential, too costly for little gain. March of the Eagles failed, and this would go even worse considering there would be a smaller market and it would a be a lot more "niche". Victoria 3 is enough.

 

[RB33]

No, not much potential, too costly for little gain. March of the Eagles failed, and this would go even worse considering there would be a smaller market and it would a be a lot more "niche". Victoria 3 is enough.

Think about it. An EU-style grand strategy with Victoria influence. I would like it. Victoria 3 is good.

 

[SAS]

This would need to be a war game not an economic game like Vicky. It is indeed very niche market since there are other war simulators of the American Civil war recently out there.

 

[loup99]

Think about it. An EU-style grand strategy with Victoria influence. I would like it. Victoria 3 is good.

If Paradox failed with Sengoku and March of the Eagles and are not planning to do a WW1 game even for the 100 years jubilee, this just seems too unlikely. I'm not against it, but there would be the need for another team and the replayability is little. And Victoria 3 is not even a thing yet.

This would need to be a war game not an economic game like Vicky. It is indeed very niche market since there are other war simulators of the American Civil war recently out there.

Haven't AGEOD made an american civil war game already?

 

[RB33]

This would need to be a war game not an economic game like Vicky. It is indeed very niche market since there are other war simulators of the American Civil war recently out there.

Yes, primarly a war game with some trade and economy.

 

[RB33]

Haven't AGEOD made an american civil war game already?

I'm aware of that but I would like an EU-style ACW game.

 

[Dragula]

Even if you think it would be nice. It would never, ever, be economically viable.

 

[pontifex_medius]

There's hardly a market for any American civil war game, let alone a grand strategy one. There's a bookmark for it in Victoria 2: AHD. If there will be a Victoria 3, there will probably be a bookmark there as well. There are probably mods with more elaboration, though. In any case, grand strategy games sell because they're not limited to one specific war. Once you're done fighting the war, you'll want to see the benefits - unless it's the cold war or WW2, in which case your imagination will suffice.

 

[tdpatriots12]

Honestly this seems like something Creative Assembly ought to tackle. Empire TW suffered from too grand a scale, but held plenty of promise. The problem, among others, is "only two real sides" isn't really something they do either.

 

[aruon]

this is better as a HOI mod (much like MotE). MAYBE a standalone HOI game, but one that a dev team would be able to mildly alter and crank out within a year.

 

[Axe99]

There's hardly a market for any American civil war game, let alone a grand strategy one. There's a bookmark for it in Victoria 2: AHD. If there will be a Victoria 3, there will probably be a bookmark there as well. There are probably mods with more elaboration, though. In any case, grand strategy games sell because they're not limited to one specific war. Once you're done fighting the war, you'll want to see the benefits - unless it's the cold war or WW2, in which case your imagination will suffice.

There are quite a few American Civil War games out there (America's a big market for games, after all), and I think a HoI-style wargame focussed on the period _could_ potentially work, but:

- Past attempts like MotE, Sengoku and that really old EU2-spinoff set primarily in Scandinavia (can't remember the name) didn't really set the world on fire. I quite liked MotE personally, but struggled to get into Sengoku.
- Failure of past attempts suggest that Paradox fanbase less interested in narrower focussed games, outside of WW2 (and even then, WW2 was a war of considerably greater scope than the American Civil War).

I think it could be a great game, and PDS have the capability to make it such, but for it to succeed, it'd need to:

- be built fairly cheaply - based probably on taking some core Vicky systems and fleshing out the combat/military production elements more a la HoI).
- be marketed more to the American Civil War crowd than the core PDS crowd.

Personally, I'd prefer Vicky 3, then Rome 2, then something set in Ancient China, over this, but I reckon it could work and be a fun game.

 

[ariansandstrom]

No. Would fail and Paradox has already announced that they will not do any more of these nichest of niche games after the fail of March of the Eagles and Sengoku.

 

[RB33]

There are quite a few American Civil War games out there (America's a big market for games, after all), and I think a HoI-style wargame focussed on the period _could_ potentially work, but:

- Past attempts like MotE, Sengoku and that really old EU2-spinoff set primarily in Scandinavia (can't remember the name) didn't really set the world on fire. I quite liked MotE personally, but struggled to get into Sengoku.
- Failure of past attempts suggest that Paradox fanbase less interested in narrower focussed games, outside of WW2 (and even then, WW2 was a war of considerably greater scope than the American Civil War).

I think it could be a great game, and PDS have the capability to make it such, but for it to succeed, it'd need to:

- be built fairly cheaply - based probably on taking some core Vicky systems and fleshing out the combat/military production elements more a la HoI).
- be marketed more to the American Civil War crowd than the core PDS crowd.

Personally, I'd prefer Vicky 3, then Rome 2, then something set in Ancient China, over this, but I reckon it could work and be a fun game.

It would just need army models, a new map and a trade system. The rest can be unchanged, it would just be interesting in an EU game set in the ACW.

 

[pontifex_medius]

There are quite a few American Civil War games out there (America's a big market for games, after all), and I think a HoI-style wargame focussed on the period _could_ potentially work, but:

- Past attempts like MotE, Sengoku and that really old EU2-spinoff set primarily in Scandinavia (can't remember the name) didn't really set the world on fire. I quite liked MotE personally, but struggled to get into Sengoku.
- Failure of past attempts suggest that Paradox fanbase less interested in narrower focussed games, outside of WW2 (and even then, WW2 was a war of considerably greater scope than the American Civil War).

I think it could be a great game, and PDS have the capability to make it such, but for it to succeed, it'd need to:

- be built fairly cheaply - based probably on taking some core Vicky systems and fleshing out the combat/military production elements more a la HoI).
- be marketed more to the American Civil War crowd than the core PDS crowd.

Personally, I'd prefer Vicky 3, then Rome 2, then something set in Ancient China, over this, but I reckon it could work and be a fun game.

I disagree, there's no potential in a game that explicitly focuses on only two factions that won't change much. You could argue that a game focusing on the American expansion, industrialization and interior politics of the 19th century could possibly become something. In that case, the civil war would be a natural culmination. This would have to be entirely different from any other PDS game though, because you couldn't make a fun game by playing the country of USA against Indians, Mexico and British Canada, until the confederacy declares independence.

My point is that a PDS game in which you can choose either CSA or USA would be played a couple of times at most. There's no potential for further development and replayability. Besides, Europe would have to be left out. And the European powers would have been the best bet for the CSA to win.

 

[RB33]

I disagree, there's no potential in a game that explicitly focuses on only two factions that won't change much. You could argue that a game focusing on the American expansion, industrialization and interior politics of the 19th century could possibly become something. In that case, the civil war would be a natural culmination. This would have to be entirely different from any other PDS game though, because you couldn't make a fun game by playing the country of USA against Indians, Mexico and British Canada, until the confederacy declares independence.

My point is that a PDS game in which you can choose either CSA or USA would be played a couple of times at most. There's no potential for further development and replayability. Besides, Europe would have to be left out. And the European powers would have been the best bet for the CSA to win.

You would be able to play from the start of the war to possible 1900. Playable nations would be USA, CSA, Britain and Mexico.

 

[pontifex_medius]

You would be able to play from the start of the war to possible 1900. Playable nations would be USA, CSA, Britain and Mexico.

Like I said, there's no replayability when there are so few possible outcomes and participants. 4 different factions (or 3 if USA/CSA is united) is far from enough. You wouldn't have for example France to leverage if Britain backed one of the belligerents. Besides, if you somehow end up in a war with Britain, how will British troops be deployed when Great Britain itself is not on the map? Arbitrary deployment? Not at all?

It's much better to use Victoria for this purpose. It encompasses the same era, and all possible supporters/belligerents are on the map. If you want such a narrow niche game, you could take a look at Civil War II by Matrix.

 

[Axe99]

My point is that a PDS game in which you can choose either CSA or USA would be played a couple of times at most. There's no potential for further development and replayability. Besides, Europe would have to be left out. And the European powers would have been the best bet for the CSA to win.

I don't think any reasonable grand-strategy civil war game could exclude european powers in some form. Not playable, but definitely as a factor. It would also need to include trade in greater prominence than EU4, for example (and a bit more accurately than in Vicky 2). There would also be a role for technology that would be best matched by a Vicky 2 or a dialled-back HoI approach (from memory, the Civil War saw the first military use of rudimentary submarines, for example - whether it was first or not, there were definitely innovations in armaments on both sides that had an impact that take it away from the EU approach).

I agree it wouldn't have the replayability of a game with a global scale, but you could give it substantial replayability by taking advantage of the more limited geographic scale to allow more detailed gameplay systems. If you had a decent political sim built into the system, for example, and you played an individual state until the war broke out, you could have a lot of diversity and agency and a tonne of replayability.

 

[RB33]

I don't think any reasonable grand-strategy civil war game could exclude european powers in some form. Not playable, but definitely as a factor. It would also need to include trade in greater prominence than EU4, for example (and a bit more accurately than in Vicky 2). There would also be a role for technology that would be best matched by a Vicky 2 or a dialled-back HoI approach (from memory, the Civil War saw the first military use of rudimentary submarines, for example - whether it was first or not, there were definitely innovations in armaments on both sides that had an impact that take it away from the EU approach).

I agree it wouldn't have the replayability of a game with a global scale, but you could give it substantial replayability by taking advantage of the more limited geographic scale to allow more detailed gameplay systems. If you had a decent political sim built into the system, for example, and you played an individual state until the war broke out, you could have a lot of diversity and agency and a tonne of replayability.

You would play as an state and build it up until the war breaks out and then you can pick a side and play as that country or continue as that state. Great idea.

 

[Mikalos]

the eu4 battle system in a vicky 2 world? Hell no that would never do it right.

and "like MoteE, which failed, but for the civil war!"

i dont see how thats an advertisement point

"i want to play tyhe ACW in eu4" then mod eu4. asking paradox to make an entire game for a 4ish year war that wasnt WW2 and is only relevant to america is stupid