I propose using this thread for events specific for the United States. I suggest using the Events thread that already exists for questions about event making.
-
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.
Maybe a Lusitania event? Raises WE and dissent hit?
Also when war does come to the US, there should be an event that has a large draft, and has a few inf. divs thrown into the force pool. Naturally there will also be the elections and such. Maybe something on the "Fourteen Point" after the war is over or something? The event would be about trying to enforce the "Fourteen Points" and give independence to a few nations in Africa or something like that.
Also when war does come to the US, there should be an event that has a large draft, and has a few inf. divs thrown into the force pool. Naturally there will also be the elections and such. Maybe something on the "Fourteen Point" after the war is over or something? The event would be about trying to enforce the "Fourteen Points" and give independence to a few nations in Africa or something like that.
Got the Luisitania event covered, it is part of an event chain.
Johan there was some talk of eliminating WE all together. Is this true, or is it still in? Not being a fan of WE to begin with, for it plays to weird (especially the part of Germany getting blamed for the actions of other powers). However if it is not possible to get rid of completely, is it possible to get rid of the monthly increase?
Johan there was some talk of eliminating WE all together. Is this true, or is it still in? Not being a fan of WE to begin with, for it plays to weird (especially the part of Germany getting blamed for the actions of other powers). However if it is not possible to get rid of completely, is it possible to get rid of the monthly increase?
WE for most countries won't really symbolize anything, because after some ½ year, there will be a war in almost all cases, so WE for UK, France, and those countries won't be necessary to care about. USA would be a different matter though. I don't know, how much does WE go up per month/year?
/Johan
/Johan
Yeah I am working on the Zimmerman telegram (actually have the precise wording), unrestricted sub warfare (URSW)(a whole chain starting in 1915).
IIRC WE goes up 1% each month and other modifiers if Germany (or anybody else too) attacks or does other aggressive stuff.
If it possible have WE per month either be nill or negative. As for the US I am working on an event driven effect that either lets them remain neutral or enter the war. Mainly as stated before the Zimmerman note, and URSW. It is believed by many historians that if it wasn't for these major diplomatic faux paus the US would not have entered the war.
Does anyone have an idea if the US would have joined the Central Powers under an circumstances? I personally don't think so unless Britain would have sank some vessels going through their blockade of Germany, but that would be stretching it a bit.
(Could make an interesting random event for Britain.)
IIRC WE goes up 1% each month and other modifiers if Germany (or anybody else too) attacks or does other aggressive stuff.
If it possible have WE per month either be nill or negative. As for the US I am working on an event driven effect that either lets them remain neutral or enter the war. Mainly as stated before the Zimmerman note, and URSW. It is believed by many historians that if it wasn't for these major diplomatic faux paus the US would not have entered the war.
Does anyone have an idea if the US would have joined the Central Powers under an circumstances? I personally don't think so unless Britain would have sank some vessels going through their blockade of Germany, but that would be stretching it a bit.
(Could make an interesting random event for Britain.)
I think some contingency event should be made if Germany wins the war against the US, that gives New Mexico, Texas etc to Mexico. 
Well I was going to include a couple events for Mexico that allows them to agree to the Zimmerman note, and then they would get claims to the areas that the note says. But I serioulsy doubt the US would have ever given up those areas.
Would the USA ever join the Central Powers? Hmm.
The German-Americans were obviously in favour, and most Irish-Americans would support whichever side Britain wasn't on. However, the majority of US public opinion was pro-Britain and France (and Italy, after 1915) - and crucially, I believe President Wilson was strongly anglophile. You'd probably have to get rid of him through an election event to have a chance of moving the Americans towards the CP.
The fact that WW1 was a war of "democracy versus dictatorship" was important for US opinion. (Tsarist Russia being on the Allied side was something of an embarrassment!) For America to line up alongside militaristic Prussia against France, home of Lafayette and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, was almost inconceivable (and would certainly have caused huge dissent).
Germany made some crude errors, but Britain also organised a highly effective propaganda campaign to capitalise on them - perhaps the 20th century's first example of spin doctors at work making sure that the US news agenda followed Britain's lead. (This could be some kind of tech advance?). Much of this was done through nominally independent journalists and authors being given "private briefings" by the UK government, which they then recorded in print. There was also enthusiastic spreading of fake or exaggerated atrocity stories - most notoriously the Belgian Nuns, the Crucified Canadian and the German Corpse Factory.
Finally came self-interest. In crude terms, American bankers and industrialists had lent billions of dollars to Britain at commercial rates of interest, and if Britain went under they'd lose their money. On a more strategic level, Britain and France were "satisfied powers" - they felt their empires were quite big enough already. Germany was out to shatter the status quo and grab a better place in the sun - and if they managed to triumph in Europe, the security of the Monroe Doctrine would look a little shaky...
The German-Americans were obviously in favour, and most Irish-Americans would support whichever side Britain wasn't on. However, the majority of US public opinion was pro-Britain and France (and Italy, after 1915) - and crucially, I believe President Wilson was strongly anglophile. You'd probably have to get rid of him through an election event to have a chance of moving the Americans towards the CP.
The fact that WW1 was a war of "democracy versus dictatorship" was important for US opinion. (Tsarist Russia being on the Allied side was something of an embarrassment!) For America to line up alongside militaristic Prussia against France, home of Lafayette and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, was almost inconceivable (and would certainly have caused huge dissent).
Germany made some crude errors, but Britain also organised a highly effective propaganda campaign to capitalise on them - perhaps the 20th century's first example of spin doctors at work making sure that the US news agenda followed Britain's lead. (This could be some kind of tech advance?). Much of this was done through nominally independent journalists and authors being given "private briefings" by the UK government, which they then recorded in print. There was also enthusiastic spreading of fake or exaggerated atrocity stories - most notoriously the Belgian Nuns, the Crucified Canadian and the German Corpse Factory.
Finally came self-interest. In crude terms, American bankers and industrialists had lent billions of dollars to Britain at commercial rates of interest, and if Britain went under they'd lose their money. On a more strategic level, Britain and France were "satisfied powers" - they felt their empires were quite big enough already. Germany was out to shatter the status quo and grab a better place in the sun - and if they managed to triumph in Europe, the security of the Monroe Doctrine would look a little shaky...
Even if you replaced Wilson its hard to visualise any US president siding with the Central Powers for the reasons mentioned above. It would require some outrageous event to turn the USA against the Allies; a full fledged Irish uprising crushed by the British? A refusal to pay back their loans? Even then it seems like a stretch.
I don't really see the US siding with the CP either, but was not there some strife between the US and Britain during the 20's. I seem to recall something about a naval arms race at the time, but was diffused. Of course it has been a year or so since I recall hearing this, so I could be wrong.
Apparently there was some kind of minor confrontation between Britain and the USA in 1898 or so (the same time that Britain nearly went to war with France over Fashoda). The British government decided that conflict with America was something they couldn't win and couldn't afford, and so conceded the US demands and concentrated on building good relations in future.
The naval conflict you're thinking of happened just after the war. When WW1 broke out Britain virtually cancelled its battleship building programme. The US, however, carried on building ships at the peacetime rate. By 1918 the Americans had almost caught up with the British in fleet numbers, and so decided to go all-out and overtake. Britain felt it had to respond, and laid down plans for a big fleet increase of its own - but this was more than the almost-bankrupt country could sensibly afford.
Finally, the matter was resolve through diplomacy - the Washington Naval Conference of 1921-2 Britain and the USA agreed to have fleets of equal size in future; many of the new ships laid down were cancelled (or converted into aircraft carriers), and lots of old WW1 dreadnoughts were scrapped.
The naval conflict you're thinking of happened just after the war. When WW1 broke out Britain virtually cancelled its battleship building programme. The US, however, carried on building ships at the peacetime rate. By 1918 the Americans had almost caught up with the British in fleet numbers, and so decided to go all-out and overtake. Britain felt it had to respond, and laid down plans for a big fleet increase of its own - but this was more than the almost-bankrupt country could sensibly afford.
Finally, the matter was resolve through diplomacy - the Washington Naval Conference of 1921-2 Britain and the USA agreed to have fleets of equal size in future; many of the new ships laid down were cancelled (or converted into aircraft carriers), and lots of old WW1 dreadnoughts were scrapped.
Thanks StephenT. Too bad there is no way to count the number of battleships that a power has and compare it to another, or that would make a pretty cool event chain.
As I understand it there was also political tension in the 20's over trade and markets. That was firmly post war though. I think the best the CP could hope for would be a neutral USA; which of course might be enough...
The only way I could possibly see the US enter into the war on the side of Germany would be if a US President was assassinated by an Englishman who was blaming the Americans for things not going well in the war. Even if that was the case, however, it would just lead to a drastic cooling of relations between the two powers and, perhaps, some covert assistence to the Kaiser.
If you want a German-Centric United States you need to go back a bit further in history; I would say to the turn of the century at the very earliest.
However, an interesting series of events would be if TR stayed out of the race and put his support behind Taft in 1912 leading to Taft being President at the beginning of the war or, for that matter, a Roosevelt Presidency in 1912(this may not have lead to a dirrect intervention by the US, actually. TR was a world reknowned diplomat after all, and I can see him trying to arrange peace talks)
For that matter, I'd still love to see what a laFollette presidency would have been like. Now THERE would have been an anti-Great War administration....not to say that he wouldn't have gotten involved in Mexico or another messy area(La Follette wasn't a Pascifist, he just thought that getting invovled in a European war was foolishness)
If you want a German-Centric United States you need to go back a bit further in history; I would say to the turn of the century at the very earliest.
However, an interesting series of events would be if TR stayed out of the race and put his support behind Taft in 1912 leading to Taft being President at the beginning of the war or, for that matter, a Roosevelt Presidency in 1912(this may not have lead to a dirrect intervention by the US, actually. TR was a world reknowned diplomat after all, and I can see him trying to arrange peace talks)
For that matter, I'd still love to see what a laFollette presidency would have been like. Now THERE would have been an anti-Great War administration....not to say that he wouldn't have gotten involved in Mexico or another messy area(La Follette wasn't a Pascifist, he just thought that getting invovled in a European war was foolishness)
Have an event based on the various laws put into effect during wartime that severly limited free speech. Presidential candidate Eugene Debs was jailed for the better part of a decade because of a pacifistic speech he gave.
As for America joining the Central Powers, it is a bit of a stretch, however it is not at all an impossibility(Unless Teddy Roosevelt was President)
Americans were actually a true neutral when the war first began. Many simpathized with the German cause. It was not until the British and French used propaganda to bring the German attrocities in Belgium to the worlds attention. to get a true feel of how the world began to turn against the Germans, i suggest the Chapter 'The Flames of Luvain' In the Guns of August.
As for what it wouldve taken to get the Americans on the CP side, well, several things really.
1) Germans dont burn Belgium (Is there an Event that gives them that option?)
2) British Ships Intercept American Transports in Route to Germany ignoring the British Blockade.
3) British Killing of that One American that was part of the Easter Uprising in Ireland in 1916.
4) Germans do not pursue Unlimited Submarine Warfare (ie, no Lousitania)
With this, i could see the Americans joining the CP, but only in about 1 out of every 20 or so games.
CvM
Americans were actually a true neutral when the war first began. Many simpathized with the German cause. It was not until the British and French used propaganda to bring the German attrocities in Belgium to the worlds attention. to get a true feel of how the world began to turn against the Germans, i suggest the Chapter 'The Flames of Luvain' In the Guns of August.
As for what it wouldve taken to get the Americans on the CP side, well, several things really.
1) Germans dont burn Belgium (Is there an Event that gives them that option?)
2) British Ships Intercept American Transports in Route to Germany ignoring the British Blockade.
3) British Killing of that One American that was part of the Easter Uprising in Ireland in 1916.
4) Germans do not pursue Unlimited Submarine Warfare (ie, no Lousitania)
With this, i could see the Americans joining the CP, but only in about 1 out of every 20 or so games.
CvM
Should Presidential Elections be evented just as in the standard HOI, or should they be scripted in America's minister file?
If we event the elections, Presidents can be inaugurated on the exact date, which would not occur if we simply had the 'Elect Left-Elect Right' method.
Additionally, should socialist-orientated Progressive Party candidate Robert M. LaFollette have any sort of chance of becoming US President in 1924, for the last year of the game? Keep in mind that he only got 16.5% of the popular vote whereas Republican Calvin Coolidge got more than half.
If we event the elections, Presidents can be inaugurated on the exact date, which would not occur if we simply had the 'Elect Left-Elect Right' method.
Additionally, should socialist-orientated Progressive Party candidate Robert M. LaFollette have any sort of chance of becoming US President in 1924, for the last year of the game? Keep in mind that he only got 16.5% of the popular vote whereas Republican Calvin Coolidge got more than half.
Tough question. Depends on whether there are going to be any alternatives to the elections other than historical outcomes. If just historical then go with the script in the minister file. Else go with the event (it may not be the exact date but I would hope no one would complain because it is a few days off).
As for Robert M. LaFollette, if it is possible list for the election the top three in candidates with the three larges votes (electoral or popular whichever is more convienent) and let the player choose from that list. This of course if we even give the player anything other than the historical election.
As for Robert M. LaFollette, if it is possible list for the election the top three in candidates with the three larges votes (electoral or popular whichever is more convienent) and let the player choose from that list. This of course if we even give the player anything other than the historical election.
I'm not sure of the historical ramifications of the election of certain presidents, so it's something that'll need more discussion.
As for LaFollette, my thought is that if people consider it important enough, that the 1924 election be made into an event of some sort, whilst the other elections form part of the US minister file.
As for LaFollette, my thought is that if people consider it important enough, that the 1924 election be made into an event of some sort, whilst the other elections form part of the US minister file.