Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

US rebellion

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
Originally posted by Agelastus


Actually, absent French support, militarily you were losing, as Washington's brave and sensible decision to avoid direct confrontation between the Continental army and British regulars helps demonstrate. Politically? Well, that's another question. Although about a third (?) of the American population were loyalist, they certainly weren't as active or influential as the out and out American Republicans. As to the importance of the French contribution, the surrender at Yorktown wouldn't have occurred without it. And as to the importance of Yorktown, I believe the British Prime-Minister's response to the news was "Oh God, we've lost" (as in the war, almost a direct quote.)

Nice insult by the way. Rather inappropriate though considering the sources of the main political tracts in the America's pre-Revolution.
Click to expand...

Actually, Lord North thought the English cause was hopeless and had been wanting to resign ever since the disaster at Saratoga, but George III wouldn't let him.

The French didn't intervene militarily in any useful way until 1781. Between Saratoga in 1777 and Rochambeau's landing at Newport in 1781, the fortunes of war went back and forth. After Saratoga, British fortunes waned dangerously. They were forced to give up Phaladelphia and Newport and concentrate in New York. By mid-1778, all the British still held in the Thirteen Colonies was the city of New York and environs. In 1779, fortune tilted the other way, and Cornwallis was able to conquer Georgia and South Carolina without too much difficulty. In 1780 and 1781 fortune swung the other way as American guerrilla tactics blocked Cornwallis' campaign against North Carolina and broke his hold on Georgia and South Carolina (only Savannah and Charleston were retained by British forces). Cornwallis was able to batter Virginia, but as his supply lines were cut, he was forced to retreat to the coast and rather unintelligently went to an easily blocked possition at Yorktown. So by the time the French intervened with significant military forces (Rochambeau's army and de Grasse's fleet) in 1781, the British held only New York City, Yorktown, Charleston, and Savannah. While they did possess two of the colonies' largest cities, their position wasn't anywhere near as strong as it had been in 1777 (when they held New York, Philadelphia, most of New Jersey, as well as other outposts), and the situation for the Americans certainly wasn't dire, or even poor.
 
I hope one day IGC will get rid of US revolter :D
I don't really know why it's here, since nobody ever seen them.
So we could get some nice nation instead. Or at least, since colonization happens much earlier in EU, make them revolt earlier than 1750, and in provinces south to manhattan, they have bigger tax values, and i suppose it's related to rebel army size
 
To get back to the original point: for the USA to appear, 12 provinces must simultaneously be in rebel hands. Evidently this is a LOT more difficult than one province being in rebel hands, so Helvetia/Milan/Wurttemburg et al are much more likely to (re)appear than are the USA.

Holland are hard-coded as revolters in the GC because they had such a massive influence in the colonial world that it would destroy any sense of historical accuracy to leave them out. The USA aren't so treated because, in sixteen years of formal existence they're going to achieve squat. Remember the continued existence of the USA was in serious doubt at least up until 1812 - largely because many of the colonies wanted to go their own way, and also partly because as non-European land they were still regarded as anyone's for the taking - and they nearly beat themselves to death fifty years after that.
 
One thing I don't understand is why the nationalism in the Dutch provinces ends when the Edict of Tolerance is issued. I doubt the Dutch patriots would just give up and return to their houses when the Edict is issued.
 
Originally posted by BiB


Flanders revolted. The Southern regions didn't :D
Click to expand...

The southern regions revolted too :) the Duke of Parma (who came to replace Don Juan who in turn had come to replace Alva), just managed to get them to stop. The Southern Netherlands were quite protestant at the time too (all those French Calvinists). Shame Flanders didn't get to join the Dutch Republic though (damn Spaniards :D).
 
I honestly can't make a comparison between the US revolution and the Dutch revolution. I really only know sketchy details about the Dutch revolt. Really you can't compare them though. The netherlands were pretty much within marching distance of the european nations whereas, the americas were a LONG way off from England in comparison.

Granted, some European nations helped train american forces but it was the totally different fighting style that beat the English silly. The american revolutionists could afford to give up ground because they had a huge amount of it in comparison to in european theaters of battle. When the English with their "honor" would march on the the field to engage in battle, the americans would resort to guerilla tactics, shooting commanders and other such tactics. I guess the English didn't find these tactics very honorable, but they lost none the less.

Of course, i may be a little biased since i'm from the Good Ole U.S. of A. :)
 
Originally posted by TheF


The southern regions revolted too :) the Duke of Parma (who came to replace Don Juan who in turn had come to replace Alva), just managed to get them to stop. The Southern Netherlands were quite protestant at the time too (all those French Calvinists). Shame Flanders didn't get to join the Dutch Republic though (damn Spaniards :D).
Click to expand...

I meant the catholic union of Atrecht with the southern regions ;) I mean the souther regions of the souther Netherlands as I responded to sommink about Belgium, Holland not included ;) Those southern regions who actually wanted to stay Spanish and were quite afraid of the revolters whereas Flanders was a part of the Union of Utrecht.
 
Why oh why this antiamericanism....

It is quite sad to hear someone downplay the american revolution so much, and to so incorrectly explain it in comparison to the dutch revolt. I will not argue that the dutch revolt was important in it's time and affected Europe greatly. But Europe isn't the whole world, and I would dare to say that the American revolution, even the very existence of the united states of america, has irreversably changed the face of the entire world. Whether these effects were good or bad are decided by each person, though I would venture to say that they were overall good. I cannot exactly pin-point any exact changes to the world today that were brought on by the dutch, nothing major anyways. But america...I understand that most ppl on this message board are european, so I will cater to you. What innovations, industrial revolutions, and ideals came out of the USA? What a power we have become. The most powerful of all. And this was because we had to, to survive. What about more recent history. What if....?
What if the USA didn't intervene at all in WWI? or WWII??
What if the USA had never made McDonalds? Would France make good french fries? I seriously doubt it. :p
..now I am getting silly. My only true message in this semi-lengthy retort is that downplaying the USA, and it's revolutionary birth are both silly and rather idiotic. If you cannot think of how many ways the USA has effected the world around you, weather Europe or Asia, or latino or middle-eastern or whatever, than my friend, you are quite sheltered or blind or both. So give props to USA, 'cause my country could kick your country's arse :D
 
Originally posted by Personi69
One thing I don't understand is why the nationalism in the Dutch provinces ends when the Edict of Tolerance is issued. I doubt the Dutch patriots would just give up and return to their houses when the Edict is issued.
Click to expand...

I think it is to represent the fact that maybe the Dutch wouldn't be revolting so much after they have had their asses kicked for such a long time.
 
Re: Why oh why this antiamericanism....

Originally posted by Emperor of Eire
It is quite sad to hear someone downplay the american revolution so much, and to so incorrectly explain it in comparison to the dutch revolt. I will not argue that the dutch revolt was important in it's time and affected Europe greatly. But Europe isn't the whole world, and I would dare to say that the American revolution, even the very existence of the united states of america, has irreversably changed the face of the entire world. Whether these effects were good or bad are decided by each person, though I would venture to say that they were overall good. I cannot exactly pin-point any exact changes to the world today that were brought on by the dutch, nothing major anyways. But america...I understand that most ppl on this message board are european, so I will cater to you. What innovations, industrial revolutions, and ideals came out of the USA? What a power we have become. The most powerful of all. And this was because we had to, to survive. What about more recent history. What if....?
What if the USA didn't intervene at all in WWI? or WWII??
What if the USA had never made McDonalds? Would France make good french fries? I seriously doubt it. :p
..now I am getting silly. My only true message in this semi-lengthy retort is that downplaying the USA, and it's revolutionary birth are both silly and rather idiotic. If you cannot think of how many ways the USA has effected the world around you, weather Europe or Asia, or latino or middle-eastern or whatever, than my friend, you are quite sheltered or blind or both. So give props to USA, 'cause my country could kick your country's arse :D
Click to expand...


What is all this gibberish? The game ends in 1792, and the USA's contribution, as an independent nation, to the world at large by 1792 was exactly zero. Anything that happened after 1792 is utterly irrelevant to the question at hand, because the game doesn't run until 2001.
 
In EU terms, I think it's obvious the Dutch are a far more important nation than the US. I also think, although independence for the British colonies was inevitable, had the British used any common sense (espoused vocally at the time by Pitt, Burke and other MP's, like Barre) they mighy easily have remained quiet until well after 1792.

But I have to say something about some military comments. It would have been hard for the colonials to lose the war, simply because of their size and their distance from Britain. The British could and did occupy Boston, Philadelphia, New York and any other population center, but this did little to intimidate the colonials, and the hostility of the surrounding areas (combined with supply issues) invariably forced a retreat, usually without a battle. Saratoga was the predictable result of what happened when a British army was determined to move far from its supply. (Washington himself, often considered less than insightful, saw what would happen almost immediately, along with his subordinates).

Granted, European involvement doubtless led to a more rapid conclusion. But the number of times a military force has achieved a strategic aim in a hostile countryside, far from home, is about zero. Hannibal couldn't win the war in Italy, the Black Prince lost most of Aquitaine to du Guescelin, Napoleon failed in Spain, both French and Americans lost in Vietnam.
 
Heyesey,

Whilst I agree with your analysis I don't think that logic has much to do with this. EU is one of those rare games which was aimed at a European audience. This is such a suprise for our American collegues that they naturally want a piece of the action too - hence the war of independence scenario (borrrrring). Allowing them the ability to slap a flag that was created three hundred years in the future on to a "what-if" nation which is supposed to represent Viking settlers and not the religous refugees from the UK is a small price to pay if it keeps them happy.

Actually I like Vinland - it is one of the more interesting minors to play. And I guess using the green cross flag is just as much a fantasy as the stars and stripes.
 
Whilst I agree with your analysis I don't think that logic has much to do with this. EU is one of those rare games which was aimed at a European audience. This is such a suprise for our American collegues that they naturally want a piece of the action too - hence the war of independence scenario (borrrrring). Allowing them the ability to slap a flag that was created three hundred years in the future on to a "what-if" nation which is supposed to represent Viking settlers and not the religous refugees from the UK is a small price to pay if it keeps them happy.
Click to expand...

And how, exactly, is that any different than Sweden and Denmark-Norway being included as GC powers in those respective versions of the game but not elsewhere?

As far as the main discussion on this thread goes... Obviously, during the EU timeframe, the Dutch Revolution is much, much more important than the American. At the same time, however, the game's treatment of the American Revolution--namely, that the U.S. usually doesn't emerge as a nation, or even have a heightened revolt risk--seems lacking, especially considering its implications not only in 2001, but 13 years later in the French Revolution.
 
Re: Re: Why oh why this antiamericanism....

Originally posted by Heyesey



What is all this gibberish? The game ends in 1792, and the USA's contribution, as an independent nation, to the world at large by 1792 was exactly zero. Anything that happened after 1792 is utterly irrelevant to the question at hand, because the game doesn't run until 2001.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe one or two, but not quite zero. The "American War" (as the French called it) did contribute heavily to the financial woes of the French treasury, leading to the bankrupcy which led to the calling of the Estates General and thus the French Revolution. The League of Armed Neutrality, which was formed by the neutal nations in responce to the wanton siezure of ships by the British was the first definitive statement by the international community in favor of the inviability of neutral shipping. Britain's accute embarassment at losing a war to her colonies made her lose face in the international community. So there were a few results of the American Revolution which did affect Europe, not none.
 
Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Heyesey,

Whilst I agree with your analysis I don't think that logic has much to do with this. EU is one of those rare games which was aimed at a European audience. This is such a suprise for our American collegues that they naturally want a piece of the action too - hence the war of independence scenario (borrrrring). Allowing them the ability to slap a flag that was created three hundred years in the future on to a "what-if" nation which is supposed to represent Viking settlers and not the religous refugees from the UK is a small price to pay if it keeps them happy.

Actually I like Vinland - it is one of the more interesting minors to play. And I guess using the green cross flag is just as much a fantasy as the stars and stripes.
Click to expand...

Heh. So a Europe-based game must be defintion uninteresting to Americans? That is like saying a Roman Empire-based game is going to be uninteresting to anyone but Italians.
 
But I bet the sales in Italy would be better - everyone like to play their own nation. First game I played was as England

It's just when the game is supposed to have some historical basis it seems a little strange that quite a few americans are asking why they can't play the USA or why it isn't stronger.

Mind you as you say everyone puts a slight bias into their games - the cheap artillery for Sweden in EU is pretty amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back