Wait, the US had a Civil War?
I can’t speak for all the AARs, but most of the AARs I’ve read that deal with the civil war seemed to involve the authors wanting to trigger it. I did notice in RELee’s AAR, there were options available from the start that seemed to impact the likelyhood and/or timing of it happening.
I actually like that. One of the interesting parts of studying the civil war is stretching back and examining all the near disasters all the moments that could have led to war. I’ll paraphrase Van Buren writing in 56…
“The miracle is that we haven’t had a civil war yet.”
It would be kind of interesting to think of our historical Civil War as a buggy outlier. “Paradox better patch this!”
Did those AARs mention the US just finishing a war with Mexico prior to the Civil War starting in 1849?
It seems to vary. In the specific US Civil War AAR, the player had defeated Mexico and incorporated Texas (as well as the rest of the historical western US by 1849, when the AAR starts. Then the south seceded. In the current Japanese AAR, the player hasn’t been paying any attention to the US but the ACW just fired in 1849, with Mexico joining the North as an ally and with Texas still part of Mexico. The third AAR that mentions any kind of ACW simply shows a world map from 1852 that shows a seperate CSA in a world where Texas is still part of Mexico.
Again, my main concern is not that the game is capable of having the ACW occur at differnt then historical times, it’s that if it always fires off around 1849 that’s just as bad as if it always fires off around 1861.
I understand what you’re saying Sarkus, but it’s a sample of three (with one giving a different year anyway). Since the demo includes the first 15 years of the US, you’ll be able to see for yourself whether the civil war constantly fires at 1849 quite soon! =D
It looks like the American Civil War is pretty rigidly coded in version 1.1. I just ran five test games, letting the clock run until the CSA formed. It happened in the first half of 1849 without fail.
Okay, I lied. In one game, the CSA formed in December 1848.
-TomYikes! That’s not a good sign.
Why is that not a good sign? Does it happen due to all the factors in the game simulating it?
There is an assumption in history games that history will run the historic course until you as the player disturb its trajectory. If what you’re doing in Nepal is causing or not causing the American Civil War, then probably the game is running with different logic than the player expects.
Were you playing as the US, Tom? Or some other country, i.e. hands-off Switzerland as I do.
Seems like the way to test whether the Civil War is inevitable - or inevitably starts in 1849 - is to play as the US and do one’s best to avoid it. I’m not a scientist, though, so maybe that’s not the best way to go about it.
Look this is all great but i’m pining away until Thursday when i can change history for the better and keep “Orthodoxy, Aristocracy, and Nationality” the watchwords of Russia.
Which means Alaska shall be mine… er, Russia’s!
Never happened in games like Civilization or Total War, so why should it happen in Victoria2. The start is historical, and the flavor is historical, nothing more. The rest is mechanics.
If I’m just running a hands off game, then I do not expect something to happen at the same time every time. I expect it to vary. In this case I’d expect the American civil war to fire between, say, 1849 and 1865 or something. If it happens at the same time every time then something is wrong IMHO.
I would disagree in that I don’t expect (or even want) the game to be strictly historic if I sit back and don’t do anything. I want variation within a reasonable range, though.
I do not disagree with you but Paradox’s current design philosophy - as I understand it and obviously Johan would be the better person to explain this - seems to be that once you start a game the AI does what it thinks necessary to win. The earlier Paradox games were event-driven and had weaker AIs essentially incapable of responding to “ahistorical” actions by the player. EU3 was the first major departure from the past for Paradox and the rancor on the forums proved (to me) that fans had misunderstood what EU3 was designed to do. Some people expected EU2.5*, where the game would do exactly what you just said: act historically until the player fiddled with something and then go partially or completely off the rails. Instead, the AI in EU3 just tried to beat the hell out of you (with military force or some different tool in its arsenal) and everybody else. I figure Victoria 2’s AI is probably designed to behave similarly and thus the Civil War starts in 1849 because the factors that the AI has considered make it start in 1849.
I am now prepared to have Johan tell me I’m totally wrong. :)
*See For The Glory, which I really enjoy for totally different reasons than EU3.
[QUOTE=Orangist;2329186]I am now prepared to have Johan tell me I’m totally wrong. :)
No, you are completely right.
Hm, think my first game will be to try and keep Siam or Burma independent.
So, barring player intervention, having the American civil war break out in 1849 (for whatever reason) is viewed as WAD? That seems a strange design choice to me.