>decide to play as the confederacy
>start as the USA and begin strengthening the south
>finally manage to get the southern states to secede
>switch over to them
>the CSA is a monarchy
>Southern Planters get replaced with an aristocracy
>yeoman farmers cease to exist as all the laws are now that of a feudal state
>literally 0 flavour, not ONE journal entry
>robert lee who?
>Yankees are an accepted culture
>0 events after winning the civil war
how the FRICK did they frick even this up
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>landowners dont even support slavery anymore
how the frick is this so bad
That's because the civil war was about state rights, slavery was literally never the issue.
whatever your beliefs, landowners who depend on slaves should support slavery
A state's right to WHAT?
To secede from a voluntary union of states
What’s with all these seriously dumb Pakistani ESLs who suddenly think they’re experts on US history
And why would they want to secede? What "right" were they trying to protect?
Why is that important? If it wasn't slavery it would've been the tariffs, Jackson said as much during the nullification crisis. Secession was the goal, not the means, and that's what Lincoln condemned the confederates for. Slavery itself was still legal, including certain Union states.
And yet the Nullification crisis didn't cause them to secede, how strange? But when the Corwin amendment failed and an abolitionist was elected suddenly secession was urgent and inevitable.
Yeah, strange how it was a presidential election that caused the secession. Cause presidents are famous for their enormous legislative powers. Still can't wrap my head around how can a war be fought about something that both sides considered legal, can you figure that one out for me?
>considered legal
Then why have the fugitive slave act? Or the Corwin amendment? Or the Missouri compromise? Or the Kansas-Nebraska act? According to you the north and south got along famously when it came to slavery.
>considered legal
Was the slavery in Southern states illegal then, dimwit? What about Maryland, Missouri, Delaware and Kentucky, was it illegal there? How about you show me a federal law they were in breach of. Or maybe there was a pre-ACW Supreme Court decision overturning Dredd Scott?
>According to you the north and south got along famously when it came to slavery.
That's the thing my nearsighted friend, they didn't get along when it came to pretty much anything. Not slaves, not tariffs, not new states, not Texas, not the war with Mexico, not anything. Strange how those diametrically opposed groups of states might not wanna stay in the same union any longer.
> something that both sides considered legal
Slavery was illegal in the North, there was no federal law on the legality or illegality of slavery, southerners wanted to make slavery untouchable in the constitution, equivalent to the 2nd and 1st amendments.
>That's the thing my nearsighted friend, they didn't get along when it came to pretty much anything. Not slaves, not tariffs, not new states, not Texas, not the war with Mexico, not anything. Strange how those diametrically opposed groups of states might not wanna stay in the same union any longer.
I know I'm dealing with inter generational coping but tell me what do all the things you listed have in common. Why was there such a problem bringing new states into the union? Upon what product did Tariffs specifically target that was produced by a certain category of labor? Why were southerners so keen to conquer new territory south of the Mason-Dixon line?
>Slavery was illegal in the North
Except for the four states where it was legal.
>there was no federal law on the legality or illegality of slavery
Yeah, except for literally the first article of Constitution which enshrined the 3/5 rule. Or are you gonna say that had nothing to do with slavery? Strange how federal election laws and the Constitution itself accounted for slavery yet you claim it was not legal. That's even before we get into Article 4, your favorite, also part of the Constitution. At the war's onset the slaves did not cease to be slaves even if they were in the North, which means it was legal beyond reproach.
>Upon what product did Tariffs specifically target that was produced by a certain category of labor?
So if it wasn't produced by that category of labor it would suddenly magically stop applying? And of course, industry and agriculture have never been in conflict before, nor are these states in conflict still, some 150 years after the big bad slavery has been abolished.
>four states where it was legal
Those 4 states were not given to opportunity to secede or they were gridlocked by their own governing bodies.
> Or are you gonna say that had nothing to do with slavery? Strange how federal election laws and the Constitution itself accounted for slavery yet you claim it was not legal
It did absolutely nothing to protect slavery, and it was not beyond legal reproach the south wouldn't have seceded had that been true.
>So if it wasn't produced by that category of labor it would suddenly magically stop applying?
I'm sure the northerners accounted for the south "magically" getting rid of slavery in their mission to hurt the poor defenseless innocent southerners who just wanted to have "states rights".
> And of course, industry and agriculture have never been in conflict before
The civil war was actually between industrialists and agriculturalists, the southerners didn't like all this newfangled technology like the cotton gin, they just wanted to return to the earth and live as a peaceful agrarian society.
>Those 4 states were not given to opportunity to secede
Why didn't based Abe just abolish slavery there then? Why didn't he abolish it anywhere (including the South) until 1863? I thought the war was about muh slavery, and not secession, Fort Sumter and Lincoln wanting to send Southerners to kill other Southerners which caused 4 extra Southern states that seemingly gave frick all about slavery to join the Confederacy, you know, the small stuff.
>Dredd Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act did nothing to protect slavery
You're so confused I'm not even sure who's side are you on anymore.
>I'm sure the northerners accounted for the south "magically" getting rid of slavery
Yeah, all the way back in 1830s where abolition wasn't even on the table.
>The civil war was actually between industrialists and agriculturalists, the southerners didn't like all this newfangled technology like the cotton gin
Strange how they had to buy that equipment from the Brits and not the heavily industrialized North, hence the tariffs. Almost like the North was intentionally snuffing out their economic potential.
>Why didn't based Abe just abolish slavery there then? Why didn't he abolish it anywhere (including the South) until 1863? I thought the war was about muh slavery, and not secession, Fort Sumter and Lincoln wanting to send Southerners to kill other Southerners which caused 4 extra Southern states that seemingly gave frick all about slavery to join the Confederacy, you know, the small stuff.
The south seceded for slavery, Lincoln fought to preserve the union after Gettysburg he saw an opportunity to also remove slavery
>Dredd Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act did nothing to protect slavery
They did not enshrine slavery as a right, these laws and rulings merely expanded the reach and power of slavery they did not protect it as what was tried with the Corwin amendment. For example Roe v. Wade expanded abortion but had no actual protections hence why it was so easily removed.
>Yeah, all the way back in 1830s where abolition wasn't even on the table.
Abolition was around all the way back during the constitutional convention my friend and was most certainly an issue before the 1830's, see the Missouri compromise (1820)
>Strange how they had to buy that equipment from the Brits and not the heavily industrialized North, hence the tariffs. Almost like the North was intentionally snuffing out their economic potential.
The south had industry they were trying to industrialize like the north but were held back by guess what? Slavery. Had the south not relied almost entirely on a single cash crop and a large population of slaves they may have been as industrialized as the north.
>The south seceded for slavery
Except for the slave states that did not secede and for the states that seceded not because of slavery even nominally, but because of Lincoln declaring war on the other seceding states. Damn how many people were actually fighting for or against slavery? Next you're gonna tell me the average Confederate soldier owned no slaves and the average Union soldier didn't give a shit about abolition.
>muh constitutional convention
>muh Missouri compromise
Yeah, I remember how the Northerners were trying to abolish slavery in the whole of United States back then, and other fairy tales you seem to be telling yourself.
>Had the south not relied almost entirely on a single cash crop and a large population of slaves they may have been as industrialized as the north.
Way to dodge the question. Why did the North refuse to sell industrial equipment to their own countrymen, yet a formally hostile power US fought twice by that point did so instead? Maybe it was because the North already treated South like adversaries? Seems to be clear who was sowing the seeds there.
>Except for the slave states that did not secede and for the states that seceded not because of slavery even nominally, but because of Lincoln declaring war on the other seceding states. Damn how many people were actually fighting for or against slavery? Next you're gonna tell me the average Confederate soldier owned no slaves and the average Union soldier didn't give a shit about abolition.
Declaring war? The Confederacy bombarded Ft. Sumpter. Soldiers views on the war are irrelevant what matters here is what the leaders thought seeing how they control declaring war.
> Yeah, I remember how the Northerners were trying to abolish slavery in the whole of United States back then, and other fairy tales you seem to be telling yourself.
If Thomas Jefferson had it his way he would have banned Slavery, all the way back in the 18th century Jefferson was talking about abolition. As for the Missouri Compromise it was an attempt by anti-slave states to limit the spread of slavery, to eventually banning it. Why do you think the South fought so hard to allow expansion of slave states?
>Why did the North refuse to sell industrial equipment to their own countrymen
I didn't avoid the question, as I said earlier the north put in Tariff's on the south because of their reliance on cotton which relied on slaves, of course they were adversarial. Don't give me that "we dindu nuffin" shit either the south were just as adversarial as the north, they passed laws forcing non-slave states to catch their slaves for them or you can look at bleeding kansas or the gag rule.
>The Confederacy bombarded Ft. Sumpter
Oh yes, the bloody battle of Fort Sumter that had zero casualties until Northern boys blew up giving themselves a consolation salute.
>Soldiers views on the war are irrelevant
Of course, you wouldn't want the embarassment of having greycoats and blue bellies laughing at your clown ass for the mere suggestion they were killing each other over some Black folks.
>what matters here is what the leaders thought seeing how they control declaring war.
Oh boy I hope we don't start investigating what the generals thought either. Or what Lincoln thought and said, including in private. You'll very quickly find yourself left only with Adlai Stevenson's opinion to support you, and since when has a VP's opinion amounted to anything. So basically you know more about why the war was fought than the majority of people waging and fighting it, got it.
>they passed laws forcing non-slave states to catch their slaves for them
Wanting your legal property back is basically fascism, I know. Very adversarial. So is not wanting to destabilize the nation by letting the Congress platform sectarian demagogues.
>Wanting your legal property back is basically fascism, I know.
So you agree then that The Federal Government had the right to reclaim their legal property in The South
I dunno, they seemed content letting their rights to every other fort lapse, and then didn't actually fight for the last one either. Seems like the South did more to protect its Black rights than the Federal government did it to protect its fort rights...and by the way, what kind of federal property can even exist if the Union is dissolved?
Oh, so you do know what the actual war started over, and that it wasn't slavery, how curious
Correct. Secession was over slavery. The war was over Federal land.
>So you agree then that The Federal Government had the right to reclaim their legal property in The South
No, the Feds has no rights to anything in secesseded territory, other than getting willing personel back. The rest has/had to be taken through a war. Otherwise, the Union owes Britain a lot of money for squatting on Royal and Government land.
Except the US was recognized by France and Morocco. No one recognized the confederacy as a sovereign nation
The island Fort Sumter was built upon was sold to the Federal government, in perpetuity. It was their property. Funny you bring up Britain, Britain actually had several forts in US territory after the American Revolution. America acquired these through diplomatic means in the ensuing years. Unlike D*Xoids, who's first thought is wanton looting, and forcible seizure of property that doesn't belong to them.
>
Oh yes, the bloody battle of Fort Sumter that had zero casualties until Northern boys blew up giving themselves a consolation salute.
Not for a lack of trying and there was a casualty during the siege on the confederate side fro ma catastrophic malfunction of a cannon.
>Of course, you wouldn't want the embarassment of having greycoats and blue bellies laughing at your clown ass for the mere suggestion they were killing each other over some Black folks.
Soldiers don't choose why a conflict is fought, they simply follow orders, and again you misunderstand: The south fought to preserve slavery their concern was whole heartily the preservation of that peculiar institution, while the Union fought to preserve the union the issue of slavery was secondary.
>Oh boy I hope we don't start investigating what the generals thought either
We definitely wouldn't want that because your weak arguments would in even worse shape once you read what the leaders of the confederacy thought about why they fought the war.
>Wanting your legal property back is basically fascism, I know. Very adversarial. So is not wanting to destabilize the nation by letting the Congress platform sectarian demagogues.
I don't understand the whole run around of "the war wasn't fought for slavery bullshit if you're just gonna try to defend the fugitive slave act lol. Why not just come out and say "slavery was based the south should have won" the whole reason for the Lost Cause was to paint the confederates as freedom fighters this just undermines the entire sentiment.
>Soldiers don't choose why a conflict is fought
They do choose whether to fight in it or not, especially volunteers. If you asked WW2 soldiers about why they thought you'd usually get something pretty close to the party line, but curiosly that's not the case for ACW. Almost like that wasn't the actual party line
>the Union fought to preserve the union the issue of slavery was secondary.
In an independence war any issue is ostensibly secondary to independence itself. So slavery was at best a secondary issue for either side.
>your weak arguments would in even worse shape once you read what the leaders of the confederacy thought about why they fought the war
Which leaders? It's not like the president of the thing wrote memoirs on the subject that directly contradict you.
>I don't understand the whole run around of "the war wasn't fought for slavery bullshit if you're just gonna try to defend the fugitive slave act lol
I don't remember the South declaring the war on the North over harboring fugitives, fomenting slave uprisings and conducting armed raids on its territory. But yes, that pesky Fugitive Slave Act. Now that's a hostile action.
>They do choose whether to fight in it or not, especially volunteers. If you asked WW2 soldiers about why they thought you'd usually get something pretty close to the party line, but curiosly that's not the case for ACW. Almost like that wasn't the actual party line
The draft was used heavily in the war and most southerners believed that slavery should be preserved.
>In an independence war any issue is ostensibly secondary to independence itself. So slavery was at best a secondary issue for either side.
What kind of bullshit is this? You have to have a reason for independence, there is no other strong reason for the south to secede except slavery.
>Which leaders? It's not like the president of the thing wrote memoirs on the subject that directly contradict you.
Now why would Jefferson Davis writing decades after the war directly contradict sentiments by the states as the succeeded?
>I don't remember the South declaring the war on the North over harboring fugitives, fomenting slave uprisings and conducting armed raids on its territory. But yes, that pesky Fugitive Slave Act. Now that's a hostile action.
The Northern states aren't responsible for the act of individuals like John Brown (who was a lunatic) or someone escaping slavery. Isn't it a bit hypocritical of the south to violate the sovereignty of other states in the case of the fugitive slave act then cry out in pain when the things don't go there way?
>the southerners didn't like all this newfangled technology like the cotton gin
You slathering moron the cotton gin made slavery more profitable.
It is called sarcasm read the context
>not new states
Because of slavery.
>Not Texas
Because of slavery.
>Not Mexican-American war
Because of slavery.
>not tariffs
In part because of slavery (and also Whigs were simply wrong when it came to tarriffs).
>Strange how those diametrically opposed groups of states might not wanna stay in the same union any longer.
If a part of a democratic polity can just decide to up and leave because they did not like the results of an election, then democracy is a dysfunctional mode of governance.
>Why is that important
Yep stopped reading there
have a nice day, Black person
>What "right" were they trying to protect?
the right to not be tyrannically ruled by northerners
>WAHHHH LET US KEEP OUR Black folk
The South had a stranglehold on the governing body. The only reason The Republican party (Northerners) won the election was because the Democrats (Southerners) went soo hard in on slavery that it alienated the Democrats who were moderates
>the Democrats who were moderates
You mean the Northern Democrats? Sounds like the previous government was a coaltion of Northerners and Southerners, while the later one was all Northerners. Some stranglehold.
>The South had a stranglehold on the governing body
Then why not let them leave?
vriginia and the pother border states seceded because lincoln decided to invade his own country
>even doe the South literally began the war by attacking Fort Sumpter
None of your business, yankee scum. The civil war was a tyrannical power grab, and now people are finally getting the rotten fruits of this labor thrown back into their faces. Should have just let people secede.
Absolutely embarrassing larp. You’re not a folksy rural Trump voter you live with your parents and play videogames all day
>folksy
esl barging into a conversation it doesn’t understand
>folksy
>Tyrannical Power Grab
The sheer irony of talking about tyranny when the CSA was fighting to defend, protect and expand the institution of slavery, with whatever means at their disposal.
>implying /misc/chuds care about hypocrisy when they're busy sniffing their own farts
WOW THATS A ZINGER THERE!
Gold for you kind stranger!
>le I'm the dragonball poster, can you tell yet? 😉
Sarcasm on the internet isn't an argument, dipshit.
Oh I believe I've touched a nerve. Miss your Black folk Johnny?
You're looking at this from a presentism viewpoint. The Southern aristocrats didn't consider black people to be fully human the way white people were, so in their mind slavery wasn't much different than owning a pet or a pack animal. They considered slavery to not only be the “natural order” of things as ordained by God, but also a net positive for black people. For instance, several of the secession comissioners who were sent to encourage the Southern states to concede would often argue against the transatlantic slave trade by stating that the slaves in America were “civilized” and that Africans were “savage,” and so bringing Africans over to the Americans would demoralize the slaves that were already there. If you want some more information on a lot of these Southerners' opinions on slavery during the leadup to the Civil War, I'd recommend reading Apostles of Disunion, which is a pretty good book debunking the ost cause myth.
I think it's pretty easy to call the South fighting for slavery to be akin to fighting for tyranny when viewing things from our modern sense of morality, but it's a really weak argument if your opponent has read at least 1 sentence from literally any history textbook. A better ground to fight on would be the fact that the CSA implemented conscription first, or that the CSA constitution prevented individual states from banning slavery (which goes against the state's rights argument). You could also just call the poster moronic since the CSA copied almost 1:1 the US constitution which implies that they were fine with how the Government was run, they were just worried about slavery.
>sent to encourage the Southern states to concede
secede*
I'm aware how the south saw it however modern day anon is not a southern aristocrat from the 1860's. A lot of modern day lost causers like to equate the CSA to modern libertarian anti central government mindset. I find it ironic to support a state as a bastion of individual rights when the state actively promotes chattel slavery, if the CSA had lived longer what would have stopped them from adding the poor southern whites to the list as well? In Antebellum South there are many southern aristocrats who would have saw poor anglo saxon whites as bad as Black folk.
The Militant South by John Hope Franklin argues convincingly that slavery actually enhanced the feeling of racial solidarity of whites in the South even as it hurt the economic situation of many of them, so I find it unlikely they would do anything remotely as extreme as enslaving poor whites. Especially since they needed poor whites to feel a sense of buy-in for the South as a whole in order for their society to function. Plus they needed blacks to see all whites, even the poor ones, as inherently superior for the illusion of racial supremacy to keep them in a deferential mindset. Part of the appeal of the Southern system was that it made poorer whites feel somewhat propped up in the social hierarchy even as they scraped to get by economically. A much more plausible scenario if you are committed to the notion of an independent South failing is poorer whites in the upper South causing unrest and eventually civil war because the racial issue was less pressing there and couldn't serve as a strong counterweight to intractable economic issues like it did in the deep South.
That’s why I suggested arguing about conscription or the constitution instead. It’s a more direct argument that doesn’t rely on modern morality to contend with and is overall going to be a more effective argument against lost causers.
reminder that they send only males to die at war , while the superior gender stay at home
my egalitarianass
>What "right" were they trying to protect?
States can set their own laws, unless it's in the Constitution.
They chose the wrong hill to die on, but they were right.
OH NO NO NO NO NO
to secede you dumb shit.
fails to keep southern states in the Union but the South abolishes slavery to be recognized as legitimate state by Europe
"it's about slavery" american educated mutts, thas right the north won
rejoins the union but keeps slavery and the corwin ammendment is adopted which preserves slavery
american educated "it's about slavery" mutt, damn the Union lost
If fricking hate living with stupid people
"Those who know very little about the Civil War think it was about slavery. Those who know some history about the Civil War think it was about taxation and other issues. Those who know a lot about the Civil War know it was, in fact, mostly about slavery."
tl;dr you're a midwit
>the South abolishes slavery to be recognized as legitimate state by Europe
That's an interesting timeline, but I think mine is better:
“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Black slaves shall be passed.” -Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article 1 Section 9(4)
you proved they had slavery. so did the Union. Now prove the Union faught a war to end it.
Read the context, moron. The guy I was replying to was trying to trying to claim that the South would have ended slavery for geopolitical reasons, and that it wasn’t fighting to preserve slavery. It’s literally enshrined into the CSA constitution that slavery is protected. And for what it’s worth, the Union fought to preserve the Union. Two sides can have differing reasons to fight.
My favorite timeline is where the Southern elite convert to Socialist and Blacks are given legal parity with Whites under Chairman Lyndon Johnson.
This. Yankees can't handle the damn truth.
>1865+158
>Still fighting for the Lost Cause
L M A O
O
L
>hated Dixie
>hated Injuns
>hated bisons
>loved Black folk more than anybody else in the Union army
>neurotic
>failed commander until he started fighting women and children
What a chad, amirite my fellow Yanks?
you lost
I didn't lose anything, I was born in 2006
brother aint you 17
>2006
Goodbye.
Imagine getting absolutely buckbroken by a neurotic "failed commander".
Vae Victis
Imagine trying to "cancel" Sherman over a century and a half later, absolutely seething.
Yes. Both the South and Injuns stood in the way of America's manifest destiny.
>>I like Black folk well enough as Black folk, but when fools and idiots try and make Black folk better than ourselves, I have an opinion.
Look at the current state of America.
We all lost.
>slavery was literally never the issue
Did you read what you posted? They literally say it was due to the government abandoning the rule of law in order to stamp out slavery. If they said "due to the government legally outlawing slavery" you'd be correct but you just proved his point.
Are you stupid?
Congrats you finally realized slavery was the cause of the civil war, dumb frick. The only laws they gave a frick about were the ones pertaining to slavery. They violated the law against free states multiple times with their horseshit
That's because those laws were the only ones being carelessly disregarded by the Yankees. If the North decided to ban their cotton on a whim too, no historian would dispute that the war was about states' rights.
Did you read what you posted?
> the government abandoning the rule of law in order to stamp out slavery.
>in order to stamp out slavery
>slavery
This really brought the Black personlovers out of the woodwork
It was definitely over slavery, since the specific states' right in question was the right to regulate slavery. Slavery was the central, specific issue at the heart of the broadening cultural gulf between North and South and the legal questions that ultimately led to the war.
Mind you, the South was absolutely in the right to secede given how utterly abhorrent methods of the abolitionists were and how often they disregarded the law
you understand that the reason the civil war started was literally because the southern aristocrats were losing their stranglehold on the american government right? they wanted to force every new state that joined the union to become a slave state and when the north finally gave them some pushback they succeeded with the goal of literally creating a slave empire, the only illegal actions being taken in the context of state's rights was by the slave owners themselves, the north didn't really care about slavery they just wanted to keep the nation together, but the south made it the focal point of their entire revolution and then when they failed they tried(and failed) to rewrite history to pretend that they were the good guys fighting against government overreach
>creating a slave empire
nice fan art
Based on a true story
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_Golden_Circle
that's page is about as factual as the generalplan ost wiki page, mr phoneposter
>utterly abhorrent
you are fricking gay as hell
>you are fricking gay as hell
so is buck-breaking, but I don't see (you) complaining.
you think this is wild? Check out their take on communism lmao
Didn't they recently made an announcement that they have a road map to "fix" ACW, with dates set for late '24, despite releasing the game in '22?
does it at least model west virginia vs virginia?
Anon, it doesn’t even model abolitionism beyond “these people are abolitionist because they’re smart and nice“, you think they’re going to model that? WV and VA are separate states at game start
>these people are abolitionist because they’re smart and nice
just like in real life...
>these people are abolitionist because they’re smart and nice
because its true?
On launch new york state always joined the CSA. What do you think?
https://www.history.com/news/civil-war-secession-new-york-town
Um, why are you trying to restore the confederacy, chud? Don't you know they're the heckin bad guys?
>play meme game
>get meme'd on
Imagine these children playing Yellow Prussia. Or, god forbid, HoI3 on release.
Why does Paradox always centre on meme game design. I can form heckin atheist PayPal states!! Where can I play real historical games that aren't designed for Reddit.
Even in video games the South can't win. LMAO get fricked.
They don't get made because chuds are a dying breed and reddit plebs breed and spend money.
Why do zoomers need all their games to be railroaded?
because otherwise the game is so broken its practically railroaded into being absolute nonsense
Because taking a game off the rails is the fun. What's the point in trying to alter history if the game is so busted that your input was never actually necessary for that to happen? If your actions are meaningless it feels like you're not changing things, just watching a random outcome unfold.
Vic 3 isn't railroaded and that's the problem. The only things that have event chains are King Napoleon III of America and Karl Marx becoming President/Prime Minister/Chancellor/Head of the State Duma.
That's not the problem at all, railroading is something that should be seen as negative and the result of poor programming and implementation of mechanics.
Yeah we should just have games without any flavor. Go back to paradox plaza, pajeet shill.
There is no need for "flavor" aka free bonuses when the world makes sense and is engaging without it, that would require good game mechanics though.
kys
I love random maps and paradox trash doesn't do that for some reason.
The civil war functionally was railroaded from at least 1836 if not 1776, the US having a war between the North and South over slavery was inevitable and it's absurd that the game presents it as anything but.
It could be avoided if there was an event that derailed the US as a whole, for example a full scale war with the british, or a tsunami wiping some major political figures at once would at least delay it a lot before the US can get bac on track, and in that time things could change.
cheap boats, and low epmployee pay (and 23% building throughput bonus) means that the 40 guys who work there are really making profits comparing to what they're paid, especially since there's only 40 of them they don't shot down the price of fish
Why do you not have armed forces in the government? they're the easiest IG to make happy no matter your playstyle, and it's braindead easy to bolster their numbers, th only times I have them out of rule is when I want to exile a dumb leader, and have no af Agitators to promote instead.
cuz theyre we wuz larpers
Why the frick would I play a victorian era grand strategy if it doesn't have the major events of that time happening? Might as well just put the game in space and call it stellaris 2.0 at that point.
They had the ambition of making a sandbox with 0 railroad but are too incompetent/lazy to make sure the game mechanics can actually produce non moronic outcomes
I'm not saying the game should be entirely on rails. I just want plausible outcomes and not all these meme shit you can pull
That's what you get for playing a game made by communist pedophile troons
day and night cycle dlc will fix it
this looks so bad, i cant belive there are people paid good money to makes this map color scheme/UI
There is nothing wrong with the map and considering the other modern Paradox games there is not much wrong with how the UI looks either
blind
>Let it be known the witness is also legally blind and at least half moronic
Read about Hamilton fixing the Washing-Adams presidential election and why he did it.
>how the FRICK did they frick even this up
How the FRICK did you expect a woke company to NOT frick that up?
Damn that timeline is even more based than the real one
>lol leave my website homosexual
talk for yourself troony
you need to go back
>too stupid to engage in self-directed learning
That's why you'll never amount to anything.
Burgers fight burgers
>Tennessee, why are you seceding?
>I ain't sayin nothin.
>But what should I tell Lincoln?
>Tell him to suck a lemon.
>no reason
Louisiana and North Carolina going full Joker mode
>States right and Slavery are almost exactly the same
Yeah there's no correlation here
What was Arkansas' fricking problem?
which chad lord is that that is refusing to elaborate any further and leaving, Tennessee?
>Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina just seceded for the fun of it
lmao
>we are seceding because slavery
>not racist though
There was not just Black slaves, idiot.
Those irish fellas can put in a good day's work.
I love how Texas just casually says yes to all of those things, while nobody else can agree on anything.
Again, if you read about why he did it then you would understand why certain people from certain areas and backgrounds feel like they have no rights and never felt as if they ever had rights under the current system of government. I guess it's too much to ask for a black monkey to read, though.
>libcucks
>caring about the csa
you should've expected this. obviously only the north would get flavor because slavery is heckin evil
I'm going to go on a rant about German unification so please bear with me. In NO WORLD would Germany be unified under the Austrians, with its Balkan territories included. By necessity of a united Germany being a nationalist creation, including hungarians, croatians, etc on the deal would not have made sense. They would have had to abandon their non-german balkan territories. Maybe you'd have a Hungarian kingdom + a south slavic state become independent. There maybe have been a civil war after that because Hungarians had already tried to genocide their ethnic minorities once. Regardless, the current system, where Austria just annexes everything in Germany, creating this horrific austro-prussian blob in the middle of europe is absolutely ridiculous from a historical perspective.
I understand that the paradox business model is to sell a broken incomplete mess intentionally on day 1, with the intention of making it into a proper game over time with DLC, but holy shit dude this is rough.
Rant over.
TLDR: the way vic 3 handles German unification doesn't account for the political realities of an Austrian victory. It would look much more like pic related than the nightmare blob currently in-game.
this is also something that happens in vic2 and it annoyed me to no end
what id do in my austria campaigns is just release all my non german territory as vassals to then pursue german unification
Could you even unite Germany as Austria in vicky 2? I thought you could only form the south german confederation as a puppet. The only way I remember for forming a Germany that has the austrian balkan lands is through the supergermany exploit, which wasn't really intended.
t. only played them twice in 4 years
https://vic2.paradoxwikis.com/South_German_Federation
>Form South German Confederation (Austrian), which is unique for Austria. The former transforms the decision-taker's nation into South German Federation, while the latter unites Württemberg, Bavaria and Baden as a vassal under Austrian rule. However, SGF can potentially grow to become a Great Power, becoming Austria's rival.
Oh so Austria can't form Germany as themselves. What a shame.
Eh, HPM changed it so you can form Grossdeutschland through Austria. It's all just a matter of flavour and event railroading.
Also, Luxembourg is a split off from Wallonia in Vic3, instead of the Rhine, like in Vic2. Dutch bias.
No that was there in Vicky 2
Austria can form Germany in vanilla, the SGF just makes it a bit more convenient by giving them more direct control over some of the cores necessary. They still need to gain spheres, direct control or puppet status over the north German states and also sphere, puppet or annex all of Prussia + gain Alsace-Lorraine to fulfill the conditions resulting in a more difficult game than Prussia. However, if you form Germany as Austria in vanilla there is no event that gives you massive infamy for keeping the non-German Austrian lands like in HPM/HFM so you get a GroBdeutchland to boot.
While true, if unified under Austria, the Hapsburgs themselves could keep the Hungarian throne. Thus an independent client state of Hungarian lands under the German crown could continue. It's not like considering including Bohemia, Silesia, and vast deaths of historical Poland didn't include Majority Slav areas anyway.
I imagine it would have been like the Austro-Hungarian Compromise, the German Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary would be two legally distinct sovereign nations ruled by the same monarch under real union, with a shared diplomatic and defense policiy. this hypothetical German-Hungarian Empire would be like a bigger Austria-Hungary, which is always depicted as a singular state in Paradox games.
There was little pocket areas of the Austrian empire that had German majority populations. A truly nationalist Germany would proceed to germanize the rest of the non German areas.
Vickisisters repeat after me so that ever last chudkin can understand this:
It's *clop* not *clop* a *clop* chud-game *clop* ,chuds! *clop*
>bumblasted by bait
You can shut up now
but how does this affect gayBlack person rights? the only reason i play victoria is to empower homosexual coons
I want more railroading.
Why does the AI initiate a devastating world war over German unification in the late 1830s or early 1840s every single game?
There is no method to guarantee a country to stay the frick out of future dipo plays and the game uses obsolete rival system. So German Leadership wars get fricking wild. Also Prussia used to be and maybe still is to hardcoded to annex German minors even if they lose the leadership, which leads them to go sicko mode on the entire Europe every few years.
The AI is moronic when it comes to joining wars. They get a massive modifier if someone they hate is in the war and another massive modifier if they want a wargoal, no matter how worthless that wargoal is. Which is why you'll see the UK often joining for shit like
>open ashanti's market
because you puppeted some african nations to supplement your income.
in that image the UK joined to transfer krakow which is entirely worthless to them but that doesn't matter. puppet = good + hate russia = total war time.
Did they even playtest?
If you want to know just how bad it is, start a game and declare war on the UK. Split your navy up to 5+ admirals and your armies up to 5+ commanders, launch as many naval invasions at the capital region of the UK as possible while paused. unpause then wait out the timer and when they launch you will have automatically occupied the home countries without winning any battles because the first navy ties up the british fleet and the first few armies tie up the garrisons meaning the 5th+ armies land unopposed.
Unless they fixed it in the last two months which I highly doubt since it's a problem with the core of their battle system, which is that battles can't ever merge, what you have at the start of a battle is what you'll have by the end of the battle. And this is extremely easily discovered by just launching two naval invasions at the same region and questioning why only one of them got intercepted.
It's... a bit too hands off. Some railroading would be okay.
>When enacted: Destroys all heavy industry
>Chemical, Synthetics, Steel, Power, Motor, War Machine, Electrics, Munition,
Uhh.
>+50% Technology cost
>−50% Technology spread
Uhhhh. Tech cost just increased from 5k to 7.5k. Increasing it further means you ain't researching anything soon, my guy.
>Uhh.
uhuh
>Increasing it further means you ain't researching anything soon, my guy.
Yeah, that's to be expected. I'm asking whether my country will collapse or whether I can make a stable country like that. Doesn't have to be competitive.
Well, it probably won't. Not immediately, anyway. That tech stagnation will be a b***h, though.
Ok, anon. Thankies very much UwU.
The Mississippi secession document straightforwardly sates slavery as the cause for secession when it says that
"our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest in the world".
The vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, in the Cornerstone Speech also said slavery was the reason for secession, and that Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence - that all men are created equal - were wrong:
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Black is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."
The Lost Cause Mythology is just intergenerational coping over not only being the bad guys, but then also losing.
You got all that revisionist history from a normie youtube
Pathetic
>normie
you came here after 2016 because you heard this place was the best for epic memes and edginess, you are as “normie” as they come
You're an idiot, dishonest, or so emotional it makes you act like an idiot. No one says the South wasn't pro slavery which seems to be your fear.
People correctly point out the stated goal of the Union for starting the war was not to free slaves, ie what a war is fought over is the political goal of the armies.
What you are attempting to do is claim the US fought WW2 to liberate the concentration camps or fought in Iraq and Afgahnistan to teach women how to read and drive.
you are engrossed in the moralizing of the war.
praise kek mein bruder they’re just trying to spread their globalhomosexual agenda funded by soros
Maybe there's a reason it's not just a talking point lmao
I can't stop invading this place every single run for all their gold mines. They need to add randomised discoverable resources game rule to spice things up.
>start a victoria 3 game
>invade Egypt for opium
>invade that one state in Venezuela for oil
>take Niger delta for cash crops
>annex basically everything in the Persian gulf for oil
>b***h slap China/Japan for a state with silk
every single time
If only the AI could produce goods on their own without me having to barge into their country to set up the production myself.
Why are you responding to an obvious troll?
>less that one 1% of players have done the Meiji Restoration achievement
There is not many mods to play for now, so why are people not doing the achievements?
It's worse than that. Mods and ironman don't disable achievements.
Utterly brainlet take, not to mention a blatant redirect that the south only cooked up after they lost. Literal weapons-grade copium.
I once had a CSA that rebelled and had the
- Multicultural
- Slavery banned
- Guaranteed liberates
policies. I am not joking. The USA didn't even have those.
What's your preferred economic system anons? I go for interventionism as I like to build economy scale for production of a certain crop or good in a city and delete any split industries in different cities. As much as I love the free investment money from Laissez-Faire the Capitalists just spread industry around not building economy of scale and waste construction in states with lacking pops for jobs etc.
agrarianism because im a moronic cottagecore/retvrn obsessed gay
i also never upgrade any of my industry past the first level so they stay workshops owned and ran by the middle class — that way i usually have a healthy balance between the farmers and artisans in my country
Rate my borders
Nice one Anon. Yemen is the first thing I liberate as soon as my first naval ship leaves the construction dock for its maiden voyage. They don't even have any troops, you just land 1000 men and the the Arabs surrender their women for the morale corps. And as icing on the cake you get a land bridge to Somaliland which you can further conquest for easy GDP gains.
How the hell you get that GDP without many puppets?
Guess I just don't know what to build to min-max still.
Doesn't seem that much, just 2.6 pounderinos per capita, although to be fair he probably spent lots of money and people on getting those borders.
Here's my Russia game where line always keeps going up and life more gooder
Got this frankenstein benevolent technocratic monarchy going, the gentry assembly has been reduced to a powerless facade for the masses worshipping the God Emperor Tsar Romanov, while the industrialists are deciding on all the laws but maintaining a good quality of life for everyone. Also reminded me to kick that damn atheist dissident.
And here's all the laws. The state has been living of consumption taxes since almost 80 years now, it helps poor people out because it reduces their taxes by a lot, while also not requiring tax capacity. Since I have more than enough authority to tax what I want, I have been on very low taxes most of the game, I upped it just a decade ago to pay off the denbts from fast industrialization.
And here's my sphere of influence. The only real war I had to fight was Finland, and that's because they had a revolution and France decided to wienerblock me. Everyone else I just bribed by bankrolling and then offering protectorate, except China and Indonesia, those are only in my market. I also had Scandinavia in my market, but I think it popped out when it had a revolution as well, not sure.
why the FRICK do you not own sakhalin?
For what? I left it for Japan, they're my protectorate anyways. They just never started colonizing anything for some reason. I think Japan should start out with colonization policies, just like Argentina and Chile.
>For what?
are you ok? russia fought a war for it irl
>WW2 was fought over a barren Island in the Pacific
Are you ok?
I think he’s talking about the Ruso-Japanese war anon. I’m not sure how WW2 entered into the conversation
russia didn't participate in ww2, soviet union did
really annoying that you can't remove wargoals during the diplomatic maneuvers phase
Maybe at the cost of prestige. But that would require prestige to be a resource.
I think this game is too complicated for me. I just can't understand the economics aspect.
It's not that complicated if you understand one thing: you are in control of both supply and demand. It's not enough to build a million factories, you also need someone to consume it. So lets say you're starting out. You have some farms, maybe even some mines, but not much is happening. The first step would be, import tools, and switch all your buildings over to using tools. Now you're producing more of whatever you were producing, but more importantly, you're consuming tools now. Then build tool factories and iron mines. Now you can stop importing tools. You just created lots of useful jobs and increased the productivity of your whole country. Repeat this scheme forever.
When you don't have enough demand for goods, find new demand. Export your stuff, or introduce new countries, and thus new customers into your market. If you don't have enough supply, well just build more factories, but you'll be mostly asking yourself how you can increase demand.
Make sure your pops have as much money as possible. The more money they have, the more they will buy. The more they buy, the more you can produce.
Free trade is a 10/10 policy. You want to export everything, that makes it easier because other countries start importing from you, because it's cheaper. Having more resources isn't your goal, just producing them. If someone buys all your stuff, that means your pops are getting paid for their work, and your capitalists are making bank, and that ends up in your wallet.
The only time you want to keep your resources if you're either processing them further, or you as the government consume them for military or administration. In case someone is buying all those resources up, you can always embargo them. But usually you want customers. Customers are good, so try to surround yourself with wealthy customers, and don't scare them away by constantly attacking everyone. War costs money, it doesn't make money.
Literally how is that even possible?
You know I can't do fricking shit in this god damn game because everytime I try to make any diplomatic maneuver every great power fricking wienerBLOCKS me by siding with the guy I'm attacking. I try to get my independence from the turks? The UK intervenes. I try to invade denmark as Sweden? The UK and Russia intervene. IT NEVER FRICKING ENDS. YOU CAN NEVER DO ANYTHING. PNIGWPIRHAWNPPHPNIHWHHOIHONIONIONIHONIHHIOI
If the GP does not have a border connection to you then they have to naval invade you. They will often try to take your capital first and if that fails then they may attack any objectives they demanded in the political maneuvre. You just need take your objective quickly and hold the line in your home territory then lose warscore slower than your enemy.
Pic related just defeated French skirmish infantry and mobile artillery with line infantry and mobile artillery. The French managed to land successfully against 15 line infantry holding the Fort but couldn't break the home defense bonus once my other 20 Troops returned from taking a single French colony. Then it was just a matter of time waiting for the French to impale themselves with punji sticks and surrender to my demands.
Playing Serbia right now, aiming to form Yugoslavia. The game is telling me to upgrade my wheat farms, which sounds cool. I could get intensive agriculture and have my livestock farms and wheat farms feed off each other. The average wage of a farmer on these commercial farms is much higher than a standard peasant. This would raise quality of life and GDP.
However, my goal right now is to reform the country by ending Serfdom. My intuition tells me to start investing in industry like Iron mines, tool workshops, and small arms factories. That way the industrialists would gain power through an increase in their numbers and collective wealth.
Which path is the better option?
Redirecting money through taxes is key
Try to increase taxes on the aristocrats as much as possible, consumption taxes on luxury goods are usually best for that. Then max out how much government wages and military wages you're paying, so it goes to other people.
Remove landowner officers. Bolster other groups. Enrage other groups to cause a movement to remove serfdom, and then escalate it into a revolution that you try to lose. Make farms lose money, because aristocrats get their funding from there. Have them all use fertilizer without any existing in your country. Close down all the factories, so the people get mad and join the movement.
At least that's what I did as Russia, when the landowners wienerblocked me with a million stalls on passing the homestead policy. Literally almost broke the country, but then the event with the tsar intervening happened and I passed it instantly. Then the landowners tried to do a revolution, but of course this time I chose all the decisions that pacified them and tried to lower the revolution strength, until it just faded out and they accepted that L. This game really has some kino moments, if they'd just fix the damn UI looking like a mobile game.
Or rather, not close down the factories permanently, but just use nonsensical production methods that don't work, or the most primitive one. Wooden tools will literally tear your economy apart, of course you don't import to combat the shortage either.
Ok, but how can I do that without shrekking my economy and starting a civil war?
No good way I recon, just slow and steady wins the race. I'd recommend ripping off the band aid with one daring move instead of fricking around for 5 decades trying to get good RNG on a law, but you do you.
Ok, anon. Thankies.
Jesus, Vic3 economy really was designed by some Marxist philosopher
>taxing the rich and distributing their wealth through government and then causing a revolution is le best way to build your country
It's not even Marxist. Marx spent more ink and paper criticizing the "simply pass just laws that favor equality and we will have a true socialist utopia with no conflict bro" sentiment that was highly prevalent in his time, than he did describing his own paradigm.
No, it's not the best way to build anything, you didn't understand my post, the country almost broke apart during this move.
It's the best way to rile people up and use them to push through whatever changes you want, which is true. The part afterwards, where you can create an utopia out of the chaos, by having everyone earn a good wage and generally be benevolent, that's unrealistic.
uninstall.exe
I don't know what I'm supposed to build. Every building I make is unprofitable and no one is being hired. I fricking hate myself.
I'm gonna go bankrupt soon. None of my buildings are making any profit. How do you play this game?
It's actually impossible.
What the frick do you mean not making any profit? Are you overproducing but not exporting? Are the inputs too expensive? Are you at 0% market access? Are you competing with yourself like a moron, and building industry in non-core states while doing colonial exploitation? Is the minimum wage and unemployment subsidies too high?
How can anyone be bad at capitalism?
Sorry anon I was having an emotional breakdown but now that I've had some donuts I'm back in action. I was playing Serbia and once you break free from the ottomans your demand takes a fat shit because you're no longer in the ottoman market. So, as someone who's still struggling to figure out how the economy works in this game, I'm not sure how to adjust my economy to cope with that loss of demand. I'm thinking maybe the answer would be to focus on my agricultural sector because they have constant demand from my pops. Idk where I would go from there though. Of course I would have to start researching intensive agriculture day 1 to maximize the profit from that switch.
Ah, the classic Warsaw Pact experience on Gorbachev. Say no mo. Join another market. PRONTO. Become a protectorate. RIGHT NOW.
Gotcha, anon. I tried becoming Russia's protectorate with the same thought process at first but i was cut off from their market because I don't share a border with them and don't have any coasts.
Next time I try Serbia I'll have to see if I can convince other countries to let me join. Austria is an obvious first bet but I will also want to take provinces from them in the future to form Yugoslavia. Maybe I can use them for a while and then turn on them in the late game around ww1. Who knows. Thankies for the advice.
If you're set on independence, and don't want to get fricked, every province's local demand and supply is tracked individually. I think you need to hover over the individual state's industry. 0% market access does not mean a province can no longer access their own resources, so you'll need to keep tabs on it with independence in mind.
>serbia abolished serfdom in 1830
>they still have it in-game at 1836
Redpill me on the industry banned economy law.
Can it be made to work or will my country collapse immediately?
I have no idea why the majority of posters about the civil war act like it just happened yesterday and there's tons of angry effort posting on both sides
it was a tragic brother's war, it was stupid and unnecessary, slavery is dumb but killing white people to free Black folk is dumber. nuff said, move on everyone
>play as the "bad guys"
>surprised when their content is lacking
>in a game made by trannies, gays and marxists
Gosh you are a naive fricker, aint ya?
I need to know, is someone working on a mod that fixes the game and actually tries to simulate how global economies work, does the game even have the tools to represent faithfully a global economic market?
Someone is trying
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2880441881
Might play the game next year then.
I want to have a comfy agrarian country, is it possible?
yeah like this
with the new homestead laws its made even better as you can directly empower your farmers so that they dont live in squalor while either the aristocrats or capitalists soak up all the profits
that's assuming you want an idyllic agrarian country; rather than a banana republic
we are Ganker and we top kek at troons and Black folk
>top kek
>muh troon boogieman that appeared in 2020 is akshully 4chud culture
dumb troony
>some rando's post in a rando thread from pdx forums
Okay, and?
Do I dare get this game again? I got it on launch but refunded after 6 hours because it is shit in many ways but even after all this time many of the mechanics still interest me. It's such a shame paradox is like this because Vic 3 is the shell of a really good game which mechanics that really interest me but idk there's just so much going against it.
Just play 2, it's better in every way
Vic 3 has not reached the point where it is better to play than vic 2. Mostly because of the bad AI, meh war system, and overall lack of historical flavor.
Come back in a year or two and it will be more than worth your while.
Victoria 3 is better then Victoria 2
Take your toy soldiers and shove them up your ass Hamoorabae, Spudgun already debunked that video
>but Spergun sai-
didn't ask, he's just an angry incel and his opinion means jack shit
>my incel > your incel
>and overall lack of historical flavor.
Gay Reddit CYOAs and VNs where you pick between 3 or 4 meme ideologues the country has routes for that will be designed around being sold separately from all the other gay reddit CYOAs and VNs Flavor Packs will not make V3 good.
?
You heard me
Can someone explain to me how this is the most productive fishing warf in the world?
It's earnings per employee. Don't worry about it.
Honestly how is this game? I really liked Vicky 2 but kinda don't have the urge to play it. What's different in Vicky 3 and is it worth it?
>shit
>just about everything
>no
fine
quite a bit
not yet. It will be though
There's no war.
There is war, but the armies are outside of your control. You can be winning the war handily but you will lose because the AI just refuses to siege the wargoal.
It also uses the war exhaustion mechanic from Stellaris, so you can just repeatedly naval invade an enemy, get repelled, invade again and they'll eventually capitulate.
I got Vic3 the other day and I find it surprisingly alright. If you're into multiplayer or deep into vic2 mode of thinking I wouldn't but if you've had a break from Vic2 and are only interested in singleplayer there might be something for you. I should say it's definietly not worth the money, pirate it. I see it as an experience on par with one of the really good total conversion mods like CWE for vic2 or anbennar for eu4, ie, it does offer a unique enough and interesting enough gameplay to be worth playing but it's obviously lacking and underdeveloped in many areas.
Bros... dont make my mistake... Get Secret Police or Guaranteed Liberties ASAP. I thought national guard would be sufficent but it was not and I couldn't pass anything else without getting wienerblocked by one party or another. Communist Vietcong have ruined my nation and my run has ended in 1921. I was so close... T_T
Redpill me on whaling. Is it worth investing in?
bump
How to actually do 1 billlion achievement? Preferably not with Britain. Just build construction at the end of the game?
Russia can extremely easily break 1b because they have the perfect position to expand into China, Japan, and Germany and all three have massive potential states that are very easy for Russia to take.
the real redpill:
the civil war was about the EXPANSION of slavery, no one cared what the southern states did in their own borders but they kept trying to force it on new acquisitions (see Kansas and the Mexican cession) refusing to accept that slave states were destined to become a minority
Lincoln and predecessors gave them every chance not to ape out but they still did so
True. The Southern elite would have loved to flood the great plains with millions of Black folk had they been permitted to. Their great grandkids will just have to make do with Mexicans instead.