And the next expansion is......The ACW?

[Comrade_Rory]

Hey! I too am from Louisiana!

I hope you know... i read this in the most sterotypical southern accent i could possibly think of... and i loved it.

Hard to incorporate the slavery dynamic without either white washing it and pissing off good people and historians or else depicting its centrality and brutality and pissing off certain political and cultural element in the US who think it wasn't that big a deal.

Ever played Victoria 2? You could allow or abolish slavery, create slave states etc and it didn't cause any harsh feelings.
There would have to be a option to adopt or abolish slavery, allowing it gives increased income/industrial strength but diplomatic penalties (like Christianity in Shogun 2) and perhaps a chance of a slave uprising event.
It would be a perfect mechanic to add into a game that covers the 19th century as alot of countries abolished slavery during this time.

[a4phantom]

Ever played Victoria 2? You could allow or abolish slavery, create slave states etc and it didn't cause any harsh feelings.
There would have to be a option to adopt or abolish slavery, allowing it gives increased income/industrial strength but diplomatic penalties (like Christianity in Shogun 2) and perhaps a chance of a slave uprising event.
It would be a perfect mechanic to add into a game that covers the 19th century as alot of countries abolished slavery during this time.

I haven't though now I'm intrigued. Do you recommend Victoria 2 overall?

But the point isn't that slavery itself is controversial (Civilization has had the dynamic for years without it offending anyone that I know of) but that slavery's role in the American Civil War is deeply (stupidly) divisive, however incontrovertible the actual facts. If they made an ACW game that didn't acknowledge slavery's importance to the ACW then I would never buy another TW game. Likewise if they made an ACW game that didn't pretend slavery was a minor issue basically irrelevant to the conflict they would alienate a lot of my fellow Americans whose cultural identity rests on that remarkable lie. All of the other TW games have taken place in times and contexts that few people today really have strong feelings about (possible exceptions being the unification of the British Isles in M2TW and the conquest of the Americas but does anyone actually bother with that?). I'm assuming here that CA's biggest market is still the US and in the US a lot of people, including a lot of people who know a little bit of highly romanticized history and are probably TW games' target audience, still have very very strong partisan views about the ACW. I don't know if CA is in the mood to jump into that head first.

[Comrade_Rory]

I haven't though now I'm intrigued. Do you recommend Victoria 2 overall?

But the point isn't that slavery itself is controversial (Civilization has had the dynamic for years without it offending anyone that I know of) but that slavery's role in the American Civil War is deeply (stupidly) divisive, however incontrovertible the actual facts. If they made an ACW game that didn't acknowledge slavery's importance to the ACW then I would never buy another TW game. Likewise if they made an ACW game that didn't pretend slavery was a minor issue basically irrelevant to the conflict they would alienate a lot of my fellow Americans whose cultural identity rests on that remarkable lie.

Victoria 2 is good but i'd only buy it (and it's recent expansion focused mainly on the ACW) if it's on sale somewhere. I don't know how you feel about grand strategy games but alot of them are an aquired taste.

And yeah i see your point, i guess if it was an ACW game then that would be an issue, but a game spanning the 19th century... i guess the war could break out over whatever issue?
Maybe the player continues slavery and the South breaks away for other reasons and abolishes slavery itself?

In a 19th Century one, i guess there could be some scripted event, like the golden horde in M2TW which causes the South states to split off, perhaps despite the player nations stance on Slavery and the south might just be the opposite stance by default?

[a4phantom]

Ok, but that would be totally playing into the absurd but common lie that the South's secession wasn't about slavery (Southern leaders at the time fully acknowledged that it was but after the war revisionism became very popular), and any scenario in which the South willingly abolished slavery (destroying its own social and economic order, culture, and the most valuable resource* in the United States besides the land itself) would be incredibly anti-historical. I mean at this point I think we're just asking to fight ACW battles (which sounds awesome) without any reliance on history above the tactical level (and even then there are African American soldiers fighting for the north) and couldn't that be done with a Gettysburg or Shiloh mod from Napoleon?

Also, besides causing the war slavery and slaves themselves (and former slaves, and the politics of slavery, etc.) played a huge role in the _conduct_ of the war.

*Horrible to think of human beings in those terms but that's how things worked. The four million slaves in the US were priced higher than all the factories, ships, railroads or anything else but the land.

If you're doing the ACW, you have to deal with the centrality of slavery slavery (or else take a stand by deliberately ignoring slavery). And either of those will piss people off. I think it's a fight worth fighting (I'm a history teacher) but I don't expect CA to see it that way.

If we're talking about a global game that takes place in the 19th Century then that solves (by zooming away from) that problem, but but then I wonder if Empire (which I've only begun) and Napoleon (which I haven't bought) leave a lot of untrod ground for that to cover? Historically the 19th Century even after Napoleon was a unique and fascinating time, but in gameplay terms it might look quite a lot like ETW and NTW. The Crimean War might be interesting but is probably not well known enough with American audiences to make the game marketable here.

[♔Noif de Bodemloze♔]

If I would be head designer of CA. I would decide take ACW up just after ETW or NTW. I don't believe, it won't show up anymore after Shogun 2 total war serie.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

[QUOTE=Comrade_Rory;11038884]I hope you know... i read this in the most sterotypical southern accent i could possibly think of... and i loved it.
QUOTE]



I'll have you know, more often than not I speak as though I were a posh Hoity Toity rich person.

Everyone back home thought I sounded like a New Yorker, and everyone here (Hawaii) thinks I sound like a redneck.



Where do I belong???




If you can figure out how to play it, I've heard Victoria is a very good game.

[Lazarus]

Ok, but that would be totally playing into the absurd but common lie that the South's secession wasn't about slavery...

A civil war game also plays in to the absurd and extremely common lie that the South had a chance at winning at all

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

We had spirit. Doesnt that count for something?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Lazarus]

Well yes, it does, but it doesnt count enough to make up for only having 33% of the soldiers... or 3% of the firearm production.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I was joking. I know that ferocity counts for something in war, but that doesnt mean Ewoks can beat Empires.



Although there ARE exceptions...

[Bob Doad]

ok well despite whether it will be or not will it be a new engine?

[Dom Afty]

Definitely not. A new engine won't be around until the next game, possibily even later. It certainly wouldn't be implemented for the sake of an expansion.

[Muizer]

If I would be head designer of CA. I would decide take ACW up just after ETW or NTW. I don't believe, it won't show up anymore after Shogun 2 total war serie.

Don't forget we know the next TW is a small theatre game, staged in the 19th century, introducing elements like railroads, ironclad ships and the gatling gun to the TW series.

I'm referring to Fall of the Samurai, but given that it might as well refer to the American Civil War, the question is rather why CA would not make an ACW game.

[Ferdiad]

ACW is too small scale to justify a full game. Thats why.

[hochmeister devin]

ACW wont be a full game, it will be a dlc for victoria total war.

[Bob Doad]

Definitely not. A new engine won't be around until the next game, possibily even later. It certainly wouldn't be implemented for the sake of an expansion.

yea thats wat i meant ma bad i was asking if for the next game despite the expansion

[KittySN]

American Civil War wouldn't be too interesting and too limited. I'd rather see something with Africa and European colonialism. So much interesting history! Like Shaka of the Zulu unleashing Mfecane! Annihilate and assimilate!

[NEXUS12]

Just do a poll and be done with it. Americans will mainly vote yes and Europeans will mainly vote no.

[Muizer]

ACW is too small scale to justify a full game. Thats why.

The fact that CA made large scope games in the past doesn't mean they'll stick with the formula.

Just do a poll and be done with it. Americans will mainly vote yes and Europeans will mainly vote no.

As a European I'd vote "yes". Not because I'm interested in the ACW per se, but because the small scope would mean the replay value would have to come from more varied gameplay with few factions instead of shallow gameplay with many factions.

[jamson]

Only yanks want a ACW game if Crimeans flooded this forum then it would look like a crimean based war game would be popular so dont base any decisions off this CA, It should be a add on for a Giant Victorian game spanning from 1825-1900, it should include all of the world as it really wouldnt make sense if it didnt but I think CA wouldnt put that much effort into a game anymore, and for all the screaming Rome 2 fanatics just because the first one was good does not mean the next one is guaranteed to be as good and stop begging CA for it, you already have the perfect game that is Rome Total war so play that and patiently wait for CA to run out of ideas and do another ''back to our roots'' gag.