USA vs CSA option?

[dyermaker]

I would like to see the option for playing as the USA vs the CSA in the base game without having to mod the game.  I don't like to mod games in general, mostly because I am old and crap and prone to wrecking things I don't fully understand.  Is there any possibility of this being added to the base game in future updates?  If one of those could also include Spain as an adversary as well that would be superb, although not as enjoyable a scenario I think as just having the CSA in an adversarial role, although both CSA & Spain in the same would also be certainly interesting....  I don't often play as the USA because with the combination of budget and geography I find it super easy mode, but this addition might actually spice things up somewhat, in my opinion...

[oldpop2000]

Dec 25, 2019 13:38:06 GMT -6 dyermaker said:

I would like to see the option for playing as the USA vs the CSA in the base game without having to mod the game.  I don't like to mod games in general, mostly because I am old and crap and prone to wrecking things I don't fully understand.  Is there any possibility of this being added to the base game in future updates?  If one of those could also include Spain as an adversary as well that would be superb, although not as enjoyable a scenario I think as just having the CSA in an adversarial role, although both CSA & Spain in the same would also be certainly interesting....  I don't often play as the USA because with the combination of budget and geography I find it super easy mode, but this addition might actually spice things up somewhat, in my opinion...

The only problem I really have with your interesting suggestion is that the time from the end of the Civil war to 1900 when the game begins, is about thirty-five years. How much of a change could have occurred to the Confederate States of America in the area of industrialization and economics. They had to recover from the Civil War and that took about twelve years. So, we start the industrialization or reconstruction about 1877 to 1900. That is only twenty-three years. How much of a naval shipbuilding can we expect from an independent country in that time period. It also pre-supposes a victory in the Civil War which I believe is totally out of the question, facts agree. 

Where would the Naval war occur. Well on the coast lines. The Gulf Coast is about 1632 miles in Length, the Atlantic Coast is about 2069 for both the CSA and the USA. Battleships and other surface ships cannot operate on the rivers, such as the Mississippi, Rappahannock, Potomac, Hudson, Connecticut, Roanoke, just to name a few. The same cities for the South would be targets. The USA has the same advantages and more, as the Union did. The British and French certainly would not help the South due to slavery, which probably is still being used in the South.

Sorry, but it just doesn't make sense. But it would be interesting.

[dyermaker]

I'm not making any sort of suggestion that the Confederacy could have won the civil war at all, the odds were fairly stacked against that outcome from the beginning, which is also well documented. My suggestions are aimed at making a USA campaign more interesting, instead of (ho hum) faceroll easy.... The very existence of a CSA player campaign being in the game already gives some credence to this being a possible what-if scenario, even if it's not very believable. I find myself quite bored with running the USA game pretty much every time, and given that both CSA & Spain are already in the game, I am merely suggesting that throwing them into a player USA campaign could make it more playable for me. Suspension of disbelief is not a factor here...

[director]

There was such a modified game in RTW1, which I have played many times. Perhaps some kind soul will port it over to RTW2?

[cabalamat]

Dec 25, 2019 16:50:34 GMT -6 dyermaker said:

I'm not making any sort of suggestion that the Confederacy could have won the civil war at all, the odds were fairly stacked against that outcome from the beginning, which is also well documented. My suggestions are aimed at making a USA campaign more interesting, instead of (ho hum) faceroll easy.... The very existence of a CSA player campaign being in the game already gives some credence to this being a possible what-if scenario, even if it's not very believable. I find myself quite bored with running the USA game pretty much every time, and given that both CSA & Spain are already in the game, I am merely suggesting that throwing them into a player USA campaign could make it more playable for me. Suspension of disbelief is not a factor here...

This is a good point. USA is too easy, they have more money than anyone else and are also technologically advanced.

if we're going to include what-if scenarios, one where the Confederacy survives is reasonable. Better still, remove the restriction of 6 opponents, have about 10 or so and have some of the countries to have a natural inclination of hostility towards USA (such as CSA, Spain, Japan, maybe UK). This would give them a good run for the money and make the country more interesting to play.

(Personally I think the game should include every country that had a capital ship during the period 1900-1955, or which had plans to, so that would include Turkey, Netherlands, Sweden, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and if you put the start time back to 1994 China).

[director]

I think the '6 opponents' limitation is hard-coded in the game so as to make simulation more manageable. Open-ended matrix operations tend to have memory leaks and its just easier to plan a party if you know exactly how many people are coming.

If we do get a version that has every player, I (expletive expurgated) expect to see them war amongst themselves, too... which exponentially increases the difficulty for the designer/programmer.

[oldpop2000]

Okay, so if we increase the number of countries who could or might like to have a navy, then Switzerland could build or have ships built in Genoa or somewhere, then rent Genoa or Toulon as a naval base and fight naval battles and such. That would be cool. Iceland would be great, they are decedents of Norwegian Vikings, they would be great at naval warfare. Cool.

[cabalamat]

Dec 29, 2019 20:44:52 GMT -6 director said:

I think the '6 opponents' limitation is hard-coded in the game so as to make simulation more manageable. Open-ended matrix operations tend to have memory leaks

This isn't a problem with modern progamming languages. IIRC RTW2 is written in Delphi.

If we do get a version that has every player, I (expletive expurgated) expect to see them war amongst themselves, too... which exponentially increases the difficulty for the designer/programmer.

The AI has to include code to fight against a human player, so if the game is carefully coded, that same code can be used to fight against another AI player. In fact, the code could (and probably should) be written so it doesn't know/care whether its opponent is an AI or human.

[director]

cabalamat - I didn't say it wasn't do-able, just that setting definite limits on matrices could make programming more manageable.

From what the designer/developer has said in the past, I think the issue is figuring out a way to extrapolate combat losses without going through the combat routines, and doing so in a manner (and quantity) that players find believable. I'm not in favor of sitting for 30 minutes while the AI runs ships around for a war I'm not even in. I do think Ai-vs-AI wars are a desirable addition but the RtW staff seems not to agree (or if they do then implementation is a low priority).

[oldpop2000]

This discussion seems to rest on either real naval history or fantasy. By fantasy, I mean putting nations into this game that have not had a decent navy in possible 2000 years like the Greeks, Persians, Romans, and possibly the Vikings. Just to name a few.

Now, if we go the real naval history direction then we are going to have to deal with the following, starting in 1900. The list is simple and everyone should know the contents. However, here is my list.

Great Britain
United States
Germany
France
Japan
Austria-Hungary - until 1919
Italy
Spain
Russia

So, if we go with this list, we have nine nations. We can see that one of these nations, Spain, lost their navy by 1900. Austria-Hungary as a empire, was dissolved after 1919. So, this leaves us with six nations. Russia is debatable but I think it should have a navy. However, there is no reason that Spain cannot have a  small navy and the same for Austria.

So, who else do we add? Well, if we want the Confederate States of America, then we have to add that nation. What about South America? How about Argentina, Brazil and maybe Venezuela.

We could add China, and India along with Australia.

So, our total for nations that could use naval power is the following:

Great Britain
USA
Germany
France
Japan
Italy
Russia
CSA
Now, a possible list of additions:
Argentina
Brazil
Venezuela
China
India
Australia

Now realistically does this list really make any sense to you? It's a fantasy list. Do you want to add Greece and turkey?

This is the some of the possibilities. I am real history person, I want the game to give me multiple research directions earlier than actual history, geopolitical directions that either were never considered or were ruled out. However, we cannot change geography. The continents are moving, but not that fast. We are stuck with what we have, so how many real nations need and have the capability to economically afford a real navy. To me, I think the team has already decide but what do I know.

Thanks for reading this, these are just my sentiments.

[dyermaker]

CSA is already in the game, I'm just pointing out how including the possibility of adding them to a USA game could make it less stale. We're not talking about spending a great deal of time implementing new historically unviable naval powers, rather I'm just suggesting that using *already in game assets* could make an alternative USA campaign much more interesting by adding a sea power located inside two of the USA home zones... I understand your concern about historical accuracy, but RtW1/2 while interesting simulations, have features and qualities that make them rather unhistorical at times, but gameplay has to over rule historical accuracy. I do not see how adding the CSA as a reverse option to a USA campaign is in any way unreasonable... For clarification, I am *not* suggesting replacing the USA campaign as it is, but merely adding an option for CSA to be a 'home field' opponent for an alternate USA game, likely replacing Austria/Hungary in the opponent list...

[dyermaker]

My mistake, I just realized A/H is not an opponent for a USA game... Perhaps then Italy could be replaced or perhaps Russia... but that could be a matter of debate...

[cabalamat]

Jan 7, 2020 13:12:32 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

This discussion seems to rest on either real naval history or fantasy. By fantasy, I mean putting nations into this game that have not had a decent navy in possible 2000 years like the Greeks, Persians, Romans, and possibly the Vikings. Just to name a few.

Now, if we go the real naval history direction then we are going to have to deal with the following, starting in 1900. The list is simple and everyone should know the contents. However, here is my list.

Great Britain
United States
Germany
France
Japan
Austria-Hungary - until 1919
Italy
Spain
Russia

So, if we go with this list, we have nine nations. We can see that one of these nations, Spain, lost their navy by 1900. Austria-Hungary as a empire, was dissolved after 1919. So, this leaves us with six nations. Russia is debatable but I think it should have a navy. However, there is no reason that Spain cannot have a  small navy and the same for Austria.

So, who else do we add? Well, if we want the Confederate States of America, then we have to add that nation. What about South America? How about Argentina, Brazil and maybe Venezuela.

We could add China, and India along with Australia.

So, our total for nations that could use naval power is the following:

Great Britain
USA
Germany
France
Japan
Italy
Russia
CSA
Now, a possible list of additions:
Argentina
Brazil
Venezuela
China
India
Australia

Now realistically does this list really make any sense to you? It's a fantasy list. Do you want to add Greece and turkey?

This is the some of the possibilities. I am real history person, I want the game to give me multiple research directions earlier than actual history, geopolitical directions that either were never considered or were ruled out. However, we cannot change geography. The continents are moving, but not that fast. We are stuck with what we have, so how many real nations need and have the capability to economically afford a real navy. To me, I think the team has already decide but what do I know.

Thanks for reading this, these are just my sentiments.

If you are talking about countries that actually operated capital ships during the period, you would have to add Turkey and Chile. personally I would have no problem playing a game that have that many countries in it. Maybe some could be played by AIs and some by human players. Here's an idea: have multiple human players but make it co-operative so they are all playing on the same side and not against each other.

I would also like to see multiple scenarios for the start point. So one could be the situation as it actually was in 1900, another could be one where CSA survived, India was independent, China was stronger etc -- a more multipolar world.

[cabalamat]

Jan 7, 2020 7:49:01 GMT -6 director said:

cabalamat - I didn't say it wasn't do-able, just that setting definite limits on matrices could make programming more manageable.

From what the designer/developer has said in the past, I think the issue is figuring out a way to extrapolate combat losses without going through the combat routines, and doing so in a manner (and quantity) that players find believable. I'm not in favor of sitting for 30 minutes while the AI runs ships around for a war I'm not even in. I do think Ai-vs-AI wars are a desirable addition but the RtW staff seems not to agree (or if they do then implementation is a low priority).

Resolving AI v. AI battles oughtn't to take anything like 30 minutes, particularly if a simplified system is used e.g. Tortuga's combat simulator.

[oldpop2000]

Here is a link to PDF's for the world's navies starting in 1900 all the way to 2015. There is also a section on statistics. It reflects the changes in the world navies. Have fun, gents.

www.navypedia.org/retro_view/yesterday_index.htm