[MOD] The Second Revolution!

For Harper: I recommend something from the Tragically Hip or "Taking Care of Business". Or any country song...

Played a game as Canada last night. I quickly took Hamilton (they sent there forces towards Toronto, and I snuck in and got the city) and Quebec City. Over time I expanded north and west, re-capturing all of Canada's original territory. In addition, I liberated several American cities: Valdez, Chicago, Minneapolis(?), Spokane, and Michigan Militia. The rebels gave me Vancouver in return for peace.

Now I think I might go to war with U.S. Just to see how it will go...

LOL you are a Crazy canadian! i love it! im guessing canada is the civ you want to use for the scenario!

Second Revolution 1.6 is out!!!

Hey zxe and everyone else!

i fixed the musica for marcos, castro, harpers and fox so it plays custom music now and i fixed command sounds from units, so when you click em it should be in the right language for the civ. i also touched up map like added topeka, and little rock and orlando.

im going to start the multiplayer tests soon with PBEM. zxe suggested this and if anyone else is really interested and wont quit, PM zxe and me.

download at top of thread

Norseman2 said:

Here's the thing, though. If people were to find out about that, there would be an attempted revolution. People would arm themselves, the military would break up, and there would be a new civil war if anyone still supports Bush. If the army is purged of dissenters, and filled out with a draft (preferably before-hand, so the potentially dissenting draftees can be sent on suicide missions), and the draftees are properly indoctrinated, the army stands a good chance of keeping aloft. Rebels simply are no match for a trained army. If a bunch of civilians tried to storm Washington, the military would (or could) hit them so brutally that the rebels in the back realize that they want to live. They would collapse. An assault would just be impossible. For the opening of the war, the rebels would need to hold what cities they can and start getting foreign support, while a capable military force is organized, disciplined, and armed.

Click to expand...

Could you site a source for this?

i feel that no matter how pissed the world gets at bush or demagougues like him, there will always be many many supporters of them, not because that they like the leader, but because they fear losing what they have. Disrupting the status-quo does not sit well with many. I couldnt really care less (but then I'm an anarch).

Leif said:

Could you site a source for this?

Click to expand...

Of course not. It's never happened before. But think about it. What would you do if Bush started nuking cities, and purging the military of people who aren't perfectly obedient to him? I know what I would do, and I think I'm fairly normal here. Hell, we had a civil war over slavery, where none of the major people involved were even personally affected by slavery. But a nuking in our own country, by our own country, well, there's no question about what kind of havoc that could cause. Perfectly obedient soldiers and mass murder are just too reminiscent of Nazi Germany, and you can ask anyone what they think of Nazis.

If you were referring to the second part of my paragraph, about people realizing they want to live, then you can refer to How to Make War, fourth edition. When regular people get shot at, they very quickly lose their will to fight.

I like your mod and stuff, BUT, i like to start from scratch and build my own empire, and play on different maps, but cant cause there are no settlers??? I know its Second Rev but after you play the Five or so Empires whats next? same ole game then. But if you can start from scratch you can lead into other maps and stuff, if you know what i mean. And by the way Great look of units and the soundtrack, AWESOME!!

@Norseman2:

1. Food for Thought: Few rebellions make it past the 'protest' stage without fairly large-scale support from some level of the military. I would assume that if the Rebel Coalition could take as many cities as they have (in the scen) than they must have been supported by a major military defection (most likely led by ousted generals).

2. Was the American civil war over slavery? Because I have read a great deal of information that says this is false. Especially when both congresses were attempting to pass slavery-abolishment legislation. (Although I'm Canadian, so my knowledge of the American civil war is amateur.) Interestingly enough, the first American civil war followed the pattern identified in point #1.

3. Some trivia regarding Bush and Nazis. Prescott Sheldon Bush was Bush's grandfather. He married the daughter of George Herbert Walker, who was the director of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.. Walker gave Prescott Bush (who was working as a tire salesman) a position within his firm. Alex Jones and his sources attest that these two men should have been tried for treason. The Harriman bank was the main Wall Street Connection for German Companies and was eventually shut down by Roosevelt. These companies include Hamburg-American shipping line - the first company shut down by Roosevelt. Fritz Thyssen, also known as "Hitler's Angel", had over 3 million invested in this bank in 1942. Bush, Dupont, Remmington, J.P. Morgan are also (accused) of leading the attempted overthrow of FDR during WWII.

So, maybe we should ask George W. "what he thinks of Nazis"...

Ok everyone! the newest update to the patch is out. 1.6C has the new riot police unit by rabbitwhite (i believe) check out top post for DL!

@zxe

1. Consider the case of Gandhi. Without any military at all, he was able to win. Consider the American revolution, where combat began before the Americans had any formal military force, and the Americans won. With a movement which is popular enough, against a government which is unpopular enough, you will win. Now, I don't know about neomarxism, or anarchosyndicalism, but I believe I what I said holds true for today. If the government becomes unpopular enough (say through nuking our own cities) and a new movement comes along which is very popular among the people, there is a good chance there will be a sucessful revolution.

2. Going with what wiki has to say, and what I've been told in my history classes, slavery was the issue which made the South secede from the Union. If not slavery, what do you think it was?

2b(?).In the American civil war (which hopefully was the last) entire states chose loyalty to one side, or the other. Conceivably, the same could happen here. However, that was more the rebellion of the Confederates than of the Union. The Union had more than double the GDP, population, and number of soldiers of the Confederates. Not surprisingly, the Union won. This was despite some of the military helping Confederates. I think what it boils down to is that the military isn't as important as the people.

3. Which means... what?

@norseman2
i feel you have made some invalid or at least partially invalid points:

1. Gandhi was interested in passive resistance, yes, but India is a big place and what my government never teaches is that there were battles raging across India at the same time his movement was 'peaceful'. And these battles were Indian vs. British, Indian vs. Pakistani, and Indian vs. Indian. So the US gov't lies when it teaches it's childeren that India's revolution was bloodless, it was far from it. 13000 slaughtered.

2. Slavery was NOT the reason that the secession occurred, it was just what the public was told at the time. Believe it or not, the slavery issue increased the violence towards blacks in the north. The south seceded because of the taxation and tariffs that the north was leveling at the productive and lucrative south. It was literally an economic war, but what war truly hasn't been that kind?

2b. The states didn't completely take sides. People were trapped on one side or the other, much like east germany in cold war. And people were trying to emigrate to their families on the other sides.

Please come to me with references and you will change my mind then.

I love the new police-unit. Perfect for this mod...

yeah, i requested it a while ago. i bemped that thread alot

@norseman2
sorry for ranting at you

@GarretSidzaka

1. This completely misses the point. zxe said "Few rebellions make it past the 'protest' stage without fairly large-scale support from some level of the military." Even if what you say is true, it doesn't matter. To my knowledge, India had little to no assistance from any regular military.

2. Source?

2b. This is relevant to my point, how?

Umm, wasn't one of the major reasons the South seceeded that they were going to change the way that slaves were counted when taking census numbers, which would have give the far more populous North a huge advantage in the House of Representatives?

@ ERLoft
i had heard this as well. wars do usually have more that one reason.

@norseman2
You dont need a regular army to have horrible bloodshed, now do you?

@GarretSidzaka

What is your point? How is that relevant, at all?

Norseman2 said:

But think about it. What would you do if Bush started nuking cities, and purging the military of people who aren't perfectly obedient to him?

Click to expand...

Live out fantasies I've had since childhood.

Leif said:

Live out fantasies I've had since childhood.

Click to expand...

*raising his hand* OOOH! OOOH! I know I know!

ERLoft said:

Umm, wasn't one of the major reasons the South seceeded that they were going to change the way that slaves were counted when taking census numbers, which would have give the far more populous North a huge advantage in the House of Representatives?

Click to expand...

No, the north already had a huge lead in the House of Representatives, and even counting slaves as one full person in the census wouldn't have changed that. If you read the Lincoln-Douglas debates, you'll notice that Lincoln was running on a pro-slavery, pro-tariff platform; he was a racist who supported "black codes" and the Corwin amendment (the original 13th amendment which would've made slavery permanent), and he was also a big proponent of the (un)"American System" of mercantilism. (Note: For the record, I think both sides sucked.)

Mercantilism is a lot like socialism, only a different criminal gang benefits from the redistribution of stolen wealth, and the weakening of the economy isn't as great, since the beneficiaries of the redistribution are typically people who already have some skill in creating new wealth, and so the thefts are somewhat offset by new wealth creation. Also, unlike socialism, mercantilism doesn't generally require a full-blown police state to maintain, because it lacks the strict price and wage controls present in socialism, which naturally lead to shortages, then rationing, then black markets, then a police state to combat the black markets, due to the disruption in the natural pricing system. For more details on that chain reaction of events, see this article. Oh, and if you want to fully comprehend the folly of both socialism and mercantilism, I recommend you start by reading Frédéric Bastiat's That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen.