Civil War Scenario

aluelkdf

Prince
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
420
One of the confirmed scenarios is the American civil war. Do you guys think we will get any new units for this scenario?

We already have quite a few units from that era. But maybe they can come up with a more appropriate seige unit. The cannon is very primitive for the ACW, and artillery is too advanced. There should be a seige unit that is half way in between.

It would also be interesting to see every state of the union and confederates represented, with a city from each state. (at least all the east coast states which were heavily involved) It would make the scenario much more immersive to include cities like Charleston, Charlotte, Hartford and Montpellier just to name a few.
 
I remember the Civ II ACW scenario, which had Kentucky as a separate civ. I thought that was brilliant.
 
There was a sound file for Napoleon cannon in the G&K Civil War files.
 
my speculation:

scenario title: The War of Northern Agression

Playable civs:
Union,
Confederacy,
brand new native american expansion civ,
a scenario-only nat.american civ that uses the leader screen of Hiawatha.

I wonder do we get new leader screens for Lincoln or portraits as there was in the Smoky Skies scenario.

Maybe as Confederacy, you need to do "blockade runs" to another map corner for extra poins/or resources. Union could strangle the south with Blockade

Could slavery be implemented into the game? It's a dark subject but South had it as a base for their economy.

P.S. who remembers this?
Spoiler :
 
I doubt any Native American civs will tie into the Civil War scenario because it is focused on the Eastern Theater, specifically Virginia.
 
my speculation:

scenario title: The War of Northern Agression

I would be shocked if they use this title. Not only is it relatively non-standard (it's really only used in the south), it's also quite controversial (at a minimum, people point out that, because the Confederacy fired first, shouldn't it be the war of Southern Aggression?). American Civil War is the standard name used. If they want to compromise (because it was technically a war for secession, not for control of the government), they might go with War Between the States. But, unless they want to go with an unused name (e.g., the Blue and the Gray or something like that), it'll be one of those two.
 
American Civil War is more neutral, though if its focused on the Eastern Seaboard, it might have a more creative title.

Maybe as Confederacy, you need to do "blockade runs" to another map corner for extra poins/or resources. Union could strangle the south with Blockade

Could slavery be implemented into the game? It's a dark subject but South had it as a base for their economy.

Given the scope, I don't think Natives will play much into the scenario. Though, given the trade-nature of the expansion, I wouldn't be surprised if blockade running became a feature.

As for slavery, just make the Confederate UA +1 Wealth/Production/Food from plantations. I would also say +1 Unhappiness but meh.
 
my speculation:

scenario title: The War of Northern Agression

You must be from the South. The south seceded from the north, not the other way around. And the south attacked fort sumter. The south should have never started a war that they couldn't win.
 
Guys. Can we not have this discussion right now? Please?
 
There's not much else to talk about until Firaxis gives us more details. :p

-Possible playables
-UUs/UAs
-Possible scenario mechanics
-The legitimacy of the Civil War

One out of four of these belong in OT.
 
I have a theory on possible scenario objectives: Capture all your enemy's generals.
 
Sorry I was joking about the War of Northern agression... I just read this book where a British major had a lecturer from the States making a lecture about the civil war at Sandhurst Academy, and things became a bit uncomfortable when the lecturer always talked about the war with that (..Northern Agression) name and bias. :D

Back to the scenario, I'm pretty confident there's a nat.American playable or at least an AI controlled Sioux or whatever. Usually the scenarios introduce new civs, and as BNM features a whopping NINE new civs I think we'll see Sioux or Comanche..
 
I have a theory on possible scenario objectives: Capture all your enemy's generals.

That'd be a little anticlimatic. Sniping generals with fast units=victory.

Back to the scenario, I'm pretty confident there's a nat.American playable or at least an AI controlled Sioux or whatever. Usually the scenarios introduce new civs, and as BNM features a whopping NINE new civs I think we'll see Sioux or Comanche..

I don't know. For the same reason I don't think they didn't introduce all the new barb civilizations that were in Fall of Rome, the same reason I don't think they'll use the American Civil War as a showoff of new NA civilizations, but I've been wrong before.
 
The ACW scenario should encompass all three theaters, the East, Trans-Mississippi, and the West. With the new trade route system the Eastern seaboard and the Mississippi river will be of vital importance.

I also feel to make things more interesting, because there was no way the South could have won that war. No way whatsoever, because the South simply would not be able to keep up in production with northern factories. The North also had many more miles of railroad in place. What railroad tracks the South did have were made of different size gauge, which meant troops had to be disembarked and reembarked at regular intervals, causing time delays in military logistics. Although this was not the case at Bull Run, but for the most part it would be. During wartime it would have been virtually impossible for the South to rectify this shortcoming.

I may get heat for that last paragraph. If anyone does not believe me, read about William Tecumseh Sherman and what he thought about Southern chances to win the war.

"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it... Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail."

To make things more interesting, if there was a chance England and France to intervene on the side of the CSA, they may have had a chance to win their freedom and the war. Or at least get a better peace proposal other than unconditional surrender. A static ACW scenario with no real chance for the South to win does not sound interesting to me. So, I hope they have thought of a way for the South to actually have a chance to win. Maybe if Maryland and Kentucky had a chance to join the Southern cause, that certainly would be one step in the right direction. Especially, since Maryland was the shortest land route to Washington D.C. Without the ability to move Union troops through Maryland it would have been far more difficult to fortify the capital from invasion and capture. Of course even if Washington fell it certainly would not be the end of the war. Not even close.
 
There are two possible scenarios. On one end, the Northern players have to deal with the public and, if it loses key cities, loses the scenario due to popular discontent. The fall of DC wouldn't be a military defeat, but WOULD be a political blow.

Also, I would guess the South might have more Great Generals, which can go a long way in the right hands. In a straight production war, the South loses in the long run, so victory for the player depends should depend on a quick crippling blow to at least knock the North off balance for a while.

You could have one-tile islands to the farthest fringes of the map reflecting France and England as well, with there being trade routes between them and the South.
 
Top Bottom