Those Damb Europeans

[freeboy]

No, no rants against the socialist in this thread.. I want intervention to be a optional toggle, ie keep the european diplomacy and helping the south but really, I poured Thousands into these guys, Emancipated my "friends" and look, They both declared war on me.. PLEASE add a toggle where we can limit there involvment, I was/am still kicking ass.. Just took out Tennisee in 63 and now we have a Grant super army supported by another indi corp marhing on Virginia.. and I invaded CANADA.. thought tht was off limits?

HELP

[Gil R.]

Canada's not off-limits if the British are coming...

If enough people think that European intervention should be a game option we might be able to do that. What do others think? (Either way, to get consideration the suggestion needs to be added to the "Wish List.")

[freeboy]

ok off to the Wish list Santa hehe

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Canada's not off-limits if the British are coming...

If enough people think that European intervention should be a game option we might be able to do that. What do others think? (Either way, to get consideration the suggestion needs to be added to the "Wish List.")

Truthfully, while it was a fear for one side and a wish for the other, the game's representation of it as a "bribing contest" doesn't feel very accurate. France wasn't going to "jump in" unless Britian did..., and Britian wasn't going to intervene unless the South showed real signs of "winning" (losing causes being tiresome and expensive..., plus the whole Slavery Issue being a major stumbling block) It should certainly be made a less likely occurance..., and a less expensive process for both sides.

[Malagant]

It would be nice if the support & direct intervention were more tied to the progress of the war than the "Bribing Contest".

[freeboy]

ok, I couldlive with that too.. but I am winning in my contest AAUURRGH.. ok, time to kick some euro butt

[Johnus]

In games terms, in order for the "fear" or "hope" of European intervention to be real, it must, every so often take place. True, throwing money at the Europeans is a bit unrealistic, however, you could consider such spending as expenditure of "effort" or executive "energy" or a diversion of needed resources, human or otherwise.

[highblooded]

The Costs are far to excessive. I spend 30 to 50 Money per turn just to keep Europe around a level of 2( So I can buy the Lorenz Rifles- they are the best!) I don't see how anyone could afford to spend more and still maintain a decent war effort. Maybe by 1864 I'll be able to afford it, but not in 1861-2.

I would prefer to see a scaling system(more cost for higher levels of reward) perhaps with an option for using other resources than money.

Maybe Diplomats would work better (like Generals- you could buy them or recieve additional ones over time -You would assign them to a country and each turn they could add to your prestige with that country)

I also think that tying it to your VP level would be a good thing. When your doing well you have lots of friends, but when the chips are down it's funny how no one seems to be around any longer.

[bountyhunter]

Maybe a value of diplomatic influence - you gain some amount per turn (as you may have seen in other strategy games). Where does cotton fall in to all of this - it was issue for a time - I remember something about Egypt eventaully making the blockade of it less of a factor...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: bountyhunter

Maybe a value of diplomatic influence - you gain some amount per turn (as you may have seen in other strategy games). Where does cotton fall in to all of this - it was issue for a time - I remember something about Egypt eventaully making the blockade of it less of a factor...

Actually, the improving and enlarging supply of Egyptian and Indian "long-staple" cotton really ripped the bottom out of the South's "King Cotton" hopes as the war went on. English Mills found the new sources enabled them to return to full production well before the war ended.

[Director]

There were record cotton crops in the years leading up to the War, so manufacturers had almost a year's supply of cotton on hand when the War started. The real reason for the labor layoffs and idle looms in England was a glut of cotton textiles on the market, so the cotton shortage didn't matter so much in the short term. Large increases in cotton acreage in Egypt and India kept English and French mills running at an acceptable level after that, along with what cotton could be run through the blockade or bought through Union-occupied areas (in New Orleans, in particular, that was a lot because of the trading with Confederate territories).

When the War began the Confederacy decided not to export cotton, hoping to force England and France to come in on the Confederate side. Instead, the cotton sat in warehouses when it could easily be shipped and couldn't be shipped when it was wanted in quantity. Against British revulsion of slavery and general desire to keep to themselves, 'King Cotton' wasn't the weapon Southerners had hoped. Of equal or greater value than the cotton trade were the crop failures in Europe that made Britain heavily dependent on American grain, railroaded from the Midwest to the Atlantic ports. Britain could afford to have textile workers idle, but could not easily afford to cut the grain supply. American concilliation after the 'Trent' affair and American eagerness to sell the grain, corn and beef at reasonable prices went a long way to healing Anglo-American relations. Charles Adams did a fine job as US Ambassador, too. And given how committed the Brits were to ending the slave trade, and given that textile workers actually voted support for the Northern side, I think the actual chance of British participation - barring the 'Trent' affair - was about zero.

Blockade runners did run in and out with less than 1/3 chance of being caught, but they didn't carry much. Most of the so-called blockade runners were little coastal craft. Overall the South's export/import traffic probably went down buy 2/3 (or so) by late 1862. As ports were captured (New Orleans!) and shut off (Savannah!) the traffic declined even more.

I've been researching this for a Railroad Tycoon scenario. [;)]


Recommended sources: MacPherson's 'Battle Cry of Freedom' and 'The Cousins' Wars' by Kevin Phillips (ties the English Civil War, American Revolution and Civil War together).


Sounds like what the game needs is a 'foreign affairs events' file that fires randomly and gives the player chances to take hits/gain benefits according to his responses.