I'm writing to the Creative Assembly and the CA community as a fan of the Total War series, and a historian and History school teacher, from Chile, because I have an idea for a new Total War game that I thought I should share with you all.

             The game that I’ve been thinking about would be centered in the Americas, as I’ve already revealed in the title of this post, and focused in the 19th century, from the 1830s to the year 1900. You can picture it as something of a continuation of what TW has covered of the history of these continents so far, the Age of Discovery and the Revolutionary Wars of Independence, in Medieval II: Total War and Empire: Total War, respectively. I come with this idea because I believe that the rest of the 19th century in the Americas is absolutely perfect for a Total War game. Let me remind you the characteristics of this period in the continents’ history that make me believe this:

1. This is when most current international borders in the continents were settled, and the vast majority of them was done so by force.
2. On top of settling current international borders, many military conflicts of this period resulted in the rise and fall of numerous factions and political projects, some with better luck than others. This really was the ‘Age of the Americas at War'.
3. These wars were almost entirely fought in the Americas, which makes them suited for a Total War game with a campaign map of the Americas (maybe including some Oceania islands and archipielagos like Hawaii and Rapa Nui/Easter Island).
4. Military technology and discipline had a continuous development along the years, from post-Independence wars’ militias to the creation of military academies, naval fleets and professional armies, sometimes even hiring foreign (european) officers to do so.
5. There’s a coherent historical narrative during the entire period: it’s the story of the transit from the last remnants of the Bolivarian dream of a united Hispanic America, fueled by the reciprocal support and joint defense of the new republics versus European imperialism and restoration desires (as well as American expansionism), to the birth and strengthening of patriotic nationalisms, fueled by the discrepancies regarding international borders, all the while the US were beginning the journey that at the end of the century would make them the continents’ main power, with its starting points in the westward expansion following the “Manifest Destiny” since the War of 1812, the Barbary Wars and the Indian Removal Act of 1830. It’s also during this time when the remaining free indigenous tribes of the continents make their last stands and their territories are finally conquered by the US, Chile, Argentina and others.
6. Almost every Nation-State had very clear geopolitical targets, and aimed to fulfill them during this period. Some were successful in doing so, some were not.
7. Whilst virtually every conflict was fought in the Americas, and as of the 1830s most of the continents’ Nation-States were independent, relationships with Europe were deep and fluent during the whole century, having two sides: on one hand, there was the need to defend from European hostility, be it caused by Spanish wishes of restoration or French and British imperialisms, and, on the other hand, there was cooperation, in the shape of immigration, investments and infrastructure building, diplomatic recognition and arbitration, military training and the sale of weapons and warships, etc. Maybe the dynamics of the Americas-Europe relationships could work like in The Fall of the Samurai to some degree, but should be far more complex (American-British rivalry, european imperialist attacks, business and economic competition, etc.).
8. Civil wars were even more common than international ones, and can also be used to increase the complexity of the game. Not even the US was safe from this burden during this era. But while the American internal armed strife revolved around slavery, most internal armed conflicts in Hispanic America were caused by the clash of different political projects, caudillos and liberalists fighting catholic conservatives. The Empire of Brazil, for its part, faced all of the above. 

            I imagine the player being able to choose the historical moment from when to start playing the campaign, being there three options, like in the first Medieval: Total War. The reasoning behind this is that I believe that the wars of the period came in three ‘waves’, each one with its particular characteristics. The first wave began with conflicts like the Mexican-American War, waged from 1846 to 1848, with roots in the Texas Revolution of 1835-1836, and the Confederation War, waged by Chile, along with Peruvian dissidents, and the Argentine Confederation against the Peru–Bolivian Confederation between 1836 and 1839. In these two wars, as well as other conflicts of the time (i.e. the Platine War of 1851-1852), the usage of artillery in terrestrial battles was modest (but sometimes crucial nonetheless), and the armies held proportionally large portions of voluntary but irregular, undisciplined troops. The total number of soldiers involved, however, was somewhat low, compared to later armies. Logistics were also comparatively quite poor. But the consequences of these wars were massive, and often unsuspected. The rest of the countries, even though may have had little to no international conflicts at this moment, had their particular agendas and geopolitical targets nonetheless, i.e. Colombia (Nueva Granada at the time), Ecuador and Venezuela may all have liked to recreate the Gran Colombia under their own leaderships, dissolved in 1831. Thus, the beginning of the campaign could be established in the year 1837, for example, after the Texas Revolution and prior to the Mexican-American War, in the midst of the failed revolutions in the Empire of Brazil (Cabanagem Revolution, Ragamuffin War, Balaiada and Sabinada), at the beginning of the Confederation War, and just before the Pastry War (First French intervention in Mexico) and the Canadian Rebellions of 1837-1838.

            The start of the second wave can be placed in 1862, because by then three major military events were beginning at the same time: the military campaigns of the American Civil War, the French invasion of Mexico, and the Chilean occupation of the Araucanía region. This moment in history is also one year prior the Colombian-Ecuadorian War of 1863 and the Dominican Restoration War, two years prior the beginning of the War of the Triple Alliance or Paraguayan War, and three years before the starting of the Chincha Islands War of 1865-1866. As you can see, the 1860s was a crucial decade in the military history of all the Americas. There were conflicts waged against European powers, such as the French invasion of Mexico and the Chincha Islands War, waged by Chile and Peru with the support of Bolivia and Ecuador versus Spain, and conflicts between factions and Nation-States of the Americas, such as the American Civil War and the Paraguayan War. These two are, to this day, the bloodiest military conflicts to have ever taken place in this part of the globe. The American Civil War had ~1,200,000-1,600,000 civilian and military casualties, and the Paraguayan War had ~500,000, with Paraguay losing around 90% of its male population. The wars of this period were characterized by much larger armies, with more professional battalions but a lot of voluntary and forced conscripts as well, and a far more extended use of artillery. This period also saw the birth of the ironclad, though there weren’t any sea naval campaigns in which the fighting sides were near an equilibrium ante bellum.

            Lastly, the beginning of the third wave can be established in 1879, just after the end of Ten Years’ War in Cuba, at the beginning of the War of the Pacific, waged and won by Chile over the alliance of Peru and Bolivia, and at the start of the main campaigns of the Conquest of the Desert (Patagonia), done by Argentina. This last part of the campaign would go on until the year 1900. During this time, Argentina and Chile completed their expansion to the south at the expense of the Mapuche and other indigenous tribes, Chile also annexed Easter Island and then endured a brutal civil war in 1891 (a warship was sunk by a self-propelled torpedo for the first time ever during this conflict), the Hawaiian rebellions took place resulting in the annexation of the archipelago by the US, the Cuban War of Independence ended with the American-Spanish War of 1898, and the Acre War between Brazil and Bolivia began in 1899. Also, the last of the main American Indian Wars saw their conclusion during this period. The most interesting conflicts of these last years of the 19th century are the War of the Pacific and the American-Spanish War, because they represent the climax of the military development in the continents, as they included all the innovations of past conflicts but with the addition of open sea naval campaigns, with heavier warships. In the War of the Pacific, the fighting navies were somewhat even at the beginning of the conflict, and the naval campaign proved crucial for the later development of the war. The American-Spanish War, for its part, had the most advanced warships of the Americas’ 19th century in combat.

            So, that would be it. Maybe the tutorial campaigns could tackle events that occurred after the Wars of Independence but before the 1830s, like the Gran Colombia-Peru War. Subsequent expansions of the game could revolve around the last indigenous resistance all over the continents, the American Indian Wars more in-depth and/or the Spanish-American War, but including its Philippines front.

            Up until just a few years ago, there was little to no presence of Latin American history in major military strategy video games. For the most part, only the Mayans, the Aztecs and their conquest were covered. Then, the Sid Meier’s Civilization series also included the Incan Empire, in Civ V they did so with the Empire of Brazil, and in Civ VI they did the same with the Mapuche. But as far as I know, that’s it. I don’t know what would be the reasons for not continuing to tackle Latin American history more in-depth now. My tinfoil hat thinking used to believe that there were political or even geopolitical reasons. Then I thought it was due to commercial prejudices (that the games wouldn’t be commercially successful), but now I suspect that maybe non spanish speaking video game producers and designers don’t feel confident enough about their knowledge of Latin American history and culture to do a complex video game centered in this part of the world. Regarding commercial expectations, I believe that a good game as I’ve described would be a huge success (there’s an awesome Empire: Total War mod about the War of the Pacific already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iObCGf5isM, and several mods of the same game about the American Civil War as well). I really do think that a videogame like this is what Latin Americans are waiting for (~650 million people), and what the Americans and the rest of the world wants, but don’t know that they do just yet. Some Americans do, though, the ones fond of naval military history and ironclads, for example. I know they’re also interested in conflicts like the War of the Pacific or the Chilean Civil War of 1891 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po84qTAKgi0). Other Americans that’d love the game are those who’d like to reenact the American Civil War but in a broader, Americas’ context. For the Latin Americans part, if you could somehow evoke Latin American military chants in the game’s soundtrack, the video game would easily reach TV news all over the continents. I’ll leave you a couple Latin American military chants about this era at the end of post to uplift your mood.

            If you think this idea has merit and that you’d like to carry it out with some of my help, please let me know. I look forward to hearing your comments.

            That is all for the present, and all that is left for me to do is to take this opportunity to thank you for your wonderful videogames.

            Best regards,

            Vichikuma.

“Avenida Las Camelias” (‘the Camellias Avenue’), Argentine 1915 military march: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlL7-KSFPx8

“Los Viejos Estandartes” (‘The Old Banners’), Chilean War of the Pacific victory chant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1GpaRQAoiw

Lyrics translated:

I

The thunder of cannons has ceased

The trenches are now silent

And along the northern roads

The battalions return

The squadrons return

To Chile! And their old loved ones.

II

On their victorious flags

They bring a thousand memories of glories

Bullets! Tore their attires

And their stars show

And their stars show

Honorable! Scars of war.

III

They cross under triumphal arcs

After their brave generals

And although they are injured

They are marching martial

They are smiling virile

And they return undefeated.

IV

The old banners pass

That fought in battles

And that soaked in blood

The soldiers led

And covered the dead

Like noble shrouds

CHORUS

There go the bronze infantrymen!

Fire! Iron gunners

And in the wind their sabers and spears

Charge!

The silvered horsemen.

V

The thunder of cannons has ceased

The trenches are now silent

And like bronze sentries,

The soldiers watch

For them to wave victorious,

Forever!

The old banners.

III

They cross under triumphal arcs

After their brave generals

And although they are injured

They are marching martial

They are smiling virile

And they return undefeated.

IV

The old banners pass

That fought in battles

And that soaked in blood

The soldiers led

And covered the dead

Like noble shrouds

CHORUS

There go the bronze infantrymen!

Fire! Iron gunners

And in the wind their sabers and spears

Charge!

The silvered horsemen.

I disagree. To begin with, including North America would bring in different game mechanics that would enrich and add greater variety to gameplay possibilities. This is something other TW games somewhat lack off; once you start playing with various different factions, you tend to discover the game is all the same everywhere. Adding North America would likely incorporate some highly demanded replayability to the game. The presence of Russia in Alaska until 1867, the past 1812 war between the US and the British, the Mexican-American war (a war between a nation that had several decades of history and past international wars, even in other continents, and a recent independent nation, with not even with enough sense of patriotism developed, that was a very tough war nonetheless), the ensuing of the ambiguous Monroe doctrine by the US, etc. Yes, by the end of the century the US became the indisputable power of the Americas, but this was no walk in the park deed.
As a matter of fact, the reason that compels me to prefer including North America comes from my historian background: it would make the game far more historically accurate. This is because the US played a huge role in Latin American history during the XIX century, a role that was obscure in most cases, and that americans don't know very well. During and shortly after the Wars of Independence, most Latin American politicians were happy to emulate the US core values as democratic and republican Nation-States, but some were suspicious of the US even back in the 1820s. Diego Portales from Chile feared that the US would end dominating all of the Americas not by force, but by cultural and economic power (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Letter_from_Diego_Portales_to_Jos%C3%A9_M._Cea_dated_7_March_1822). I think he foresaw the future. His solution was mistaken though; he thought Chile could overcome this by becoming a powerful, centralized Nation-State. Time would tell that he fell short: Chile alone, even achieving this, wouldn't avoid his feared outcome. The war against the Confederation was fought because of this (Chile and peruvian dissidents versus Peru and Bolivia united under Santa Cruz); Portales thought that a united Peru and Bolivia would dwarf Chile and stop it from achieving its aforementioned goal. He was killed by some likely americanists (bolivarianists) chilean soldiers, that weren't happy with making war to the Peruvian and Bolivian Confederation. I think their view of things was the one that was right: Latin America, if it was to counterbalance the US, should stay united.
In time, even with local nationalisms growing, various latin american countries would push for a latin american external policy agenda. The first meetings had the european imperialism as it's main theme, from the times of Bolivar and up until the 1840s. But then, during the 1850s, it was American expansionism (and some other american acts of hostility, like the ones of the american filibusters in Central America) the main theme of the meetings. Even the Empire of Brazil was invited and attended, and the US protested for not being invited. The last of these kind of meetings occurred in 1864-65, just before the Paraguayan War (check the works of mexican Germán de la Reza for this topic). After that war, no holistic latin american project was possible in the short term, and the War of the Pacific (1879-1884, fought by Chile vs Peru and Bolivia) was another nail in the coffin. However, this doesn't mean that latin american countries wouldn't keep themselves alert over US aggression. Chile secretly informed Paraguay of the US plans of aggression and invasion of that country in the 1850s... a war that was finally stopped by argentine mediation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8xf176zDA0). Then, during the War of the Pacific, US president Garfield and specially Secretary of State James Blaine tried by various means to deter Chile from gaining territorial compensations as a prize of war, since they wanted the US to enter the guano and saltpeter extraction market, and thought it would be easier if those resources were in peruvian or bolivian hands instead of chileans'. There were american politicians that even proposed including Peru in the Union as a means of stopping Chile. French president Jules Grevy also participated in this conspiracy, but it was to no avail: the american president was killed by a lunatic and the new one soon realized the US had no means of stopping Chile of achieving peace in its terms. In fact, after the War of the Pacific, the chilean fleet had no rival in the Pacific Ocean, and this was a hot matter of a fearful debate in the US (https://www.jstor.org/stable/196360?seq=1), even more so after the Panama crisis of 1885 (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_de_Panam%C3%A1_de_1885), were american sailors in that country, trying to aid Panama to become independent from Colombia (and thus make it easier for the US to control the best area for a so much american desired interoceanic canal), fled at the sight of a chilean warship that came in Colombia's aid. The americans would then build their Pacific fleet in the years to come. During the Restoration era, the US fleet saw its bottom, but from 1890 on it became one of the major fleets in the planet. Mahan, the inspirator behind this naval development, was a direct witness of the War of the Pacific. The US would finally settle things out with Chile taking advantage of a time of chilean weakness: after the Chilean Civil War of 1891. During the Baltimore crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_crisis), the US threatened Chile with war, and knowing of argentine desires of helping the US to do so, Chile accepted US demands. However Chile wouldn't stop trying to contain american influence in the continents just yet. During WW1, Chile pushed for the creation of the ABC pact (Argentina, Brazil and Chile), as a tool to support Mexico versus renewed american hostility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_countries).
From my point of view, the US had an unlikely ally in their campaign that helped them become the undisputed continental power at the end of the century: Argentina. This is because that country was totally contrary to the bolivarian, latin american agenda of unity. It never attended the meetings that Germán de la Reza talks about (from the 1820s to the 1860s), althought it was always invited. There were two reasons for this: one is that Argentina saw the Empire of Brazil as its main existencial threat, and that Empire was also invited to the meetings. Second is that argentine nationalism was very strong from the beginning, and its most extermist form was racist (europeanist and anti-indegenist, i.e. anti the likes of Bolivia and also Peru and Mexico) and expansionist: it desired to restore the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata under Argentine dominance. These external policies were incompatible with the latin american agenda that countries like Peru, Mexico, Colombia and Chile strongly pushed for in the meetings analyzed by de La Reza, and with the abscense of the biggest spanish speaking country from the meetings, they were certainly more likely to fail, as they finally did. This unsuspected argentinian aid to the breaking of the bolivarian-latin american unity was thanked under the rug by the US: in the arbitration for the possesion of the Puna de Atacama (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puna_de_Atacama#Litigio_de_la_Puna_de_Atacama), the US gave 80% to Argentina and 20% to Chile; a territory that was rightfully conquered by Chile from Bolivia in the War of the Pacific (if there was a just war just once in the Americas, that was it: Bolivia broke a treaty, Chile called for arbitration, Bolivia refused, Peru offered arbitration, Chile demanded peruvian neutrality and explanations of the secret treaty between Peru and Bolivia, explanations that Peru didn't give). Argentina only finally saw the futility of its friendship with the US and its anti-latin americanism in the Falklands War.
Nevertheless, it was on top of the legacy of those nowadays highly forgotten latin american meetings that the first pan american meetings were held, first hosted by the US in the 1890s as a means to project its soft power over the continents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-American_Conference)... meetings that were the preface of the Society of Nations, and ultimately the current United Nations. It's funny, however, how even today in the wikipedia articles of pan americanism it is painted with two fake characteristics: new (it wasn't, it was built on top of the previous latin american conferences and Blaine's failure at arbitrating in the War of the Pacific), and disinterested (this was pure discourse, it was the american soft power platform Blaine always hoped to build).

I recognize you can have different point of views in many of the topics I just described, but one thing is certain: the history of the ascension of the US in the XIX century cannot, by any means, be separated from the history of the Americas as a whole, and the other way around is also true. Thus, a "Latin American Total War" based on the XIX century would be and certainly feel void and lacking.

Commisar#2307 wrote:

Issue there is that means you can also add all of Europe and Russia then at which point it's just going full blown Victoria. That adds more replayability and mechanics and is if anything just as linked to the events. Can't really do war of 1812 without covering the European conflict that triggered it and the situation that set the balance for the situation but also set the level for negotiations.

I clearly stated that the game should start at some point during the 1830s, with the Texan revolution in process in North America and the War against the Confederation in South America. I mentioned the war of 1812 to point out that having that antecedent would provide different gameplay mechanics in North America than South America, as well as the whole british-american competition during the XIX century in several fields, with focus on the economic one. At no point I meant to say that the British Empire should be part of the game full force, aside from its presence in Canada (in fact, Canada is the most challenging to incorporate in my opinion, much more than the US, since it was part of the british empire, but went through some rebellions and reforms during the century). As for Russia, I imagine the purchase of Alaska as a possibility in the game, but also its conquest by force. This would be different than attacking the British by force again as in 1812, cause I'm pretty sure Russia would not have defended that territory moving assets from Europe. To me, the outcome in case Russia had refused the american purchase offers would have been similar to the what happened after the mexican refusal of the american offers to purchase the territories they later conquered in the 1840s: the US would just have prepared an expedition and then taken Alaska with even less opposition than during the Mexican War. You could think of the russian presence in Alaska working in a similar way as the spanish presence in Cuba in the game, or the french presence on french guyana, etc. Maybe the british presence in Canada could be treated in a similar way, but having the british responding an invasion with far more power. Still, nor Russia, nor Spain, France or England would have to be in the map at all for this to work. However, the US should totally be in the map...

Commisar#2307 wrote:

But that doesn't require the US to be on the map. We've had that previously. Emulating values has nothing to do with the US being on the map, there was a number that wanted to emulate the British constitutional monarchy, so that means including all of the British Empire then?

It also runs the classic issue that you remove a lot of the content that you claim it can bring. There will be less depth given to Southern and Central America as they have to split the province count over the other areas being covered, they have the split the faction units, mechanics and events over even more factions and for the majority of the game, not really going to be of much relevance. It's also going to draw focus away from Latin America as the top faction is now not Latin American

I only mentioned that some latin american politicians wanted to emulate US constitutional values during the latin american Wars of Independence to point out that even then there were others that early on the 1820s had suspicions about the american intentions for the whole Americas. My central argument for including the US is totally different: the history of Latin America during the XIX century can't be understood and separated from the nineteenth-century history of the US, and vice versa. The american ascension to the supreme power in the continents only materialized from the decade of 1890 on. Before that, it was a long and perilous journey with little to no successes: in the 1840s it only defeated a young and crumbling Mexico with yet much effort, and in the 1850s invaded with filibusters the petty republics of Central America. But the planned invasion of Paraguay in the 1850s was thwarted, since paraguayan defensive preparations of the Humaitá stronghold dissuaded the american expedition of 19 warships, 200 artillery pieces and 2500 men of making any act of hostility (that stronghold would later hold the brazilians, argentinians and uruguayans for 4 years in the Paraguayan War). Its soft power was shown to be void when the US protests for not being invited to the latin american conferences of the 1850s, and for the theme of the conferences being american aggression to Latin America, were not responded. The same happened when american intentions of mediating in the War of the Pacific failed miserably (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conferencia_de_Arica). This is not to mention that during the Civil War the Union itself was in existencial danger, and the Restoration Era was dark, at least for the american naval forces. Then again, the american efforts to control the best zone in the continents to build an interoceanic canal were ridiculized by one modern chilean warship in 1885, and the americans had to wait up to 1914 to finally see this project become real.
These are some of the milestones that show that America was not, by any means, the "top faction" in the Americas during the XIX century. It only became it from 1890 on, when they used their industrial power, heavily strenghtened after the Restoration Era, to build up their navy and surpass the ones of Chile, Argentina or Brazil. So, it is completely feasible, plausible, historically correct and gameplay-wise fun to add them as an another faction in the competition for becoming the "top faction" in the Americas by the end of the century.

On another note, your last argument is ridiculous. If you follow it, you would have to remove Rome from Rome: Total War I and II after the Second Punic War. But then again, Rome after that war was much more of a top faction in Europe and the Mediterranean than America was in the Americas during the XIX century.

Anyway, thinking about this, another idea about the possible victory conditions came to my mind: aside from taking certain number and specific provinces, hosting and successfully summoning a pan american conference in home soil could also be a victory condition. The latin american conferences between the years 1820-1865 failed to even become completely latin american, yet alone pan american. The first pan american conference was held in the US in 1889-90, just by the time when that country was near to surpassing every other one in the continents regarding military (specially naval) power. To successfully achieve this in game, a faction would have to be an important military and territorial power in the continents, having good diplomatic relations overall at the same time. In fact, during the XIX century attacking any country in the Americas was and should be in game pretty condemned by the overall Nation-States/factions. The US, with James Blaine as its Secretary of State for a second time, could successfully host and summon a pan american conference by 1890 because enough years had passed since their worst era of relationships with Latin America overall in the XIX century (the 1840s-1850s), and also because they were notoriously building up their naval power as well. Blaine tried to do something of the like during the War of the Pacific (1879-1884), but for a number of reasons failed to do so back then (mainly due to chilean opposition and the killing of president Garfield and the subsequent resignation of Blaine to the position of Secretary of State). 

I remembered something interesting about Garfield's assasination during the War of the Pacific: it was perpetrated by the lunatic lawyer Charles Guiteau, who had been pestering Garfield since its presidential campaign. First he demanded a position in the government, since he considered he had helped Garfield a lot to become president. Then, when rejected, he began having delusions about Garfield and Blaine's plans for war: first, he wrote about their plans for a new civil war (showing how the topic was still prevalent in the 1880s). But then, he changed his discourse, and began accusing them for having plans to wage war against Chile and Peru, and then only against Chile (when it became obvious it was the victor of the war). His accusations revolved around the idea that waging war against Chile was putting the US in danger. In some of his final words written before his execution, it reads as follows:

"Today, before [struck: I] my God
I stand,

A patriot and a Christian man;

Condemned, by men to die;

For Obeying,

God’s Command.

“Ye murdered Garfield,

And ye must die”.

‘Twas God’s will, 

Not mine,

That he should die.

Thirty eight cases,

In the Bible

Can be found,

Where the Almighty

Has directed 

[struck: The] The Removal Of

Rulers, who were going wrong.

I executed,

The Divine Command

And Garfield did remove,

To save my party,

And my country

From the bitter fate of War. – 

(A war with Chile and [struck: Perrue] Peru;

If nothing worse,

Concocted by the scheming brain of Blaine.

For this;

Say fools and devils,

“On the gallows, ye must die!"
[...]
Garfield, dead, 

Is worth more than

[struck: Than] Garfield living;

Because, Garfield, under 

Blaine’s vindictive spirit,

Proved a traitor,

To the men that made him,

And imperilled the Republic
[...]

My inspiration made

General Arthur President.

[...]

Arthur, and his officials, Know,

I saved our party and our land.

[...]

Some think me a devil.

Some a lunatic.

Some an inspired patriot.

The last is right;

And I stick to it!

I Command,

All men, every where,

To believe it,

Under penalty,

Of God’s wrath. 

Charles Guiteau 

United States Jail

Washington D.C

[struck: M] June 1, 1882.

Commisar#2307 wrote: 

"Sorry you keep bringing up the war of 1812 for some reason in it. It doesn't show anything for the difference in this game as it's effectively a different time period and context and if you miss out all of the British empire not really much competition over what they do".

I’ll say it again: I mentioned the 1812 war as antecedent to the game period (1835-1900-14?), much like the Hispanic American Wars of Independence. I don’t intend any of the two to be part of the game period, at least for the vanilla. They could be mentioned when you begin the campaign once you select your faction, like in Shogun 2TW. That’s all.

Commisar#2307 wrote:

No I did, as you want all of the US and North America for it for only a couple of conflicts on the edge of the map. If that's reason to add Russia and Britain then why not add all of them? It makes sense with the time period and the competition between these three powers over the course of this time period. 

With every new post of yours it becomes harder to follow your line of thought, since the quality of your writing decreases with every post. Did I get this right? Are you saying that the Mexican-American War was a mere conflict on the edge of the map? That the Alaska purchase (that could've been by force had Russia refused) wasn't a big deal? That the American Civil War and its effects on the US-Latin American relationships (end of slavery, failure to enforce the Monroe Doctrine when France invaded Mexico) weren't important? That it wouldn't be fun to play the American Civil War in a broader Americas context, with the threat of a too far US weakening because of it affecting the security of the Union vs other big Latin American powers? Yes, Russia and Britain competed in Central Asia during this period, but that is not in the Americas. However, the US and Britain did compete in the Americas in this period, but the British Empire surpassed the Americas by far, unlike the US.

Commisar#2307 wrote: 

"The focus will be nearly all based in North America as that's where the biggest and most popular events are going on in this time period".

Yes the American Civil War is one of the most known conflicts in the Americas, but itsn't it the point of Historic TW games to teach some history too? I mean, did all players of Rome 1 and 2 TW know about the Kingdom of Pontus, or how powerful was the Seleucid Empire at its peak, before playing the game? That's not to mention the Japanese clans of the Sengoku Jidai period when Shogun 1 TW first appeared. Nevertheless, people still played as the Kingdom of Pontus or as the Mori clan even if they didn't know them at all from the beginning, or tried to challenge Rome as the Seleucids even when they had barely heard anything at all from them before playing Rome TW games.

Commisar#2307 wrote: 

You've repeatedly shown they didn't have much of a direct role in South and Central America which is my point. 

I've given you numerous examples of the contrary, and believe me, I can give you many more.

Commisar#2307 wrote: 

They are split apart and have so few threats it wouldn't be a problem for them to just roll across and become the super power, especially with all their main threats not existing on the game map.

I suspect you're still talking about the US, but I'm not sure. In case you are, yeah different factions have different levels of difficulty in the TW campaigns, and the US would clearly be in the easier side of things on the Americas continent, but it wouldn't be alone in that side and it wouldn't be always the same if the game has 3 periods where to begin the campaign as I suggested (1837, 1862, 1879). The hardest period would be the second one I suppose, since, as you said, the American Civil War was the biggest conflict in the Americas during the XIX century, and it's also true that it put the Union in existencial danger. The third period wouldn't be a walk in the park neither. The years of the "Reconstruction Era" were grim for the american military, specially for its naval forces, so much so that during and after the War of the Pacific and the worsened chilean-american relationship that emerged from that conflict created a "chilean war scare" in the Union (specially in the Pacific Coast). In 1882, senator Blount said: "the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs says: It is manifest that in a conflict with this small nation the United States would be helpless to resist the first attack, the most important thing to do in a war always, and Chili could levy tribute on the city of San Francisco, or seal up the Golden Gate as with an iron wall". You can read his words in the right side of the page below:

Then, during the Baltimore crisis (1891), the US ambassador to Chile, Patrick Egan, was depicted as putting the US in danger during the crisis by the american press, as Egan effectively sought to provoke the United States into a war against Chile.

The general Chilean attitude was probably best expressed by Eduardo Phillips, chief of the Diplomatic Section of the Ministry of Foreign Relations, who, in a letter to a newspaper, described Egan as a person "utterly lacking in all elements of culture and courtesy, and ever-ready to descend to the level of invective and calumny".

I bring all this up just to show you that the US rolling across and becoming the super power in the Americas before the mid 1890s is historically unthinkable in fact. This doesn't mean that some american politicians and figures didn't dream of it though; remember the thwarted invasion of Paraguay in the 1850s, the filibusters campaigns in Central America during the same decade and the plans of adding Peru to the Union as a means to stop the growing power of Chile during the 1880s. It is also false that the main threats of the US were not in the Americas during the XIX century: its biggest threat was the Civil War, the state of its military during the Reconstruction Era, and the joint latin american talks of preparation for american hostility during the 1850s, after the Mexican War and during the actions of the filibusters.

To sum up, it would certainly be fun and historically accurate to play the American Civil War in a broader Americas context, with the threat of a too far US weakening because of it affecting the security of the Union vs other Latin American powers. That is, from an american POV.

Lastly, I suggest you to buy this: https://www.amazon.com/Chile-United-States-Conflict-Americas/dp/0820312509

dge1#5566 wrote:

Take it easy folks. It's a discussion, not an arm wrestling contest.

Yes, it's a discussion. I'm trying to keep it serious citing the sources of my most important arguments; it's what I've been taught to do as an historian. I don't think that by doing that I stop myself from taking it easy. Alas, my counterpart is also making the discussion easy for me, much easier than the american challenges on the Americas during the XIX century, in spite of what my counterpart wants to believe.

Vichikuma#6480 wrote:

I bring all this up just to show you that the US rolling across and becoming the super power in the Americas before the mid 1890s is historically unthinkable in fact. This doesn't mean that some american politicians and figures didn't dream of it though; remember the thwarted invasion of Paraguay in the 1850s, the filibusters campaigns in Central America during the same decade and the plans of adding Peru to the Union as a means to stop the growing power of Chile during the 1880s. It is also false that the main threats of the US were not in the Americas during the XIX century: its biggest threat was the Civil War, the state of its military during the Reconstruction Era, and the joint latin american talks of preparation for american hostility during the 1850s, after the Mexican War and during the actions of the filibusters.

To sum up, it would certainly be fun and historically accurate to play the American Civil War in a broader Americas context, with the threat of a too far US weakening because of it affecting the security of the Union vs other Latin American powers. That is, from an american POV.

I'd like to clarify something. My counterpart seems to be trying to put forward the idea that the game as I picture it wouldn't be challenging when playing as the US, since they could "roll across and become the super power" with ease. That's what I'm trying to historically debunk here: various american politicians and figures did want to do it, but failed. From the Mexican War on (when some of them thought of annexing Mexico completely), many proposed in various opportunities to expand the Union southwards, into Central and South America. About that, James Buchanan, Secretary of State of president Polk and president of the US himself, confessed in 1857 to a brazilian diplomat the following: "our country seeks the domination and extinction of the latin race". 
But as I've said, every time they tried in fact something in that direction, they failed (aside from the filibusters attacks that initially succeeded, thought they were finally repelled and the annexation of Nicaragua to the Union was foiled): the thwarted invasion of Paraguay and the foiled intentions of controling the Galpagos islands in the 1850s (I hadn't mentioned this last one), and the frustrated plans of adding Peru to the Union in the 1880s are some examples. 

Even more so, the US even felt threatened at some point, first by the anti-american latin american conferences of the 1850s (in May, 1857, the US ambassador to Peru, John Randolph Clay, demanded explanations to the peruvian chancellor about the objectives and motives of the treaties signed by latin american countries during that decade, after the filibusters aggressions and the american plans of controlling the Galapagos islands), and then by the growing power of Chile (specially its Navy) in the Pacific, from 1880 to 1891, when some politicians and the high officers of the american Navy were fearful of the relative weakness of the US Navy compared to Chile's.

So yeah, to sum up, it would be historically correct to try to conquer all of the Americas playing as the US. In reality, they failed numerous times when beginning to try to do so. Could TW players succeed in this enterprise when playing the game I suggest to create? Or will they, at least, expand conservatively enough to exert enough influence in the Americas up until succesfully summoning and hosting the first pan american conference in home soil, and thus elevate themselves as the undisputable continents' leaders?

Commisar#2307 wrote:

And yes, the Mexican war is on the Northern edge of the focus of this title. 

The Americas spawn from 87º N to 57º S, and 178º W to 34º W. This makes their geographical center around 15ºN and 72º W (somewhere between Puerto Príncipe in Haiti and Maracaibo in Venezuela). The center of the lost territories by Mexico in the Mexican-American war is around 35º N and 106º W, near the quadruple border between Utah, Colorado, Nuevo Mexico and Arizona. This puts it 20ºN and 34ºW away from the geographical center of the Americas. For continents that spawn 144º N-S as well as E-W, 20º and 34º degrees are 14% and 24%, respectively. I wouldn't dare to say that a 14% or even 24% deviation from the center of the Americas is "an edge of the map". The war was pretty much close to the geographical center of the Americas.
That is not to say that for a mexican player an "Americas: Total War" that wouldn't let them reenact the most important military conflict of that country, with all possibilities open and not just purely historical ones, wouldn't be atractive at all.

Commisar#2307 wrote:
The Monroe doctrine and failure to maintain it does nothing in game if you don't have Europe on the map.

Do I really have to remind you that the Monroe doctrine has nothing to do with the european continent, but with the Americas? It never, at any moment, ever pictured a retaliation attack to Europe. It only dwelved around the defense of the Americas.

Commisar#2307 wrote:

The US civil war is a big part of the focus shift that North America makes, that will be a bigger draw for the title than all of South America.

I don't remember proposing a "South America: TW" game, or a "Latin America: TW" one. The game I propose would obviously have a big focus on North America. That doesnt' mean that it would make the game too easy for the american faction to the point of make it boring, unplayable or unatractive to play as the US. My whole point is the absolute contrary in this discusion, and I've demonstrated it one time after the other, whereas you haven't given a single piece of evidence to the contrary. The level of detail of Latin America is secondary to me; more important is historical accuracy. Making an historical TW title of the Americas' XIX century leaving the US out would be completely void from an historical perspective.

Commisar#2307 wrote:
Biggest call I've seen for South America is for a pre-Columbian game setting. 

We have that already, in TW titles and other historical videogames. What doesn't exist is an historical videogame focusing on the origins of the geopolitical situation of the Americas today. 

Commisar#2307 wrote:
No so far you've shown they tried diplomacy to strong arm, which just got rejected. Only two wars with Mexico where they directly got involved, but then so did France and yet you are against adding France to the map.

No doubt France had a big impact in the Americas' history during the XIX century. But their homeland is in Europe, not the Americas.

Commisar#2307 wrote:
Yeah it is still talking about the US as that's the issue i have with this suggestion. It's not about the difficulty but you claiming they have rivals in game which they really don't. That it's a question of if they become a super power but they have nothing to really challenge them unless railroaded which is my issue. 

If the game has the 3 phases I suggested from which the player has to choose when to begin the campaign, the 2nd phase would have the player struggling to overcome the already ongoing Civil War, without coming out of it too weak, with the antecedent of bad relationships with basically all other factions of the Americas due to the clashes in the 1850s. In the third phase, the american faction would face the challenging transition from the Reconstruction Era to the Gilded Age, with a Navy that had been left behind by other factions of the Americas in a time when navies decided wars. So yeah, from a military viewpoint there would certainly be challenges, aside from bringing the Mexican-American War to a good end for the US in the first phase of the game, if the player begins from there. Also, if to win the player must successfully summon and host the first pan american conference, aside from conquering certain number of provinces, including specific ones, the challenges for the player that chooses the US mount up.

Commisar#2307 wrote:
And again it wont as the situation historically isn't something the game covers, we can see that in other titles. Despite historically the Western Roman Empire having a manpower issue we never face that, my limit is only the cash I can generate. So end result even in a later date can easily be turned in to build army/fleet and conquer nearby regions to increase wealth. With Chilli and the US being on opposite ends it also makes it non-viable unless they strip mechanics that are applicable to the period such as supplies.

This is something the videogame designers have to figure out. The "solve the economy, then crush everyone" issue is present in all TW games. However, in this particular game I'm proposing, maybe it would be easier to solve: to win you'd have to summon and host the first pan american conference if you don't conquer all provinces, and since latin american factions have a strong bond that comes from the agenda of Bolivar for the continents, beginning a war against one, no matter if you are the US or a latin american faction, should bring you far more dimplomatic condemnnation than in other TW titles, making it harder to comply with the pan american requirement to win the campaign.

You also mentioned supplies: this would be a good title to tackle that mechanic in TW too, since the Americas is the second largest continent on Earth. As a matter of fact, the one thing that pushed Chile to accept the american demands in the Baltimore crisis was the argentine offer to the US of safe and supplied passage through argentine territory from where to invade Chile. Maybe in this title having a treaty like that could lower the atrition of a long range expeditionary force? 

Commisar#2307 wrote:

I know what you are saying, but I'm pointing out the issues for the game. The historical issues that happened aren't ones we face in game. We don't have political issues like that did, we have rather easy to avoid civil war mechanics and we don't have much in the way to stop us going to war other than thinking if we can win it or not. How many times in Empire do you see revolutionary France? I've only had it happen to me once as France and that was because I wanted it to happen. Historically the Romans had issues subjugating many of the tribes on their borders but we have no issue, we can send a stack, conquer their capital and it's resolved.

This is the issue, in TW what's to stop the US just building a stack and attacking their neighbours? Canada lacks the rest of the British Empire to call on. Same for Russian Alaska. The native tribes? Didn't hold up to well vs organised armies. Mexico has multiple issues themselves and their main borders are quite a distance between each other. 

The diplomatic plays that happened, again runs the issue of TW mechanics. Even in 3K with the best diplomacy in any title I've been able to force both other Empires to renounce claims to the seat and thus win and put them under my empire. Factions can easily give in where historically they wouldn't.

Maybe it's my fault not saying it from the beginning. Yes, the game should force the Creative Assembly to innovate. This time and place I'm proposing would be very hard to transform into a successful TW game without gameplay innovations from the CA. But isn't it what everyone is asking for, much more than any new or renewed game theme?

Commisar#2307 wrote:

if happy to have a French invasion force spawn to attack Mexico, then the exact same can be done to cover the US-Mexico war.

Vichikuma#6480 wrote:

That is not to say that for a mexican player an "Americas: Total War" that wouldn't let them reenact the most important military conflict of that country, with all possibilities open and not just purely historical ones, wouldn't be atractive at all.

Regarding this, until now we've just discussed my proposal. I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on yours. Where exactly would you cut out the US from the rest of the Americas? You've mentioned before that the Mexican-American War could be reenacted without having the US in the map. How exactly would that work? Would you include Mexico with its nowadays borders? That would be ridiculous; there would be no point in fighting the war, since it would already've been lost. Would you include the disputed territories, but not the rest of the US? That would be some hardcore Frankenstein shit. America: "Ok, we lost the war to the mexicans, now we turn to the Atlantic and continue our business with the rest of the world...". You wouldn't include Mexico then? It would be hard to include Central America too in that case, since Mexico had a lot to say about it in the XIX century. BTW, Mexico in population is 20% of Latin America nowadays (this comment is regarding commercial projections of the game). 

The French invasion can work perfectly with a spawned invasion force, since it was historically defeated in the long run. The absolute contrary is true in the case of the american invasion of Mexico. This last two are also neighbouring countries, but not France. Spawned invasion forces in TW games have usually been used to include invading armies coming from far away lands.

From my point of view, is far more complex to leave the US out than in. The biggest complexity of the title in my opinion is yet again, Canada. Its massive, and part of the british empire by then. My best idea would be to shrink its territory size a bit (so to give the rest of the Americas "more detail"). Canadians would have to cope with it, since their Nation-State it's not a XIX century one; it's XX century born.

Today I found the wikipedia article in english about the 1858 ridiculous american expedition to Paraguay, under the orders of the even more ridiculous president Buchanan. It has lots of juicy details to it, and they come to support my idea of including the US in the proposed title I believe ("At the time it was the largest naval squadron ever sent from the United States, and it caused a great impression in the Platine basin"):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguay_expedition

Current events have made me come back to this thread. The Venezuela-Guyana conflict over the Essequibo disputed region has its roots in the period and place I'm proposing this Total War title to be located. That said, I can't refrain myself from sharing with the readers the info I've found about this matter. 

First of all, I've gotta say that I've been truly surprised by the level of misinformation that prevails in the English-speaking media and social networks, especially regarding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, that of Palestine and lately this one. Regarding it, everyone has to understand the following to begin with: currently, as far as international law is concerned, the Essequibo region is a disputed territory pending adjudication. IT IS NOT FROM GUYANA. The 1966 Geneva Agreement establishes this.
Secondly, the current crisis has not been caused by Venezuela or Maduro, but by the violation of the 1966 Geneva Agreement by Guyana, by granting rights to exploit the oil found in 2015 in the disputed territorial sea to ExxonMobile, when in the preamble of that Agreement establishes that any controversy on the matter must be resolved in a manner acceptable to both parties, and Venezuela opposes Exxon's actions in the area. Still, Guyana proceeded to give extracting permits to Exxon anyway. That preamble, by the way, is the reason why, before the arrival of Exxon, the riches and the Essequibo region in general had remained without much activity, since both parties have not agreed on what to do there and, therefore, in compliance with the Agreement, not much, or anything, was done. In some Youtube videos in English, however, lately it is being said that the lack of development in the area responds to a defensive strategy by Guyana, so that if Venezuela invades it will have to cross a wild jungle. A complete and utter lie.
Third, the posthumous letter of the American lawyer Severo Mallet-Prevost, who participated in the 1899 Paris Award, published in 1944, describes what that process was like from the inside. The corrupt, curiously, were not the Americans (neither the 2 judges nor the 5 lawyers from that country), but the 2 British judges and 5 lawyers, and above all, the Russian president of the court, who was a professor at the universities of Cambridge and Edimburgh. But even before that, it should be kept in mind that at first the United Kingdom did not want to go to arbitration, and the United States forced them by invoking the Monroe Doctrine. The British accepted but under the condition that Venezuela would not represent itself, because the UK would not deal with Venezuelans directly, as it considered them "inferior." This fact makes the Paris Award not only a fraudulent document but also evidence of the deep Anglo racism of the time. Going to the fraud within the Award, first to note is that the court had 3 months to resolve and did so in only 6 days. Mallet-Prevost details what the hell happened: the Russian president of the court was on the British side. He considered that the Russian and British Empires had the mission of civilizing the world, full of "barbarians", amongst them, the Venezuelans. This is the time of the "Great Game" between both empires, in which Central Asia was disputed. Furthermore, the British told the Americans that the Russian judge wanted this Award to be the first in history to be decided unanimously, in order to gain personal prestige. The British proposal for this unanimity was then to give the entire Essequibo region to the United Kingdom. If the American judges were to be against it, then the British and the Russian would even vote in favor of giving the UK the mouth of the Orinoco, winning 3 to 2 in court. The Americans had no alternative but to accept the first alternative, which caused Venezuela to lose less territory. Thanks to Mallet-Prevost's posthumous letter, published in 1944, the Geneva Agreement of 1966 took place, in which the United Kingdom recognized the nullity of the Paris Award. The Agreement implicitly annuls it, recognizing its corrupt nature. The document then outlines the steps to resolve the issue that it recognizes as open and disputed. However, since then Guyana has been the main responsible for the failure of those steps to bear fruit, because in reality what it seeks is to once again have the Paris Award recognized.
Finally, as I said above, the current crisis has been generated by Guyana, by violating the preamble of the Agreement. But it did so because Guyana in recent years has been completely bought by ExxonMobile, from politicians to cricket teams and environmentalists. This can be seen in Jake Tran's video “How Exxon stole a third world country (Documentary)” on YouTube. For Exxon, which has a CEO (Darren Woods) who makes $20 billion a year, buying all of Guyana was a bargain.