Governors and their Influence

[RB]

I feel the governors should have more influence in the simulation, i.e., the player should have an option of allowing governors to be in charge of whatever is manufactured in each state such as really occurred. This would pose an immediate problem if a governor did not support the cause and would make the game more interesting and historical. Some would put together the Navy, some artillery, cavalry etc. Some would manufacture iron, goods, horses, of course at the demand of the player. Historically, democratic governors in the North tended to drag their heels (as did democratic generals -- McClellan!!). This would be similar to Crown of Glory in which experts can do everything from participation in diplomacy to strategy. In addition, a good governor could produce troops and structures quickly whereas the uncooperative types would not. What do you all think?

[christof139]

The Govenors controlled only State manufactured items, which was a lot, but not CSA Government items manufactured in their States.  I think the Govenors are too much of a pain-in-the-neck as they are now in the game. I have had too many instances of completeing a Manufacturing center for a Govenor and then he immediately asks for another one. Plus, when you do complete a Govenor's request, maybe you should get a couple/few more %tage points as compensation compared to the little amount you get now. Sometimes I just turn the Guv-idiots off period and don't use them in a game as there are other more enjoyable things to do in the game. They do add flavor but sometimes I just don't like to deal with their nonsense.
 
Chris
 

[RB]

I agree with you. I don't like the way the governors operate presently. Again, if they had the ability, as in Crown of Glory's experts, to run things, the play might be more interesting.

[christof139]

I agree with you. I don't like the way the governors operate presently. Again, if they had the ability, as in Crown of Glory's experts, to run things, the play might be more interesting.

I don't have COG but I heard there is or was a new super patch for it. Have to look at the forum and the on-line store. That sounds OK what you suggest. Also, the central CSA Government should still be allowed to build structures.

Chris

[Drex]

I wouldn't want any additional Governor interference. Now we have to placate their requests or risk a change in attitude which reflects their support of diplomacy or production. If we demote a general that can produce a negative attitude also. I think they already influence the production of goods and services as you suggest all due to their attitude state. How far do you want to go?

[christof139]

Maybe RB means have State economies seperate from CSA Central Government economies??

Chris

[RB]

No chrisof, not in the south. In the north it would be more realistic. If I had designed the game, that's how I would have done it. Then the governor worry would be perhaps more of a problem if the governor was uncooperative but it wasn't designed that way. I can't figure out why not because they could have borrowed from COG. Chrisof, you might be wrong to an extent. I think southern governors had more to do with production than you think. Jefferson Davis was very influential but his governors had some say.

[christof139]

No chrisof, not in the south. In the north it would be more realistic. If I had designed the game, that's how I would have done it. Then the governor worry would be perhaps more of a problem if the governor was uncooperative but it wasn't designed that way. I can't figure out why not because they could have borrowed from COG. Chrisof, you might be wrong to an extent. I think southern governors had more to do with production than you think. Jefferson Davis was very influential but his governors had some say.

The southern Guvs. were strong and Guv. Vance of NC was very strong and organized hie state very well. However, the CSA central govnt. grew stronger as the war progressed and had the final say in many matters, as long as the CSA Congress ratified those laws that the CSA central government was using, which of course shows the individual states did have power, but the CSA central government did have a good degree of power and certain war powers were enacted by Pres. davis and the central govnt. regardless of what individual states desired or didn't desire. The thing is this, the individual states had enough power and resources to operate state war and civilian support industries and of course private industry operated thoughout the war, and this is true in both the USA and CSA and almost everywhere else.

To show you examples of the power the CSA central governmnet had just look at how fairly successful and rigidly enforced the conscription laws were, and how the the central government arms and munitions etc. factories were set-up and run with a fair amount of success. The CSA central govn't. also successfully enforced a cotton and other goods export taxes.

There was resistance to conscription in both the CSA and USA, and open rebellion against conscription in both nations, but perhaps the best known examples of this are the Detroit and NYC Draft Riots, however, this resistance was not encouraged nor supported by state governments.

So, compared to a dictatorship, neither the USA nor CSA would compare in certain powers that their central governments had, but those two central had a tremendous amount of power none the less. The individual states had more power and independence than their counterparts in Europe perhaps, but they still supported their central governments.

Govenors were never uncooperative to the point of open rebellion but they did sometimes meddle with the raw and finished material supply etc. and sometimes ths did indeed hurt the central govnt. However, despite this, there is not one example of an individual state rebelling against the central govnt. in either the CSA or USA.

Overall, the CSA Govenors did seem to have a little more power and some were very independtly minded compared to most USA Govenors, but these aspects varied from Govenor to Govenor. So seperate state industries would be more appropriate for the CSA than the USA.

Chris

[RB]

Christof, I agree with most of that. You know it amazes me that the south could last in the civil war for so long. The northern states suffered badly but in the south they had to suffer similarly but it was compounded due to their lack of manpower and economic breakdown due to the the Anaconda plan. The southern soldier was an amazing soldier.

[Odium420]

The southern soldier was an amazing soldier.

Ain't that the truth!

[ericbabe]

We considered letting governors buy things for their states.  A lot of people found the CoG experts confusing -- they would spend players' resources for them, then players would be confused "where'd my iron go????" and upset "i was saving that iron!!!"

One thing we considered was just letting governors get a bonus production every so often, probably depending on the size of their state's overall economy.  They could start production on a military unit or building without having to spend any of the national resources.  I wouldn't want this to be the major source of economic activity, since players, I think, want to have control over their economy and unit production.  Maybe giving governors automated muster-control would work.

I know some players don't like having the economic development model in the game.  I really wanted to simulate things like the growth of Chicago and the industrialization of Selma -- I suppose we could have handled this automatically, just make Chicago and Selma (and other areas) grow according to a schedule -- but I think it's interesting to have control over this in the game, and most people seem to like it well enough.

[Paper Tiger]

Would be interesting to have an option to have all the economic and recruitment options handled by the computer and just to be in the position of CinC the army.

[dude]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

...
One thing we considered was just letting governors get a bonus production every so often, probably depending on the size of their state's overall economy.  They could start production on a military unit or building without having to spend any of the national resources.  I wouldn't want this to be the major source of economic activity, since players, I think, want to have control over their economy and unit production.  Maybe giving governors automated muster-control would work.

...

Question...
Wasn't mustering really a state issue anyways? I recall from Grant's Memoirs his early attempts to get a command by helping with his state's mustering and training of the newly formed units. I could see as an option letting the state's handle mustering automatically. I'm not sure the central government knew what they were getting all the time, I don't believe this was all coordinated (espcially early in the war?).

Allow the central government (the player) to handle purchased units and conscription, and let the state's handle mustering.

Another question... what was the reasoning behind the negative effects of mustering in the game? I don't recall (and I could be wrong) anything bad from mustering early in the war... conscription yes... but not mustering.

Dude

[Erik Rutins]

I believe the idea was that because the states are actually doing it and it consumes some state resources (after all, all you have to do is click Muster and a unit appears, much cheaper than building it where all the expense is yours), it therefore constitutes a "favor" from the governor that lowers his attitude to you a bit. Since we also don't subtract for losing/destroying those units you kind of get the hit all at once up front. By doing things in return for the governor, you bring it back up. This is also something that's really easy to mod, it's just a text field in the acwconstants file, so if you want it to be 0 or -2 rather than -5, feel free.

Regards,

- Erik

[dude]

Ah... didn't know that it could be mod'd... thanks I may lower it for a game or two and see how it plays out.

[RB]

Hey dude, you read Grant's Memoirs? Great. He can really write well. You know, to the point, concise sentences, an awesome read.

[dude]

ORIGINAL: RB

Hey dude, you read Grant's Memoirs? Great. He can really write well. You know, to the point, concise sentences, an awesome read.

Grant's Memoirs is perhaps the best autobiography/biography I've ever read. For the most part it doesn't read like one. I will find myself reading it like any other good book... just dieing to find out what happens next... even though I already know... He was an extremely good writer. And by and large he was fairly accurate by all accounts. He left a few things out or didn't touch on them much but otherwise pretty much told it as he saw it. His many anecdotes are great for those alone the book is worth it. If you ever want to see how influence effected things or (as I've posted elsewhere) how important rank was you should read some of his book. It gives some good insight (at least on how things worked on the Union side). I always enjoy re-reading it. Can't say the same for most other auto/biography's or even most other Civil War books for that matter most other books of the era were written to cover someone's butt... perpetuate a myth... or boost someone’s popularity.

It's only too bad Lee never wrote something like Grant's Memoir.

Dude

[RB]

Have you read Sherman's memoirs. I was thinking of getting that also. Yes. Grant is an extraordinary writer and an extraoridinary man. He is not afraid to tell it like it is. PARTICULARLY the Mexican American war. Remember how ripped up the U.S. administration for that war. He stated in no uncertain terms that it was unjust and we had no business being at war in Mexico. I also like his candidness in terms of some of the strategies used against Mexico. He describes some of the attacks as very questionable (on the U.S. side) and that he would have gone about it differently. Yes, he is a great man. I had the good fortune of meeting his great grandson at Gettysburg a couple years back. (Interesting, his descendant is a Confederate reinactor, ha ha.) We took him out for his birthday and bought him a steak. It was a unique experience. Anyway, Grant it tuns out had a fondness for mathematics. And I believe that is why he excelled in the Civil War. He knew exactly the correct combinations to use in attacking situations. I don't believe any other Civil War commander used math in planning attacks. He talks about that a bit in his memoirs. And I really like his outspokeness. It's real shame what happened to him as president though.

[dude]

I've read Sherman's memoirs also... not too bad either. It was interesting to get his insights on events. He's not as good a writer as Grant but I still found the book a good read for his take. The History Channel just ran Sherman's March this last weekend and it seemed to match pretty well with what Sherman had wrote. Sherman though did have a tendency to be less forth coming I think in his book than Grant. He reads somewhat like someone trying to justify what he did instead of like Grant's book which I felt presented a better picture of events. But like I said it's worth the read and I did enjoy it. Grant's and Sherman's memoirs are actually the only two Civil War general's memoirs I've ever purchased... the rest I borrowed to read and didn't feel they were worth the purchase. I still pull Grant's out from time to time to re-read parts just for the enjoyment of it. Other than that I haven't done any serious CW era reading in years. Had some other wars to catch up on. [:)] (grew up with Bull Run out my back door so I started early on the CW. Could walk to the battlefield.)

Yeah... Grant as president was not a pretty picture... it's too bad really... I think in most cases he was well intentioned but put his trust in the wrong people and got burned by them. In most cases (not all) it was more a failure of the people around him than his direct actions... but he should have been a better judge of the people he appointed and ultilmatly the buck stopped as his desk. But I don't consider him one of our worst presidents... other's have that distinction.

Dude

[RB]

Have you ever read "Glory Road" by Bruce Catton? It is probably the best civil war book ever written from the northern perspective of the 1862-1863 campaign years. Catton was a newspaper editor and he basically wrote this book from newspaper headlines/stories taken from those years I believe. If you read it, you will be amazed to realize how close the union came to ending the war. Glory road in essence is the road to Gettysburg and its significance. A loss meant the end of the war. Quite a significant battle.