Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Does the map error having fort henry in kentucky instead of in tennessee effect kentucky going to the union? In other words CSA has troops in kentucky but should not.

Any impact that garrison might have on Kentucky is not statistically significant. And since it would be foolish to withdraw a garrison from a key province, this is not something to be concerned about.

Just curious but will this be fixed in a future patch?

Tanaka, what are you referring to? The location of Fort Henry, or the minor impact its garrison might have on Kentucky's decision?

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Tanaka, what are you referring to? The location of Fort Henry, or the minor impact its garrison might have on Kentucky's decision?

The map location...of course if this changes the minor impact would go away as well...

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Tanaka, what are you referring to? The location of Fort Henry, or the minor impact its garrison might have on Kentucky's decision?

The map location...

I'd like to see Kentucky split up with Lexington and southern Kentucky going to the confederates. This gives the South a chance to recruit troops from Kentucky as they historically did. In most games Kentucky joins the North and the South gets none of the 25,000 men that fought on their side.

I'd like to see Kentucky split up with Lexington and southern Kentucky going to the confederates. This gives the South a chance to recruit troops from Kentucky as they historically did. In most games Kentucky joins the North and the South gets none of the 25,000 men that fought on their side.

 
This would be neat. Chris

I liked the way Kentucky was handled in Frank Hunter's ACW game.

1. Kentucky starts with no forces of either side present. As soon as one side sends in troops, it takes offence and aligns itself with the other side. No random element. This is what happened in reality, as I understand it.

2. Both sides can recruit troops from Kentucky regardless of who 'owns' the state. This also happened in reality.

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

I liked the way Kentucky was handled in Frank Hunter's ACW game.

1. Kentucky starts with no forces of either side present. As soon as one side sends in troops, it takes offence and aligns itself with the other side. No random element. This is what happened in reality, as I understand it.

2. Both sides can recruit troops from Kentucky regardless of who 'owns' the state. This also happened in reality.

There's no way to recruit troops in this game without a city.

Yes, FoF has copied the Civilization Way: all things come from cities, and better things come from buildings in cities.

I think it was a rather unfortunate design decision to use this approach, but it's too fundamental to be changed in a patch, so the game will have to go on living with it.

As you say, it means that either side would have to own at least a city in Kentucky in order to recruit there. That's a distortion of reality, but not too bad a distortion.

Maybe every province should have a town, a center where building and recruiting would take place, as there usually was a main settlement or point of socio-economic and geographic importance in most counties and areas of several counties, no matter how small those points or centers may seem today.
 
Chris
 

I liked the way Kentucky was handled in Frank Hunter's ACW game.

1. Kentucky starts with no forces of either side present. As soon as one side sends in troops, it takes offence and aligns itself with the other side. No random element. This is what happened in reality, as I understand it.

2. Both sides can recruit troops from Kentucky regardless of who 'owns' the state. This also happened in reality.

There were simply more Unionits than secessionists in Kentucky and Missouri than there were Secessionists. Lincoln was originally from Kentucky. East Tennesse and other fairly large areas of the South were pro-Union, as evidenced by West Virginia seceding from Virginia. The same in most civil wars, and the English Civil Wars are a good example of divided loyalties within local regions and even within counties themselves.

Both sides did recruit in the Border States and certain areas of the South, and the majority of the people in these areas were pro-Union and supplied many more troops and gave much more support to the Union than the Confederacy. Therefore, IMHO, I believe that the majority of people in these States and regions knew that they would inevitably side with the Union if civil war did break out, and that is what happened.

Chris

well put chris agree

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

I liked the way Kentucky was handled in Frank Hunter's ACW game.

1. Kentucky starts with no forces of either side present. As soon as one side sends in troops, it takes offence and aligns itself with the other side. No random element. This is what happened in reality, as I understand it.

2. Both sides can recruit troops from Kentucky regardless of who 'owns' the state. This also happened in reality.

One way to handle this might be: When Kentucky goes to one side, the other gets a free brigade(s) either in a non-city province of Kentucky or in northern Tenn.