After 6 complete games...

[Viking67]

I have now played 6 complete games as the Union, July '61 scenario, advanced rules.

The game is great!

There are a few oddities in the July '61 scenario, all previously noted and because this scenario was not tested for play balance.

I have a good feel for detailed combat now. The AI is not bad and will surprise you.

Most unique game... a few turns in Kentucky went to the CSA, a few turns later the CSA emancipated and England and France joined the war.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Viking67
Most unique game... a few turns in Kentucky went to the CSA, a few turns later the CSA emancipated and England and France joined the war.

I don't think this sort of thing should be possible in the standard game... only if you select the Total Fantasy option...

Lincoln was seriously worried that Kentucky might go to the CSA, so I think it's fair that it can happen in the game; I don't really object to that.

But the CSA freeing the slaves? In the first year of the war? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

And Britain and France joining the war? What for? What did they stand to gain in return for such an expensive and risky commitment? OK, it could conceivably have happened in some circumstances, but only for some particular reason, not just "Oh, they're having a war, what fun, let's join in."

[Titanwarrior89]

It would be nice if we had a the option for a historical campaign.[:(]

[Roger Neilson II]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: Viking67
Most unique game... a few turns in Kentucky went to the CSA, a few turns later the CSA emancipated and England and France joined the war.

I don't think this sort of thing should be possible in the standard game... only if you select the Total Fantasy option...

Lincoln was seriously worried that Kentucky might go to the CSA, so I think it's fair that it can happen in the game; I don't really object to that.

But the CSA freeing the slaves? In the first year of the war? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

And Britain and France joining the war? What for? What did they stand to gain in return for such an expensive and risky commitment? OK, it could conceivably have happened in some circumstances, but only for some particular reason, not just "Oh, they're having a war, what fun, let's join in."

The nearest thing you could expect from UK or France would be a sort of reverse 'lease-lend' to the south. A kind of armed neutrality in which the southern trade was protected by the Europeans (in their own interest of course). The game sort of gives you that with the imports of war materiel to the south and the technological developments - but it also gives actual military intervention - which is just plain daft to me. Remember that its only a few years after the disastrous Crimean War. Britain is still not best buddies with the USA and its only 50 years since they fought each other... but there's a world of difference between not being entirely best mates (special relationship etc) and wanting to invade at the least pretext.

Roger

[jimkehn]

I am not so sure European military intervention is so implausible. Had the south freed the slaves, and had the south shown a higher capacity for victory, it could have been seen as being in the best interest of England and/or France to see to it that the United States remained divided and thus weakened. This would have ensured a higher global prominence to both European nations. In addition, the South would have been indebted to the guarantors of their independence, and would have been a source of cheap textiles to that European nation.
 
Having said that, in my current game, France has come in the war on the side of the south with 30 brigades!!!!!!
10 Divisions???? (or thereabouts) I don't think so.

[General Quarters]

I agree with Jim that it would be rash to rule out these possibilities. In retrospect, history always looks inevitable. But, in real life, many things can happen. Who would have predicted the Hitler-Stalin pact? It would have seemed impossible.

If the Confederates had emanicipated, that could have changed the political dynamic abroad. And some kind of vermin might have spoiled the cotton the English had in storage.

I also agree with Roger that it might make sense to have different levels of European intervention -- blockade, selling ships to the South, stationing troops in Canada (so the Union would have to guard its borders), a purely naval war, and the like.

[Roger Neilson II]

an excellent article can be found here re the British view:

http://www.colfremantle.com/recognition.html

In particular I quote the following from it in the case of a hypothetical siding with the South:

The first action would undoubtedly have been the breaking off of relations between Washington and London, thus indeed leaving the long border with British Canada vulnerable. Commerce with the North would have come to an abrupt halt and with it much needed supplies of North American grain and flour, not to mention war supplies going the other way. British merchants would quite naturally assume they had an uninterrupted right to ship goods into and out of the Confederacy, blockade or no blockade. After a few merchant ships had been intercepted, captured or sunk, involving no doubt the loss of British lives, a general outcry would demand the Royal Navy escort her merchantmen through the labyrinth. An engagement between the two navies would inevitably follow, which would surely precipitate full-scale war. Nor could it be certain how France and especially Russia, who were always pro -North, might act under these circumstances. It was all very tricky and best kept at arms length.

This outcome would naturally have been a consummation devoutly to be wished by the young Confederacy—having a big brother at your side to bash the bully—but it is difficult to see where any advantage to England lay. There seemed to be a decided lack of empathy in the South with nobody asking that most important of salesman’s questions, "What’s in it for the customer?" Therefore, a pragmatic if somewhat hard-headed reply to the question, "When will you recognize our Confederacy?" might well have been: "Why the d.... should we?"

So, if you were Palmerston, what would your answer to the key question of 'what's in it for me?' be?

I think what might I gain?

1. Nothing really

The alternative of what might I lose?

1. Military forces
2. Parts of Canada
3. Loss of the moral high ground - re slavery
4. Overstretch - the British Military was busy on many fronts anyway just keeping the lid on the Empire.
5. Large trade from the North
6. Possible entanglement with other European powers who might side with the opposition

As the above article several times says, the best outcome for British Foreign Policy was for neither side to win - as long as this was the case Britain did best out of it. Once one side begins to slide then that's another matter and might force a re-evaluation of policy, but by then the support of Britain is probably far less valuable to have anyway.

Roger

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I can see naval conflict erupting between the USA and Britain in the way your quote describes; that seems fairly plausible if US-British relations had deteriorated further than they did in reality. But I don't see Britain landing troops in the Confederacy to fight alongside Confederate forces, and any land conflict along the Canadian border would be such an expensive distraction for both sides that they would probably come to some agreement to avoid it or stop it.

I imagine that such an agreement would probably put an end to the naval conflict as well, though the terms of the agreement would be interesting. Would Britain be strong enough to insist on unhampered sea access to the Confederacy?

In reality, the South lost and the European powers did nothing. Had the South won, I suppose they'd have had even less reason to do anything. I don't think the game would lose anything important if European military intervention were left out of it -- though it makes a nice optional feature for those who want it.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

I agree with Jim that it would be rash to rule out these possibilities. In retrospect, history always looks inevitable. But, in real life, many things can happen.

I'm always more than a bit skeptical of assurances that history would have played out this way or that. Nothing so instills confidence in the historian as the tonic of 20/20 hindsight.

As for my gaming preferences, give me flexibility within the constraints of historical plausibility. If I want historical rigidity, I can read a book.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Queeg
As for my gaming preferences, give me flexibility within the constraints of historical plausibility.

That's just what we're discussing: is European military intervention within the constraints of historical plausibility or not?

Perhaps marginally; but it is rather marginal. If it can happen at all in the game, I think it should be a low-probability event.

[Thresh]

oops - wrong thread

[General Quarters]

If Lincoln and Davis, Seward and James M. Mason and Charles Francis Adams all thought it was a real possibility, it seems rash for us to assume it was not.

[Director]

The real danger was that Confederate military success would lead to Britain and France recognizing the Confederacy's right to exist. This would entitle the Confederacy to some rights and priveledges not extended to mere rebels. Following recognition, Britain, France and perhaps Austria or Russia could approach the United States with an offer to broker a negotiated peace which would essentially give the CSA its independence.
 
Problems:
1) When the South won battles it looked like they didn't need help, and when they were losing it seemed help would do no good.
2) Britain was dependent to a large degree on Northern grain, largely because her traditional European sources were hit by drought.
3) Other than a chance to stick a thumb in Yankee Doodle's eye there was really nothing in it for Britain and France. THe Confederacy promised a low tariff and commercial advantages plus a bountiful supply of cotton. That was nice, but not much when set against the expense of raising troops and waging war.
4) Slavery. The South was absolutely not going to emancipate, having left the Union and waged war to prevent the possible chance that a Republican President might someday do something to hinder the expansion of slavery. Fighting a war to defend the right to own slaves was a large political hurdle for any British government. Unless the North made some offensive act, Britain would not casually jump that hurdle.
5) Given past interventions in Italy and the Crimea, and current involvement in Mexico, France would do nothing alone. The British government could not be seen to be following a French lead. And so, without Britain taking the lead, France would do nothing.
6) Lincoln probably would not have yielded to British and French pressure short of war and/or a revolt in Congress. In all likelihood the US would have gotten a dose of 'eagle fever' and fought on harder than ever. Aside from saltpeter there wasn't much the US needed to import, and it probably could have mustered two or three times the army it actually did. The domestic economy would have been ruined (since those men were running the factories, mines and farms) but the example of the French Revolution shows what can be done when existence is at stake.
 
Pluses:
The Trent affair was the only real chance of war between Britain and the US. Had Prince Albert died earlier, or not exercised such personal control over the communiques, or had Lincoln (or Adams, the ambassador to Britain) been less deft or Seward less discreet, the incident could have erupted in war. Whether the North could have kept up a war on two fronts I do not know, but Britain would have found it impossible to adequately garrison Canada without a mass mobilization of troops. That would have required a great deal of time and much of Canada might be overrun before mobilization could be finished.
 
 
European intervention was the only way many Southerners saw to offset Northern numbers, money and material. The fact is that the South deluded itself as to the leverage it actually possessed and refused to see that Britain and France were not much interested in making war when they had little to gain. The fact that the South urgently needed European help became, in many minds, their right to demand it. This attitude did not play well in London and France, and Southern diplomats accomplished very little.
 
In the Revolution, France did not assist the US to promote liberty but fought a war against a traditional rival to avenge the loss of Canada. There was no world power who hated the US the way that France then hated Britain.

[General Quarters]

It was in the interest of Britain and France to split up the rising American power.

[Queeg]

European intervention, especially British, certainly was unlikely. But I'm not sure we can confidently predict the likelihood from this distance.

What if the Confederacy had shown a real chance of winning; if by some combination of circumstances, the South had shown a strong chance of maintaining its existence as an independent nation? At some point, some European power recognizes the Confederacy. Other respond to protect their own interests. Can we be certain that Britain would have left the diplomatic field open to France, let Southern cotton fuel French rather than British mills? Perhaps. But I don't think we can be certain.

[Radagy]

Reopening this thread just to point out that in my last game France intervened in dec. 1863 when Confederacy was badly losing.
Nice way to balance the game, but quite ahistorical.
Nat. will and VP's are definitly irrelevant toward intervention, just money spent on diplomacy.

[Gil R.]

Not fully true: diplomacy can be affected by major battles, instead of victory points.

Always good to see a thread from the early days resurrected...

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: Viking67
Most unique game... a few turns in Kentucky went to the CSA, a few turns later the CSA emancipated and England and France joined the war.

I don't think this sort of thing should be possible in the standard game... only if you select the Total Fantasy option...

Lincoln was seriously worried that Kentucky might go to the CSA, so I think it's fair that it can happen in the game; I don't really object to that.

But the CSA freeing the slaves? In the first year of the war? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

While Gil chose not to address this point (likely because of its age), I would never-the-less add (since it is now front and center) that it IS possible to turn off the option for CSA emancipation. For those who believe this is total fantasy and prefer to eliminate it as a possibility - do so! That is an option. That is still one of the things I like best about the game - it is very configurable with some of the most extensive control of the ruleset I have ever seen in any game.

And Britain and France joining the war? What for? What did they stand to gain in return for such an expensive and risky commitment? OK, it could conceivably have happened in some circumstances, but only for some particular reason, not just "Oh, they're having a war, what fun, let's join in."

Britain and France join only rarely and only after significant neglect of diplomacy by one side. I think the diplomatic slider that slowly moves one direction or another is one of the more realistic elements of the game. In practice, that's how foreign relations normally work. And emancipation does swing relations fairly significantly. But I think the aforementioned option to remove southern emancipation would really address the primary complaint here.

All that said, I would also point out that the OP found the southern emancipation and european intervention to be a memorable and exciting game worthy of specific mention. As I said, different players have different preferences. And this game supports both sides of the coin so that everyone can enjoy the game as they think it best. Isn't that really the best of both worlds? I continue to be shocked that the WC team doesn't get more kudos for that element of their game design.

[Gil R.]

While Gil chose not to address this point (likely because of its age)

No, I only read the most recent post, figuring that I had read all of the earlier posts at the time they were written. (I believe that double jeopardy should apply to O.J. Simpson, but not me.)

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

While Gil chose not to address this point (likely because of its age)

No, I only read the most recent post, figuring that I had read all of the earlier posts at the time they were written. (I believe that double jeopardy should apply to O.J. Simpson, but not me.)

While Gil refered to OJ Simpson (likely due to his age)... [:'(]