Matrix Games Forums

The way the game is setup now the CSA can hide behind the "Kentucky Wall" and force the Union to invade, which then forces the Union to garrison Kentucky tieing up preious units. There needs to be an incentive for the CSA to invade. The 10% chance for either side of Kentucky joining the other side after 12/61 is a bit weak. The old board game Civil War had Kentucky slowly going over to the Union, but not here. Why?

I agree. Kentucky easily becomes a formatable wall that the union loses a good deal of time dealing with. That is one of my two biggest complaints about this game. The other is industry. I have done a bit of reading on industry before the civil war and I believe the south has too much industry with respect to history.

I agree that Kentucky poses a design challenge, both in reflecting the political reality of July 1861 (a border state with a vested economic interested in slavery but with strong ties to the North) and the military challenge it presents by Union blocking access to Tennessee.

In the game's original version, the military challenge was largely obviated by a Union "blitzkreig" that pretty much occupied the railroad bearing regions of the state in August 1861 by overrun. The overrun may not have accurately demonstrated the military-logistic-political reality of the August 1861, but it did having the advantage of preventing Kentucky from being a labor and time intensive project for the Union, which is historically correct. A subsequent revision eliminated the blitzkreig so the Union is left with the time intensive project.

However, you don't have to garrison every region you conquer. Garrison the rail lines you need for current operations and abandon the other regions. Keep a leader in the region adjacent to the ungarrisoned region; this will be your strike force. Because the Union normally trains militia in Kentucky there are leaders sprinkled everywhere.

The local partisans will grow in number, but you don't care because you have no garrison for them to attack, you are not using the railroad they may destroy, etc. Ultimately a single CSA militia will rise up and the region will pass to CSA control; typically the answer is "who cares". Use the leader/strike force to attack the region with two regulars; you will almost certainly win, gain experience for the leader and one of the regulars, and get the PP back. Regions along the rivers can be attacked by an amphib force based with the AC, who is almost always on a river on the Western Theatre.

This approach is small solace, but addresses at least a small part of the garrison requirement complaint.

From a strictly historical perspective, absent an invasion by either side, Kentucky should drift into the union camp, I would think, assuming it does not go Southern in the early turns.

I would think a small ut equal chance of them joining either side for 6 months or so, then slowly the odds sliding into the Unions favor so that by mid '62 it would be likely to be a northern state.

From a gameplay perspective, this works as well. The South is the strategic defender, so it would make sense that they should have the pressure on them, since they are to benefit from it staying neutral, since it acts like a giant wall.

ORIGINAL: Berkut

From a strictly historical perspective, absent an invasion by either side, Kentucky should drift into the union camp, I would think, assuming it does not go Southern in the early turns.

I would think a small ut equal chance of them joining either side for 6 months or so, then slowly the odds sliding into the Unions favor so that by mid '62 it would be likely to be a northern state.

From a gameplay perspective, this works as well. The South is the strategic defender, so it would make sense that they should have the pressure on them, since they are to benefit from it staying neutral, since it acts like a giant wall.

From a historical perspective, the Appalachians were Unionist. Most of the inhabitants were poor and didn't hold slaves. That's why the early campaigns were in those areas.

Even much of the slave holding population were Unionists though - which is why it was such a contentious issue when Fremont started issuing proclamations that he was going to free slaves and such - it alienated them (of course).

From a secession standpoint, IMO, you saw two main waves - the initial deep south states seceeding upon the election of Lincoln, then another wave when Sumter was attacked and Lincoln called up volunteers to fight a war. That is when Virginia bailed, for example, and when the threat of the border states leaving was greatest.

Once they did not, the odds of any of them leaving afterward barring something pushing them become rather low. Kentucky was the great unknown though, since it was so strategically important. Lincoln got a lot of political heat for "listening to those damn slaveholding rebeles more than those who elected him" around this time, and it was a fair complaint. Of course, Lincoln wasn't worried about the radical republicans abandoning the union - he was VERY worried about slave holding Kentuckians doing so though!

The current system works pretty well, I imagine - the only thing I would change is that drift over tiem into the Union camp. I cannot imagine that not happening had both sides stayed out of kentucky during the war.