Matrix Games Forums

Played a few games now. In my first game as the CSA I made the mistake of investing in diplomacy in the hope of getting Missouri or Kentucky, but it appears you need to be very, very lucky for that to succeed.

Same with the big powers. The power of your choice always joins when playing the CSA. End '62 or begin '63. In my last game I invested nothing in the UK. The AI did, but to no avail.

Same with the Indian tribes. One always joines the USA, the others the CSA.

So, my question: is investing in diplomacy ever worth it?

If the Confederates advances far enough North in the far West, the Navajo will join the Confederates. I then feel it's worthwhile to invest in diplomacy for the Pueblo Indians. They will then join at only 30% pro-Union. Against the Confederate AI, I have gotten the Pueblos to join for only two diplomacy points, or 200 MPP's. For that small investment, one gets a Pueblo cavalry unit.

Diplomacy would be worthwhile depending mitigating factors. . .

You get bonuses for it with the Great Powers and you force the other side to invest . . . Kentucky can be turned I believe but only if the Union doesn't counter it, which of course they will watch it like a hawk. Missouri I can't say, seems to me the Union could just invade it if you turned it, they have the extra resources and Kentucky.

The Great Powers end up sending more MPP to you if you have diplochits in and they are effective but it is unlikely you will ever get a Great Power in the game if the Union is watching and there are events they get that can stop it even if they don't catch it till the last minute. (an absent Union might pay)

Indians? Value? I think it would be better to build your own Cavalry ... (a lot of people are also unaware that historically they were very ineffective in the kind of warfare that the Civil War had ... Indians did not set piece battle )

Ultimately I feel the Great Powers may "over a very long time return your investment," if you're lucky but with a Union Counter you are trading a losing battle but if you get lucky maybe not. So it's a Luck based thing.

IMHO

So far the only real use I see so far is if the CSA invests in KY it has, once, popped a major diplo "win" where they shifted (+36%) KY to the CSA in 1861. Other than that the Native Americans are of marginal value (although even at that their value in this game is overstated). Europeans cost a ton and it is easier to control them with other methods (blockades and conquests) and it doesn't appear the CSA can overcome those issues with any reasonable amount of MPP.

If the costs were adjusted down by, honestly, half it might make playing a diplomatic game more appealing but as it is I barely touch it.

Diplo in Kentucky seems unrealistic. Just because some politician gets greased in 1861; doesn't mean African slave owners are going concede their piece of the Bluegrass for the Union or Johnny Reb. People there were little be more chill & civilized than Missouri. Probably enjoyed being neutral (see Amish/Quaker beliefs) and didn't want to get a bayonet through the gut over the issue.

ElvisJJonesRambo wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:40 pm Diplo in Kentucky seems unrealistic. Just because some politician gets greased in 1861; doesn't mean African slave owners are going concede their piece of the Bluegrass for the Union or Johnny Reb. People there were little be more chill & civilized than Missouri. Probably enjoyed being neutral (see Amish/Quaker beliefs) and didn't want to get a bayonet through the gut over the issue.

It is a bit silly but is it any worse than say getting Spain, Sweden, or Turkey into WW2 which I do on a regular basis in SCWW2?

Comparing Diplo in WW2 vs US Civil; there is a difference. Kentucky was brand new; relative to Western culture standards. Turkey, Spain, Sweden are old as dirt/established. Controlling people in 1861 in Kentucky more difficult. Less technology (no radios, paved roads, tanks, machine guns). Granted, powers to be would find you and burn down your farm, just took longer. Making a society obey is matter of "you're gonna do this, or else". That didn't exist in Kentucky 1861. Daniel Boone could live of the land, way of life. In 2022, your bank accounts can be seized with the flick of a computer bit and no grocery stores for you.

I think it’s not just greasing a politician’s palms. I believe it’s an abstraction of the total effort to win Kentucky to your side.

Bobo2025 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:44 pm

ElvisJJonesRambo wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:40 pm Diplo in Kentucky seems unrealistic. Just because some politician gets greased in 1861; doesn't mean African slave owners are going concede their piece of the Bluegrass for the Union or Johnny Reb. People there were little be more chill & civilized than Missouri. Probably enjoyed being neutral (see Amish/Quaker beliefs) and didn't want to get a bayonet through the gut over the issue.

It is a bit silly but is it any worse than say getting Spain, Sweden, or Turkey into WW2 which I do on a regular basis in SCWW2?

Completely agree its supposed o be a game of what if's. As a wise man once said if the game 100% follows history then the North always wins.

Disagree. South screwed up at Gettysburg (Stalingrad). They smash the Army of Potomac, they win the war. Didn't happen, they lost.

ElvisJJonesRambo wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 4:16 pm Disagree. South screwed up at Gettysburg (Stalingrad). They smash the Army of Potomac, they win the war. Didn't happen, they lost.

Agreed Kentucky is a split nation and a bit too new to be like the ole 13 colonies. She would of split I am pretty sure along the divides of her culture. The reality is Tennessee and North Carolina were already split. Bloody Kansas had fought been already fighting the Civil War. Knoxville really should have have a garrison and the state as well as North Carolina will contribute to the Northern Cause. Early in the war Maryland was partially divided...

Gettysburg the end of the war? I think you're dreaming! You are relying on that turning the election. Vicksburg fell on the 4th of July and Atlanta and Sherman's March to the Sea still probably of taken place.

The COMPLETE destruction of the Union Army at Gettysburg would of been really bad for the North but complete destruction of armies didn't happen all too often in The Civil War. It is hard to say the outcome there. Also how are 70,000 men under Lee going to follow up vs 100,000 Union men even after a lopsided victory. It's not as if the Union Army was going to throw down their arms and give up. The election the next year may have completely swung. Without Washington City being captured/threatened and a massive destruction of men/material the South couldn't of likely followed up Gettysburg. The North had retreat lines to back up to to fight again. (They proved they could take 3-4 losses as they did in Virginia)

Did any combatant in the Eastern Theater win much on enemy territory until Grant plowed through Virginia.

battlevonwar,
Interesting you brought up Knoxville. In the beta, Knoxville was changed to an FS location to give the Union player an incentive to liberate the pro-Union section of Kentucky.
There were a few threads and questions on Kentucky issues and game mechanics dealing with this key state.

In beta I played one game as the CSA in which I got the British to intervene. Now that was very interesting.

Interesting thoughts....here's another one: Maybe the Euro nations were just poker bluffing. Who says they'd get involved in US Civil War. Spanish had their hands full in Central/South American. The British, they already had 2 rounds in North American and an Empire in which the sun never set. French, well, they got soft after Napoleon.

but what do I know, I'm an idiot,
-Legend

Why would you recognize The Confederacy? UK got their cotton from India and The ACW is where the North actually created the industrial base to compete with the British Industrial base. What Army of Prussia/United Kingdom/France could hold a torch vs the Union Army in 1865? So much advancement, evolution and industrialization I dare you to pick a nation superior on the battlefield. Also superior in the factories! ~Partially ripped of John Keegan

The European Powers may have recognized the South if the South was going to win... Cause it's good business...

ElvisJJonesRambo wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 6:20 pm Interesting thoughts....here's another one: Maybe the Euro nations were just poker bluffing. Who says they'd get involved in US Civil War. Spanish had their hands full in Central/South American. The British, they already had 2 rounds in North American and an Empire in which the sun never set. French, well, they got soft after Napoleon.

but what do I know, I'm an idiot,
-Legend