Should part of Missouri start confederate?

[ericbabe]

As we make changes to Southern Steel, I'm considering having the lower half of MO start in Confederate hands, to better simulate the divided nature of the state. Any thoughts on this?

[spruce]

well Eric, that's easy to answer - yes do it cause the CSA has already very easy access to those provinces. They have a very strong container operating there. And it's not that easy to take over the capital ... so it's for sure not a walk in the park for the CSA in that state.

[Dasara II]

Yes

[sadja]

I agree, as the south you don't have a container or even generals near by and I usually run away with my few brigades. If I own the provinces I might stay around and try to get some leadership there.
 
That said it might help if a general with home state of AR or Mo start in the west. It take a long time to get back to AR from james river even with RR. The weather is bad in Nov and Gen may have trouble making Int checks by land. You get Breckinridge in Ky when they enter the war, so it shouldn't be a problem putting Van Dorn in the west.

[LarryP]

Playing as the North I like it the way it is. However, your point is valid and all the others here are too. I'm out numbered!!! [X(] [&o] [X(]

[dude]

ORIGINAL: spruce

well Eric, that's easy to answer - yes do it cause the CSA has already very easy access to those provinces. They have a very strong container operating there. And it's not that easy to take over the capital ... so it's for sure not a walk in the park for the CSA in that state.

I wouldn't do it just because the CSA has easy access to them. What was the situtation at that time (don't have my books handy to check...) Did the Union forces have to go in and supress the southern half of the state before moving on? If so then yes, give them to the CSA... Did the CSA have any actual control over the southern part of the state? If so... give it to them... if however the CSA never controled that part nor did the Union have to go in and supress the region then I would leave it under Union control at the start...

Just my 2 cents... [:)]

[Gil R.]

The pro-CSA ousted governor of Missouri was in the SW part of the state (or SE? I can't remember), so at least one province should be CSA.

Where's Missouri Rebel when we need him?

[ericbabe]

The secessionist congress met in Neosho in the Fall of 1861 and voted for secession.  General Price issued an order to start a camp in southern Missouri, and several Confederate Missouri regiments seemed to have been mustered in December of '61.  At Osceola the MO state guard was reorganized into the Confederate army in November, it seems.  I'm not sure of the full extent that the secessionist congress had authority in southern Missouri, but it does seem they had some authority in at least a few areas.  Unfortunately the scenario editor doesn't allow us to start with provinces in unrest, but maybe I should add this function.

[Ironclad]

I was going to suggest that Osage and Black River start Confederate thinking about the position by July 1861 but of course its a November scenario we are discussing. In fact that would probably do for November too after the Confederate recovery had gone into reverse.

[Bombsight]

Eric,
In April 1862, Nathaniel Lyons through a wrench into the CSA plans to capture the arsenal in St Louis (16,000 arms) by federalizing some pro-union elements into regiments (predominately German citizens),
arming them from the arsenal (without Fremont's authorization) and chasing the pro-secesh militia back to southern Missouri.

[Gray_Lensman]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

The pro-CSA ousted governor of Missouri was in the SW part of the state (or SE? I can't remember), so at least one province should be CSA.

Where's Missouri Rebel when we need him?

Southwest in the Springfield area.

[Titanwarrior89]

Yes, start with some controled by the CSA. For the reasons stated above.[:)]

[Mr. Z]

It appears that Osage, Black River, and Cape Girardeau were more or less evenly divided in July (Acc. to Atlas of the Civil War Month by Month). Although control went back and forth, the situation was more or less the same at the beginning of November. So take your pick, I guess. It appears that Lincoln abandoned Springfield (at the center of Osage province) in early November, so it had reverted to CSA control by mid-month.

[Moltke71]

The most accurate way to divide Missouri is to follow the major rivers and Kansas border. People along the Missouri were pro-Southern but, about 50 miles out either way, they tended to be more Union. Actually, some of the strongest pro-Northern sympathizers were in the Ozarks. We even had one county secede from the Confederacy and set up its own kingdom.

In terms of the game, matters were so screwed up, you'd best leave things be,

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Bismarck
In terms of the game, matters were so screwed up, you'd best leave things be,

Ha! Confirms my suspicion we'd be best to start these provinces in unrest.

We'll add a couple CSA MO provinces probably though since it seems there are no strong objections and this'll make the game more interesting in that theater.

[Moltke71]

Check this out:
 
http://www.kchsoc.org/legend.html

[Bombsight]

Eric,
If you proceed with the assignment of Missouri provinces to the south, then consider adding union leaders with high initiative (Nathaniel Lyons, Blair, etc) with a starting loction in Missouri.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Whit

Eric,
If you proceed with the assignment of Missouri provinces to the south, then consider adding union leaders with high initiative (Nathaniel Lyons, Blair, etc) with a starting loction in Missouri.

In the July scenario Lyon starts in Black River (a Missouri province on the Arkansas border) and is a 100-percenter, so he's always there. Lyon died on Aug. 10, 1861, so he shouldn't even be in the November scenarios. In fact, I've just made him a 1-percenter (since I'm not sure whether making him a 0-percenter might do something weird to the game), and once Eric has implemented the IsDead column then there will be no chance of Lyon appearing.

As for Blair, he's just a 9-percenter, so I haven't bothered with him. Also, I just saw that he didn't become a general until 1862, so he shouldn't appear at the beginning of the November scenario.

Are there other generals who should always start in Missouri in the November scenario?

[Ironclad]

Freemont (until 2 November) replaced by Hunter for Union and McCulloch and Price for CSA.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

Freemont (until 2 November) replaced by Hunter for Union and McCulloch and Price for CSA.

Thanks. I'm busy right now, but will see what I can do about these guys later.