Hey all-
I absolutely think this is the best Civil War Strategic Simulation ever made. There was a game that game out in the early 1990's about the Civil War (can't remember the name of it now), but there was a great political aspect about it and I would love to see it represented here. Part of it already is, with the "seniority" aspect of the generals. However, I's like to propose a "political" improvement to the game.
Obviously, the player gets to represent either Lincoln or Davis. However, what is not represented is the Executive cabinets on both sides. There were cabinet secretaries on both sides that helped and hindered the war effort (kind of like the Generals) ;-)
Ideally, this is what I have in mind-
There are four major cabinet posts- War (Army), Navy (Navy), State (Foreign Government Intervention), and Attorney General (Loyalty). The player is presented with a list of eligible candidates and the state they are from and what their attributes are (on the politics screen or maybe the loyalty screen).
Generals have three ratings, Strategic, Offense, Defense.
Politicians could have three ratings as well, lets say- Diplomacy, Administration, and Loyalty. (0 being the lowest, 10 being highest)
The better the Diplomacy rating, the better the chance for foreign recognition for the South, or vice-versa for the Union.
The better the Administration rating, the better this politician is at running his particular department. As Attorney General, a better administration level might mean that loyalties remain higher for your side in occupied areas. For the Secretary of War, a higher administration level might mean that brigades that are raised become active faster, or that there is a better bonus for calling for Volunteers.
The loyalty rating is kind of obvious. The better the loyalty rating, the more the politician will do what he can to support your wishes and goals. A low loyalty rating for the Secretary of the Navy may result in ships taking longer to build or costing more because the Secretary is lining his pockets as he goes and does not respect the President. For the Secretary of State, a low loyalty rating would effect how foreign governments feel about intervention in the war. For example, Lincoln had made promises to Simon Cameron to make him Secretary of War for his political backing. Cameron had little to no loyalty for Lincoln and was corrupt as well, causing his removal in early 1862.
Also, the state where the politician comes from should be considered. Having trouble with loyalty in Kentucky? Consider appointing a politician from Kentucky to your cabinet to help improve it.
So, for the Union Secretary of War, here are your potential options in 1861-
Simon Cameron, Republican, Pennsylvania- 3-2-0 (Promised position)
William Seward, Republican, New York- 5-4-4
Salmon P. Chase, Republican, Ohio- 3-5-3
Edward Bates, Republican, Missouri- 3-3-2
If Lincoln doesn't appoint Cameron, loyalty in Pennsylvania declines. Not sure what else could be negatively effected, but there should be consequences.
This option becomes available in January of 1862
Edwin M. Stanton, Democrat, Pennsylvania- 4-7-5
Now, for the South. Remember that Davis appointed Robert Toombs as the first Secretary of State because Davis needed support in the deep south (Toombs was a Georgia politician). He left for military service soon after, and was mediocre in the field.
Obviously the position as Secretary of War is important in the South as well. Here are some potential political possibilities in 1861-
Leroy P. Walker, Democrat, Alabama- 3-2-0
Robert Toombs, Democrat, Georgia- 3-3-1
Judah P. Benjamin, Democrat, Louisiana- 5-6-6
Howell Cobb, Democrat, Georgia- 4-2-2
Historically, the position was given to Walker, but he resigned in September of 1861 and Davis appointed Benjamin to the position.
Anyway, do you guys like this idea (I know it might be hard to code) or am I the out in left field here??
-- Captain Matt