Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:05 pm
First of all, I agree with Tagwyn that the AGEOD engine needs both a hotseat mode and a network play mode. I have tried and tried to get the ARES thing to work and it is (to me) completely opaque. This should be a built-in capacity. I like to play in the same room with my opponents, so the game can be a social activity. The only way to do that now with these otherwise exceptionally fine games is to play your turn, while your opponent is sitting there twiddling his thumbs or drinking your beer, save, get out, let him sit down and load up, etcetera.
I have another suggestion. Since Revolution Under Siege has a what-if scenario, how about one for AACW? I was just working on an encyclopedia article about Zachary Taylor, US president from 1849 to 1850. He was a hero of the Mexican War and one of the most gifted commanders of his generation. The debate over the status of the newly-conquered territories in the wake of the Mexican war almost touched off the Civil War ten years early. War was averted because of the political skills of Taylor's patron, Henry Clay, Senator from Tennessee. Let's try a what-if:
Instead of Taylor dying suddenly in July, 1850, Clay is the one who dies. Taylor tries to shepherd Clay's proposals through Congress but can't get a consensus. The overwhelming numerical advantage of the free states means that no Fugitive Slave Act can pass the House of Representatives, and the southern advantage in the Senate means that the Wilmot Proviso, prohibiting slavery in the newly-acquired territories, can't pass the Senate. Fighting breaks out in California and New Mexico, while the Mormons in Utah, fiercely anti-slavery, send militia to support the free state movements in both areas. "Bleeding California" replaces "Bleeding Kansas" as a rallying cry for fire-eaters in the south and abolitionists in the north. The issue of California statehood reaches the Supreme Court in 1851, and the court issues its famous Scott vs. United States decision, which inter alia declares that no black person can be a citizen of the United States and that any person who owns a slave can take that slave anywhere he or she wants within the United States, regardless of state laws prohibiting slavery (similar to the historical Dred Scott decision).
The lower south states threaten to secede if California is not admitted to the Union as a slave state. Massachusetts and New Hampshire threaten to secede if any southerner tries to import slaves into their territory under the provisions of the Scott decision. President Taylor threatens to personally lead the army against any state that tries to secede. He also says that slavery "cannot exist anywhere where the local law and custom are opposed to it" (something Stephen Douglas said historically), calming the New England radicals. The southern states carry through on their threats, beginning with South Carolina on Christmas Eve, 1851. By March, 1852, nine southern states had seceded and created the Confederate States of America, with their capital in Montgomery. Taylor's one-time son-in-law, the junior senator from Mississippi, Jefferson Davis is the surprise winner of the Confederate presidency. Both sides begin raising troops - the New England states in particular had begun creating militias and building weapons all the way back in the summer of 1851
President Taylor seeks a political solution and delays intervention for months. He draws the line at turning over federal arsenals and forts to the Confederate states, however. In April, 1852, he sends a resupply mission to the small US Army garrison in Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and before the ships can arrive the South Carolina forces shell the fort and compel its surrender. Upon hearing the news, Taylor, wearing his uniform, addresses Congress and announces that he has no option but to compel the southern states to rejoin the Union. He calls for volunteers from the states and orders regular army units to support constitutional government in the west and send reinforcements to the east.
Game changes: there will be significant map changes required. There was a lot of development and railroad building in the country between 1852 and 1861, especially in the south and midwest. River movement will be much more important in this game than in vanilla AACW. Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Kansas, all will be at a much lower level of development.
As far as units are concerned, infantry will have shorter ranges and lower fire power numbers at the beginning of the war. Later-appearing units (and perhaps refits for existing units) will gain the values from AACW as rifles firing the Minie ball are adopted by both combatants - USA first, then CSA. Cavalry will all be "early-war" type; no repeating carbines in this war. Artillery will be all smoothbores (6 and 12-lb) to start, with rifled cannons coming in later.
The initial setup will have the border states (MO, AR, OK, KS, TX, KY, VA, NC, MD, DE) all "neutral" like Kentucky in vanilla AACW. Both sides will be able to take political actions using EPs to try to influence the border states to join the struggle, or to "declare war" on them and invade. Partisans from those border states, and California and the southwest, will play a bigger role. If we can have a full map that extends to the Pacific, that would be good, as I anticipate that there would be more fighting out west.
I see this as a much more "wide-open" struggle with a bigger role for amphibious invasions, fighting in far-flung theaters, and political battles. There might be more of a chance for foreign intervention, maybe on both sides. Mexico was having its own civil war, 1853-1855, and this could well get tied into the American struggle, with Juarez and the Liberals on the northern side and Santa Ana on the southern. Napoleon III was President of France starting in 1851 and became Emperor in 1852; he would have been more self-confident in the early stages of his rule. The Conservative Earl of Aberdeen was Prime Minister of Britain and would have been more willing to support the South than Palmerston, PM in 1861-65. The extremely conservative Nicholas I was Tsar of Russia, but like his more liberal son Alexander III who was Tsar in 1861-65, he would have been interested in balancing any French or British intervention in an American War. Nicholas historically fought the Crimean War against the French and British and might have seen a distraction in North America for them as an opportunity for him to pursue traditional Russian goals in Europe and Asia. Limited support from Russia for the USA, particularly in the Far West if that was an active theater, is not out of the question.
Another political option or issue is the fact that 1852 was a presidential election year. Taylor would certainly stand for re-election; his opponent would be a northern Democrat, probably Stephen Douglas of Illinois. The Democrats' platform would call for a negotiated end to the war if there had been no foreign intervention. There would be a "victory check" in November, 1852, with the CSA winning if USA loyalty was below a certain point in enough regions, and if FI had not yet occurred. Another check would take place in 1854, with negative repercussions for both sides (but not defeat) if the elections went badly. And then another victory check in November 1856, with Seward as the Whig Presidential candidate and Buchanan as the Democrat. And so forth. The war goes on until one side wins on the battlefield or the people of the north cease to support the war effort. Southern war exhaustion is a subject yet to be discussed - the CSA government was very dictatorial and had little patience for internal opponents; I can't imagine them letting themselves be voted out of office.
I'd like to see recruiting done more like Revolution Under Siege, with the option to raise troops and levy taxes by state, with repercussions for the attitude of the people of that state towards the government. Instead of them joining some armed "Green" faction, though, they would just resist future taxation and recruitment, furnishing fewer volunteers, conscripts (if you start conscription) and tax money the next time around, and vote against the government at election time. You would still have to select draft or call for volunteers as a political option (spending EPs) but that would not give you the recruits directly but instead allow you to do "special operation" recruitment in your states, which would respond varying in proportion to their loyalty. You would also be able to tax your states, and in addition do "national" taxation measures like an income tax, issuing paper money, or issuing war bonds - though I would limit the CSA's access to these measures as they were pretty disorganized on the financial front.
I'm open to suggestions.
Stewart King
"There is no substitute for victory"
Depends on how you define victory.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]