kentucky secession question

[dolphin]

I really do need to know how Kentucky works in my current installation of 1.16rc4a

Evidently it can work in one of two different ways as there seems to be
two different full campaign scenerio's.

[color="Blue"]"The Civil War April Full Campaign w/Kentucky" [/color]
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=12372&highlight=1861+w%2FKentucky%27

,or

[color="Blue"]"The Civil War April Full Two Theatre Campaign" (No Kentucky)[/color]

I found the Thread that explains the w/Kentucky rules, but what about the "April Full Two Theatre Campaign" without Kentucky?

[SIZE="4"]Please explain how the secession rules are applied in the campaign without the newly scripted Kentucky rules.[/size]

I would also like to know if the Kentucky rules are in fact the only difference between these two full campaign scenerio's.

Both scenerio's start and end on the same dates and have the same number of turns.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[dolphin]

The w/Kentucky scenarios were developed to replace the original scenarios because we couldn't get the original scenario's Kentucky events to work without buggy behavior. In essence, we gave up in frustration and made new campaigns using a new separate Kentucky event file. No further work was done on the original events and none is anticipated.

[SIZE="4"]Then your saying that both the campaigns are identicle except for the change in the Kentucky script and your advice is to only use the w/Kentucky Campaign?[/size]

I did find information in two of the sticky threads that read as follows and I would presume this is how it works in the Campaign without the new Kentucky script.

Misc
Kentucky.
KY secedes: 10% chance until it either becomes neutral or mid 1862 reached. Condition: CSA morale must be higher than USA.

KY neutral: automatic if it does not secede before mid 1862. Chance influenced by the presence of troops at the border. If CSA masses roughly 5-6 Bgds there is a 25% chance each turn that KY will go neutral (if you want it to secede, don't mass troops nearby). If USA, place 4-5 Bgds for max 35% chance of forcing neutrality (the Dick Robinson event increases this chance).

Invasion: the invasion event is triggered by an attack of one camp on the KY militia units of the other side causing KY to enter the war on the side of the defending militia. The defending militia must suffer casualties so a siege alone may not force KY war entry.

[color="Blue"]And this one in another sticky thread which is how I would presume it should work now.[/color]

Q: Does anyone actually know how the Kentucky secedes?

A: A few 'bugs' in the Kentucky events from the original version have been fixed. Here are the general guidelines now:

- Kentucky may secede and join the CSA by itself in Sept 61, through a scripted event with a low probability (10%) and if the CSA moral is higher than the USA's.

- Whenever a militia unit situated in KY is attacked by the other side, KY joins the aggressed side (no deadline, automatic).

- Whenever CSA captures Bowling Greene, or Union captures Lexington, the KY joins the other side.

When KY joins one side, it is definitive.

[GraniteStater]

I can address the Union side. It boils down to this: don't worry about it, seriously.

If you want to be truly Historical, then load a KY start. You won't be able to enter KY until the messages tell you that you can, usually in September 61.

I never bother with the details and it truly doesn't matter. When you can enter, do so and fight for KY. I have always had KYs Loyalty go to the Union so far, although there is a chance that KY will go all wobbly and slip to the Rebs.

The Union can't do much for tactical movements until the summer of 61, anyway. Even then, there's not a lot that's critical. The first real event of consequence is being able to form Divisions in Early Oct 61. Then the game really begins, with Corps formation coming in March 62.

To a CSA player, I would hazard to guess that you should buy the token and go for the gusto.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

The difference bewtween CSA and USA KY secession is actually pretty small. I just stay away from the border while it's neutral and either wait for the other side to delcare or for KY to secede one way or the other in 1862. It's not something that's game changing.

[dolphin]

The difference bewtween CSA and USA KY secession is actually pretty small. I just stay away from the border while it's neutral and either wait for the other side to delcare or for KY to secede one way or the other in 1862. It's not something that's game changing.

The w/Kentucky rules state that there are 4 distinct possiblities that Kentucky could choose to secede if neither side invades and a 5th result if none of those happen.

1.) If too many USA forces are too close, there's a 50.3% chance of secession in that game.
2.) If too many CSA forces are too close, there's a 26.5% chance of secession in that game.
3.) If too many of both sides', forces are too close, there's a 35.3% chance of secession in that game.
4.) If neither sides' forces are too close, there's also a 35.3% chance of secession in that game.

5.) Finally, if neither side chooses to invade Kentucky, and Kentucky does not secede, it automatically joins the Union in the 1861, Early November turn.


So as the CSA player you can guarantee yourself a minimum of a 35% chance to have them for free doing nothing and staying clear of the boarder, or starting with the 1861 Late July turn, the opportunity to choose to deliberately invade Kentucky is made available to both sides in the form of a special unit, either "USA Enters KY" or "CSA Enters KY", that can be purchased by either side (for a minimal cost of $1). These "units" are offered in the "Support" tabs of the respective Reinforcement screens and are available for "purchase" thru the 1861 Late October turn.


My only question would be about when the percentage chance
that determines what Kentucky does goes off and is there in effect
only one roll made on a certain game date?

What is the earliest date anyone has ever had Kentucky join the CSA?

It would be nice to know in advance if the roll failed on secession
so that the CSA could then still have time to buy the chit and invade.

Of course if the roll is not made until early October it would not matter.

In fact I would hope whoever scripted it actually made it so the check was
not made until early October otherise there is no fog to keep the CSA
hoping and guessing which would be the only incentive the CSA has
to not invade.


It occures to me that the original script had it where there was only a
10% chance per turn for secession, but with the new script giving such
a large percentage it could only be one roll on one turn, or it would in
effect guarantee secession on the side of the CSA.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I don't worry too much about it. During my current PBEM, it joined the union. I haven't even noticed a difference. My previous PBEM it joined the CSA. My experience in 1.15 is that the AI always declares ASAP. You don't even get a chance to try against the AI, but that may change in 1.16. Trying to determine exact percentages for alot of things in AGEOD games is a losing proposition. Their games are meant to simulate the uncertainty of war in most cases.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[dolphin]

Believe me... It's not just a simple die roll done one time in October with only a single set percentage chance.

I like what you did and how you did it very much.


When your talking about troops being too close I presume you mean directly across the border?


In other words as long as you keep your troops two regions from the bordor "No Effect" on the percentages?

I think I understand how you derived your overall percentages.

x6 rolls of the dice at a 5% chance = 26.5%

x6 rolls of the dice at an 11% chance = 50.3%

x6 rolls of the dice at an 8% chance = 35.3%

The base percentage is 8% per day (per roll) for secession and that is modified up, or down by +/- 1% for each brigade up to three that are too close with an opposing sides brigades cancelling out any modifiers if they are too close as well.

[Mickey3D]

I don't worry too much about it. During my current PBEM, it joined the union. I haven't even noticed a difference.

If Kentucky joins CSA, South will be able to recruit more units from this State and loyalty will be shifted on its side.

[soloswolf]

While playing as the CSA, I have always had the Federals invade it. I just keep my men off the border and stay ready to retaliate. I don't think I have ever been the one to go in first.

As an aside, Dolphin, we are all quite capable of parsing out your questions without the giant/bold text...

[dolphin]

As an aside, Dolphin, we are all quite capable of parsing out your questions without the giant/bold text...

Your the second person to mention that, but please consider the practice is my prefered style developed over many years. It is what comes naturally to me.

It hurts noone and I try not to ever use any sizes over 4. It certainly does not make it harder to read. I wish everyone would only use bold print. That makes it easier for me to read.

I much prefer to use black ink over a lead pencil.

Why is it that some people get bent out of shape because someone likes to do things a little different?

A friend of mine in another forum actually rainbow color formats making his letters in his words in [color="Red"]se[/color][color="Navy"]ve[/color][color="DarkGreen"]ral[/color] [color="Red"]diff[/color][color="Navy"]er[/color][color="DarkGreen"]ent[/color] [color="Navy"]col[/color][color="Red"]ors[/color].

I admit that really does drive alot of people crazy, but I like it.

In all honesty the way I post reflects the way I am thinking and feeling.

To do it any other way than the way that feels right to me is terribly uncomfortable.

[GraniteStater]

Your the second person to mention that, but if you think about it the practice is my prefered style developed over many years.

It hurts noone and I try not to ever use any sizes over 4. It certainly does not mae it harder to read.Why is it that some people get bent out of shape because someone likes to do things a little different?

A friend of mine in another forum actually rainbow color formats his words often having the letters in his words in [color="Red"]se[/color][color="Navy"]ve[/color][color="DarkGreen"]ral[/color] [color="Red"]diff[/color][color="Navy"]er[/color][color="DarkGreen"]ent[/color] [color="Navy"]col[/color][color="Red"]ors[/color].

Just to FYI: I'm a professional, I design, write and deliver manuals, online Help, etc. The research has shown, conclusively, that excessive use of bolded text, large typefaces, unusual styles, etc., works against clear communication. In short, it is harder to read.

Bolding, italicizing, underlining, etc., are best reserved for (a) organizing the material (use of bold and larger faces for section headings, chapter titles, captions, table headers, etc.), and (b) emphasis.

It's not quite as bad as ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME, but's it's a cousin. With all respect and good will, take it from a pro - use the default weight and size and we, your readers, will be grateful.

Other than that, have a nice war

GS

[soloswolf]

Your the second person to mention that, but please consider the practice is my prefered style developed over many years. It is what comes naturally to me.

Why is it that some people get bent out of shape because someone likes to do things a little different?

I admit that really does drive alot of people crazy, but I like it.

In all honesty the way I post reflects the way I am thinking and feeling.

To do it any other way than the way that feels right to me is terribly uncomfortable.

I am definitely not trying to put you off what makes you happy/comfortable. The reason that I mention it is that in every online community that I know of writing in such a fashion is reserved for some form of 'shouting'.

For me, when I see a giant WoT in big, bold letters it makes me not want to read the post. I do not think I am unique in this view, and as you are here to learn more about the game we all love, it seems self-defeating.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[dolphin]

Just to FYI: I'm a professional, I design, write and deliver manuals, online Help, etc. The research has shown, conclusively, that excessive use of bolded text, large typefaces, unusual styles, etc., works against clear communication. In short, it is harder to read.

Bolding, italicizing, underlining, etc., are best reserved for (a) organizing the material (use of bold and larger faces for section headings, chapter titles, captions, table headers, etc.), and (b) emphasis.

It's not quite as bad as ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME, but's it's a cousin. With all respect and good will, take it from a pro - use the default weight and size and we, your readers, will be grateful.

Other than that, have a nice war

GS

If you go back and read my post with the large print you should be able to tell it was in fact for clarity.

The post was rather long and I decided to enlarge the single question the entire body of the post was presenting.

I had one question and the rest was filler to explain the parameters that I was hoping to get my answer within.

I understand what your saying, but from my experience on the internet over many years I don't fall into the groups statistical preferences of the issue and I have been friends with many other peopole online who do not either.

I will give you that their is a significant vocal percentage of people who do have a problem with it, but frankly I regard such people as a bit overly control freakish . I find that intolerance of a persons style of posting to be indicative of narrowmindedness, lack of creativity, and worst of all a form of bullying to try and force others to conform to their preferences.

One other fact I simply cannot ignore is that texting in black bold is significantly easier on my eyes. Both when I type it and when I am reading other peoples posts.

[dolphin]

To use bold excessively will probably eventually get you ignored with very little to no responses from those whom you really want answers from. It gives the same impression as shouting with CAPS if used excessively.

I use bold myself, but only to emphasize certain details. As a suggestion, you might do the same.

I solved one of your bugs and posted the solution in the technical forum in a thread you had responded to someone else to who was having the same problem I encountered.

It should be a very easy patch. Check it out.

[Mickey3D]

I wish everyone would only use bold print. That makes it easier for me to read.

Note that you should be able to enlarge the size of the text by changing your internet browser options.

By example :

[INDENT]In Firefox 3.6 by pressing simultaneously the keys "Ctrl" and "+" you will increase text size, "ctrl" and "-" decrease it, "ctrl" and "0" (zero) set text back to normal size.[/INDENT]

[INDENT]On Internet Explorer 8, look at the "page" menu. There you'll find a "Text size" option (I translate menu name from french).[/INDENT]

[Jim-NC]

[SIZE="4"]Then your saying that both the campaigns are identicle except for the change in the Kentucky script and your advice is to only use the w/Kentucky Campaign?[/size]

I did find information in two of the sticky threads that read as follows and I would presume this is how it works in the Campaign without the new Kentucky script.

Misc
Kentucky.
KY secedes: 10% chance until it either becomes neutral or mid 1862 reached. Condition: CSA morale must be higher than USA.

KY neutral: automatic if it does not secede before mid 1862. Chance influenced by the presence of troops at the border. If CSA masses roughly 5-6 Bgds there is a 25% chance each turn that KY will go neutral (if you want it to secede, don't mass troops nearby). If USA, place 4-5 Bgds for max 35% chance of forcing neutrality (the Dick Robinson event increases this chance).

Invasion: the invasion event is triggered by an attack of one camp on the KY militia units of the other side causing KY to enter the war on the side of the defending militia. The defending militia must suffer casualties so a siege alone may not force KY war entry.

[color="Blue"]And this one in another sticky thread which is how I would presume it should work now.[/color]

Q: Does anyone actually know how the Kentucky secedes?

A: A few 'bugs' in the Kentucky events from the original version have been fixed. Here are the general guidelines now:

- Kentucky may secede and join the CSA by itself in Sept 61, through a scripted event with a low probability (10%) and if the CSA moral is higher than the USA's.

- Whenever a militia unit situated in KY is attacked by the other side, KY joins the aggressed side (no deadline, automatic).

- Whenever CSA captures Bowling Greene, or Union captures Lexington, the KY joins the other side.

When KY joins one side, it is definitive.

For posterity's sake.

[Jim-NC]

The w/Kentucky rules state that there are 4 distinct possiblities that Kentucky could choose to secede if neither side invades and a 5th result if none of those happen.

1.) If too many USA forces are too close, there's a 50.3% chance of secession in that game.
2.) If too many CSA forces are too close, there's a 26.5% chance of secession in that game.
3.) If too many of both sides', forces are too close, there's a 35.3% chance of secession in that game.
4.) If neither sides' forces are too close, there's also a 35.3% chance of secession in that game.

5.) Finally, if neither side chooses to invade Kentucky, and Kentucky does not secede, it automatically joins the Union in the 1861, Early November turn.


So as the CSA player you can guarantee yourself a minimum of a 35% chance to have them for free doing nothing and staying clear of the boarder, or starting with the 1861 Late July turn, the opportunity to choose to deliberately invade Kentucky is made available to both sides in the form of a special unit, either "USA Enters KY" or "CSA Enters KY", that can be purchased by either side (for a minimal cost of $1). These "units" are offered in the "Support" tabs of the respective Reinforcement screens and are available for "purchase" thru the 1861 Late October turn.


My only question would be about when the percentage chance
that determines what Kentucky does goes off and is there in effect
only one roll made on a certain game date?

What is the earliest date anyone has ever had Kentucky join the CSA?

It would be nice to know in advance if the roll failed on secession
so that the CSA could then still have time to buy the chit and invade.

Of course if the roll is not made until early October it would not matter.

In fact I would hope whoever scripted it actually made it so the check was
not made until early October otherise there is no fog to keep the CSA
hoping and guessing which would be the only incentive the CSA has
to not invade.


It occures to me that the original script had it where there was only a
10% chance per turn for secession, but with the new script giving such
a large percentage it could only be one roll on one turn, or it would in
effect guarantee secession on the side of the CSA.

For posterity's sake.

[Jorje Vidrio]

I couldn't figure out the answer to the question of how far away from the Kentucky border do your forces have to be so as not to diminish the chance of Kentucky joining your side?

[Longshanks]

I couldn't figure out the answer to the question of how far away from the Kentucky border do your forces have to be so as not to diminish the chance of Kentucky joining your side?

I think the answer is simply "not adjacent to Kentucky". If someone knows, different, I'd like to hear it too!

[rattler01]

Not adjacent too. Rivers don't count. You get a "build-up" message if (I believe) 25 elements are next the border. If 25 is right then u can place 24 and have no change in the chance. I'm not sure if locked units count. I think cairo counts as it is adjancent to a river that touhes KY.


Post Note: I going off expereince because I'll stack units in Dayton and Vincennes and I never get the USA build up message. But I do get it when I reinforce Island 10and Donelson.

[lodilefty]

The actual regions are listed in \ACW\GameData\Areas.ini:

// Area #65
{Area}
UID = $area_USA_KY_Border
Name = area_USA_KY_Border
Hierarchy = -1
ListParams = $Scott, MO|$Reel, MO|$Alexander, IL|$Benton, IL|$Kinsale, IL|$Elizabeth, IL|$Carnie, IL||$Posey, IN|$Warrick, IN|$Perry, IN|$Harrison, IN|$Jefferson, IN|$Dearborn, IN|$Clermont, OH|$Brown, OH|$Scioto, OH|$Lawrence, OH|
{/Area}


// Area #66
{Area}
UID = $area_CSA_KY_Border
Name = area_CSA_KY_Border
Hierarchy = -1
ListParams = $Lake, TN|$Gibson, TN|$Henry, TN|$Stewart, TN|$Montgomery, TN|$Sumner, TN|$Macon, TN|$Overton, TN|$Fentress, TN|$Scott, TN|$Claiborne, TN|$Scott, MO|$Reel, MO|
{/Area}

[Captain_Orso]

Benton and Carnie IL are both completely inside Illinois. They should not be in the list.




I'm also surprised that no WV or VA regions are listed as they also share a common boarder with Kentucky.

[rattler01]

Benton and Carnie IL are both completely inside Illinois. They should not be in the list.




I'm also surprised that no WV or VA regions are listed as they also share a common boarder with Kentucky.

I think Carnie is right with the adjacent river to both IN and KY. Brenton should be Alexandria IL cause it shares a river connection, and wasn't Cairo the staging point before USA took Paduch? Thats a good point about WV and VA though.

[Captain_Orso]

I beg to differ. Carmi IL (the title in black on the map is also wrong; there is no Carnie IL) is not directly across the Ohio from Kentucky, neither in the Real-World™ nor in AACW. If you are in Carmi you have to cross either Posey IN or Elizabeth IL to get to Kentucky.

[rattler01]

I looks like Carmi IN connects to Wabash Confluent which neighbors Union KY. But you are correct it doesn't offer a non-river crossing. It resembles the same pattern seen with Dearborn IN with the Kentuckey Confluent connecting Jefferson KY, but there it shows a possible direct crossing. Anyone know what makes these two different?