User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3003
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Emancipation Proclamation Option.

Sat Apr 13, 2013 6:33 am

Is there any reason why the Union player would NOT choose this option? In ACW2 there ought to
be alternatives for not choosing it with benefits and consequences. Any ideas or thoughts?
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:16 am

I presume that in AACW2 Emancipation Proclamation would cost massive amount of engagement points (it was a big government step, not easy to implement), as well some loyalty loss in northern and border states (not everybody in the North sympathized with the sufferings of African Americans). It should be coupled with some loyalty increase in Southern states as well, and a massive FI boost for the North (FI should be virtually impossible after Emancipation Proclamation).

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3003
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:19 am

Ace wrote:I presume that in AACW2 Emancipation Proclamation would cost massive amount of engagement points (it was a big government step, not easy to implement), as well some loyalty loss in northern and border states (not everybody in the North sympathized with the sufferings of African Americans). It should be coupled with some loyalty increase in Southern states as well, and a massive FI boost for the North (FI should be virtually impossible after Emancipation Proclamation).

More than the 15 to 30 you get in the current version?
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:41 am

I am not the developer and don't know what actual numbers will be, but I think FI boost should be up to 100. It would had been impossible for England to intervene on the side of slave holding country after the North officially frees slaves in Southern states. The public pressure at home would be too much for them. 15 to 30 boost is equivalent of one cotton embargo role. This is much bigger than that.

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Sun Apr 14, 2013 4:25 pm

It was very unpopular with working class, immigrants, and in several states as a whole. It did not rule out FI, governments don’t always do what is popular with the people and Great Britain and France were not exactly democratic governments at the time.

In the game there are none of the negative effects, so of course the player chooses it. Emancipation caused the draft riots in New York and Buffalo. There were also riots in Ohio and Wisconsin. It led to attacks on blacks across the country.

It was not a popular move except in New England and perhaps Europe, though I can see the governments handling it in cynical terms the press would have love it.

It also lead to problems for the army. The contraband problem became huge, and it was already large.

There should be a negative side to it. It should not rule out FI but it should be a substantial hit but a drop in loyalties and NM is in order as well as some rioting in large cities requiring troops. Lincoln had to send between 7 and 12 regiments to NYC iirc.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3003
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Sun Apr 14, 2013 5:07 pm

We're also not mentioning diplomatic incidents which often lead to war (and still can). I read an article once that claimed
that had the transatlantic telegraph been functional when the Trent Affair happened war might have been more likely without
time for the tempers to cool.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3003
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Sun Apr 14, 2013 5:11 pm

So far no one has come up with a reason why the Union shouldn't choose the option
in the current version of the game. Not sure why it was made an option because it
would be dumb for the Union player not to choose it.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

anjou
Lieutenant
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:56 pm

Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:52 pm

DrPostman wrote:So far no one has come up with a reason why the Union shouldn't choose the option
in the current version of the game. Not sure why it was made an option because it
would be dumb for the Union player not to choose it.


Depending on the way the war is going, issuing a proclamation should lower NM.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:30 pm

DrPostman wrote:So far no one has come up with a reason why the Union shouldn't choose the option
in the current version of the game. Not sure why it was made an option because it
would be dumb for the Union player not to choose it.

It doesn't write in the option description, but it lowers loyalty in Kentucky and Missouri. That's all about negative effects. So in current game, Union should always issue it when it can (it has to have above 80 NM).

User avatar
caranorn
Posts: 1332
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:20 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:22 pm

For AACW-II New Jersey should also be negatively effected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_in_the_American_Civil_War ...
Marc aka Caran...

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3003
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:36 am

Ace wrote:It doesn't write in the option description, but it lowers loyalty in Kentucky and Missouri. That's all about negative effects. So in current game, Union should always issue it when it can (it has to have above 80 NM).

Yea, they should have put that in the option description. Thanks. That explains a lot.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

Irish_Brigade
Sergeant
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:49 pm

Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:52 pm

I would say all the border states should have a negative effect, especially kentucky. I also think it should give a draft and possible a money boom for the CSA. As more men would likely want to stand up to fight the north following such a declaration against their rights and plantation owners would likely contribute anything and everything to ensure a confederate victory.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3003
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:43 pm

Irish_Brigade wrote:I would say all the border states should have a negative effect, especially kentucky. I also think it should give a draft and possible a money boom for the CSA. As more men would likely want to stand up to fight the north following such a declaration against their rights and plantation owners would likely contribute anything and everything to ensure a confederate victory.

In spite of the declarations of the various states claiming slavery as the issue most men in the South fought for their "country", meaning their
individual states. The states were still thought of much like they were in colonial times as individual entities while in the North many men were
fighting to preserve the Union and because many felt strongly about ending slavery. Not that many men who fought for the South owned slaves.
Most were poor farmers who felt they were defending their homeland against an invader. You had a very mixed bag of feelings for the various
states, especially the boarder states. There was almost a State of East Tennessee like you had with West Virginia.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

Irish_Brigade
Sergeant
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:49 pm

Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:32 pm

Yes but states like Kentucky and Maryland were both slave states and were greatly divided. Maryland had to be full garisoned to prevent the state from succeeding to the south

orca
Lieutenant
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:45 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:37 pm

Ol' Choctaw wrote:It was not a popular move except in New England and perhaps Europe, though I can see the governments handling it in cynical terms the press would have love it.


It wasn't polular anywhere in the North except in the the ethnically Yankee regions. Outside the cities that mean New England, but also most of upstate New York, the northern tier of Pennsylvania, the Western Reserve in Ohio. and various other chunks of the midwest. The rest of the North had been settled by non-Yankee ethnic groups. Other than the few descendants of quakers who were still quakers in 1862 (most were not) all these ethnic groups opposed emancipation.

User avatar
caranorn
Posts: 1332
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:20 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:21 pm

orca wrote:It wasn't polular anywhere in the North except in the the ethnically Yankee regions. Outside the cities that mean New England, but also most of upstate New York, the northern tier of Pennsylvania, the Western Reserve in Ohio. and various other chunks of the midwest. The rest of the North had been settled by non-Yankee ethnic groups. Other than the few descendants of quakers who were still quakers in 1862 (most were not) all these ethnic groups opposed emancipation.


This makes me wonder. How would you define "Yankee ethnicity"?
Marc aka Caran...

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3003
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:04 pm

caranorn wrote:This makes me wonder. How would you define "Yankee ethnicity"?


I always think of most of New England - Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and
perhaps Connecticut.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:21 pm

caranorn wrote:This makes me wonder. How would you define "Yankee ethnicity"?


Gringos Image

John Schilling
Private
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:59 am

Wed May 01, 2013 2:34 am

DrPostman wrote:I always think of most of New England - Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and
perhaps Connecticut.


A Yank or Yankee is someone who lives closer to rural upstate Vermont than the person who is doing the talking ;)

Gen. Monkey-Bear
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:35 am
Location: The San Francisco Bay Area

Wed May 01, 2013 2:46 am

Gringos


Yup! :mdr: Though it is then spelled "Yanqui".

Is there any reason why the Union player would NOT choose this option?


Perhaps if he was rascist . . .

But in all seriousness I think the above suggestions of making the option simply very expensive and creating a loyalty loss in certain regions should do the trick.

User avatar
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
General of the Army
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Kentucky

Wed May 01, 2013 5:37 am

I'm thinking yearly consumption of grits has something to do with it.

User avatar
Wraith
Sergeant
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:51 pm

Wed May 01, 2013 8:05 am

John Schilling wrote:A Yank or Yankee is someone who lives closer to rural upstate Vermont than the person who is doing the talking ;)


Beg pardon, but it's really anyone who lives/was born north of I-10... which I always found funny of those damn Loosiana peepoles!

orca
Lieutenant
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:45 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Thu May 02, 2013 5:24 pm

caranorn wrote:This makes me wonder. How would you define "Yankee ethnicity"?


I meant the word the way I've typically seen it used in reference to western settlement and 19th century politics. Someone decended from the Great Migration from England to New England between 1630 and 1640. Non-yankee northerners came from non-English stock (mostly German and Irish), the Quaker migration in the late 17th century, the Scots-Irish (hard to call them yankees by any definition), and from migrations out of the Tidewater to the Ohio Valley.

But basically New Englanders and residents of those regions that were originally settled by New Englanders.

Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests