AGEOD Forums

I've read everything I can find on Kntucky the threads here and the Wiki. I have heard that a neutral Kentucky is a real benfit to the south and can see the advantages of a neutral Kentucky. But having said this I'm having a real hard time restraining Polk he wants Puducah and he wants it bad. Can anyone actually see any benefits at all in the Confederates striking first and hard in Kentucky? Polk will be extremely vexed if all the answers come back in the negative.
Cheers typhoon

typhoon wrote:I've read everything I can find on Kntucky the threads here and the Wiki. I have heard that a neutral Kentucky is a real benfit to the south and can see the advantages of a neutral Kentucky. But having said this I'm having a real hard time restraining Polk he wants Puducah and he wants it bad. Can anyone actually see any benefits at all in the Confederates striking first and hard in Kentucky? Polk will be extremely vexed if all the answers come back in the negative.
Cheers typhoon

Given the current event chain, it is always best to let your opponent attack first, and get Kentucky on your side.

Having only played as the Union, my observations may not be relevant. However, in every game, the South always violates Kentucky neutrality first. There does not seem to be any benefit to this strategy as it shifts loyalty in the North's direction and allows the more powerful Union forces to steamroll through Lexington and Bowling Green.

that is correct, the AI always attacks in Kentucky; if you play the union, it attacks, if you play confederate, it attacks as the union. I started a pbem game, and we both haven't dared to attack.

Control of Kentucky is a great benefit to both sides, but if you invade, you should have the forces at hand to hold it.

typhoon wrote:. Can anyone actually see any benefits at all in the Confederates striking first and hard in Kentucky?

if you have enough forces (and you usually havent) to strike Bowling Greene and Paducah AND put up a defensive line stretching from Lexington to Charleston, it might be worth a thought.
main problem is to assemble forces fast enough to attack , then the second problem unfolds, how defend this stretched battlefield ?
Because when you invade Kentucky the Union is free to strike, and the Union doesnt have usually less forces in that area, while it usually delays its actions to get Grant and his forces ready (human player not AI)

The advantage of an early strike:
-a couple of victory points (neglectable) for Bowling Greene and the Union losing the "economic power" of Kentucky for a while (also neglectable).
-You might be able to delay the union offensive into Mississippi by opening a huge battlefield area and "attract" your opponent to fight here, where you want.

disadvantages:
-impossible to defend. (Mississippi is wide open probably)
-you "trigger" a possible union offensive which counteracts the Confederates usual tactic of delaying the enemy.
-you need to recruit/shuffle a lot of troops into this region

Seems like I must shoot Polk for his Confederate elan. And also remove the hothead tatoo labelled on my own forehead. Just thought I would ask. Afterall in the real war it was a Rebel mistake to enter Kentucky just not convinced that delay and defence will win out the day. Perhaps I should heed Mr Davis when he says all we ask is to be left alone. Just think that whilst leaving us alone the North will eventually gather enough strength and competent leaders to crush the South forever