AGEOD Forums

Below, please find the pro-Confederate Regions of the Union. I have used the 1864 Presidential election results as reported by county. Union loyalties are all (60). Each of the regions listed below gave McClellan at least 46.7% of their vote.

Illinois

Carthage, Gales, Lewis, Peoria, Bureau, Quincy, Sterling, Jackson, Rookhouse, Bath, Bushnell, Gilead, Carroll, Pana, Alton, Fenton, Carlyle, Salem, Howard, Chester, Ward, McLean, Effingham, Laporte, Alexander and Carnie.

Indiana

Posey, Dubois, Perry, Harrison, Jefferson, Dearborn, Knox, Pike, Orange, Scott, Clay and Owen.

Ohio

Brown, Montgomery, Ross, Fayette, Darke, Defiance, Lancaster, Franklin, Licking and Monroe.

Delaware

Kent and Sussex.

I would appreciate any comments or suggestions.

Thanks

I agree that's fine for 1864, but many of these regions were more loyal (pro-Union) in the 3 years prior to the election. The Emancipation proclamation, heavy losses, new taxes - all these events pushed people living on the southern edges of Illinois, Indiana & Ohio toward the CSA. It is very hard to take a snapshot in time and show how political alignments change over a period of 4 years.

Can the game be programmed to show the erosion of Federal support over time (such as triggering a drop in Union loayalty over time, and a big decline with the E.P.?). As noted in other threads you can see the same thing, but in reverse, in many regions of the CSA.

chainsaw wrote:Can the game be programmed to show the erosion of Federal support over time (such as triggering a drop in Union loayalty over time, and a big decline with the E.P.?).

Yes, it certainly can, if we have enough appropriate data to work with.

Unless I'm much mistaken, the Emancipation Proclamation already causes a significant drop in loyalty in the border states, and the various taxes cause varying penalties with regards to VP, NM and inflation. But you had something mor/something else in mind?

Something more. Periodic or gradual recurring events to adjust loyalty in "non-strategic" regions based on NM. Also, additional EP events addressing loyalty adjustments in northern butternut areas like southern Illinois, NYC, and NJ. These could also check NM to modify the amount of the loyalty changes. They would be designed to balance with the pro-union areas adjustments in the south.

Jabberwock wrote:Yes, it certainly can, if we have enough appropriate data to work with.

I agree with Jabber on this. I used the 1864 election data, not because it was ideal, but rather that is was available, documented and based on something more than my personal opinion. Better data leads to better modelling.

Le Ricain wrote: Better data leads to better modelling.

IMO it is a real difficult thing to model,since you can never get enough data about this. Public opinion changes so often and so quick, especially in wartime. I'm not an expert on US history, but it is the same for every country, even in the modern era, to gather such accurate data. I believe the game models the effects of loyalty in a nice way, bringing much flavor to the game, and if there will ever be a change, your opinions can be vital as a start point, but the rest must be dynamic, like Jabberwock's idea of NM effecting the loyalties. When you are the one who is shaping history, everything will differ, perhaps much than what exactly happened. Dynamic results can be a nice addition.