Captain_Orso wrote:I think that the historical issue with Mexico not trading with the CSA is obvious if you know the relationship Mexico had with the USA before the Civil War broke out, especially with the southern states.
Maybe you could have an option in which the CSA return Texas, California and rest of the land in between, which the USA robbed ... eh, bought from Mexico after the Mexican-American conquest ... er, War, in return for trade with Mexico. Of course the CSA would be obliged to assist Mexico in re-obtaining such territory the government of the USA refused to return voluntarily. And maybe pigs can fly.
The Union mounted several attempts to capture the trans-Mississippi regions of Texas and Louisiana from 1862 until the war's end. With ports to the east under blockade or captured, Texas in particular became a blockade-running haven. Referred to as the "back door" of the Confederacy, Texas and western Louisiana continued to provide cotton crops that were transferred overland to the Mexican border town of Matamoros, Tamaulipas, and shipped to Europe in exchange for supplies.
Determined to close this trade, the Union mounted several invasion attempts of Texas, each of them unsuccessful. Confederate victories at Galveston, Texas, and the Battle of Sabine Pass repulsed invasion forces. The Union's disastrous Red River Campaign in western Louisiana, including a defeat at the Battle of Mansfield, effectively ended the Union's final invasion attempt of the region until the fall of the Confederacy. Jeffery Prushankin argues that Kirby Smith's "pride, poor judgment, and lack of military skill" prevented General Richard Taylor from potentially winning a victory that could have greatly affected the military and political situation east of the Mississippi River.[2]
Isolated from events in the east, the Civil War continued at a low level in the Trans-Mississippi theater for several months after Lee's surrender in April 1865. The last battle of the war occurred at Palmito Ranch in southern Texas – a Confederate victory.
Colonel Dreux wrote: edited
arsan wrote:Surely this is not personal either...
Why don't you both resolve your problems in private instead of making the rest of the forum your involuntary spectators??
Talk about childish...
These forums are for talking about AGEOD games. This post is about discussing improvements for a future AACW2.
Stop provoking and behave yourself!
Colonel Dreux wrote:No, I'm going to address him deleting my comments. And I'm going to state my opinions. He's got to learn to live with people disagreeing with him or having colorful prose.
enf91 wrote:There already are the islands near Cape Hatteras and the Florida Keys. Union players can use Fort Pickens, though it might alert the CSA to a southern invasion. What islands did you have in mind?
Colonel Dreux wrote:Actually, now I've discovered there was trading going on between Mexico and the CSA after all. Cotton was transported across the Rio Grande for European guns at the port of Bagdad, Mexico. Reading through the old Time Life Civil War books, I found at least 2 references to the trade going on at Bagdad, Mexico. There is also a wikipage on Bagdad, and the arms trade between Mexico and the CSA is mentioned on at least one of other wiki page with regards to the Trans-Mississippi conflict, which references a book on the conflict. So I don't have a primary source or solid secondary source to prove it, but it appears there was trade going on between Mexico and the CSA after all... the Mexican War be damned. I also read that the U.S. started shipping guns to Mexican nationalists fighting the French as soon as the Civil War ended. So there were trade links established despite the Mexican War and despite the difficulties in the trading route itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagdad,_Tamaulipas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Mississippi_Theater_of_the_American_Civil_War
This actually goes back to my original point [color="Red"]<deleted personal remark>[/color], which was that Vicksburg was the key choke point between the Trans-Mississippi and the Eastern half of the Confederacy. It's part of what made it an important objective to Union forces, which is what I had read originally... that Lincoln and his cabinet wanted to cut off whatever trade was coming West of the Mississippi from Mexico.
Colonel Dreux wrote:Secondary Reference:
Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War
http://books.google.com/books?id=_kq7diciSsQC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=mexico+confederate+trade&source=bl&ots=m5lJCsAcpn&sig=-iipfi40-QF7IZ-gAei87bjOB3M&hl=en&ei=GdPESsC2IpWN8AbI9YA0&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=mexico%20confederate%20trade&f=false
Search Mexico and it will allow you to go to the pertinent pages. The trade wasn't significant in the grand scheme of things, but trade did occur and supplies did come into the Trans-Mississippi military district from Mexico. There was even a supply line running out of Monterey (although not very much stuff). Like you said though, must supplies came in at ports east of the Mississippi along the Gulf or on the Atlantic coast.
So really is not that important to game play, but it did happen.
Beren wrote:River transport not allowed or at least that it would cost much more in enemy controlled rivers and territory...
It is very frustrating when you have isolated in your territory an army of 40000 men they can withdraw so easily.
Captain_Orso wrote:Thanks Colonel,
wow, that was one of the most interesting read I've had in a while, that about Bagdad. The reference to invading Colorado though 'As one Texan put it, "If it had not been for those devils from Pike's Peak, this country would have been ours."' I believe can't be taken as an indication of intentions, as Sibley's aim was not at Colorado, but California.
I also note that Sibley's campaign, though pointed toward Colorado, was to clear the Union troops out of the forts in New Mexico to open the door to California. He also thought that Confederate sympathizers would flock to join him, which they did not.
From my readings there were a lot more sympathizers in Arizona. When the Union moved the postal route to the north at the outset of hostilities they also removed all the troops from the forts along the route thus leaving Arizona unprotected from the Apache. Many of the settlers fled the region because of this and many of those who stayed were not on friendly terms with the Union because of being abandoned by the Union. The Apache saw the removal of the troops as their victory and went on to attack the now unprotected settlers killing many.
Though the Confederacy did eventually have a troop, about 100 men I read, in Tucson and called out the Confederate State of Arizona, comprised of the southern halves of present New Mexico and Arizona, this was of little importance, as they were only a hand-full. It was probably more important to the settlers.
I believe in game-terms, the South-West Territory with Tucson should actually have Santa Fe or Albuquerque as the fort/city as this was the only place where fighting of any consequence occurred, plus measuring the time that it takes to get from Tucson to Denver or the western map edge compared with from Denver to the western map edge, seams to coincide more with Santa Fe or Albuquerque than Tucson. But that's really just flavor.
But back to trade with Mexico. I wonder how much that was in comparison to other ports where blockade runners were operating. From the Wikipedia article on Bagdad, Tamaulipas, it sounds extensive. But then again the article also says that the Union ignored the Consulate's plea for intervention in the trade, deeming the general blockade effort, and I guess other specific ports, more important. All-in-all food for thought.
The description of Bagdag, Tamaulipas sound interesting too. Would be a great setting for a film, '“an excrescence of the war. Here congregated . . . blockade runners, desperadoes, the vile of both sexes; adventurers . . . numberless groggeries and houses of worse fame. [Where the] decencies of civilized life were forgotten, and vice in its worst form held high carnival . . . while in the low, dirty looking buildings . . . were amassed millions [in] gold and silver.” A blockade runner once described Bagdad as a place where everyone was trying to grab what he could by using whatever scheme possible to make money out of crisis.' Sounds like a cross between Siverado, Open Range, Once Upon a Time in Mexico and Girls Gone Wild.![]()
enf91 wrote:I was thinking about theater commanders too, but I'm not sure how much effect they had. Even Grant couldn't get Butler to be competent, and Banks was still an idiot despite Sherman. I was also considering unit ethnicities, given the case of XI Corps at Chancellorsville, whose largely German units had lower morale because of Sigel's transfer. Then again, how many other times did that happen?
Captain_Orso wrote:Being that the current map basically splits the the US part of North American continent about right down the middle, there is a huge part of the present USA which is represented by the 5 western off-board boxes. Although it is highly unlikely that anybody would really ever use them, it would be interesting if the South-West Box were made into Eastern-SouthWest-Territory representing present day New Mexico and an additional Western-SouthWest-Territory Box were incorporated to the west of that representing Arizona. This would make the Sibley Plan more possible to attempt in-game.
It kind of makes me wonder, what if Sibley had turned left at Mesilla ignoring the Federals, headed straight to Tucson and found supporters and volunteers there. What if the CSA did march to California with a 'sizeable' force, say 5000 men. He left Texas with about 3500 as it was. Would the US have been able to afford to send troops from the North-East all the way to West-Coast or march them across the Rockies in '61-'62? How much would the CSA earn from owning California?
Scenarios that I'm glad didn't occur in real life; but I wonder what-if.
Comtedemeighan wrote:I would love to see an expanded map and maybe a what-if scenario loosely based on the Turtledove's "How Few Remain"
andatiep wrote:To stop the army trafics :
Not more than one army per map's theatre, just one HQ available per year and/or scripted events which place the army HQ in specific fronts/big sectors they can't leave.
If not players buy all HQ available, give them to the stupid 3 stars best ranked generals and succeed soon to give a last HQ to a young Grant. Players send this ghost "armies" in Alaska or so and can use Grant as chief in command in the east in 1862 !
I'm currently playing a PBEM where i could even replace McClellan by the general in chief of the mexican army which is better ranked and skilled...
caranorn wrote:All those better ranked "stupid 3-stars" held Army level or higher commands, often with the "brilliant 3-stars" serving under them (Grant und Halleck iirc).
caranorn wrote: If a player wants to spend a large ammount of resources on HQ's just so they can dispatch Halleck to Alaska, Fremont to New Hampshire and Banks to the Moon and have grant command in their place on the Seaboard they should be able to do so. Just like they can currently give Grant Army command before those other "stupid 3-stars" and take a hit in VP (is it VP, sorry haven't played for over a month, could be NM)...
caranorn wrote:Also note that multiple armies in a single theater existed on both sides of the ACW. For instance Army of the Tennessee (Grant) and the Army of the Ohio (Buell) in the West, or the Army of the Potomac (Meade) and the Army of the James (not sure who was in command).
caranorn wrote: Also I wouldn't limit an army to it's theater of original activation, It's not unlogical to see an Army move from the trans-Mississippi into the West, or from the West into the Seaboard...
caranorn wrote:But that brings us back to Theater Commanders. There should be some actual benefit in giving the likes of Halleck and Fremont a HQ before people like Grant or Lyon (note, I usually got Lyon to 3-star faster than Grant). Maybe better movement of supplies as long as you have an area commander? At least some kind of benefit...
caranorn wrote:Otherwise great ideas that I'd support 100%...
andatiep wrote:
Thanks !
...and it's especially cool for the last one because i really didn't expect to find any support about the foreign languages publishing and distribution of Turtledove's books inside the next AACW2 box !![]()
andatiep wrote:Not more than one army per map's theatre, just one HQ available per year and/or scripted events which place the army HQ in specific fronts/big sectors they can't leave.
If not players buy all HQ available, give them to the stupid 3 stars best ranked generals and succeed soon to give a last HQ to a young Grant. Players send this ghost "armies" in Alaska or so and can use Grant as chief in command in the east in 1862 !
I'm currently playing a PBEM where i could even replace McClellan by the general in chief of the mexican army which is better ranked and skilled...
Return to “Help to improve AACW!”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests