Kentucky Event is Broken

[Q-Ball]

There have been a few fixes to KY, but the newest one creates a completely unrealistic situation and needs to be fixed.

Kentucky, unless one side chooses to intervene, will not open until January, 1863. When that fires, the actual event looks fine; the Rebs get a few volunteers around Bowling Green, and the RR is cut heading north (The Louisville and Nashville was owned and operated by Unionists). That part works.

But Jan 1863? No way.

I attend church with a Professor of American History, and I asked him casually if he thought KY could have stayed neutral. He said not a chance; when Polk grabbed Columbus, many felt that the State Legislature, which had a very strong Unionist majority, was heading toward ending neutrality. Camp Robinson was a clear violation of that, yet nothing happened. In the elections of 1861, 9 out of 10 US Congressmen elected were Unionists, the exception being the pro-Southern region around Bowling Green.

In his view, KY was going to "Open" in the Fall of 1861 regardless, somehow. Civil Wars force all to choose sides, and this was happening in KY. Unionists were enlisting, and so were Rebel sympathizers. At some point, Shooting would have started in KY, and would have inevitably let to war, and the end of neutrality. Any idea of neutrality in Missouri ended quickly when shots were fired.

In Game, the penalties are too harsh for the Union to voluntarily select "end KY Neutrality" to do so, and the South player would be nuts to open it; it's a perfect shield.

I would like other's opinions, but KY neutrality needs to end in Dec 1861 at the latest, IMO.

Absent this change, unless KY seceeds (which is absurd, and would not have happened), games will not have any 1862 campaigns in KY or Tennessee. Which is not good.

[Ace]

I agree. The last entry dates should be around Grant's Ft Donelson campaigns

[Pocus]

We will check if some revision is needed, with the help of our historical buffs

[UnionBlue]

Indeed Jan of 1863 is way to late for Kentucky to end its neutrality. Historically, imho the war was delayed at least a year by the Confederates establishing their defensive positions in Kentucky. Either war Kentucky should be unlocked much before 63. But it is a nice DMZ protecting the heart of Tennessee if your' re a CSA man.

[Captain_Orso]

Kentucky was invaded by both the CS and US in the first week of September '61, less than 5 months after Ft Sumter being fired on.

The CS had no defensive positions in Kentucky, but wanted them in Columbus Ky overlooking the Mississippi.

The Kentucky legislature wanted to remain neutral, even if Governor Magoffin of Kentucky sympathized with the South.

After being invaded by both Pillow's division of Polk's corp and Grant's division the Kentucky legislature issued a bill demanding that Confederate troops immediately be removed from Kentucky, but said nothing of Union troops. Gov. Magoffin vetoed the bill, requesting that both Union and Confederate troops be removed from Kentucky, but his veto was overturned by both houses of the Kentucky legislature.

Kentucky's citizenry were far from being only sympathetic to the Union cause, but the Kentucky legislature, elected through special elections in June '61, was far from being interested in joining the war.

How long Kentucky might have remained neutral without the invasions of September can only be speculated.

[Gen.DixonS.Miles]

Grant moved to Paducah under orders from Fremont as a result of or concurrent with Polk's advance on Columbus correct?

[Gen.DixonS.Miles]

And then there was the Battle of Belmont...

[Le Ricain]

Kentucky was invaded by both the CS and US in the first week of September '61, less than 5 months after Ft Sumter being fired on.

The CS had no defensive positions in Kentucky, but wanted them in Columbus Ky overlooking the Mississippi.

The Kentucky legislature wanted to remain neutral, even if Governor Magoffin of Kentucky sympathized with the South.

After being invaded by both Pillow's division of Polk's corp and Grant's division the Kentucky legislature issued a bill demanding that Confederate troops immediately be removed from Kentucky, but said nothing of Union troops. Gov. Magoffin vetoed the bill, requesting that both Union and Confederate troops be removed from Kentucky, but his veto was overturned by both houses of the Kentucky legislature.

Kentucky's citizenry were far from being only sympathetic to the Union cause, but the Kentucky legislature, elected through special elections in June '61, was far from being interested in joining the war.

How long Kentucky might have remained neutral without the invasions of September can only be speculated.

In Kentucky during 1861, there were actually three elections. The Unionists were able to portray themselves as being in favour of neutrality and to portray the States Rights party as being pro-secessionist and pro-war.

In May, 1861, at the election for the Border State Convention, which was to meet at Frankfort on May 27th, to vote on secession, the Unionist candidates defeated the States Rights candidates by 106,862 votes to 4,862.

In June, at the US Congressional elections, Unionists won nine of the ten seats on offer.

In August, at the state legislature elections, Unionists won veto proof majorities in the House, 76-24, and the Senate, 27-11.

[Captain_Orso]

Grant moved to Paducah under orders from Fremont as a result of or concurrent with Polk's advance on Columbus correct?

No, actually Polk was reacting to pressure from Pillow and Gov. Harris of Tennessee. When Harris said that he had information (what information I do not know) that Grant was about to move into Kentucky he requested that Polk wait to see if Grant actually invaded. But Polk declined and sent Pillow to Columbus before Grant could take it (he thought Columbus would be Grant's target).

So although Grant's/Fremont's intentions were formulated earlier, Polk actually moved first.

Polk didn't have permission to invade Kentucky and falsified some documents to indicate that Davis did know of Polk's move into Kentucky beforehand. Davis (a personal friend of Polk's) covered for Polk. But studies of Davis' papers after the war showed that Davis actually did not know in advance.

Polk was known to have bent the truth throughout the war to save face for decisions he made.

And then there was the Battle of Belmont...

Belmont was in November of '61 already 2 months after Kentucky had been invaded.

[Ace]

I think we can all agree that the the date of KY entering the war on its own belongs in the field of speculation. But we all want to model the game to play close to history, to lead the player to similar choices their historic counterparts did.

Setting the penalty for invading to 10 NM and 5 NM is too prohibitive to play out the game historically.

I never heard of street riots in Boston or Charleston because KY was invaded. So, if we rate NM as the nation's will to wage war, was it shattered because Polk and Grant entered the state. I think not.

So, in my opinion, maybe 100 VP and 50 VP are more realistic penalty for invading rather than big NM hit. We can all discuss that the VP maybe higher or lower, but I would omit NM penalty completely, as it did not happened after both sides invaded the state..

[Captain_Orso]

In Kentucky during 1861, there were actually three elections. The Unionists were able to portray themselves as being in favour of neutrality and to portray the States Rights party as being pro-secessionist and pro-war.

In May, 1861, at the election for the Border State Convention, which was to meet at Frankfort on May 27th, to vote on secession, the Unionist candidates defeated the States Rights candidates by 106,862 votes to 4,862.

In June, at the US Congressional elections, Unionists won nine of the ten seats on offer.

In August, at the state legislature elections, Unionists won veto proof majorities in the House, 76-24, and the Senate, 27-11.

Who says history is boring

[Captain_Orso]

I think we can all agree that the the date of KY entering the war on its own belongs in the field of speculation. But we all want to model the game to play close to history, to lead the player to similar choices their historic counterparts did.

Setting the penalty for invading to 10 NM and 5 NM is too prohibitive to play out the game historically.

I never heard of street riots in Boston or Charleston because KY was invaded. So, if we rate NM as the nation's will to wage war, was it shattered because Polk and Grant entered the state. I think not.

So, in my opinion, maybe 100 VP and 50 VP are more realistic penalty for invading rather than big NM hit. We can all discuss that the VP maybe higher or lower, but I would omit NM penalty completely, as it did not happened after both sides invaded the state..

I agree that it is not historically realistic to have such NM hits. But the player is also enjoying his omniscience of the outcome. To make the game more interesting there does need to be some cost for the move. Changes to these are being evaluated by the beta team.

On the historical side, I have yet to find a reference to what Lincoln's thought were. I rather doubt that Fremont decided on his own to invade. That would have been an eclat of a high order, but I'm not sure of it.

[Ace]

To make the game more interesting there does need to be some cost for the move.

Yes, but now I sometimes feel I am playing a fantasy scenario what if KY stayed neutral. The costs have to be lowered, and since VP is rather abstract value, I think it would be the best currency for the measure of invasion's political cost.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Fremont was a bit of a lose cannon. He made his own emancipation proclamation in Missouri.

http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=31&subjectID=3

Historian William E. Parrish wrote: "President Lincoln had strong reservations about two aspects of the Fremont proclamation and quickly made them known to the commander. He dispatched a special messenger to St. Louis on September 2, expressing his concern about the order to shoot those taken with arms, which he feared would lead to Confederate retaliation. He, therefore, ordered that no such action be taken without his consent. He then requested Fremont to modify his emancipation policy to conform with an August 6 act of Congress that limited emancipation to those slaves forced to take up arms or otherwise actively participate in the war on the Confederate side."7 President Lincoln asked Frémont to bring his proclamation into conformance with the First Confiscation Act:

Two points in your proclamation of August 30th give me some anxiety. First, should you shoot a man, according to the proclamation, the Confederates would very certainly shoot our best man in their hands in retaliation; and so, man for man, indefinitely. It is therefore my order that you allow no man to be shot, under the proclamation, without first having my approbation or consent[.]

Secondly, I think there is great danger that the closing paragraph, in relation to the confiscation of property, and the liberating slaves of traiterous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends, and turn them against us perhaps ruin our rather fair prospect for Kentucky. Allow me therefore to ask, that you will as of your own motion, modify that paragraph so as to conform to the first and fourth sections of the act of Congress, entitled, "An act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes," approved August, 6th, 1861, and a copy of which act I herewith send you. This letter is written in a spirit of caution and not of censure[.]8

Historian Benjamin P. Thomas wrote: "Frémont considered for six days. He saw no reason to amend his proclamation. He would not 'change or shade it,' he decided. 'It was equal to a victory in the field.' If the President wished to modify it, he could issue the order himself."9 Fremont replied to President Lincoln in writing on September 8, but he also sent his own wife, Jessie, to Washington to talk to the President in person :

That didn’t work out well either.

[veji1]

The outcome should be somewhat random, including a tiny bit of NM, some VPs and potential for Foreign intervention + or -, so that the player cannot be quite sure + some variable (small) number of troops appearing.

Say the CSA player decides to invade to secure Columbus and Paducah, well at best he loses 25 VPs and a couple of US militia appear in Louisville and Lexington, but at worst it creates international outrage (stirred by the Union) and leads to 70 VPs, 3 NM and -15 Foreign intervention as it is deemed to demonstrate that the CSA was the aggressor.

[Le Ricain]

I agree that it is not historically realistic to have such NM hits. But the player is also enjoying his omniscience of the outcome. To make the game more interesting there does need to be some cost for the move. Changes to these are being evaluated by the beta team.

On the historical side, I have yet to find a reference to what Lincoln's thought were. I rather doubt that Fremont decided on his own to invade. That would have been an eclat of a high order, but I'm not sure of it.

I believe that Lincoln's actions on Kentucky during 1861 give an insight into his thoughts on the state. Early in the year, Lincoln adopted a cautious and pragmatic program in order to not provoke adverse public opinion. He used conciliatory language when discussing KY. He prohibited the army from recruiting in the state. He declined to prohibit trade between the state and the CSA. He also assured KY, that the USA would not use force against the state provided the state recognised US authority. The Unionists were able to cloak themselves as the pro-Union neutrality party and the States Rights party as pro-secession and therefore pro-war.

Lincoln's plan was a complete success as the results of the three 1861 elections shows. Having overwhelmingly won the secession, Congressional and Legislature elections, Lincoln upped the stakes in August. The Unionists dropped all references to neutrality. The government began shipping arms to Kentucky Unionists. Also, the army was given the go ahead to begin recruiting Kentuckians. Lincoln was careful to revoke parts of Fremont's proclamation in order to keep Kentucky onside.

As both sides were recruiting inside the state, it would have been just a matter of time before the Union controlled legislature abandoned neutrality altogether. An incident with Kentucky secessionists would have been enough for Kentucky to request intervention from the USA. The legislature was able to force the Kentucky governor Magoffin to resign in favour of a Unionist in August, 1862. I suggest that this date could be used as the latest date for an un-invaded Kentucky entering in on the side of the Union.

[Aurelin]

, but at worst it creates international outrage (stirred by the Union) and leads to 70 VPs, 3 NM and -15 Foreign intervention as it is deemed to demonstrate that the CSA was the aggressor.

Why would it create anything even remotely like international outrage? Kentucky was not a recognized foreign nation. No more than the Confederacy was. Confederate troops moving into Kentucky certainly caused nothing of the kind.

[Eugene Carr]

Kentucky should be like a game of "who blinks first" with the aggressor penalised probably by VP loss and by loss of loyalty in the Kentucky regions (already variable across the state) but for the Union the penalties should decrease through time while the Confederates penalties increase relative to them.
This gives the CSA the dilemma of seizing defensive positions and production centres or allowing the Union the initiative in exchange for a decreasing penalty. vice versa for the USA.

S!

[klwhitehead]

My suggestion on handling Kentucky is:

Since the CSA player is never going to be stupid enough to do what Polk did, give them a bonus in NM and/or VP for entering Kentucky early. Have the bonus decline with time. This will give them some reason for invading before they are ready.

The USA player needs to invade as soon as their forces build up. Give them a high penalty in early 1862 but allow it to decline until it is relative low by March/April 1862. The player will have to decide whether the advantage of moving first into Kentucky offsets the cost but since the cost decline and the need to put pressure on the Rebels increases, this should insure invasion well before the automatic entry.

The Historic reasons for Polk and Grant going into Kentucky in February don't exists in the game since they were Political in nature. These are best simulated through events that change the relative cost of violating neutrality during the first half of 1862.

[Aurelin]

My suggestion on handling Kentucky is:

The Historic reasons for Polk and Grant going into Kentucky in February don't exists in the game since they were Political in nature. These are best simulated through events that change the relative cost of violating neutrality during the first half of 1862.

It had nothing to do with politics. Polk went in to beat the Federals to the punch. Columbus, with its high bluffs, was a fine place to plant artillery to cover the river.

And he did, as Fremont had ordered Grant to take the town ASAP.

It was a military move. Not political.

[Q-Ball]

I believe that Lincoln's actions on Kentucky during 1861 give an insight into his thoughts on the state. Early in the year, Lincoln adopted a cautious and pragmatic program in order to not provoke adverse public opinion. He used conciliatory language when discussing KY. He prohibited the army from recruiting in the state. He declined to prohibit trade between the state and the CSA. He also assured KY, that the USA would not use force against the state provided the state recognised US authority. The Unionists were able to cloak themselves as the pro-Union neutrality party and the States Rights party as pro-secession and therefore pro-war.

Lincoln's plan was a complete success as the results of the three 1861 elections shows. Having overwhelmingly won the secession, Congressional and Legislature elections, Lincoln upped the stakes in August. The Unionists dropped all references to neutrality. The government began shipping arms to Kentucky Unionists. Also, the army was given the go ahead to begin recruiting Kentuckians. Lincoln was careful to revoke parts of Fremont's proclamation in order to keep Kentucky onside.

As both sides were recruiting inside the state, it would have been just a matter of time before the Union controlled legislature abandoned neutrality altogether. An incident with Kentucky secessionists would have been enough for Kentucky to request intervention from the USA. The legislature was able to force the Kentucky governor Magoffin to resign in favour of a Unionist in August, 1862. I suggest that this date could be used as the latest date for an un-invaded Kentucky entering in on the side of the Union.

I think this comment is pretty sound, and I'm OK with the change to VPs

I cannot conceive if any scenario however that would have resulted in Kentucky seceeding in 1861. Even many of those who eventually sided with the South were opposed to secession. Kentucky didn't even have a convention or vote for secession, because there just wasn't support. The possibility of that event should be removed from the game, IMO.

[Ace]

The chance for KY seceding is about 5%. You have to know that US was importing arms to Ky to arm pro-Union militias. If that fact was known prior to 61 August elections, it may have well put a serious dent in the pro-Union neutrality party image - demascarading their campaign in the process. Such information can turn the elections altogether. That is why there is a low chance of Ky seceding, small things can make history unfold in the alternate directions.

[PhilThib]

This whole debate will be endless and is once again the proof of a known rule in game's development: 90% of the trouble comes from 10% of the content (and it is not even the proportion here, I would say 99/1)

To close the matter, I'll do some changes along the line:

* slightly lower the penaly in NM, but not to nil, because I WANT players to be penalized for aggression
* create some event from 1862 onwards warning the pro-Union side is taking advantage in KY. CSA will thus be warned that the state can turn to the North and thus can launch a preemptive attack...at some point in 1862, tests will be made after the warning and KY will end up turning up to the Union.

After that, it will be time to move to other matters...

[Le Ricain]

The 1862 event could be the announcement that the Kentucky State House and Senate were starting moves to force the pro-Southern Governor Magoffin from office in favour of a pro-Union replacement, James F Robinson. This move would have alarmed the CSA for exactly the reasons you state. In R/L, the coup happened in August, 1862, but could have happened anytime after the pro-Unionists won both legislative houses in August, 1861.

James F Robinson

The attachment James_F_Robinson.jpg is no longer available