Why not?

[havi]

Why there isn't any penalties to union if they lose their heart lands at middle states like illinois and ohio? My game union is deep in missippi and they left heartlands open i but forest command of 2000pwr past them and took springfield and middle illinois by storm and there isn't any affects to union no NM loss and no whining why reb flag is up on those states? there should be some kind of affects if u can take those states capitals like 5NM hit or something to force the union player defend them now it just seems union steamrolls down south and don't care about forrest taking the illinois and ohio!

[Captain_Orso]

I don't think there's any specific reason why capturing large or major cities in the North do not give the CS player any NM or VP benefits beyond the SP's for the city size; possibly simply to not promote it.

I've been involved in several discussion about this, which IIRC revolved around would/should/could a major CS invasion of the North capturing large/important cities

- cause the Southern population to become disillusioned with their government for not strictly fighting a war for freedom, but now waging a war of aggression?

- cause the Southern population to rejoice at their armies showing the North how determined they are and endangered the North is through their futile efforts at repressing the South?

- basically the same two points above for foreign intervention?

- if Northern forces were deep in Southern territory, would the public not become angry at the armies waisting their time in the North while the South is bleeding from Northern invading armies?

[Keeler]

I've wondered this for some time myself. I think both Southern reactions are valid and reflect history, depending on what period of the war we are talking about. I am not sure how CWII can reflect this though. Both sides attached a higher political importance to the few battles fought outside the seceded states, so perhaps if there was a way to increase the importance of battles fought in the Northern states (ie increase the value of NM gain/loss from battles, attach an intervention gain/loss, etc), that might be one answer.

As far as Northern reactions go, I remember that in Forge of Freedom you had to fulfill demands from governors. Along that line, perhaps someone could mod in more "keep x amount of troops" events for regions that are threatened. For example if Harper's Ferry is occupied by Confederates, a Union player would receive a message that Governor Curtain is demanding troops near Harrisburg.

[Rod Smart]

Why there isn't any penalties to union if they lose their heart lands at middle states like illinois and ohio?

the penalty is that they lost Illinois and Ohio


Is that not enough??

[tripax]

What was the point in the war of occupying enemy cities? I think it was a way to prevent urban industry and urban transportation and shipping centers from supporting the war. I don't think southern moral was strongly adversely affected by the occupation of Fayetteville, Memphis, Nashville, New Orleans, etc. In fact, I think Southern occupation of Northern forts and Northern occupation of Southern cities strengthened war support. If Cincinnati or even Pittsburgh had fallen to a infantry support column of Morgan's raiders (which didn't exist but was rumored I think), I don't think that would have hurt Northern Moral. On the other hand, if the Beauregard's dream march of the first Manassas Army to Lake Erie had succeeded and the North were split in half by a thrust through Western Pennsylvania ending in Buffalo or Rochester or thrusting through Syracuse or Albany, it does feel that would have ended the war. I'd say that Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYC, Boston, Brooklyn and Buffalo (all in the top 10 in population in 1860) should have a high NM cost if they fall. I think if Chicago fell (or Cleveland, Detroit, or Milwaukee), the western states might have accepted (or even proposed) neutrality, but DC would have kept fighting.

Source: Table 9. Population of the 100 Largest Urban Places: 1860, U.S. Bureau of the Census (https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab09.txt)

[havi]

Well i would think if your government neglect to defend those western towns where the soldiers came from and let the south take them there would be some kind of political pressure for sure.

[Captain_Orso]

No Norther state would have accepted having any of their cities captured nor, if the South had achieved capturing a corridor from the Ohio River to Chicago, have gone neutral. In this case especially Illinois would have been screaming bloody hell and demanding the invaders be driven from their lands.

At some point however some political factions may have started pleading for the end of hostilities taking on the stance of letting the Southern states go in exchange for their removal of Confederate troops from Northern soil, which in game terms means NM having dropped below the Sudden Death low-water and the Union loosing the game.

What is obviously missing from the game are NM/VP penalties on losing large and major cities north of the Potomac- Ohio- Missouri Rivers.

Also, what is missing is the ability for the South to destroy industry and infrastructure in some strategic locations. Pittsburgh produced a large portion of the iron produced in the North. Were the South to capture Pittsburgh, destroy the foundries and coal mines it would be a painful blow to the Union. The question is, whether the North could compensate for the loss of that production (historically) and how that might be implemented in the game.

Chicago's massive growth was caused by it being the largest hub for cattle to be collected and slaughtered and the meat be shipped back east. This infrastructure could not easily be shifted to perhaps Milwaukee plus that city too would be in grave danger of falling into Southern hands.

Both of these losses would have stuck great blows to the Northern economy which would not be reflected in the game.

[havi]

Yes orso now we speak the same language (finglish). That was what i meant that if south could conquer some big north cities same time when union troops sit in missippi they would rail everybody back in north and hit back. Now u don't need to do that in 63 when your armies are rolling in alabama there isn't any penalties to union side to do that. now if we put -5NM hit to union when he lost springfield, chicago, cincy, cleveland. then he is forced to react and bring troops back to defend those spots. as u said there would been hell if south could have do that and maybe 64 elections would have gone to different way.

[tripax]

No Norther state would have accepted having any of their cities captured nor, if the South had achieved capturing a corridor from the Ohio River to Chicago, have gone neutral. In this case especially Illinois would have been screaming bloody hell and demanding the invaders be driven from their lands.

Who knows? When Lincoln made his first call for soldiers, he didn't know who would respond. Illinois and Indiana could have easily elected peace-Democrats in response to occupation and stopped sending troops/supplies, why not? In 1860 a little under 10% of Illinois lived in Chicago, 1% in Peoria, 1% in Quincy, and no other city had over 10,000 people. Urban support for the Union would have been high, but Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota were so rural, I don't think "scream bloody hell" would have necessarily been the outcome of occupation.

At some point however some political factions may have started pleading for the end of hostilities taking on the stance of letting the Southern states go in exchange for their removal of Confederate troops from Northern soil, which in game terms means NM having dropped below the Sudden Death low-water and the Union loosing the game.

The game misses this because NM regresses to 100 over time, so sustained occupation of a state effects the use of the force pool, but not NM.

What is obviously missing from the game are NM/VP penalties on losing large and major cities north of the Potomac- Ohio- Missouri Rivers.

While a lot of money was spent to protect Lexington, Louisville, Cincinnati, Cairo, and St. Louis, why would their loss have been worse than Nashville or Memphis? Their loss was certainly contemplated by the North and by Northerners.

Also, what is missing is the ability for the South to destroy industry and infrastructure in some strategic locations. Pittsburgh produced a large portion of the iron produced in the North. Were the South to capture Pittsburgh, destroy the foundries and coal mines it would be a painful blow to the Union. The question is, whether the North could compensate for the loss of that production (historically) and how that might be implemented in the game.

I agree that the ability to destroy buildings would be an interesting idea, possibly a good one.

Chicago's massive growth was caused by it being the largest hub for cattle to be collected and slaughtered and the meat be shipped back east. This infrastructure could not easily be shifted to perhaps Milwaukee plus that city too would be in grave danger of falling into Southern hands.

Maybe, I think you are overestimating the reliance of the soldiers on canned beef. Most of Chicago's beef probably didn't end up in Eastern soldier bellies, but I don't know.

Both of these losses would have stuck great blows to the Northern economy which would not be reflected in the game.

This point gets a bit off topic, but the war economy was based on the different side's ability to borrow, not on the productive capacity of its cities as is modeled in the game. Losing (temporary) control of a city wouldn't really affect the war economy, I think. It is pretty easy to rebuild factories, so even their destruction wasn't critical for borrowing. It could be critical for armament, of course - I haven't figured out how critical domestic war supply was, but domestic government income generation (via taxes or whatever) was very small compared to domestic and foreign borrowing, for instance.

Demonstrating that the North would win reduced the willingness of people to borrow to support the South since Southern debt may not have been repaid by a United government, but Northern debt very likely would have been repaid if the South had won independence, even if it occupied Chicago during the war.

[havi]

tripax bit off topic but if south could destroy northern factorys in pittsburgh and middle-states the union would have to stop fighting or attacking at least because they work tools had been then taken away from them. Yes war economy globaly is ruined in the loan money but how many would still loan money to union if they lost the heartlands and looked to lose the war and u never would get your moneys back?

[FightingBuckeye]

Maybe suspend NM normalization if any Union state capital were in CSA hands? And I'm not talking border states or the Far Western states like Nebraska or Colorado. Or have a list of major Northern cities that have an event fire if they fall. The event would give the Union player a timetable to retake the city by or face an NM loss similar to some of the Eastern events.

[Rod Smart]

If a state were to "scream bloody murder" due to having their city captured..... wouldn't that INCREASE national morale? Because they'd be MORE of a reason to fight.

There is a difference between defending your homeland and fighting for some ideal you didn't agree with in the first place.
That's why I said that the penalty already exists- you no longer get the production from the towns you lost.





FYI- Pittsburgh's foundries were destroyed in the Civil War - the Allegheny Arsenal blew up. Work at the arsenal continued, and within a year everything was replaced.
Based on that, no destruction of industry should be permanent. Because in real life, destruction of industry is not permanent (no matter how much you blow up, Pittsburgh is still surrounded by rivers and coal and a lot of people).

[tripax]

tripax bit off topic but if south could destroy northern factorys in pittsburgh and middle-states the union would have to stop fighting or attacking at least because they work tools had been then taken away from them. Yes war economy globaly is ruined in the loan money but how many would still loan money to union if they lost the heartlands and looked to lose the war and u never would get your moneys back?

This isn't Rome: Total War, the South could never have conquered the North and as far as I know didn't want to. We know the North would have been able to pay its debt without the South because at least in part it did, given that the states in the south were net recipients of funds for a period after the war.

@RodSmart - Good to know about the Allegheny Arsenal. The explosion could even be an event costing the North some WS. Googling, I learn that it happened in September 1862, at that point the North is still struggling with WS in the game.

[havi]

This isn't Rome: Total War, the South could never have conquered the North and as far as I know didn't want to. We know the North would have been able to pay its debt without the South because at least in part it did, given that the states in the south were net recipients of funds for a period after the war.

@RodSmart - Good to know about the Allegheny Arsenal. The explosion could even be an event costing the North some WS. Googling, I learn that it happened in September 1862, at that point the North is still struggling with WS in the game.

Yes tripax this isn't rome:total war but now we are playing if game, IF south have gone to pittsburgh and burned it IF south have won in gettysburg IF south have take st.louis and gone maybe springfield in there to get political pressure to white house, do u still think union would have lot of money to loan or they would have but the expensive one. This is a game and we can play this IF game if u want slavely follow the historical way and always play the same game then u can do that but i want more variation o this and one variation could be that south came up to north take couple important cities and forces the union stop attacking in south and came back o north defend it self?!

[tripax]

@havi: I meant that in the Civil War the goal of the South isn't to conquer but to win independence. I don't know much about it, but the conspiracy for the Northwest Confederacy sought a break in the Union of the western states. I don't think that was a true war aim of the Southern government but rather a mixture of lies and wild dreams of a few Confederate leaning individuals and newspaper men opposed to pro-Confederacy northerners. Likewise, I think the federal government did not view victory nor reconstruction as conquest - depending on how you read Texas Vs White (1869). So what I mean is that an unconquered North was always going to be able to pay its debts, even if it lost and even if major Northern cities had been raided - Springfield was not a major Northern city, by the way.

Certainly in the game you can occupy Northern states as the South - this is even a good strategy! In fact, I suggest creating Northwest Confederacy type scenario if the South has this kind of success. But even when the South was doing well, the North had little trouble borrowing to finance its military.

Edit: Just to be clear, I do not wish to discuss whether the Norths victory was conquest or anything like that, I'm just trying to say that Northern bonds had a very high degree of security and a Southerner who believed the South would definitely win could feel comfortable buying them for investment purposes, in comparison a Northerner who believed the North would definitely win would see a similar Confederate bond as worthless.

[BattleVonWar]

Invasions should both cause differences in Value. Though loyalty perhaps. Invading a Northern State could have consequences for the South. Has little consequences for either side now.

The problem is more a problem of what value is there in doing anything other than focusing in on the major objective regions? Taking Pittsburgh for instance is just about impossible but taking it and burning it to the ground would have long lasting importance to the Union. It would cause Loyalty Switches and Mass Riots. Plus though the South was fighting for independence, independence by any means necessary? Perhaps that should be an option with a NM consequence and wavering Support in various locations. Also making certain territories easier to traverse with higher Loyalty/Civilization toward the South and really high NM value to make them very very coveted to risk an attack upon...

The South was never nearly pushed out the war by politics? No... the North was!

[B0rn_C0nfused]

What was the point in the war of occupying enemy cities? I think it was a way to prevent urban industry and urban transportation and shipping centers from supporting the war. I don't think southern moral was strongly adversely affected by the occupation of Fayetteville, Memphis, Nashville, New Orleans, etc. In fact, I think Southern occupation of Northern forts and Northern occupation of Southern cities strengthened war support. If Cincinatti or even Pittsburg had fallen to a infantry support column of Morgan's raiders (which didn't exist but was rumored I think), I don't think that would have hurt Northern Moral. On the other hand, if the Beauregard's dream march of the first Manassas Army to Lake Erie had succeeded and the North were split in half by a thrust through Western Pennsylvania ending in Buffalo or Rochester or thrusting through Syracuse or Albany, it does feel that would have ended the war. I'd say that Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYC, Boston, Brooklyn and Bufallo (all in the top 10 in population in 1860) should have a high NM cost if they fall. I think if Chicago fell (or Cleveland, Detroite, or Milwaukee), the western states might have accepted (or even proposed) neutrality, but DC would have kept fighting.

Source: Table 9. Population of the 100 Largest Urban Places: 1860, U.S. Bureau of the Census (https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab09.txt)

I normally try to refrain being a spelling/grammar Nazi, but for heaven's sake it is Cincinnati not Cincinatti.

[seathom]

Good thing there is no audio; I'd have to correct people who pronounced the "s" at the end of Illinois and I am very glad that Charlesonmission has learned to pronounce Tucson correctly!

[havi]

what i understand after the first bull run the GB empassador wrote to his government that north is going to loose the war and it is better to start making connections to south to get that cotton and only after gettysburg in euorpe they saw that CSA is going to loose, before gettysburg even south didn't have problems with their bonds and lending they even got guns, cannons and ships on loan for GB before that, and if they have won in gettysburg who knows what would happened? Political pressure would made peace treaty a possible maybe? we know now that union had all the moneys to pay back the depth but in 1862 nobody know that and there is always a gamble when u buy war bonds that other side bonds probably is worthless . But yes i just want to have something options to south to fight against union it isn't easy to move corps to north and take the cities there and if there isn't any penalties to union or possibility that they can loose the war it is wrong, just build huge army and come to south forget your heartlands.

P.S. sorry about my spelling =(

[tripax]

I normally try to refrain being a spelling/grammar Nazi, but for heaven's sake it is Cincinnati not Cincinatti.

Somehow I managed to misspell about 4 city names in that message, even Detroite!

[havi]

Somehow I managed to misspell about 4 city names in that message, even Detroite!

I think u are spelling finglish like me =)

[BattleVonWar]

Havi, that's just fine, but I would prefer the resources for the South rather than the Foreign Entry. Maybe AI giving over control of the British and French Navy or forcing a lift of the blockade. Better yet how about the South offer up chunks of Texas and the SouthWest at a huge NM Penalty for Mexican entry? Maybe risk Texas joining the Union :P as this deal expires!

Anything would be fun to play with however ahistorical... but would add some flavor and free up other fronts.

[havi]

yep I'm up to that to, it should cost a huge NM and VP but could be possibility. And what was that game at pc in 90s where u could choose your cabinet and offer peace when u played at south why not here to? everything what is ahistorical should be possible of course it is hard work to make those!

[tripax]

...u could choose your cabinet...

I've thought about modding this, but what specifically would having different cabinet members do?

[FightingBuckeye]

In the Hearts of Iron series, you can usually pick most of your top leadership like Chief of the Army, Chief of the Navy, etc. Some of these ministers provide positive and negative attributes to various aspects of the game. For instance, you could have a choice between a appointing someone to the Chief of the Army who'll give your troops a boost to organization (basically cohesion) recovery or another one who might give a boost to their movement. Sometimes you'll have guys who give a positive in one area and a negative in another or just negatives. It could be interesting being able to pick your own cabinet, maybe with penalties for replacing one over another. But I don't know how much it would really add to the game and whether it'd be worth the time and effort both programming it and also in game trying to juggle another level of complexity.

[havi]

yes it would be great to select own cabinet there could be like treasure minister could be good keeping inflation on control but bad like generating income or something like that, in historically they had these and game have events when they boot the corrupted and bad out so it would be different layer to this onion but it would be complicated but if somebody can do that i just loved it.

[tripax]

Right, I'm familiar with the idea from CKII. I'm more curious about who would have what characteristics? I've read a little bit about the politics in the selection of the different cabinet members, but, for instance, I'm a big fan of Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles. Who could have been selected for the Navy instead and what specifically would Welles provide and what would the other candidate provide? These suggestions would have to be within the context of the game. How many candidates could there be? How often would it a change be possible?

I thought about this for a while some time ago and decided that the differences between the different people would have to be very small - given that there already is a change in the game and the difference before and after the switch is small. Further, only one or two switches per candidate would be allowed. So it seemed like a limited addition and I decided not to try it.

It seems like if it were implemented, it would be a part of the political options. I don't know if it would be possible to create a graphic that showed who was currently in the cabinet, but it would be easy enough to create options for switching members. If someone created a list of cabinet members and alternates and the effect/characteristics of each, it is something I'd be interested in trying to implement in a mod.

[havi]

and why not the cabinet members could but political pressure to the soldiers like there is manassas option why not if u select one person to your cabinet he would want to fortify New orleans or somebody would want union to attack through kentucky or something like that?!

[tripax]

Did cabinet members have much of an impact on war aims? Did they put pressure on certain objectives over others? I don't know that they did. I know a bit more about the Union, though, so maybe it happened in the Confederacy?

[Durk]

Judah Benjamin is probably the best example of a Confederate cabinet member who did directly influence the direction of the war. Though he was controversial, being blamed for lack of military success, his position and advice were key to many decisions. He was typically ahead of the rest of the cabinet in setting many important objectives.