User avatar
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Missouri and Kentucky

Sun Oct 21, 2007 12:26 am

I have been toying with the idea of Missouri and Kentucky, how these two states were 'up in the air' in regards as to who they would support. Given the circumstances, I would be interested in expanding the situations in Kentucky and Missouri to be a tad bit more diverse, as well as somewhat within the control of the player (with objectives and such to achieve goals).

Both were in somewhat of a similar situation, both declaring neutrality yet having sympathies for both sides.

In Missouri, the status of involvement is based solely on events, while in Kentucky it is solely on action (or inaction). I wonder if there couldn't be a happy balance between the two?


Currently, the one who sits back wins in Kentucky. While the invasion of Kentucky is by all appearances to be a silly move (since if you attack, Kentucky joins the other side), historically both sides attempted an invasion, it just happened that the Confederates got their first, and were proclaimed the invaders.

Here I would like to see some events in place to warrant an invasion of Kentucky being a viable option. Since the AI does it anyway, it should pay off to attempt to capture specific cities in order to get actual gain.

How about if...

The CSA Captures
Bowling Green & Paducah
And holds on to
Columbus & Lexington

Effects: They gain 'control' of Kentucky. This means that the pro-confederate Kentuckians can freely enrol in Southern formations. Increase in manpower, resources, and buildable formations (similar to as the events currently are, but, gained for different actions).

The USA Captures
Columbus & Lexington
And holds on to
Bowling Green & Paducah

Effects: They gain 'control' of Kentucky. This means that the Loyalist Kentuckians can freely enrol in Northern formations. Increase in manpower, resources, and buildable formations (similar to as the events currently are, but, gained for different actions).

The goal would be to strike first, before the other has time to react. Whomever controls all 4 cities first gains control Kentucky. This represents one side controlling the vital cities and transportation centres, with sympathetic citizens joining the particular side (also some 'refugees' should be created, who side with the other). This would encourage invasions of both sides in Kentucky, instead of encouraging sitting back.


I am basing the situation in Missori to generally follow what historically happened. Given that the mobilization of the State Troops to repell any invasion (by north or south) means that there would be incident and antagonism. Given that even General Price was a pro unionist until the Massacre at St. Louis, I figure whomever 'slipped up' via event first will gain the 'wrath' of the State Troops. Historically, pro-southerners raided the St Louis arsenal and made off with weaponry. Lyon then aggressively went into a State Troop camp, accusing them of being pro southern, and arrested them. In the ensuing marching of these State Troops back, Lyon fired upon outraged civilians.

I take this as a given, as it is impossible to model this under player control given the scope of the game.

However, control of Missouri represents who gains the bulk of the manpower of the state. Like the above Kentucky situation, there are certain goals.

The CSA 'wins' if they... (capturing the arsenal in St. Louis)
Capture St. Louis & Lexington
And hold on to...
Jefferson City & Springfield

Effects: The Missouri State Guard is severely reduced in strength via event. Most of the units are removed, and the remaining few are inducted into regular Confederate service (change into Missouri Brigades, instead of Volunteer/Militia formations). This is a win for the North, as it drastically reduces the size of the threat in the Far West.

The USA 'wins' if they... (expelling the state guard from Missouri)
Capture Jefferson City & Springfield
And hold on to...
St. Louis & Lexington

Effects: The Missouri State Guard captures the St. Louis arsenal and much of pro-southern Missouri. The bulk of the state guard is converted into Missouri Regular Brigades (representing modern equipment, and influx of numbers). This is a win for the South, as you gain a large, well equipped force in Southern Missouri.

The goal would be to secure Southern Missouri before the opposing side does (whomever captures the 4 cities first, wins).

User avatar
Posts: 25499
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:34 am

Btw I would not mind if a modder rescripted from scratch the chain of events from KY (with assorted notify events for both side). I 'm still unsure it works completely as it is suppose to :)

Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:23 pm

I had looked at the Kentucky chain of events, and it does seem fairly complex. I am thinking of simplifying it a tad, based on 'controlling Kentucky' rather than just invading it or not (akin to above).

Brigadier General
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:22 am
Location: Scotland
Contact: Yahoo Messenger

Fighting In Kentucky

Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:56 am

Makes the overall campaign game more interesting for me! Missouri though is a bit dull! So anything that can make the War in the West more interesting to play should be welcomed!

Return to “Modding AGE engine games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest