AGEOD Forums

Before anyone makes the mental leap straight to The Guns of the South, let me be clear. I'm not talking about anything that extreme.

I really do wonder why AGEOD never made a few simple "alternate history scenarios" for sale as expansions. I think small changes would be more interesting. Such as:

[color="#DAA520"]The South had built up a moderate industry in Atlanta, Birmingham, or Mobile. Something that produced WS and made the acquisition of Artillery and ammo easier.

The US had built a major naval facility in New Orleans or Charleston so that the south started with a moderate sized blue-water navy and the capability of building more ships. [/color]

Those two would be relatively easy to mod in, and should only provide limited changes to the scenario coding. The following suggestions would be a little more...complex:

[color="#DAA520"]The U.S. had gone through with the ideas of the Ostend Manifesto and acquired Cuba from Spain, making it a slave state which joins the CSA at the outbreak of the war. Considering that Cuba is in the map now, this could be a very interesting scenario, assuming, of course, that the CSA has some naval capacity to defend Cuba or transfer resources to and from the island.

Expanding on the above, James Buchanan was considering also annexing territory in Central America to make into slave states. Which would further utilize the current map. [/color]

I feel like AGEOD is missing an opportunity here, because while the basic scenarios are great, it is sometimes nice to play around with history a little. Plus, at this point, the giant map currently used by CW2 is just a huge drain on system resources for little gain. Most play is still in the area of the "old map" with the only real extended area being New Mexico, which TBH, doesn't add a ton, and could have been handled just as well with a multi-region "box" area as opposed to including so much dead space. Same goes for having all of Mexico and most of central America and the Caribbean in the map. A waste of resources. A few scenarios to utilize these regions would be greatly appreciated.

Thoughts?

That's not alternate history, it's alternate reality.

Alternate history might be something like, what if P.T.Beauregard had waited one more day before firing on Fort Sumter, and Major Anderson had surrendered the fort? It's well within the possibilities of history, and it would have probably meant a further delay in the start of hostilities. The South would have had more time to prepare, and Lincoln would not have had the same grounds for calling for volunteers. The war--actual fighting--might start with all of Virginia in Southern hands, and the South having been able to import a vast amount of weapons and other supplies from Europe.

Perhaps the flash-point would have been the Confederates sending troops into western Virginia to quell Unionist between the Potomac and Ohio Rivers, with the Union compelled to come to their rescue. Some western Virginians fleeing into Kentucky and organizing militias there would cause political turmoil between Kentucky, the South and the Union.

Alternate history can come from an exploration down may possible paths. The potential of Cuba as a new state is one such, it was an historical movement with support from many quarters.

Jerzul, you may have notice that Wars of Napoleon has options exactly ranging over the type of speculative what ifs you present. I am not certain if this game framework would also work with CWII, but it is a good idea to explore some of the more 'wild' options. Personally, I would love to explore a scenario talked about at the time of the North and South making peace for purposes of kicking Napoleon III's expedition out of Mexico.

Jerzul wrote:Before anyone makes the mental leap straight to The Guns of the South, let me be clear. I'm not talking about anything that extreme.

I really do wonder why AGEOD never made a few simple "alternate history scenarios" for sale as expansions. I think small changes would be more interesting. Such as:

[color="#DAA520"]The South had built up a moderate industry in Atlanta, Birmingham, or Mobile. Something that produced WS and made the acquisition of Artillery and ammo easier.

The US had built a major naval facility in New Orleans or Charleston so that the south started with a moderate sized blue-water navy and the capability of building more ships. [/color]

Those two would be relatively easy to mod in, and should only provide limited changes to the scenario coding. The following suggestions would be a little more...complex:

[color="#DAA520"]The U.S. had gone through with the ideas of the Ostend Manifesto and acquired Cuba from Spain, making it a slave state which joins the CSA at the outbreak of the war. Considering that Cuba is in the map now, this could be a very interesting scenario, assuming, of course, that the CSA has some naval capacity to defend Cuba or transfer resources to and from the island.

Expanding on the above, James Buchanan was considering also annexing territory in Central America to make into slave states. Which would further utilize the current map. [/color]

I feel like AGEOD is missing an opportunity here, because while the basic scenarios are great, it is sometimes nice to play around with history a little. Plus, at this point, the giant map currently used by CW2 is just a huge drain on system resources for little gain. Most play is still in the area of the "old map" with the only real extended area being New Mexico, which TBH, doesn't add a ton, and could have been handled just as well with a multi-region "box" area as opposed to including so much dead space. Same goes for having all of Mexico and most of central America and the Caribbean in the map. A waste of resources. A few scenarios to utilize these regions would be greatly appreciated.

Thoughts?

Anything in there that helps the Union?

*

*

Silly me.

Captain_Orso wrote:That's not alternate history, it's alternate reality.

Alternate history might be something like...

Captain Orso, I very much respect your position in this forum. You provide good insight to the game and are always around to answer questions to the best of your ability. That being said. I found your post to be condescending and disrespectful. Especially when you try and completely dismiss my ideas (which are just that, wild ideas I was posting for a discussion, not a statement of fact) by dismissing them as "alternative reality." But then posting your ideas as more plausible because they are really "alternate history." Without getting deeply into an argument over semantics, both "alternate reality" and "alternate history" mean effectively the same thing, only "reality" is not fixed in the past, but can apply to the present and future as well. Furthermore, please refrain from teaching me what "alternate history" is. As if it is some advanced concept and I am a five-year-old.

If you think my ideas would not make for a great scenario, that's fine. Say that, or simply say that you would not be interested in such a scenario. That's fine, hell, that's good! This post was meant to foster ideas and get people thinking about the possibilities that CW2 could provide and maybe give the developers some ideas for an expansion pack or CW3. Like I said, why include the huge map and then not use at least half of it? Hell, if they built a few alternate scenarios I'd pay for the package!

Durk wrote:Alternate history can come from an exploration down may possible paths. The potential of Cuba as a new state is one such, it was an historical movement with support from many quarters.

Jerzul, you may have notice that Wars of Napoleon has options exactly ranging over the type of speculative what ifs you present. I am not certain if this game framework would also work with CWII, but it is a good idea to explore some of the more 'wild' options. Personally, I would love to explore a scenario talked about at the time of the North and South making peace for purposes of kicking Napoleon III's expedition out of Mexico.

Durk - Unfortunately my knowledge on the Napoleonic era is one of my weakest. Hell, I'm only a third of the way through the Richard Sharpe series! Like all Americans the Napoleonic war is completely neglected as an aspect of history, even our own tiny involvement (the War of 1812) is basically ignored as "the second time we beat the crap out of the British" (despite the fact that we really didn't...at all). So at the moment, I'm not much interested in WoN. However, I plan on reading more on the era at some point in the future and might pick it up then.

GraniteStater wrote:Anything in there that helps the Union?

*

*

Silly me.

My dear New Hampshirite. Let me first say, that I am really interested in following the progress of your HiTek approach to the Union. I think it is very interesting to read about less-traveled routes to victory!

Most alternate scenarios are going to benefit the CSA because the Union won the war. In general (and only in general), people are more interested in seeing the CSA defy the odds and win, rather than, a scenario that sets the Union up to win easily by June of 62. That being said, I think there could be some interesting Union benefiting alternatives:

[color="#DAA520"]First, not a scenario of its own, but in any of the ones I mentioned previous, the number of Union conscripts could be raised dramatically. As members of this forum love to point out, Shelby Foote state that the Union fought the war with one arm tied behind its back. So why not untie the arm and give the Union more resources to simulate a greater effort to win?

Second, (and possibly most obvious): R.E. Lee takes command...of the Union Armies! What if the Army of Northeastern Virginia was led by Lee instead of McDowell? A small change (in scenario setup), to be sure, but one that would surely aid the Union in the early part of the war.

Third, Tennessee rejects secession (Or, East Tennessee breaks away!)! Either scenario would make the Confederate center much harder to deal with and basically force Kentucky to join the Union. The CSA player would need to make strong offensive moves early in the war to get the resources from TN and KY, and the Union could threaten Atlanta very early on.

Fourth, The Republic of Texas! What if Houston got his second wish (his first wish was for Texas to stay in the Union), and the Lone Star Republic was reborn instead of joining the CSA? This would bring in a third (albeit small) faction which could fight on it's own versus the Union, or maybe work with the CSA but have it's own command structure and disorganized moves. The Texans could also face invasion from Mexico or other foreign powers.

Fifth, Georgia secedes form the CSA! Okay, this is more of an unlikely event then a starting scenario, but what if GA left the Confederacy in the middle of the war? Chaos would ensue as the CSA has to decided whether or not to invade the wayward state to secure GA's resources (oh the irony!).[/color]

Anyway, those are just a few I thought up as I was typing. I'd be interested to hear people's respectful opinions on alternative scenarios.

Jerzul wrote:Captain Orso, I very much respect your position in this forum. You provide good insight to the game and are always around to answer questions to the best of your ability. That being said. I found your post to be condescending and disrespectful. Especially when you try and completely dismiss my ideas (which are just that, wild ideas I was posting for a discussion, not a statement of fact) by dismissing them as "alternative reality." But then posting your ideas as more plausible because they are really "alternate history." Without getting deeply into an argument over semantics, both "alternate reality" and "alternate history" mean effectively the same thing, only "reality" is not fixed in the past, but can apply to the present and future as well. Furthermore, please refrain from teaching me what "alternate history" is. As if it is some advanced concept and I am a five-year-old.

*sigh* Yes, I defined what I describe as 'alternate history', because without having definitions for the terms we are using, we are all using the same words, but speaking of completely different things. Under such conditions there is no communication, and the entire undertaking is useless. If you find that condescending and offensive, sorry for that, but I don't feel required to stroke your ego while stating a point of view contrary to yours.

I can get interested in 'alternate history' scenarios, those being in which the outcome of an historical landmark occurred within the realm of reality, but different than historically. My example is in my first post.

We discussed not long ago in these forums whether there might be some circumstances under which R.E.Lee might have commanded Federal troops during the war. I thought there might be, and presented how that scenario might look. But I was presented with historical facts showing that this idea was very, very unlikely. For me, that changes the scenario from 'alternate history' to alternate reality or fantasy. I in no way found the evidence presented to me to be an attack on me, let alone an ad hominem attack.

Do I find 'alternate reality' necessarily bad? No. But to paraphrase, truth is stranger than fiction, and I find it generally to be more interesting if we are talking about what if's. If you like to play around with history and bend it into the form you like, have at it, and the more fun to you. But IMHO, history can only be bent so far before it breaks.

Captain_Orso wrote:*sigh* Yes, I defined what I describe as 'alternate history', because without having definitions for the terms we are using, we are all using the same words, but speaking of completely different things. Under such conditions there is no communication, and the entire undertaking is useless. If you find that condescending and offensive, sorry for that, but I don't feel required to stroke your ego while stating a point of view contrary to yours.

I can get interested in 'alternate history' scenarios, those being in which the outcome of an historical landmark occurred within the realm of reality, but different than historically. My example is in my first post.

We discussed not long ago in these forums whether there might be some circumstances under which R.E.Lee might have commanded Federal troops during the war. I thought there might be, and presented how that scenario might look. But I was presented with historical facts showing that this idea was very, very unlikely. For me, that changes the scenario from 'alternate history' to alternate reality or fantasy. I in no way found the evidence presented to me to be an attack on me, let alone an ad hominem attack.

Do I find 'alternate reality' necessarily bad? No. But to paraphrase, truth is stranger than fiction, and I find it generally to be more interesting if we are talking about what if's. If you like to play around with history and bend it into the form you like, have at it, and the more fun to you. But IMHO, history can only be bent so far before it breaks.

Damn man. You are much more self-absorbed and convinced of your own superiority than I thought. Stroke my ego? I didn't find your post condescending because you disagreed with me, or failed to acknowledge my "awesomeness" Orso. I thought it was condescending because of how you disagreed with me. You implied that my ideas were incorrect because they did not meet your standards of "alternate history."

I'm sorry that at some point in the past, completely unrelated to my post, someone disagreed with you on a specific point using facts and (probably) a well reasoned argument. If you had countered the unplausibility of my completely whimsical suggestions on possibly fun alternate history scenarios that utilize the CW2 map with some arguments about how there was no way that the south would have industrialized more than it did because "X" or that there is no way that there could have been a major naval base in the South because of "Y" I would have not responded negatively. I might have thought it odd that you needed to poke holes in fictional scenarios that ask the question of "What if", but I would not have been offended. Instead, you decided that because you deemed them implausible they should dismissed out of hand. In fact, from the tone of your argument, you don't find this sort of thing interesting ("truth is stranger than fiction"). So why would you even bother responding to this thread at all? Just to shoot down someone's idea that you don't like?

Also, my Cuba suggestion is not at all historically implausible. It was a plan considered by several presidents. Check out the Ostend Manifesto for more information.

But in the end, I've already violated one of my top rules: don't get in an argument on the internet, so I'm done. Respond if you'd like Orso, but I don't think you need to bother, I think you've made your point clear.

You know what the sad part is Orso? I think your idea of a scenario where the war is delayed because Anderson surrendered Ft. Sumter before the bombardment is a very interesting and fun. Something that would make an excellent alternative scenario.

Hopefully someone else will understand the spirit of the thread and the fact that these are all just fun ideas for scenarios that are based on a different or dare I say alternate history. In that regard, I hope other people will respond to the thread with their ideas for alternate history scenarios, maybe there will be a consensus on one or two and a group of us can get together and mod a scenario. I'd be wiling to try!

Jerzul - I thoroughly applaud this response. I met a similar push back when I made a suggestion to a solicited request for potential alt histories in the Napoleonic era. If we are to explore alt history, we have to agree that it is:
1. Plausible
2. Has a taste of historical grounding
3. But then, let the situation develop its own logic.

Your proposed scenarios meet all these criteria and are indeed interesting. I especially love the Cuba variant. What would, indeed, have happened if the US was bold enough to challenge Spain at that time.

When Captain_Orso objects that others did not agree with Lee siding with the Union, he forgets this was not a discussion of alt history, but of history. Historically, there is no doubt Lee was a citizen of Virginia in These United States and not the soon to become, The United States. As a what if, Lee as head of the Union Eastern Armies would indeed be fun, if historically impossible. But discussion boards need memory as all discussions do.

I do understand your rule. I do not quite have the same rule, but I do, as Kenny Rogers says, know when to fold them and walk away.

When I reference the Wars of Napoleon game, it has a delightful number of Alt history options players may choose in the Options Menus. It is a brilliant idea to be able to allow players to select alt histories if they wish. I hope CW2 can add this feature and add the Alt histories you propose as well as others like my notion of opposition to Napoleon III in Mexico and, perhaps, a more certain intervention of England and France as Southern Allies.

Alt history of necessity requires a suspension of the historical deterministic and a willingness to look at what might be had history taken a different turn. My favorite is Jame Thurber's "If Grant had been drinking at Appomattox."

Wow, just wow.

Jerzul wrote:Damn man. You are much more self-absorbed and convinced of your own superiority than I thought. Stroke my ego? I didn't find your post condescending because you disagreed with me, or failed to acknowledge my "awesomeness" Orso. I thought it was condescending because of how you disagreed with me. You implied that my ideas were incorrect because they did not meet your standards of "alternate history."

I did not imply that I disagreed with the definition 'alternate history' for the scenarios you described, I stated it clearly, and described why that is my opinion, and that was the only point on which I disagreed with you.

Now you attack me with accusations of being "self-absorbed" and "convinced of your own superiority".

Jerzul wrote:So why would you even bother responding to this thread at all? Just to shoot down someone's idea that you don't like?

Why did I reply? Because I though we might have a conversation on the topic you started. But my feeling is now that you did not want to have a conversation, but just to hear a confirmation from others on how good they might find your ideas.

Again, the only critic I originally exercised was the term 'alternate history'.

I'm out. For me, any chance of a reasonable conversation has left the ship.

Durk wrote:Jerzul - I thoroughly applaud this response. I met a similar push back when I made a suggestion to a solicited request for potential alt histories in the Napoleonic era. If we are to explore alt history, we have to agree that it is:
1. Plausible
2. Has a taste of historical grounding
3. But then, let the situation develop its own logic.

Your proposed scenarios meet all these criteria and are indeed interesting. I especially love the Cuba variant. What would, indeed, have happened if the US was bold enough to challenge Spain at that time.

When Captain_Orso objects that others did not agree with Lee siding with the Union, he forgets this was not a discussion of alt history, but of history. Historically, there is no doubt Lee was a citizen of Virginia in These United States and not the soon to become, The United States. As a what if, Lee as head of the Union Eastern Armies would indeed be fun, if historically impossible. But discussion boards need memory as all discussions do.

I do understand your rule. I do not quite have the same rule, but I do, as Kenny Rogers says, know when to fold them and walk away.

When I reference the Wars of Napoleon game, it has a delightful number of Alt history options players may choose in the Options Menus. It is a brilliant idea to be able to allow players to select alt histories if they wish. I hope CW2 can add this feature and add the Alt histories you propose as well as others like my notion of opposition to Napoleon III in Mexico and, perhaps, a more certain intervention of England and France as Southern Allies.

Alt history of necessity requires a suspension of the historical deterministic and a willingness to look at what might be had history taken a different turn. My favorite is Jame Thurber's "If Grant had been drinking at Appomattox."

Thanks Durk! I must say that I haven't read Thurber's story, but I'll give it a go when I get a chance. I think that most of the time, people want to recreate history, or at least start the game with history as we know it. So I think that these scenarios will be a bit niche. That being said, I think that niche is quite excitable and would jump at an opportunity to further play around with history.

Adding Cuba would at least create a new battlefield for 1862 and force the Union to pay attention to yet another front and give them a reason to do more blue-water investing while also creating yet another place to defend for the south. Without knowing what the population and infrastructure of Cuba was like in the 1860's, Cuba could really be a double-edged sword for the CSA.

I also think that the idea of the war starting later, maybe late 61 or early 62 over a crisis in Western Virgina (Orso's suggestion) would make for an interesting scenario: Better fortifications along the inland rivers in the South, better trained troops at the start (divisions turned on to begin with). You could even make this type of scenario simpler and have it start at the same time in April with Lincoln still calling up the Volunteers but have it be less effective and have the Union start out with a lower NM to reflect that people weren't as excited about putting down the rebellion without the catalyst of Sumter.

I'll be honest, my first couple of suggestions in my first post about Southern industry or ship building were thought of with PBEM in mind. I figured a couple of scenarios that would make the South's long-term disadvantages a little less steep might be of interest to a few. As (and this is completely anecdotal) it seems that when two players of high talent are put together, the North seems to win more often because the South's early advantage (better leaders and audacity) are easier to counter than the Union's later advantage (huge resource gap), so those might make these games more interesting. Even so, I can see a different historical path were some endeavoring soul decided to build some more factories and/or shipping centers in the south, maybe to try and under-cut the Yankee stranglehold on shipping.

I think the point of alternate history scenarios are to try out new ideas and scenarios. If you want to go way out there, you could have the highly unlikely scenario where New England/middle Atlantic states break from the Union because the Southern Democrats continued to dominate and the Republicans failed or never formed. As cool as this might sound, I think it might be too much for CW2...especially because coding it would be a nightmare (IMHO).

I like your suggestion of a more certain intervention. Supposing a Government in Britain more favorable to the South at the beginning, maybe automatic intervention with the Trent affair would be a good choice? Long enough for the CSA to win a few battles and show that they aren't going to be knocked out right away. Not knowing how WoN's alternate options work, this sounds like a good idea for a setting as opposed to a scenario. So instead of FI being just Easy, Normal, or Hard, there would be a fourth option: Automatic (maybe a fifth, Impossible if we want to cover everything). Automatic would trigger FI at the Trent affair if Richmond was still in Southern hands.

Anyway, let's continue to brainstorm. All ideas are welcome. Like I said before, if there is interest from the community, we can look to actually create one of these scenarios.