grimjaw
Colonel
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:38 am
Location: Arkansas

Missouri, the Show Me (the problem) state (w/side note on Virginia)

Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:10 pm

I'll preface this by saying that I have already developed a solution to this nagging issue. All I'm trying to do is get opinions.

In the full campaign, in Missouri, after the massacre in Saint Louis, the rebels are given a small force in Fayetteville. This force, which is supposed to represent the Missouri State Guard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_State_Guard), is composed of some rifled artillery and some militia. None of the militia has a home area of Missouri. Instead, the militia are either Arkansas or, bewilderingly, Texas home area. However, if you hold requisite territory when the force pool changes, you can raise Missouri militia with Missouri-specific home area (*bonus* for fighting in Missouri).

The Missouri State Guard forces, authorized and recognized by the pre-war state of Missouri, are penalized for fighting in Missouri. Opinions?

In a similar vein but different area: Virginia. At the beginning of the full campaign Virginia is still (historically) one large state, encompassing what would eventually become West Virginia. Since the game assumes that West Virginia will *always* become a separate state, it's already divvied up. As a result, Virginia militia units are penalized from the start for fighting in (historic) Virginia. Virginia militia are persona non grata in Harper's Ferry, VIRGINIA, and that early Winchester militia unit will suffer penalties for residing there.

Is this fine with you? Is this the way things should be to most accurately, or as accurately as possible within the limits of the game, represent the situation on the ground?

jm

Teatime
Lieutenant
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:56 pm

Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:44 am

My opinion,

Missouri

I have been researching what troops were organised and available early in the war but have not really looked too in depth at MO yet .. but ..

I agree that at the start the only troops available to the CSA should be the Missouri State Guard, no other CSA troops were present. They should be MO Militia at the worst with all the appropriate bonuses.

By the time of Wilson's Creek in Aug 61 they had the support of
- A CSA brigade under McCulloch (basically Arkansas state troops mustered into CSA service + a Louisiana regiment + some Texas/Kansas cavalry)
- A brigade of Arkansas State troops (effectively AR militia).
But these troops were only pulled together in June/July 61 into McCulloch's Western Army and only sent north when Lyon was making his move on Springfield


Virginia

This is a slightly different situation as I tend to look at the loyalty of the population as a determination as to whether Militia bonuses should apply ... so in principle I don't have an issue with WV being distinguished from the rest of Virginia when it comes to that. Of course it became less clear the further south and east you went.

Harpers Ferry is a tough one. There was a strong unionist sentiment in the area, certainly before secession itself. For the purposes of the game I again don't have an issue with it sitting in WV. The area was pretty hard to defend and probably should not get the river defensive bonus for an attack from Fredericktown anyway so it should be difficult to hold it down early. You could make that Militia unit a regular to avoid the bonus implications but that combined with the river may make it a bit strong.

grimjaw
Colonel
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:38 am
Location: Arkansas

Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:07 am

My interpretation of the game design for Missouri is that the battle of Boonville is already decided a CSA loss, as well as the subsequent battles that drove them to southwest Missouri (*not* NW Arkansas, just yet).

My opinion is that up until the St. Louis Massacre or a cut-off date, Missouri should be locked like Kentucky and other states.

RE: Virginia, I view the home area values (in general) as corresponding to state boundaries limiting state action. Virginia troops raised by the state are encouraged to stay in Virginia w/the home area value, since the engine isn't sophisticated enough to limit the state troops otherwise. As such, I consider Virginia state militia suffering penalties in the state of Virginia as a flaw. There are other penalties that are suffered when it comes to region loyalty, and they're separate from home area values.

Teatime
Lieutenant
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:56 pm

Sun Jul 31, 2016 12:01 pm

Missouri

I do believe Missouri was a little more clear cut than Kentucky but it may well come down to your interpretation as to whether Price intended and had the influence to live up to his side of the agreement with Harney.

I think the problem with that though is that
1. Gov Jackson was actively courting the CSA and organising a secessionist militia pretty overtly.
2. Influential unionists such as Blair and Lyon could see where things were headed and acted.

I also think that Missouri was seen as the "Vietnam" of it's day by Union leadership, the first domino that could see other border states follow if it was lost to the Union.

Anyway, the question is how to best represent the situation in April 61

Starting forces
1. The Union troops in Lexington should not be there and Lexington should be under CSA control.
- The USA was pretty much limited to St Louis before June 61.
2. The CSA should not have a heavy presence in the north along the Missouri River or in Rolla.
- Lyon took that entire line with 2 inf regiments, a co. of Regulars and an artillery battery during June!
- Maybe a militia unit in Boonville at most, since if I read correctly that you intended to add Boonville as a town on the end of the train line.
3. MSG forming in Springfield or a touch further south

The shooting starts
This could be simulated by
- locking of units until June 61 if you believe that the shooting was inevitable, this is pretty much how the game manages it now
- having an event that implies Gov Jackson was given enough time to manage a secession conference. That would have a high probability of secession since given his activity up to that point I am sure he would have managed the result of that conference quite carefully
- Locking it down until the St Louis massacre. However the way the events work that pretty much happens earlier than June anyway. You could always lock Lyon down for a turn or 2 beyond that event as well to give the CSA a chance to get organised and defend the Missouri River line if that is your goal.


Virginia

I don't know how you could manage that since i don't think you can change state boundries by event. Never really looked into that though.

Making WV part of Virginia would
1. Give the militia the bonus you are looking for
2. Allow the CSA to recruit Virginia units in WV if they can secure it

However, you would also need to allow the Union to recruit in Virginia, which means allowing them to recruit in the east at places such as Norfolk

I have different issues with how West Virginia plays out. I think that Depot in Morgantown is misplaced as it forces the Union to act to defend it. This can mean moving Patterson west rather than east. A depot in Parkersburg or no depot at all would drag some of those Ohio and Indiana volunteers in to secure WV.

grimjaw
Colonel
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:38 am
Location: Arkansas

Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:35 pm

I'm not sure I understand why West Virginia had to be defined as a separate state at all. Missouri and Kentucky both allow creation of forces by both sides, yet the idea of Union recruiting in Virginia is a stumbling block for many people. I'm not certain, but I believe there are ways you could restrict the creation of West Virginia troops to select regions in the larger Virginia.

But even if West Virginia is defined as a separate state ("Area" in game terms), it isn't a problem to define a new area called "WestVirginia-Virginia", that includes both sets of regions, and call that the home area for Virginia state militia troops. Thus, the Confederacy ignores the boundary with its troops and they aren't penalized for fighting in what they consider home territory.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:42 am

You have now entered the realm of philosophy, or the Twilight Zone, take you pick.

This thread is destined be become a muddled, uncontrollable mass, because there are 3 subjects, which have only peripherally to do with each other.

Kentucky is locked because .... what is a state? I told you this would get messy. If you try to think of states in the middle of the 19th century the way we think of them today, you have already lost. It would be much closer to the truth, to think of them the way you would think of like nations in the EU. What if the southern EU nations seceded from the EU, but Austria did not secede with them, but also refused to send troops to the EU forces, and still traded with all nations both north and south. That's the position Kentucky had at the outset of the US CW.

Missouri had no such situation. It was a non-seceded state, who's governor had gone rouge/become an outlaw (take your pick). So why should it be locked?

Militia do not have a malus outside of their states because of loyalty. Think of my example with Austria and the EU above. Imagine troops which were raised as a national guard. The people in this Austrian 'national guard' intended on defending Austria, and not fighting in Italy. If they moved outside of Austria, many might have moral issues with 'invading' a neighboring nation, or simply feel missuses in being sent out of the state they swore to defend. There are some historical reports of state troops refusing to leave their state, and not having the same resolve while fighting outside their states.

During the war, until West Virginia seceded from Virginia, it was still Virginia. I know of no philosophical reason it should not be treated as such. There may be some game engine issues however. The first one I can think of is raising troops, and here we get into philosophy.

Many-most-lots-some troops were raised locally. Most regiments were raised from men from communities within walking or riding distance from each other; often men were "neighbors". Regiments were often put together into brigades at a state level at the state capital or in a major city. The idea that CS-Virginia might raise some of those monster brigades with 7 or 8 infantry, cavalry and artillery sub-units in any city in what was to become West Virginia, just feels so gamey to me. The Confederates couldn't raise those numbers in western Virginia, and it would have been a major task to move that many untrained men to such a location to put them together into a brigade way out in the western reaches of Virginia.

It might be possible to convert western Virginia into West Virginia with actual state-status during the game. It might not have at the time of AACW and her engine. And it might just be, that the work in doing so wasn't worth the effort: converting units from Virginian to West Virginian, transferring unit pools from Union-Virginia to Union-West Virginia.

The only think I can find in this thread which really merits a change is the Missouri State Guard units. They really should be all Missouri militia, or at least not militia from other states.

Another question does come to mind though, but in keeping with my own philosophy, I start my own thread for that.
Image

User avatar
Jerzul
Captain
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:10 pm
Location: Germantown, MD

Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:09 pm

grimjaw wrote:I'm not sure I understand why West Virginia had to be defined as a separate state at all. Missouri and Kentucky both allow creation of forces by both sides, yet the idea of Union recruiting in Virginia is a stumbling block for many people. I'm not certain, but I believe there are ways you could restrict the creation of West Virginia troops to select regions in the larger Virginia.


Hear me out, maybe I'm crazy...but why not allow the CSA to recruit in West Virginia? Give them some militia and smaller brigades and maybe some arty for Harpers if they can hold it. That way both sides can recruit in this disputed region like they do elsewhere, but you won't also get the USA raising heavy brigades in Fredericksburg or Norfolk.

(Although, I think the Union should have recruit-able troops in all states, IMHO. - But let's leave that for another thread)
I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the army and the government needed a dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain success can be dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.

-Abraham Lincoln, 1863, in a letter to Major General Joseph Hooker.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:28 am

I am so enjoying this thread. I may actually add a tad bit, but for now, just watching and enjoying the discussion.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:13 am

Jerzul wrote:Hear me out, maybe I'm crazy...but why not allow the CSA to recruit in West Virginia? Give them some militia and smaller brigades and maybe some arty for Harpers if they can hold it. That way both sides can recruit in this disputed region like they do elsewhere, but you won't also get the USA raising heavy brigades in Fredericksburg or Norfolk.

(Although, I think the Union should have recruit-able troops in all states, IMHO. - But let's leave that for another thread)


One might set build areas for the Union and Confederacy in Virginia, which would conform to West Virginia for the Union and 'Rest'-Virginia for the Confederacy. One might be able to allow for some smaller unit-type to be raised in the West Virginia area, but the latter would actually be the only difference from what we have now, other than the painting of the map and some names. It's really a question of bangs-for-bucks.
Image

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:46 am

grimjaw wrote:I'm not sure I understand why West Virginia had to be defined as a separate state at all. Missouri and Kentucky both allow creation of forces by both sides, yet the idea of Union recruiting in Virginia is a stumbling block for many people. I'm not certain, but I believe there are ways you could restrict the creation of West Virginia troops to select regions in the larger Virginia.

But even if West Virginia is defined as a separate state ("Area" in game terms), it isn't a problem to define a new area called "WestVirginia-Virginia", that includes both sets of regions, and call that the home area for Virginia state militia troops. Thus, the Confederacy ignores the boundary with its troops and they aren't penalized for fighting in what they consider home territory.


Because West Virginia was formed when it seceded from the Confederate States during the Civil War.

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Wed Aug 03, 2016 4:49 am

It makes sense to me that the CSA's starting forces in and around Fayetteville would be made up at least partly of MO militia/volunteers, although it has not been a major handicap in any of my CSA games. I can't see an argument for raising much besides CSA militia in WV (maybe some Sharpshooters or Cav?) and once the initial battle in MO is fought there are more than enough regulars in the build pools there to compose effective stacks with.

I am pretty neutral on all the in-state vs out-of-state discussions, and whether the CSA should be able to build them in WV because Militia (and Volunteers) are terrible no matter where they are fighting! I never build them and avoid using the ones I have whenever possible. Not only are they poor fighters in and of themselves, they are like anti-Peyton Mannings, making their teammates play worse. (Obviously the FW is a different story; you fight with the army you have....)

Some of the historical arguments presented in other threads for downgrading some starting CSA regulars to militia or volunteers seem reasonable, but does the CSA really need a nerf in-game?

If the militia-related leader abilities worked properly I might be more tempted to make use of militia/volunteers.

User avatar
Straight Arrow
Brigadier General
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:44 pm
Location: Washington State

Wed Aug 03, 2016 5:12 am

As the CSA, it's tough enough building and extracting troops in MO. There’s no way I would ever try creating units in Western Virginia. I believe a force of fresh, weak, stationary builds there would be nothing but lambs to the slaughter. And the idea of stumbling around in those mountains after winter hits, makes me shudder.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:25 pm

vicberg wrote:Because West Virginia was formed when it seceded from the Confederate States during the Civil War.


Yes, changing this would firstly be a cosmetic change. But some game rules would cause game-play changes which might also have unrealistic and/or un-balancing repercussions.

The two thing which immediately come to mind are 1. militia (out-of-state-penalty), and 2. building units (Virginia has some very large brigades, which in my mind, could not be raised in western Virginia, because you a. could not raise the troops locally, b. could not/would not send and support such a large number of men to such a remote location to build a brigade there.

ArmChairGeneral wrote:It makes sense to me that the CSA's starting forces in and around Fayetteville would be made up at least partly of MO militia/volunteers, although it has not been a major handicap in any of my CSA games. I can't see an argument for raising much besides CSA militia in WV (maybe some Sharpshooters or Cav?) and once the initial battle in MO is fought there are more than enough regulars in the build pools there to compose effective stacks with.

I am pretty neutral on all the in-state vs out-of-state discussions, and whether the CSA should be able to build them in WV because Militia (and Volunteers) are terrible no matter where they are fighting! I never build them and avoid using the ones I have whenever possible. Not only are they poor fighters in and of themselves, they are like anti-Peyton Mannings, making their teammates play worse. (Obviously the FW is a different story; you fight with the army you have....)

Some of the historical arguments presented in other threads for downgrading some starting CSA regulars to militia or volunteers seem reasonable, but does the CSA really need a nerf in-game?

If the militia-related leader abilities worked properly I might be more tempted to make use of militia/volunteers.


There is only Price on the CS side, I believe, but I may be forgetting somebody.

Straight Arrow wrote:As the CSA, it's tough enough building and extracting troops in MO. There’s no way I would ever try creating units in Western Virginia. I believe a force of fresh, weak, stationary builds there would nothing but lambs to the slaughter. And the idea of stumbling around in those mountains after winter hits, makes me shudder.


I'd rather allow for a tactic which nobody will ever use, than disallow a tactic, which might be part of an innovative solution, were it possible. This is why I try to think about whether something should be allowed based on realism, and not on whether I would want to do it.
Image

Rod Smart
Colonel
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:32 pm

Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:30 pm

West Virginia is working correctly and should not be changed at all. I also like the way the game handles the DelMarVa peninsula. Nothing happened there during the real war, it would be a-historic to make that part of Virginia just because that's what the map says.

The starting units in Fayetteville are wrong, but its not an issue. Other than annoying me by making one of my first moves a transfer of a Texas militia unit to the Red River, there are no serious in game consequences.

Another scripted event or two in Missouri could be fun. It wasn't until about my dozenth (is that a word?) game when Houston's Union troops happened in Dallas. Having something else rare, like Governor Jackson organizing a bonus brigade could be interesting, but not harm the overall balance of the game.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:22 pm

Rod Smart wrote:8<

The starting units in Fayetteville are wrong, but its not an issue. Other than annoying me by making one of my first moves a transfer of a Texas militia unit to the Red River, there are no serious in game consequences.


This is supposed to be the Missouri State Guard, an all Missourian organization. I don't know why Arkansas and Texas militia are thrown in to it; it makes no sense to me.

So what about changing all the militia in to volunteers?

Rod Smart wrote:Another scripted event or two in Missouri could be fun. It wasn't until about my dozenth (is that a word?) game when Houston's Union troops happened in Dallas. Having something else rare, like Governor Jackson organizing a bonus brigade could be interesting, but not harm the overall balance of the game.


Oh my :blink: The South already has the Saint Louis Massacre, which can be very detrimental to Union loyalty, especially if the South can manage to win a couple of battles in Missouri. Loyalty in Saint Louis below 10%? *psststtss* Regularly.

BTW I've used the Gov. Houston Event a few time to build a real stronghold in and around Dallas. Athena a couple of times stamped it out, but if I manage to get into '62 and can put some partisans in Dallas, it makes it a lot harder to squelch.

Plus Athena doesn't understand to block the rivers, and I've been know to reinforce Dallas/Taylor (to the east on the Red River, lots of supply production!) heavily. It's not a thorn in the side of Texas, it's a tumor Image

So adding something along the lines of the Gov. Houston Event... it can have very far reaching consequences. I guess I'd need to see what the event might be.
Image

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests