AGEOD Forums

Wanted to get some input on this.

WHAT ARE THE PROS AND CONS FOR THE FOLLOWING?

1. Early Kentucky secession for CSA
2. ............................................ for USA

3. Late Kentucky secession for CSA
4. .......................................... for USA

What do you mean, pros and cons for what/whom? The game?, the CS player? the US player?

Ok, ill ask it a different way. If Kentucky opts for secession, is it better for the CSA if they do it early or later. What are the pros and cons for both USA and CSA for an early secession? What are the pros and cons for both USA and CSA if the secede later on. Example answer: CSA has a lot of land to defend and Kentucky acts as a little bit of a buffer for them to prepare since its neutral. I consider them holding off on secession a pro for the CSA because of this. I might be wrong but this is what I am getting at when I posed the question.

In some ways, this is not a simple question. Despite what players do, Kentucky may join the CSA.
The Union can engage early and bring Kentucky into the CSA.
The CSA player cannot influence Kentucky entry.

That said, the CSA has a real plus if Kentucky joins the Confederacy early. If the Union forces Kentucky' neutrality, this is also good for the South.
If, however, the Union has patience and can wait, Kentucky's eventual Union entry is good for the Union.

So in game terms, if you are the South, hope for good luck.
If you are the Union, sit back and wait for Kentucky to join the Union.

IF KY joins a side, loyalty will lean toward that side, plus you get more militia and other units, plus IIRC a slightly larger KY unit pool.

I'm not sure if the "too many troops too close to the border" events are still in the game, but I don't thinks so, so other than outright invading KY, you just have to sit back and wait.

IMHO, the longer KY remains neutral, the better... up to a point.

Early in the war, the South is far stronger in the west and far west than the Union, and the Union already has it's hands full with MO.

If KY goes early to the South, and the South is aggressive in TN and KY, she can catch the Union unprepared and do some real damage.

But when the Union has built up forces in the Old North-West, and MO is stable, it will be time to move south, and without KY things are ... interesting. I played one game in which KY remained neutral throughout the war, which meant, attacking up the Tennessee and down the Mississippi to establish bridgeheads. It was an interesting challenge for sure. LOTS of naval action and invasions.

In the end, I don't think it wise for either side to invade KY; the NM cost is simply far too high.

If KY hasn't declared itself by '62, as the Union you better start working on getting around KY, because the clock is ticking. If you are playing the South ... lucky lil' son-of-a-gun aren't you

That's interesting. I was unaware that Kentucky could stay neutral throughout the war.

It's a very small chance.

Captain_Orso wrote:It's a very small chance.

But both can still invade it?

What has a better chance: Kentucky Neutrality or Foreign Intervention?

Both sides have the option, if they chose, to invade Kentucky

lightbrave wrote:What has a better chance: Kentucky Neutrality or Foreign Intervention?

*bffff* Aside from invading KY, as far as I know there is no way to influence KY joining one side or the other. FI can be influence, and basically only works on direct and indirect influence, so you cannot really compare their chances.

RebelYell wrote:

Captain_Orso wrote:It's a very small chance.

But both can still invade it?

clandini5 wrote:Both sides have the option, if they chose, to invade Kentucky

Correct, both sides can still invade, including being able to invade on the same turn.