AGEOD Forums

The Collins Concise Dictionary PLUS gives the following definition of patriot:

n. a person who vigorously supports his country and its way of life.

Given my understanding of this definition patriot should not be used to describe this ability for southern generals. I think the term traitor more accurately describes rebel leaders with this trait.

In the ARW, rebels were called patriots, or patriots rebels, depending on which side you're coming from. Ain't that always true?

W.Barksdale wrote:The Collins Concise Dictionary PLUS gives the following definition of patriot:

n. a person who vigorously supports his country and its way of life.

Given my understanding of this definition the term patriot should not be used to describe this ability for southern generals. I think the term traitor more accurately describes rebel leaders with this trait.

I disagree completely. CSA Generals were fighting for what they viewed as their country (the Confederate States of America) and the Southern way of life, the CSA.

Along those lines, General Washington is considered a great patriot, not get traitor.

Heldenkaiser wrote:In the ARW, rebels were called patriots, or patriots rebels, depending on which side you're coming from. Ain't that always true?

In the end, the definition is always ultimately determined by the winners

Let's remember that the victorious Union did not hold thousands of trials for treason. Even senior members of the Confederate army and civilian government were able to continue to live and work in the US. Some never took took the loyalty oath or recanted but so long as they did not practice active opposition they were let be.

All people have the right of revolution but not the right to succeed. The Confederate cause failed - thank goodness - and the Union showed less vindictiveness than one might expect.

Does the patriot ability have a cumulative effect? For example if I have two Generals with the patriot ability inside a state that spawns partisans, is the bonus bumbed to 50%? And the raising of volunteers too up 50%?

Or even a decreasing returns to scale increase for the extra patriot?

no, the best is used. The second is only bringing drinks to the first

as an interesting aside when the constitution was being ratified the govenor of virginia objected to some of the clauses and was told that the constitution was none binding and virginia could pull out of the union if it choose to.to which patrick henry,showing extreme forethought told him"yes but some future president will invade your country[the term state meaning a country which the definition of which has been radically changed since then]and burn down your homes"quite interesting considering thats what happened 70 years later!

Two states, I think North Carolina and Rhode Island, didn't accept the Constitution for two years after the other states had. In the meantime, the eleven other states had effectively seceded from the Articles of Confederation country of those two.

Also, there was a considerable movement for New England to secede, during the War of 1812, as they felt that the economic and foreign policies of the country were hurting their region. Nobody made much fuss about whether they had a right or not. The war ended, and the movement died down.

Just don't tell any of this to my esteemed opponents in the Grand Campaign.

Pocus wrote:no, the best is used. The second is only bringing drinks to the first

I have found that feeding drinks to someone of questionable loyalty can make them more patriotic.
Perhaps we can rename the trait as Dutch courage?

OMG ...one of the union generals is given this trait lol.....any chance of spawning union partisans lol...hmmm a snowballs chance in where?

Jabberwock wrote:Two states, I think North Carolina and Rhode Island, didn't accept the Constitution for two years after the other states had. In the meantime, the eleven other states had effectively seceded from the Articles of Confederation country of those two.

Also, there was a considerable movement for New England to secede, during the War of 1812, as they felt that the economic and foreign policies of the country were hurting their region. Nobody made much fuss about whether they had a right or not. The war ended, and the movement died down.

Just don't tell any of this to my esteemed opponents in the Grand Campaign.

Yeah interesting about that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention

Thomas Jefferson's anti-foreign trade policies, particularly the Embargo Act of 1807 and James Madison's Non-Intercourse Act of 1809, were very unpopular in the northeastern United States, especially among merchants and shippers. Jefferson's successor, President James Madison, was even less popular in New England, particularly after his prosecution of the War of 1812, which ended legal trade with England. The opposing Federalist Party, formerly quite weak, regained strength especially in New England, and in New York where it collaborated with Mayor DeWitt Clinton of New York City and supported him for president in 1812.

Hmmm tho dont you think after all was said n done, it was drunken bluster talk mostly?