jchastain
Matrix Elite Guard
Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
In FoF, I understand that Kentucky's allegiance is determined randomly, with a bias towards the Union, and a bias against whichever side keeps troops in the state.
That is a true statement. Kentucky's behavior is random and each side reduces their chances of getting Kentucky by leaving troops within her border. What this means in games terms is that both sides evacuate the state right away and then wait for her to make a decision. With movement so limited during that initial winter anyway, it isn't as if you'll make any progress by staying.
Early in the testing, I recommended that the preference be reversed and that Kentucky FAVOR a side for putting troops within the border. From a purely game implications standpoint, I thought that would produce an interesting dynamic of encouraging people to pour troops into the state which would help create some additional early fights and would force the players to make some strategic decisions as those troops would have to come from somewhere. In the end though, it was considered WAY too ahistorical as Kentucky's actual behavior was quite the opposite.
It wouldn't have worked as I envisioned anyway. Supply only extends one province beyond controlled territory and at the start, no one controlls Kentucky. Therefore USA troops would mass at the northern edge of the state and CSA troops would mass at the south of the state and no one would venture into the center and therefore battles would not occur. A massive change to the supply rules doesn't make sense when the goal is to create an ahistorical result that is really quite temporary anyway. At the end of the day, not doing as I suggested was almost certainly the right decision.
Whether it is caused randomly or by the first incursion, the real key is that the consequences cannot be overly severe. If gaining Kentucky produces a significant advantage, then it would discourage first incursion using that ruleset so that the war might be fought to the left the the right of the state and Kentucky remaining neutral throughout - which would be being ahistorical and encrouching into downright silly. In a random scenario, then as you say a powerful Kentucky would tilt the game to be too dependant upon luck. So, regardless of the system used, the key is that the entry of Kentucky should be more for flavor than a major strategic benefit to either side.
If you look at Kentucky in the game, I think you will find a design attempt to do just that. The army consist of a few garrisons that really don't materially matter. The economy is a nice addition, but hardly unbalancing. With a couple of successful impression activities, either sides can gain more resources than Kentucky provides. Economically, the blockade runner system likely has a larger random economic impact than KY. The biggest impact honestly is the time it takes for the North to lay siege to the various cities assuming it wants to bother with them. But overall, I don't think the game is won or lost by Kentucky's decision - not by a LONG shot.
So, once you cross the conceptual bridge of modeling a weak Kentucky, I don't think the system matters all that much. With the randomness here, it does force a decision early in the game so that you can get on with the actual war. Assuming both sides evacuate, it likely falls to the union 80% of the time.
|
Printable Version
Kentucky - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread