Should part of Missouri start confederate?

Should part of Missouri start confederate? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Public Beta Feedback

Message

ericbabe -> Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/27/2007 3:33:31 PM)
As we make changes to Southern Steel, I'm considering having the lower half of MO start in Confederate hands, to better simulate the divided nature of the state. Any thoughts on this?

spruce -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/27/2007 4:00:45 PM)
well Eric, that's easy to answer - yes do it cause the CSA has already very easy access to those provinces. They have a very strong container operating there. And it's not that easy to take over the capital ... so it's for sure not a walk in the park for the CSA in that state.

Dasara II -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/27/2007 4:00:46 PM)
Yes

sadja -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/27/2007 4:19:13 PM)
I agree, as the south you don't have a container or even generals near by and I usually run away with my few brigades. If I own the provinces I might stay around and try to get some leadership there. That said it might help if a general with home state of AR or Mo start in the west. It take a long time to get back to AR from james river even with RR. The weather is bad in Nov and Gen may have trouble making Int checks by land. You get Breckinridge in Ky when they enter the war, so it shouldn't be a problem putting Van Dorn in the west.

LarryP -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/27/2007 5:03:00 PM)
Playing as the North I like it the way it is. However, your point is valid and all the others here are too. I'm out numbered!!! [X(] [&o] [X(]

dude -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/27/2007 6:20:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spruce well Eric, that's easy to answer - yes do it cause the CSA has already very easy access to those provinces. They have a very strong container operating there. And it's not that easy to take over the capital ... so it's for sure not a walk in the park for the CSA in that state. I wouldn't do it just because the CSA has easy access to them. What was the situtation at that time (don't have my books handy to check...) Did the Union forces have to go in and supress the southern half of the state before moving on? If so then yes, give them to the CSA... Did the CSA have any actual control over the southern part of the state? If so... give it to them... if however the CSA never controled that part nor did the Union have to go in and supress the region then I would leave it under Union control at the start... Just my 2 cents... [:)]

Gil R. -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/27/2007 7:10:14 PM)
The pro-CSA ousted governor of Missouri was in the SW part of the state (or SE? I can't remember), so at least one province should be CSA. Where's Missouri Rebel when we need him?

ericbabe -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/27/2007 8:17:36 PM)
The secessionist congress met in Neosho in the Fall of 1861 and voted for secession. General Price issued an order to start a camp in southern Missouri, and several Confederate Missouri regiments seemed to have been mustered in December of '61. At Osceola the MO state guard was reorganized into the Confederate army in November, it seems. I'm not sure of the full extent that the secessionist congress had authority in southern Missouri, but it does seem they had some authority in at least a few areas. Unfortunately the scenario editor doesn't allow us to start with provinces in unrest, but maybe I should add this function.

Ironclad -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/27/2007 9:10:18 PM)
I was going to suggest that Osage and Black River start Confederate thinking about the position by July 1861 but of course its a November scenario we are discussing. In fact that would probably do for November too after the Confederate recovery had gone into reverse.

Bombsight -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/27/2007 10:26:16 PM)
Eric, In April 1862, Nathaniel Lyons through a wrench into the CSA plans to capture the arsenal in St Louis (16,000 arms) by federalizing some pro-union elements into regiments (predominately German citizens), arming them from the arsenal (without Fremont's authorization) and chasing the pro-secesh militia back to southern Missouri.

Gray_Lensman -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/28/2007 2:09:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. The pro-CSA ousted governor of Missouri was in the SW part of the state (or SE? I can't remember), so at least one province should be CSA. Where's Missouri Rebel when we need him? Southwest in the Springfield area.

Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/28/2007 2:28:52 AM)
Yes, start with some controled by the CSA. For the reasons stated above.[:)]

Mr. Z -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/28/2007 6:31:45 AM)
It appears that Osage, Black River, and Cape Girardeau were more or less evenly divided in July (Acc. to Atlas of the Civil War Month by Month). Although control went back and forth, the situation was more or less the same at the beginning of November. So take your pick, I guess. It appears that Lincoln abandoned Springfield (at the center of Osage province) in early November, so it had reverted to CSA control by mid-month.

Moltke71 -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/28/2007 4:47:03 PM)
The most accurate way to divide Missouri is to follow the major rivers and Kansas border. People along the Missouri were pro-Southern but, about 50 miles out either way, they tended to be more Union. Actually, some of the strongest pro-Northern sympathizers were in the Ozarks. We even had one county secede from the Confederacy and set up its own kingdom. In terms of the game, matters were so screwed up, you'd best leave things be,

ericbabe -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/28/2007 6:32:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bismarck In terms of the game, matters were so screwed up, you'd best leave things be, Ha! Confirms my suspicion we'd be best to start these provinces in unrest. We'll add a couple CSA MO provinces probably though since it seems there are no strong objections and this'll make the game more interesting in that theater.

Moltke71 -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/28/2007 8:09:12 PM)
Check this out: http://www.kchsoc.org/legend.html

Bombsight -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/28/2007 8:10:55 PM)
Eric, If you proceed with the assignment of Missouri provinces to the south, then consider adding union leaders with high initiative (Nathaniel Lyons, Blair, etc) with a starting loction in Missouri.

Gil R. -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/28/2007 10:09:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Whit Eric, If you proceed with the assignment of Missouri provinces to the south, then consider adding union leaders with high initiative (Nathaniel Lyons, Blair, etc) with a starting loction in Missouri. In the July scenario Lyon starts in Black River (a Missouri province on the Arkansas border) and is a 100-percenter, so he's always there. Lyon died on Aug. 10, 1861, so he shouldn't even be in the November scenarios. In fact, I've just made him a 1-percenter (since I'm not sure whether making him a 0-percenter might do something weird to the game), and once Eric has implemented the IsDead column then there will be no chance of Lyon appearing. As for Blair, he's just a 9-percenter, so I haven't bothered with him. Also, I just saw that he didn't become a general until 1862, so he shouldn't appear at the beginning of the November scenario. Are there other generals who should always start in Missouri in the November scenario?

Ironclad -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/28/2007 10:42:00 PM)
Freemont (until 2 November) replaced by Hunter for Union and McCulloch and Price for CSA.

Gil R. -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/28/2007 10:54:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ironclad Freemont (until 2 November) replaced by Hunter for Union and McCulloch and Price for CSA. Thanks. I'm busy right now, but will see what I can do about these guys later.

Ironclad -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/29/2007 1:47:33 AM)
Fremont not Freemont (we won't mention his accented e!)

Gray_Lensman -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/29/2007 5:06:55 AM)
Check out the Battle of Wilson's Creek, near Springfield, MO edit: http://www.civilwarhome.com/wilsoncreekintro.htm

Mike Scholl -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/29/2007 9:54:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bismarck The most accurate way to divide Missouri is to follow the major rivers and Kansas border. People along the Missouri were pro-Southern but, about 50 miles out either way, they tended to be more Union. Actually, some of the strongest pro-Northern sympathizers were in the Ozarks. We even had one county secede from the Confederacy and set up its own kingdom. Correct. Central Missouri along the river was still called "Little Dixie" when I was in school there in the 60's. St. Louis was heavily pro-Union, as were most of the Ozarks and the Northern part of the state. Kansas City area was more evenly divided. But by the time the game starts most Confederate strength had moved towards the Southwest corner area where they could get some support and arms from Arkansas.

sven6345789 -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/29/2007 12:21:59 PM)
The two southwestern provinces including Springfield should be in CSA hands (Price and his Missouri state guard had retreated to it after the siege of Lexington form Sept. 12-20. McCulloch had withdrawn to Arkansas.

Ironclad -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/29/2007 4:26:48 PM)
McCulloch returned and led a cavalry force to Springfield after he heard of the Union army's surprise withdrawal from there on 8 November.

Bombsight -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/29/2007 5:04:55 PM)
Eric, Lyon disappears in 1861 because he was killed in action at Wilson's creek. Francis P. Blair JR. was instrumental in keeping Missouri in the Union because of his political ties (Familial ties to Lincoln administration). These men working in concert were able to cut a lot of bureaucratic red tape to enable themobilization of pro-union elements "extra-legally" (i.e. competely against the law; but, they backed the winning side). When Lyons took the field, Blair jr remained in St Louis to keep him supplied (i.e. held office holders to promises). I don't know how you would handle the situation in the game other than having the character of Lyons with a high initiative rating. Unless you chose to add Department Headquarters to influence availibility and distribution of supplies to field armies, you can't duplicate Blair Jr's contribution to the war effort.

Mr. Z -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/30/2007 7:04:33 PM)
Probably we are going to give Osage to CSA, rest of MO to USA. We realize sympathies varied from area to area, but we're just talking about military control. Price's units will be in Osage, Fremont/Hunter's in Black River. (And McCullough in Fayetteville province.) This is just to reflect the fact that actually what we call "Osage" province was divided at the beginning of November. Gil will decide what to do with Fremont, who was sacked on 11/2.

ericbabe -> RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate? (3/30/2007 8:42:20 PM)
I've given the southernmost three provinces to the CSA, though presently we have Union forces starting in Black River and they usually take that back on the first turn.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.187012