[Forum Game] - World in Revolution: 1861

**Seek75** · 23-02-2012 00:35

OOC: Dangeroustom, Fry already said there isn't going to be an international peace conference.

**Suirantes** · 23-02-2012 00:36

Originally Posted by Thandros

OOC: Is it just me or could the Confederates go on an attack towards the Great Lakes to cut New England off from the rest of the Union.

OOC: It would leave Washington DC undefended it does not defeat the Union Threat in Pennsylvania.

**Frymonmon** · 23-02-2012 00:36

War will continue until France and Prussia agree to a peace, or one nation capitulates.

**Thandros** · 23-02-2012 00:37

Originally Posted by Frymonmon

It's just you.

OOC: Still If I was the Union player I'd have the army of the Susquehanna a little further west in case the Army of North Virginia made a run for the Great lakes.

**Spitfire5793** · 23-02-2012 00:37

Bavaria is willing to negotiate peace, however we all know Prussia and Britain want war.

**Muskeato** · 23-02-2012 00:38

Originally Posted by Thandros

OOC: Still If I was the Union player I'd have the army of the Susquehanna a little further west in case the Army of North Virginia made a run for the Great lakes.

OOC: Hmm that is an idea. Certainly interesting strategically.

**Frymonmon** · 23-02-2012 00:39

Originally Posted by Thandros

OOC: Still If I was the Union player I'd have the army of the Susquehanna a little further west in case the Army of North Virginia made a run for the Great lakes.

It's simply not possible. They'd have to swing up into Pennsylvania, pass the Army of the Susquehanna, then fight through numerous state militias. Hell, the Union Army gained around three thousands volunteers when Lee moved into Pennsylvania. A move towards the Great Lakes would mobilize the nation in a way unseen in ANY war.

**Suirantes** · 23-02-2012 00:48

OOC: The thoughts of total mobilisation will give me horrible nightmares.

**Thandros** · 23-02-2012 00:52

Originally Posted by Frymonmon

It's simply not possible. They'd have to swing up into Pennsylvania, pass the Army of the Susquehanna, then fight through numerous state militias. Hell, the Union Army gained around three thousands volunteers when Lee moved into Pennsylvania. A move towards the Great Lakes would mobilize the nation in a way unseen in ANY war.

OOC: BUT you must consider that after the loss of Washington many in the Union might be reconsidering their loyalties and such a dramatic Campaign if they Could get past that Army could cause many in the Union to toss in the Towel and swap sides. The Unions losing badly and one more even possible strategic victory by the Confederates may be enough to make many defect. Any way what would the people care they will not just throw there lives away will they. How would things be different under the Confederacy than under the Union. States may well end up having more power but apart from that what will change, not a lot probably so many people seeing the Union getting hammered may just decide to stay out of it.

**Suirantes** · 23-02-2012 00:53

OOC: Since it seems I have nothing to lose, Fry, could you simulate the Kentucky and Missouri secession votes?

**Muskeato** · 23-02-2012 00:55

Originally Posted by Thandros

OOC: BUT you must consider that after the loss of Washington many in the Union might be reconsidering their loyalties and such a dramatic Campaign if they Could get past that Army could cause many in the Union to toss in the Towel and swap sides. The Unions losing badly and one more even possible strategic victory by the Confederates may be enough to make many defect. Any way what would the people care they will not just throw there lives away will they. How would things be different under the Confederacy than under the Union. States may well end up having more power but apart from that what will change, not a lot probably so many people seeing the Union getting hammered may just decide to stay out of it.

OOC: I'm sure Fry has thought about it. He's done a PhD on it as far as I'm aware, give him some credit.

**Red Cesar** · 23-02-2012 00:59

You're trying to justify the reasoning behind the strategy. That doesn't change that the strategy itself is still damn near impossible.

**Frymonmon** · 23-02-2012 01:00

Originally Posted by Thandros

OOC: BUT you must consider that after the loss of Washington many in the Union might be reconsidering their loyalties and such a dramatic Campaign if they Could get past that Army could cause many in the Union to toss in the Towel and swap sides. The Unions losing badly and one more even possible strategic victory by the Confederates may be enough to make many defect. Any way what would the people care they will not just throw there lives away will they. How would things be different under the Confederacy than under the Union. States may well end up having more power but apart from that what will change, not a lot probably so many people seeing the Union getting hammered may just decide to stay out of it.

Sigh.

No.

EVEN if Washington HAD fallen during the American Civil War, the worst thing that would happen is that Maryland would have gone for the Confederacy and Lincoln would have a depression meltdown. But the war would continue. The Confederate States of America was founded on the principle that all men are NOT created equal. The United States of America was founded by the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. There is no motivation, no reason, at ALL for any of the Union soldiers to run away from the Union, nor any more states, save the possibility of Kentucky and Missouri. It was no big secret that the Confederacy was founded for Slavery. (SEE: Alexander Stephens; Cornerstone Speech) At the time Lincoln had already had issued the Emancipation Proclamation before any serious threat could be brought to Washington. (Meade kept Lee well in Virginia for all of 1862 until the disasters that lead to Sharpsburg.)

I... Won't go into more because it will be a lecture.

Simply put. No.

**Morrell8** · 23-02-2012 01:03

OOC: Brilliant! I'm in the belly of the beast! I'll send orders for the attack on Paris. Thandros, Frymonmon knows what he is doing.

**Suirantes** · 23-02-2012 01:05

OOC: As long as I continue having decisive victories, I should easilly push for a peace.

**Thandros** · 23-02-2012 01:07

Originally Posted by Muskeato

OOC: I'm sure Fry has thought about it. He's done a PhD on it as far as I'm aware, give him some credit.

OOC: I'm sure he has thought about it but this isn't history. Once one thing changes in history the rest goes to pot. In reality only two battles of the American Civil war were fought in Union territory both were Union victories. Here there has been lots of fighting in formerly Union territory with numerous Union defeats you simply can't predict how people will react. But It seems likely that they'll just stop supporting a losing union.

**Frymonmon** · 23-02-2012 01:09

Swiss Confederation

The Swiss Confederation would like to deny ANY involvement in the assassination of König Wilhelm of Prussia. However, we have been approached by a few select countries, which asked us for cooperation in this war, and we have overwhelmingly denied any involvement. We do, however, ask the Kingdom of Prussia that if they are victorious, if they will respect Swiss Neutrality, and not attempt to take control of the German-speaking population. In exchange for such a deal, the Swiss Confederation would be willing to trade with this new German nation.

**Muskeato** · 23-02-2012 01:09

Originally Posted by Thandros

OOC: I'm sure he has thought about it but this isn't history. Once one thing changes in history the rest goes to pot. In reality only two battles of the American Civil war were fought in Union territory both were Union victories. Here there has been lots of fighting in formerly Union territory with numerous Union defeats you simply can't predict how people will react. But It seems likely that they'll just stop supporting a losing union.

OOC: Please stop. Did you just ignore Fry's reply?

**Frymonmon** · 23-02-2012 01:16

Originally Posted by Thandros

OOC: I'm sure he has thought about it but this isn't history. Once one thing changes in history the rest goes to pot. In reality only two battles of the American Civil war were fought in Union territory both were Union victories. Here there has been lots of fighting in formerly Union territory with numerous Union defeats you simply can't predict how people will react. But It seems likely that they'll just stop supporting a losing union.

Antietam, Gettysburg, Wilson's Creek, Perryville, New Madrid, Glorieta Pass, Paducah, Mill Springs, Bowling Green, Frederick, Phillipi, Cheats Mountain?

Only just a fraction of the battles fought on Union soil.

Simply put. Stop the argument. I say this as the GM.

**Seek75** · 23-02-2012 01:18

OOC: As others have said, Fry's a college professor with a Ph.D in American history. I'm fairly certain he knows what he's doing. In fact, he's probably more likely to be right about this kind of stuff than anyone else here.

Thread: [Forum Game] - World in Revolution: 1861

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions