Foreign powers

[KamilS]

I think, there should be option for separate peace between USA and intervening countries.


It seems a bit unrealistic to me, that Britain continues war after suffering such casualties.

It is Early August '64.

[TulliusDetritus]

Is this a PBEM? What did you do to encourage foreign intervention?

[Dorb]

Something not right with this picture. We need the Paul Harvey - Rest of the Story!

[KamilS]

It is PBEM

My opponent got +35 from Trent Affair, played all the diplomatic options and I have refused to use territorial concesions.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Kamil

It is PBEM

My opponent got +35 from Trent Affair, played all the diplomatic options and I have refused to use territorial concesions.

Oh, I too refuse to use the territorial concessions thing. And er, perhaps Marquo played those diplomatic options... now if you excuse me, please

[Toro12]

I have NEVER seen foreign powers enter the scene. This is awesome. Are you two doing an AAR? I'd love to see numbers, how they're being used, where, etc.

[KamilS]

Hmm, I will try to make overview of Brits campaign during the weekend if I find some time.

(btw in my other game as USA, there is already +84 foreign entry and it is Dec '61 - again +35 from Trent Affair, but I haven't played my diplomatic cards. To be honest I find it a bit ridiculous, that CSA can gain 80 foreign entry in half a year without any significant success in war)

[KamilS]

This is absolute joke.

Early Jan '62. I captured Manassas and Island 10. Inflicted more casualties that suffered, yet Foreign Entry equals 100 (2 out of 3 diplomatic options were played by me).

I am annoyed, because it is not strategy it is roulette.


I played 4 PBEM as Union, in 3 games we managed to get to '62 and in two of them opponents managed to get 100 FI without actually capturing important northern cities or winning major battles.

Setting was historic, so I ask how historic is that?



Well, I am annoyed customer who expected game being dependant on adopting correct strategy not on some random rolls.

[Ace1_slith]

The game has 10% chance for the Trent affair to give unhistoric results. The percentage is debatable, but there has to be a chance for the Affair to escalate. If Lincoln were a hothead and refused to apologize + if the British prime minister were a hothead as well, everything could escalate. After that, there was no real chance of intervention.

[KamilS]

I don't dispute possibility of foreign intervention, but what I find very wrong is lack on influence of sequence of events - you can play them or not and that is it, there is no finesse to it just luck and possible impact of this random options is huge.

In last case foreign intervention will probably waste my and my opponents time. I see no point in playing in which game where outcome is determined by throws of dices.

[Ace1_slith]

Winning battles influence NM and VP.

NM and VP influence Foreign intervention - simple as that.

About the random roll for blockade decisions: did the US knew will the Brits be angered by the total blockade policy or not. They did not. In life, chance influences more things than we are willing to admit.

[KamilS]

In both games CSA didn't win more battles than USA, didn't acquire any VP locations, but due to initial set-up have higher VP/turn and morale so south edge in case of FI increase.


Second of all. It was obviously so simple in life - Brits get angered or not, no other way to influence it, no middle ground, no negotiations and game reflects it perfectly. Each side have 3 options plus there is random event, absolutely like in real life.


Moreover, once FI reaches 100 it can't be changed.

[Rosseau]

That can be modded out in a few keystrokes. I don't have the game (yet). Maybe a kind soul on Ageod forum will do it for you.

[Cavalier99]

The intervention options are not realistic. Britain was more dependant on Union grain supplies than it was on Confederate cotton. There was as much chance of Britain entering the war on the side of the Confederacy as there was of the Confederacy winning an outright victory.
.

[Ol Choctaw]

ORIGINAL: Cavalier99

The intervention options are not realistic. Britain was more dependant on Union grain supplies than it was on Confederate cotton. There was as much chance of Britain entering the war on the side of the Confederacy as there was of the Confederacy winning an outright victory.
.

It was Palmerston and Russell that kept GB out of the war. They were fighting their own party keeping them out of the war. Both had screwed up with wars in the past and were not to eager to repeat the mistakes.

Most of the ruling class wanted the war and would have welcomed stopping grain imports.

Their main reason for not going to war was that it would interrupt British trade. Not their trade with the Union.

They would have loved nothing better than to put Lincoln in his place but it was bad for business.

But Pam was a hothead and events like the Trent Affair or Union ultimatums could have set him off as easily as not.