Drums of War: An All-CPU Playtest of the Civil War

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

5 hours ago, matthewyoung123 said:

Herschel V. Johnson of GA (3 Judicial), Matt's faction & Judah P. Benjamin of LA (4 Judicial), ShortKing faction.

The Supreme Court confirmation rules have not been updated to reflect the changes made to the cabinet, so I will just apply those here. They are automatically confirmed due to ability and not having negative traits.

No gains for either of them. Please update their titles and the Judicial tabs.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

57 minutes ago, matthewyoung123 said:

The only thing I think that needs to be adjusted is how tied states are solved.  In OH for example, Granger had a +3.  Granger rolled a 2 and Polk rolled a 5 so they were tied.  Then, when the tie breaker roll happened, Granger got another +3 bonus.  The rolls were tied at 1 to 1, but Granger won with his second bonus 4-1.

I don't think that there should be a 2nd bonus to a tie roll.  The underdog has already overcome that bonus.  It shouldn't apply twice.  It should simply be a roll off until one candidate wins a die roll.

I am inclined to agree here. In theory upsets should occur and they should still be winnable for the tying party. I would support making the tie breakers just a straight up roll.

[OrangeP47]

Other Democratic Senator Appointments

AL - Replace  Alexander White (Skye) with  John Tyler Morgan

FL - Retain  David Levy Yulee

MO - No Class III

MS - No Class III

GA - Replace  Thomas B King (Skye) with  Alfred Cuthbert

TN - No Class III

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

5 hours ago, matthewyoung123 said:

Senate appointments for 1860 from Pop Sov Dems-

AR- Reappoint Ambrose Sevier Gains unlikable

DE- No Class III

KS- Reappoint Marcus Junius Parrott Nothing

LC- No Class III

NC- Reappoint Thomas H Ruffin Nothing

SC- Thomas De Lage Sumter Nothing

Gains in bold

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

Other Democratic Senator Appointments

AL - Replace  Alexander White (Skye) with  John Tyler Morgan Gains Admin +1

FL - Retain  David Levy Yulee Nothing

MO - No Class III

MS - No Class III

GA - Replace  Thomas B King (Skye) with  Alfred Cuthbert Nothing

TN - No Class III

Gains in bold

And we have a vacant MO Class III but it got hidden.

[OrangeP47]

Lewis F. Linn is the replacement MO Senator

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

Whig Senators

• CT: Retain Orris S Ferry. Ferry gains nothing.
• IA: Retain James W Grimes. Grimes gains nothing.
• IL: Retain James Knox. Knox gains nothing.
• IN: Retain Cyrus G Luce. Luce gains Legis +1.
• KY: Replace Cons Dem Henry Grider with Lucien Anderson. Anderson gains Legis +1 and Admin +1.
• LA: Retain Richard Taylor. Taylor gains Admin +1.
• MD: Replace Pop Dem Philip Francis Thomas with Edwin H Webster. Webster gains Admin +1.
• NH: Retain Daniel Clark. Clark gains Legis +1 and Iron Fist.
• NY Class I Special: Orsamus Matteson. Matteson gains nothing.
• OH: Replace Trad Whig Chester D Hubbard with Rep Noah Haynes Swayne. Swayne gains nothing. To replace Swayne, appoint Charles W Foster.
• PA: Replace Wall St Whig John Allison with David Potts Jr. Potts gains nothing.
• OR: Retain Imperialist Dem James K Kelly. Kelly gains nothing.
• UC: Replace Pop Sov Dem Frank Hereford with Charles L Robinson. Robinson gains Admin +1.
• VT: Retain Calvin Galusha Coolidge. Coolidge gains Legis +1.
• WI: Retain Orsamus Cole. Cole gains nothing.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

1860 Senate Appointments

Due to the Whig advantage in controlling states, they continue to hold an advantage in the Senate. Whigs 48-24 majority.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

Retirements from elections and other stuff

• @matthewyoung123James K Polk rolled 93/95, so he almost held on. Pres Polk retires from politics having expanded the nation and watched over an economic recovery. His only failing, perhaps, was not fostering a growth among all segments of the Democratic Party which has lead to their failure to make inroads within the Midwest and Northern states.
• Silas Wright rolled 9/40. VP Silas Wright retires having done nothing other than be a warm body for an ailing President. Who knows what might have become of Wright had he a chance to run for another office.
• Defeated LC Gov Newton Booth
• Defeated TN Rep Thomas Rivers
• Old guys David Trimble and Fmr ME Sen Reuel Williams
• Rep William Wilkins of FL is 79 and not yet dead or retired, so he gains Judicial -1 (now at 0).

Edited November 26, 2022 by Ich_bin_Tyler

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

End of Half-Term Points

Democrats +16,450 -> 13,913

Yet again, Dems find themselves with the highest and lowest scoring faction so the penalty is applied.

• Populist Democrats (RW) +4,400 -> 3,960
• Conservative Democrats +4,550 -> 4,095
• Popular Sovereignty Democrats +6,550 -> 4,913
• Imperialists  +1,050 -> 945
• Semple Democrats -100 -> 0

Whigs +15,050

• Traditionalist Whigs +2,400
• Wall Street Whigs +1,400
• Moderate Whigs +4,850
• Liberal Whigs +2,600
• Abolitionists +3,800

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

Welcome to 1860-62!

So begins the first half-term of Pres Francis Granger.

We will start with the politician draft.

For the Democrats, the three best draftees are John G Carlisle, Richard P Bland, Richard B Hubbard, and Julius Morton.

For the Whigs, the four best draftees are Chauncey Depew, Benjamin Bristow, Matthew S Quay, and James B Weaver.

Imperialists Dems and Semple Dems will get the 10th and 9th place draft bonuses.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Ich_bin_Tyler

[matthewyoung123]

Career Track for Pop Sov Dems 1860:

Remove-

20 years- Allen G Thurman, State Legislative Track

20 years- Sanford E Church, Backroom Track

16 years- Alexander Randall, Executive Governing Track

16 years- David T Patterson, State Judicial Track

16 years- Daniel Sickles, Backroom Track

Add-

Charles E Phelps, Private Sector

Fitzhugh Lee, State Executive Governing Track

Richard Olney, State Admin Track

Campbell Polson Berry, State Legislative Track

Robert H M Davidson, Backroom Track

[OrangeP47]

And now a quick break for the 1860 Census!  Please note, these changes are set to take effect with the 1862 midterms (so Presidential Elections will not be affected until 1864 and 1868).  Please see under the figures for a narrative description of how this came to be.

AL: 10 (+1) (historical)

AR: 6 (+2) (historical)

AZ: (-2 modifier, technically at 1, due to event) (ahistorical) (NOT A STATE JUST A NOTE)

CT: 7 (+1) (ahistorical)

DE: 4 (+1) (ahistorical)

FL: 6 (+3) (ahistorical) (due to ahistoric legislation passed, not industries)

GA: 11 (+1) (historical)

IA: 8 (+4) (historical) (New focus rep!)

IL: 16 (+5) (historical) (New focus rep!)

IN: 13 (no change) (historical)

KS: 3 (no change) (historical*) *admitted early

KY: 11 (-1) (historical)

LA: 8 (+2) (ahistorical) (New focus rep!)

LC: 5 (no change) (ahistorical*) *ahistoric state

MA: 13 (no change) (ahistorical)

MD: 7 (-1) (historical) (Loses focus rep!)

ME: 8 (no change) (ahistorical)

MI: 8 (+2) (historical) (New focus rep!)

MN: 4 (+1) (historical)

MO: 12 (+3) (ahistorical)

MS: 8 (+1) (historical) (New focus rep!)

NC: 11 (+1) (ahistorical)

NE: 3 (no change) (historical*) *admitted early

NH: 5 (no change) (historical)

NJ: 8 (+1) (ahistorical) (New focus rep!)

NM: (-2 modifier, technically at 1, due to event) (ahistorical) (NOT A STATE JUST A NOTE)

NY: 33 (-2) (historical)

OH: 22 (-1) (ahistorical) (Loses focus rep!)

OR: 3 (no change) (historical)

PA: 26 (-1) (historical)

RI: 5 (+1) (ahistorical)

SC: 8 (no change) (ahistorical)

TN: 9 (-3) (ahistorical)

TX: 9 (+5) (ahistorical) (New focus rep!)

UC: 4 (+1) (ahistorical*) *ahistoric state

VA: 14 (-1) (ahistorical*) *I have applied a contingency for the fact that WV has not split yet

VT: 6 (+1) (ahistorical)

WI: 9 (+4) (ahistorical) (New focus rep!)

Total EV: 343 (172 EV to win presidency) House: 271 Seats

US Population: 33,228,394 (Historical population: 31,443,322) (Increase of 5.68%)

-----

The theme of this decade was industrialization. The 1840s had seen a major depression, specifically in the manufacturing sector, but it had not reached the level of dramatically altering the demographic landscape of the country. In the 1850s the country majorly rebounded, to the point where industrialization is now actually probably ahead of historical schedule not just in the North, but the South as well.

Major areas of interest to note are that New England and the Upper South/Coastal South benefited the most from the industrial rebound.  The Mid-Atlantic lagged a bit behind, though that also disguises the fact that they actually did quite well economically... they really just lucked out when it came to how the final shakeout happened, and were hampered by the fact that the 1860 census IRL squeezed PA/NY/OH.  Ironically, in this run, cities like Philadelphia probably saw massive growth this decade, as DE industrialized to the point of gaining a second representative, something that never happened IRL, and can only be explained by Wilmington growing into a twin city probably.  There's probably just some earlier "rural flight" going on in these states to counteract their industrialization though.

Along those lines, while I did calculate the overall US population to be about 5% higher, not every location within the country is doing "better" than it was IOTL.  As much as I really hate to say this, but banning slavery in TN appears to have crashed the local economy, and they have lost 3 EV. Historically this census, they only lost 2. Elsewhere, while it's impossible to know just what "conditions on the ground" are like, AZ and NM (not states) are largely surrendered to Native Americans, despite being within the United States borders (the Gasden Purchase too).  Several cycles ago the President at the time chose to leave the local tribes in peace, and as a result those states are basically going to be pegged to 3 EV (should they be admitted) until Native American citizenship is passed (if ever).

That's quite different than how Native Americans have been handled in Florida, seeing as President Polk decided to lead the United States into a recent war with the Seminoles.  Pro-settlement policies in that state more aggressive than IOTL (legis props) have led to an absolute explosion in citizen population, and the state now has 6 EVs going forward.  This is actually the least amount of EV possible this census cycle given the legis prop that passed, and there was a chance it could have had as high as 9 if they scored 3 lucky dice hits, but they didn't even get one.

These changes were done with the old rules, as we could not convert mid-census cycle, but going forward we will switch to the new event system and the 10% rule.

[Willthescout7]

Seems pretty realistic. Which is good. 

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

If these Census numbers had been in place for the 1860 election, Granger would have won 199 and Polk 144. This would be the exact same percentage of the electoral college for each, so the gains across the country kept things balanced. This could keep Democrats competitive at the Presidential level but might make things harder in the House since it looks like Whigs would gain a few focus Reps, but the leans of those seats could be to the benefit of Dems. Just my back of the envelope math and analysis of the implications.

[OrangeP47]

Addenda to the Census post, but this was some musings I had around the 1850 census in regards to Lower California and the fact that it got 5 EV while UC only got 3 at that time (UC now has 4).  Southern California does indeed have gold, but mostly in modern day Imperial County, and not nearly as much as Northern California, but it's possible the gold rush could be centered here. The state realistically probably transitions to agriculture pretty quickly too, probably even more so since it's a slave state.  Migration might be hampered by the fact that AZ and NM are depopulated due to Native Americans... but actually the best transit route was the old Mormon trail that went through Utah... and that leads into another point... the capital might actually be San Bernardino which was one of the earliest established cities in Southern California and a major hub of Mormon activity.  LC probably has major Mormon influence.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

Draftee Gains

• Roger Q Mills gains Micromanager
• Cornelius N Bliss gains Puritan
• Allen D Candler gains Unlikable
• John Quincy Adams II gains Controversial
• Benjamin F Jonas gains Uncharismatic
• Fitzhugh Lee adds OH as alt state
• Jewett W Adams adds GA as alt state
• Frank Hiscock adds CT as alt state
• Chauncey Depew adds VT as alt state
• Charles H Grosvenor adds VA as alt state

I have already updated these.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

On 11/26/2022 at 5:51 PM, matthewyoung123 said:

Career Track for Pop Sov Dems 1860:

Remove-

20 years- Allen G Thurman, State Legislative Track  Gains Legis +3, Foreign Affairs, Debater, Expansionist, Gov +1, Charisma, Puritan

20 years- Sanford E Church, Backroom Track  Gains Admin +2, Education, Nationalist, Kingmaker, Celebrity

16 years- Alexander Randall, Executive Governing Track  Gains Gov +3, Naval, Charisma

16 years- David T Patterson, State Judicial Track  Gains Judicial +2

16 years- Daniel Sickles, Backroom Track  Gains Admin +1, Technology, Kingmaker, Orator

Add-

Charles E Phelps, Private Sector

Fitzhugh Lee, State Executive Governing Track

Richard Olney, State Admin Track

Campbell Polson Berry, State Legislative Track

Robert H M Davidson, Backroom Track

Gains in bold. Dice gods were quite generous to your gentlemen.

[OrangeP47]

I will get dem tracks tomorrow now that draft has been fully updated.

[matthewyoung123]

Some thoughts on 1860-

So, not to be too picky here...but I think we may need to examine some state biases.

NY, OH, and PA haven't had a single Dem Rep in about 3 cycles (or if they did it was 1 out of about a dozen).  They've also had all Red Govs for the last several cycles.  This is not historical. 

PA had a Dem Gov from 1858 - 1861.  Same for NY from 1853 - 1855 and 1863 - 1865.  

OH was split in the House 8 Blue/13 Red.  PA was 6 Blue/19 Red.  NY was 10 Blue/23 Red.  The issue with the focus Reps is that all of them...are Red for all three states.  The Dems have seemingly no voice at all in some of these larger states and that's not right.

And the only reason those numbers aren't higher in history is because of a split in the Democratic Party that happened in 1860, that didn't happen in our timeline.  Also, the Whigs are still together in 1860, when they historically split over the issue of slavery.

Perhaps we should think about adding a column, similar to the "Southern Unionist" column entitled "Abolitionist."  And if one of those is elected President, and there are more free states than slave states, then there should be an automatic roll for secession, and it should be like 75%.

I don't know how to fix the House/Gov issues leaning way too far to Red other than to maybe look at and re-examine state biases and how those tie breaker rolls go from now on.  Thanks.

 

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, matthewyoung123 said:

Some thoughts on 1860-

So, not to be too picky here...but I think we may need to examine some state biases.

NY, OH, and PA haven't had a single Dem Rep in about 3 cycles (or if they did it was 1 out of about a dozen).  They've also had all Red Govs for the last several cycles.  This is not historical. 

PA had a Dem Gov from 1858 - 1861.  Same for NY from 1853 - 1855 and 1863 - 1865.  

OH was split in the House 8 Blue/13 Red.  PA was 6 Blue/19 Red.  NY was 10 Blue/23 Red.  The issue with the focus Reps is that all of them...are Red for all three states.  The Dems have seemingly no voice at all in some of these larger states and that's not right.

And the only reason those numbers aren't higher in history is because of a split in the Democratic Party that happened in 1860, that didn't happen in our timeline.  Also, the Whigs are still together in 1860, when they historically split over the issue of slavery.

Perhaps we should think about adding a column, similar to the "Southern Unionist" column entitled "Abolitionist."  And if one of those is elected President, and there are more free states than slave states, then there should be an automatic roll for secession, and it should be like 75%.

I don't know how to fix the House/Gov issues leaning way too far to Red other than to maybe look at and re-examine state biases and how those tie breaker rolls go from now on.  Thanks.

 

We have the Civil Rights interest. Those are abolitionists during that era 

[OrangeP47]

4 minutes ago, matthewyoung123 said:

Some thoughts on 1860-

So, not to be too picky here...but I think we may need to examine some state biases.

NY, OH, and PA haven't had a single Dem Rep in about 3 cycles (or if they did it was 1 out of about a dozen).  They've also had all Red Govs for the last several cycles.  This is not historical. 

PA had a Dem Gov from 1858 - 1861.  Same for NY from 1853 - 1855 and 1863 - 1865.  

OH was split in the House 8 Blue/13 Red.  PA was 6 Blue/19 Red.  NY was 10 Blue/23 Red.  The issue with the focus Reps is that all of them...are Red for all three states.  The Dems have seemingly no voice at all in some of these larger states and that's not right.

And the only reason those numbers aren't higher in history is because of a split in the Democratic Party that happened in 1860, that didn't happen in our timeline.  Also, the Whigs are still together in 1860, when they historically split over the issue of slavery.

Perhaps we should think about adding a column, similar to the "Southern Unionist" column entitled "Abolitionist."  And if one of those is elected President, and there are more free states than slave states, then there should be an automatic roll for secession, and it should be like 75%.

I don't know how to fix the House/Gov issues leaning way too far to Red other than to maybe look at and re-examine state biases and how those tie breaker rolls go from now on.  Thanks.

 

TBH the meters and stuff were terrible for everyone but Polk I think Congress has gone about as expected.  I think if there's a problem, big if, is the fact that during a bad cycle our best candidates get saddled with the loser -1 penalty and then can't rebound for 6 years.  But it can be argued that's not a problem, that's design.  As the person inputting the NY/OH/PA reps, that's more what I'm seeing.  One bad cycle can turn all your reps into perpetual losers.  The smart thing to do may be is if you know it's gonna be a bad year, don't run your best guys.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

I will say in regards to the state leans OH, PA, and NY are +1 and +2 red states so they are very much winnable for Dems. What's been preventing the Dems from winning is that -3 because of Domestic Stability. That keeps punishing them. Also the seats have the incumbents so the Whigs are up 5 and 6 in those states at the beginning, which makes it unwinnable for the Dems. I think having Whigs be in charge they will not suffer those penalties and we can look at the leans at that point and see what's happening under the hood there. But I do see where you are coming from that it seems like Dems are just hitting a brick wall.

 

[OrangeP47]

Also pretty sure Southern Unionist doesn't do anything anymore it's just an artifact on the sheet.

[matthewyoung123]

20 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

Gains in bold. Dice gods were quite generous to your gentlemen.

I've made the updates on my sheet.  Thurman is a STAR!