LogFAQs > #952812909

JigsawTDC posted...

I mean, you could make a separate topic for that if you want to discuss it. It doesn't seem like a likely hypothetical to me though. Any future civil war in the U.S. is less likely to be red vs. blue and more likely to be the government vs. the people. The side with nukes probably wins.

That's part of why I usually decree 'no nukes' when I run set-ups like that. It turns wars unpredictable at best.

Generally I assume 100% loyalty/fervor (at least at the start), official declarations, and no nukes. But I don't think any of those would apply except maybe the last in a U.S. civil war at this time. Though I can predict how it would go easily enough.

Red would smash down south and stomp out dissent in the central area while blue would try to surge the coastlines. Following that there will be a stand-off due to the Rockies/Appalachia. If blue decides to fortify they can force a battle of attrition but will have to struggle by being split in half. If they go on the offensive they have the advantage of hitting from two sides but will need to co-ordinate over a massive distance. Assuming the sides to be mostly equal otherwise you'll likely see either a red victory, red crushing one of blues two sides but unable to seize victory, blue enduring but needing to form two separate nations, or blue obtaining outside help and crushing red. I don't think it's likely blue will win without outside help because of the sheer distance between its two sides but I don't think red has the manpower to win the two-fronted war so either options 2 or 3 would be the most likely. The single most important question would likely be if blue decides to try to keep DC as a capitol or relocate it to the west coast. The latter would be a massive tactical disadvantage though so I don't think it's likely.

---

I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage