Re: [DL] Random questions - SPOILERS

[cmcgloth@halifax.com (Christopher McGlothlin)]

Mr. Kirk Monsen wrote:
>That's the key issue 'for the MOST part'...
>
>S
>p
>o
>i
>l
>e
>r
>s
>
>
One Spolier Space for Me....
>
>
>
>
>
One More for My Homies....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>We know the leader of the Confederacy works for the
>Reckoners, while the Union counterpart does not.

	To be fair, despite much nobler intentions (and we all know exactly what
THOSE pave), U.S. Grant isn't exactly quashing Fear Lears by prolonging The
War at all costs.

>The whole idea of 'Confed = bad' 'Union = Good' is the
>feel I get from reading the source books.  Fort 41,
>the Union secret lab, seems like a happy hippie
>colony, while Roswell, the Confederate's counterpart,
>seems like a labor camp.

	I seen to recall a thread from the early days of the DL Listserver (back
when we used stone tablets, I think), which alledged that the PEG releases
to date were decidedly anti-Confederate, and cited this as evidence. Now, I
know for a fact that this was not intentional on any writer's part, but I
must admit I can see where one could've gotten that impression.
	Since then, I've been honored to make my own contributions to PEG's War,
and by conscious effort tried to show the flaws and merits of South AND
NORTH. More than anything, I wanted the actions of BOTH sides to seem
pointlessly cruel and ultimately futile, as that's what the conflict has
degenerated into in 1877. Both sides have lost sight of what they
originally fought for, and are reaping what they have sown, albeit in
different ways. 
	I imagine only the readers can truly judge if I succeeded or failed.... 

>When the Union attacks it is
>in retaliation to Confederacy aggression.  Most of the
>battles listed seem to be the Confederacy moving
>north, and not the other way.

	While the Confederacy is far from innocent, most all the battles depicted
thus far in DL (Forrest's attack on Cairo in *TOT:77* being a notable
exception) were initiated by the Union, and took place on land the
Confederates regard (rightly or wrongly) as their own. (I am of course
excepting historical battles here as well, because whenever possible, I let
history run its course.)
	This was NOT done because of any bias. Rather, Union and Confederate
strategies dictate the North must take the initiative and the South can
only try its best to counter. That's how the real War was fought, and
strategic realities usually prohibit deviations from it.
	I don't think any less of the Union for (usually) throwing the first
punch, and neither should you. It's simply a natural outcome of what fate
(and the Reckoners) has dealt them.

>Although both sides use
>mad science, the Confederacy seems to prefer the more
>inhuman versions (ie Mustard Gas). 

	While I personally can't sanction the aerial fire-bombing of a civilian
population by the Union (among other things), you have pointed out exactly
what I wanted to establish about the Confederate War effort. Given how much
direct Reckoner influence there is on the making of Southern policy (e.g.,
the aforementioned Davis and Forrest), their use of weapons designed
largely or exclusively to induce terror was a natural outcome. Now, not
everyone in the South is crazy about this (like the Southern
Sentinel--whomever he or she is), it IS something they will all have to
answer for someday. 
	That, however, is a story for another time....;)

>I'm not trying to
>make this a North/South thing either, but I feel the
>South as being given a bad rep, and just curious if
>that's how people play them?

	I think you and I are in at least partial agreement here. As I said, the
South has much to answer for, but then again, so does the North. I have no
wish to start a Virtual War-Re-Enactment either (Been there, done that;
check the archives), but I'll cite you one counter-example of the *North's*
"bad rep" (in honor of Mark Metzner:)): Louisville.

>I'm more interested though in the logistics of the
>war.  Is there a trench based front line seperating
>the two sides (ala WW1), or is it more fort/outpost
>based?  

	In Northern Virginia, east of the Blue Ridge, the situation is
(deliberately) evocative of the Great War's Western Front. The War in
Kentucky is also reminiscent of that conflict, but moreso of the Eastern
Front. Once you get past the Mississippi, you're in fort/outpost territory,
and The War looks like *The Outlaw Josey Wales*. See *TOT:77* for more info.

>How far west does this recognised seperation
>exist, and how is it handled in the disputed areas? 
>Maybe I need to go back and re-read my ToT77, BEtS,
>and BEtN.  It's been a while.

	I for one strongly encourage this action.:)
	Please let me know if I can fill in any of the details these fine tomes omit.



Deo Vindice,
Christopher McGlothlin, M.Ed.

Additional Developer: *Deadlands: The Weird West* Revised Edition
Co-author of *Tales o' Terror: 1877* & *Back East: The South*
Southern by the Grace of God