@herocksinalab.bsky.social
Wow, I'd never heard about this.
January 19, 2026 at 2:01 AM
Wow, I'd never heard about this.
Almost certainly, especially considering the number of people who we know got away with it for quite a while in the military, which seems like it would generally have been much harder than passing in civilian life.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah...
Deborah Sampson - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
January 19, 2026 at 1:58 AM
Almost certainly, especially considering the number of people who we know got away with it for quite a while in the military, which seems like it would generally have been much harder than passing in civilian life.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah...
This seems like it could either work brilliantly or be a real feeding-shelter-cats-to-coyotes situation.
January 17, 2026 at 11:28 PM
This seems like it could either work brilliantly or be a real feeding-shelter-cats-to-coyotes situation.
I also think it's pretty clear that adopting more radical rhetoric would not have helped Republicans electorally. It was absolutely critical that someone willing to fight won in 1860, and literally anything Lincoln said or did (short of capitulation) was worth it if it helped him win.
January 14, 2026 at 11:48 PM
I also think it's pretty clear that adopting more radical rhetoric would not have helped Republicans electorally. It was absolutely critical that someone willing to fight won in 1860, and literally anything Lincoln said or did (short of capitulation) was worth it if it helped him win.
Easy enough to do in Maryland, it's flat and tiny and there's a bunch of Pennsylvanian militiamen ready to march into Baltimore. The same thing would not have been possible in Kentucky, enough of the state's leaders (quite a few of them slave owners!) had to be convinced to remain loyal.
January 14, 2026 at 11:37 PM
Easy enough to do in Maryland, it's flat and tiny and there's a bunch of Pennsylvanian militiamen ready to march into Baltimore. The same thing would not have been possible in Kentucky, enough of the state's leaders (quite a few of them slave owners!) had to be convinced to remain loyal.
Should the federal government have taken more aggressive steps to preempt secession? Probably, maybe, but Lincoln wasn't in office until the crisis was underway. People also forget that the Southern states had large active militias ready to go whereas the peacetime US Army was tiny.
January 14, 2026 at 11:32 PM
Should the federal government have taken more aggressive steps to preempt secession? Probably, maybe, but Lincoln wasn't in office until the crisis was underway. People also forget that the Southern states had large active militias ready to go whereas the peacetime US Army was tiny.
Depends how far back you mean? Lincoln *did* immediately begin preparing for war upon taking office, while also steadfastly refused to negotiate with the secessionists, and for the exact same strategic reasons that he did everything possible to keep the border states in the Union.
January 14, 2026 at 11:26 PM
Depends how far back you mean? Lincoln *did* immediately begin preparing for war upon taking office, while also steadfastly refused to negotiate with the secessionists, and for the exact same strategic reasons that he did everything possible to keep the border states in the Union.
The majority view in Maryland was roughly, "Oh, what a tragedy. We'll just stay neutral." which is why Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, arrested a third of the state legislature without charges, and then simply ignore the supreme court when they complained about it. (laudatory)
January 14, 2026 at 11:10 PM
The majority view in Maryland was roughly, "Oh, what a tragedy. We'll just stay neutral." which is why Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, arrested a third of the state legislature without charges, and then simply ignore the supreme court when they complained about it. (laudatory)
Even among people who thought the secessionists were nuts, lots and lots of people didn't want to fight. Very understandably! So making the Unionist position maximally reasonable and forcing the secessionists to make the first move was critical to win over as many fence-sitters as possible.
January 14, 2026 at 11:03 PM
Even among people who thought the secessionists were nuts, lots and lots of people didn't want to fight. Very understandably! So making the Unionist position maximally reasonable and forcing the secessionists to make the first move was critical to win over as many fence-sitters as possible.
I think this was defensible. The border states staying in the Union was of *tremendous* strategic value. If Maryland had seceded (a very real possibility) DC would probably have had to be abandoned. If Missouri and/or Kentucky had left the war in the West might have gone very differently.
January 14, 2026 at 10:58 PM
I think this was defensible. The border states staying in the Union was of *tremendous* strategic value. If Maryland had seceded (a very real possibility) DC would probably have had to be abandoned. If Missouri and/or Kentucky had left the war in the West might have gone very differently.
I have a feeling he must be one of those guys like Larry David that a lot of women somewhat inexplicably have the hots for.
January 14, 2026 at 10:43 PM
I have a feeling he must be one of those guys like Larry David that a lot of women somewhat inexplicably have the hots for.
And again, that's where the teaching value is. As a player, you'll find yourself making similar decisions to the historical actors, and oftentimes specifically the same *mistakes*, because the game does a good job of representing their goals and incentives as well as the constraints they faced.
January 14, 2026 at 12:01 PM
And again, that's where the teaching value is. As a player, you'll find yourself making similar decisions to the historical actors, and oftentimes specifically the same *mistakes*, because the game does a good job of representing their goals and incentives as well as the constraints they faced.
I think this captures things pretty realistically. The Serbs were the aggressors, and committed the majority of atrocities. But all sides committed crimes, especially when their forces entered "enemy" areas, and all sides sometimes held off on advancing into populated areas for diplomatic reasons.
January 14, 2026 at 11:51 AM
I think this captures things pretty realistically. The Serbs were the aggressors, and committed the majority of atrocities. But all sides committed crimes, especially when their forces entered "enemy" areas, and all sides sometimes held off on advancing into populated areas for diplomatic reasons.
The VRS player needs to capture a lot of cities to win, and has the capacity to do so. The ARBiH and HVO players don't need to, and mostly can't anyways until the end of the game. There's also a few cards representing particular atrocities or other events that can effect Diplomatic Reputation.
January 14, 2026 at 11:43 AM
The VRS player needs to capture a lot of cities to win, and has the capacity to do so. The ARBiH and HVO players don't need to, and mostly can't anyways until the end of the game. There's also a few cards representing particular atrocities or other events that can effect Diplomatic Reputation.
Any time a player captures a city it's assumed that ethnic cleansing is occurring, but you don't like, move little cubes around. The mechanic is that capturing cities costs a player Diplomatic Reputation (iirc), which can lead to NATO bombing them or an automatic loss due to NATO intervention.
January 14, 2026 at 11:35 AM
Any time a player captures a city it's assumed that ethnic cleansing is occurring, but you don't like, move little cubes around. The mechanic is that capturing cities costs a player Diplomatic Reputation (iirc), which can lead to NATO bombing them or an automatic loss due to NATO intervention.
Some real "born in it, molded by it" type of shit.
January 14, 2026 at 7:18 AM
Some real "born in it, molded by it" type of shit.
The best way to describe it would be that a lot of Civil War generals on both sides were trying to win *battles* whereas Grant was always trying to win a campaign, and he planned his campaigns such a way that they never hinged on the outcome of a single battle.
January 14, 2026 at 7:02 AM
The best way to describe it would be that a lot of Civil War generals on both sides were trying to win *battles* whereas Grant was always trying to win a campaign, and he planned his campaigns such a way that they never hinged on the outcome of a single battle.
"I need this man. He fights."
January 14, 2026 at 6:53 AM
"I need this man. He fights."
It's meant to be a simulation. The three players each have objectives that reflect the historical goals of the three main factions in the war. Its value as a teaching tool lies in seeing how the interaction of those goals produced the decisions that were made historically.
January 14, 2026 at 3:54 AM
It's meant to be a simulation. The three players each have objectives that reflect the historical goals of the three main factions in the war. Its value as a teaching tool lies in seeing how the interaction of those goals produced the decisions that were made historically.
My mistake, he is Croatian, but still somebody who directly experienced the breakup of Yugoslavia. And it's just really, really not a game about how to get away with ethnic cleansing.
January 14, 2026 at 3:40 AM
My mistake, he is Croatian, but still somebody who directly experienced the breakup of Yugoslavia. And it's just really, really not a game about how to get away with ethnic cleansing.
I was totally prepared to defend this, I think games have real value as teaching tools and this publisher has some other games that I really like... but this does actually look quite bad. If you're going to do a game on a serious subject it needs to be, you know, serious!
January 14, 2026 at 1:26 AM
I was totally prepared to defend this, I think games have real value as teaching tools and this publisher has some other games that I really like... but this does actually look quite bad. If you're going to do a game on a serious subject it needs to be, you know, serious!
This game is actually great. It's very well-researched and respectful of the subject matter. Probably not a coincidence that it's by a Bosnian guy. I would totally recommend it as a way to learn about the war. I've read a fair bit about the war in Bosnia and I definitely learned stuff playing it.
January 14, 2026 at 1:22 AM
This game is actually great. It's very well-researched and respectful of the subject matter. Probably not a coincidence that it's by a Bosnian guy. I would totally recommend it as a way to learn about the war. I've read a fair bit about the war in Bosnia and I definitely learned stuff playing it.
I haven't actually played it, but I've heard good things about Workers & Resources: Soviet Republic, which seems to have a historically accurate emphasis on heavy industry.
www.sovietrepublic.net
www.sovietrepublic.net
Workers & Resources: Soviet Republic
Workers & Resources: Soviet Republic is the ultimate real-time soviet-themed city builder tycoon game. Construct your own republic and transform a poor country into a rich industrial superpower!
www.sovietrepublic.net
January 12, 2026 at 7:00 AM
I haven't actually played it, but I've heard good things about Workers & Resources: Soviet Republic, which seems to have a historically accurate emphasis on heavy industry.
www.sovietrepublic.net
www.sovietrepublic.net
Just the soundtrack alone is so fucking fantastic.
January 3, 2026 at 8:23 AM
Just the soundtrack alone is so fucking fantastic.