[X] This was not a decisive blow, merely a painful setback. It wasn't even a defeat! You achieved your operational objectives and pushed out the forces responsible for this. Operations will continue. Continue the war, now racing internal dissent as well as Loyalist pressure.
-[X] Blackwell wants to avoid your main strength and strike where you are weak? Two can play at that game. Advance a couple of divisions as tripwires against an assault from Rochester and disperse the rest into upstate New York. Tear up the industrial infrastructure Blackwell needs to fight these wars, and he will be forced to respond, allowing you to draw him out to battle on your own terms. The risk is that, when he responds, he managed to find a favorable engagement and bleed you enough that the victory you're seeking is denied.
-[X] If you can make it unacceptable for Blackwell to keep waiting you out, he'll be forced to attack you, guaranteeing you a crushing, heavily symbolic victory. Put about on public broadcast announcements of a Plebiscite of Independence for Buffalo. They hate Blackwell more than they hate you, and he knows it. Blackwell absolutely cannot ignore the threat this leaves, and has to to launch an attack immediately - which will end in a dismal failure.
Even if this plan doesn't work for us when it comes down to negotiating, it'll still hamper Blackwell. Best of both worlds, from where I'm sitting.
E: Plebiscite gud, Victoria bad, but it's kind of ironic we're pulling a Crimea. Lol.
I'll go with the most straightforward one for now, but I can be persuaded to support another, and I'd probably support any of them over withdrawing.
Simply put, killing a bunch of militiamen probably isn't going to be very impressive to Blackwell and we aren't going to be expanding our perimeter anytime soon, which makes taking Rochester an unnecessary risk for a repeat of the Buffalo incident. Best case scenario, the schmuck raises another levy. Worst case scenario... Well, there are a great deal of risks inherent in attacking a force of light-footed troops on their own turf in the winter.
We have a chance to draw Blackwell into a set-piece defensive engagement against under equipped militia in the winter if we declare a free state. We can attrition his army to near nothing with the cold of winter.
If he doesn't take the bait, the Farmers will likely accept a treaty from Blackwell that includes the dismantling of Buffalo's free state. Or at least ensures that there will be no Commonwealth interference, which is basically the same thing considering it no longer has a male population, for all intents and purposes. For all that he will be encouraged to attack by his political circumstances, Blackwell just has to do the bare minimum of skirmishing to satisfy his more bellicose subjects. I don't see him making the fatal mistake of walking into that kill-zone, and I'd rather not see Victorian mortars landing in the city limits.
I'm not thrilled with attacking the infrastructure either tbh. Doing so will not only worsen our public perception (we are basically attacking civilian targets, and there's no way Blackwell won't exploit that), but also harms the common people who live in Victoria significantly. Furthermore, it's significantly more risky in terms of military strategy - if we 'free' Buffalo, Blackwell is forced to come attack us in our fortified position, and we've already seen how that goes. Meanwhile attacking the infrastructure allows Victoria to do what they do best - guerrilla warfare, and gives Blackwell the ability to bleed us and force a decisive engagement. None of this even mentions the long term repercussions of each option. After all, at some point someone who isn't Victoria is going to have control of the lands we'd be tearing up, and I don't imagine they'd be thrilled with our actions. Meanwhile having Buffalo as an ally either means we have a buffer state to fend off Victorian aggression (or serve as a Causus Belli when Victoria inevitably retakes it after we evacuate the civvies), or is the first step to more clay, depending on how we decide to deal with Buffalo in the future.
Bluntly, I feel that your analysis is missing a few key components.
First of all, Commonwealth troops are beholden to the rules of war, as, I think, most of us agree should be the case. Under the Geneva Convention, destruction of non-military targets integral to civilian functions, such as agriculture, hospitals, schools, etcetera is prohibited. What the destruction of infrastructure on the part of a lawful armed force is the targeting of buildings and features that could serve a military function. Consider the NATO bombing campaign in the Balkans War. Roads, railways, trains, bridges, so on and so forth.
Secondly, Victorian militias are massed at Rochester. With two or so divisions acting as road guards, units dedicated to the destruction of infrastructural targets will likely meet isolated and/or sporadic resistance, if any. The only spanner in the works that I could see would be the intervention of the CMC, which is unlikely considering the active channeling of Sherman by our troops upon the Loyalists' war fighting capabilities.
I will admit, I had the Toledans in mind, who are not, so far as I know, beholden to the rules of war and trained by the Victorians to boot. Just like Sherman's army, they may be over-zealous in their interpretation of their orders. However, they are institutionally tilted towards discipline and the promotion of clear-headed officers, I believe that they can resist the temptation to go full Genghis Khan on the Victorian populace. Further, their training from the Victorians will make them familiar with the enemy's possible ambush tactics and the mobility necessary to avoid encirclement in the event the Rochester militia manage to slip through our tripwire divisions.
For those of you voting for more war, let me just remind you yet again that we are at the end of our supply lines which are seriously stretched. You lot are succumbing to victory disease again and now your advocating sacrificing the people of Buffalo who are descendants of American Civilians just so we can pound on the Vics some more.
I, for one, am more interested in ensuring that, no matter what, Blackwell will be unable to object to safe passage for the people of Buffalo in the peace settlement. That is my number one priority in my decision-making process in this instance. It just so happens that I believe the best way to ensure that is to make it harder for the Loyalists to wage war in either direction.
Also, that's pretty reasonable of the Right-Wing Opposition, I think.
It makes sense. Part of right-wing ideology is the desire for a strong military, which necessitates an institution that promotes quality. In other words, the right-wing opposition see the failure in the Buffalo parade incident for what it is and wish to ensure it doesn't happen again.
