Ironclad construction on the Mississippi and its tributaries

[von Beanie]

One frustrating item is that when you construct a "river" ironclad, gunboat or transport in the states of Illinois and Ohio (and perhaps Indiana), they often show up on the Great Lakes where they are useless. It would be very helpful if the game differentiated "river" boat construction from "lake" boat construction on the Great Lakes. Otherwise, the game is limiting me to constructing river boats in Kentucky and Missouri where I am certain they will show up on the river.

As an aside, it is my understanding that Louisville, KY, was founded where there are some shallow rapids in the Ohio River, and thus boats needed to portage around the obstacle. I'm not sure if there was a bypass canal/locks at the time of the Civil War. Do any locals know more about this? I know rafts could travel downstream over the rapids, but I'm not sure if an ironclad would be able to.

[pasternakski]

The canal bypassing the Falls of the Ohio near Louisville was completed in 1830.

[tc237]

I think Ageod is gonna fix this.
By the way, they put a canal from Lake Erie to the Allegheny river on the game map. It is hard to notice if you don't know it's there.
You can move ships out of the Great Lakes that way.
Should also be able to drag blue-water ships to the Atlantic.

hope this helps

[pasternakski]

By the way, they put a canal from Lake Erie to the Allegheny river on the game map. It is hard to notice if you don't know it's there.
You can move ships out of the Great Lakes that way.

Yep. Meant to say this, but forgot. Thanks.

[

Should also be able to drag blue-water ships to the Atlantic.

hope this helps

Have you tried this? It doesn't work for me.

Besides, during this time, there was no deep-water connection between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean, so you shouldn't be able to even if you can.

In any event, as you point out, the correct solution is for the fixit squirrel (when he gets around to it) to get ships built in places where they ought to be. I remember back in my Civ II playing days thinking I needed a battleship, so I built one in a port city where everything else was pretty much taken care of. Of course, it was on a lake with no ocean outlet (leading me to exclaim like Peter Falk, "Geez, I'm an idiot!").

[tc237]

Have you tried this? It doesn't work for me.

Nope, just throw'in some ideas out there.

Besides, during this time, there was no deep-water connection between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean, so you shouldn't be able to even if you can.

Good info, thanks.

Well sonny, I remember back in my Civ II playing days thinking I needed a battleship, I had to walk uphill, in the snow, both ways to get one....and I liked it!!!

[pasternakski]

tc, you are a dawg.

[Pocus]

there is nothing to fix, the Great Lakes had shipyards, and some ironclads were build there. The area based construction system has been done to reduce micromanaging while being historical so that you don't control precisely where units are built. With a more precise system, everybody would be building all stuffs in a few cities/harbors, and this would be wildly ahistorical.

The Erie canal works, so everything is fine

[Wilhammer]

I have failed twice to get anything out of Buffalo, and large Ocean Going Ships are completely stuck in the Great Lakes.

[pasternakski]

yeah, what Wilhammer said ... what sense does it make to order oceangoing ships and have them built in a place where they will never be anything but garbage scows?

When you invest in reinforcements for the Atlantic fleet, you ought to get the stupid things built where they can actually get to the Atlantic.

I simply do not see why any "randomization" of naval construction is necessary. If the concern is that players will ahistorically build too many ships in a limited number of places, then I suggest that the real solution is to limit shipyard construction (tied to port size), cut down on the number of vessels that can be built (and I think the shipbuilding capabilities of both sides are far too great), or both.

[caranorn]

Or simply prevent construction of ships in some problematic ports. That is to say no production of ocean going ships on the Great Lakes (who would want them there) and any ships at Buffalo (where they are seemingly entirely stuck). Maybe add a priority factor for any port with a naval engineer...

[Rafiki]

I like the current system; it just has some snags that need to be sorted out.

[Wilhammer]

Programmatically, it is easier to randomly place built naval units in ports.

To be realistic requires more programming, a database per port approach might apply -

Pocus claims that some Ironclads were built on the Great Lakes - I don't recall any, but of course, I didn't get born until 100 years later...

In another thread I posted a site on Ironclad construction, and it was done at very few places - for the Union, most of it was in St. Louis.

Now, if in AACW St. Louis was the place where 90% of the the Ironclads and other military ship traffic was built, that would also make it a prime Objective for both sides, and more realistic.

--------------

Back to the database idea.

Each Port would have ship building as one of its attributes, and that attribute would be subject to certain values;

0 - can't build ships of any kind.
1 - can only build non ironclad river craft.
2 - can build river ironclads
3 - can build monitors
4 - can build ocean going ships

Further, I don't think anyone in their right economic minds would of built ships on Lake Michigan only to have to wait 2-3 months for them to get delivered to Cairo - those contracts simply would not of been profitable, and thus never realized.

The Industrial method combined with capitalism would of made most of that work over there in the Great Lakes to be of two kinds - out shipping the ship builders close to the delivery site for closer building of the warships (not too much of that, as the Union was still making butter with its guns) and sub assemblies.

However, if the Brits got into it and decided to launch an invasion into the US via the Great Lakes, then one would want to build ships there.

---------------

Construction time - seems a bit short for somethings, and it all seems rather equal, no matter how large the port or its distance from suppliers.

The reason St. Louis worked so well was its location - head of the River Highways and in the West and the Gateway to the Pacific and all the Railroads.

Delivery was in Cairo because of its commands of the Rivers there.

-------------

We grognardly Civil War types appreciate the expediency of easy programming (it all works rather well, overall), but I don't think I am alone in wanting a more realistic Naval Construction patch in the future.

============

"Or simply prevent construction of ships in some problematic ports. That is to say no production of ocean going ships on the Great Lakes (who would want them there) and any ships at Buffalo (where they are seemingly entirely stuck).


That, above, is a quick fix needed sooner than later....

[pasternakski]

However, if the Brits got into it and decided to launch an invasion into the US via the Great Lakes, then one would want to build ships there.

All perfectly sensible.

I would only "add" that construction of seagoing ships on the Great Lakes still would not have happened, even if England did join in the fray. After all, they would not have had such ships there, either (or they figured out a he11 of a portage technique).

[Spruce]

come on guys - this is really nitpicking. There are still some major issues that should be adressed. Like the building of the CSS Crockett in Fulton were it remains landlocked for the remainder of the game.

[tc237]

....that construction of seagoing ships on the Great Lakes still would not have happened.......

hmm..
A quick "shot-gun blast" fix would be to just remove all Great Lake harbors.

How would that effect a war with England?

[pasternakski]

come on guys - this is really nitpicking. There are still some major issues that should be adressed. Like the building of the CSS Crockett in Fulton were it remains landlocked for the remainder of the game.

All part of the discussion, Spruce. The primary thrust seems to be, "Let's get boats built where boats ought to be built."

Includes consideration of the unfortunate fate of the Crockett, I think...

[Spruce]

All part of the discussion, Spruce. The primary thrust seems to be, "Let's get boats built where boats ought to be built."

Includes consideration of the unfortunate fate of the Crockett, I think...

I just meant that the first priority should be to tackle all game breaking issues. Those Ironclads can be sailed by canals to whereever they are needed.

The CSS Crockett - or any ship build in Fulton will act as a war memorial, fully armed with nice cannons and an operational steam engine and propulsion system.

Naval commander Semmes is waiting in Charleston for the CSS Crockett - but he'll never see it arriving in Charleston. This needs to be solved first before enhancements are implemented.

[pasternakski]

Far be it from me to advocate undesirably peremptory implementation of enhancements.

At least, I am going to stop grumbling about the "fishbowl fate" of U.S.S. Michigan.

Come to discover that she was commissioned in 1844 as the first iron-hulled warship in the U.S. Navy. She was as dominant a force on Lake Erie in her time as the Empress Luisa on Lake Tanganyika during her short feature film exposure.

Michigan, a paddle-wheeler never intended for ocean deployment, was obsolete by the time the War Between the States came along, and found her usefulness limited to lakeside guard duty for a prison camp for Confederate captives (who plotted to seize her, break out, and mount an attack on the Union from an unexpected quarter; the plot was discovered and averted by Michigan's crew). She limped around the lake for quite awhile after that, but finally met her fate at the breaker's yard. Her prow was preserved, and is on display at the U.S.S. Wolverine museum (she was renamed that in 1905 with the commissioning of a new battleship using the Michigan name).

So, let's do the right thing by Spruce's Goose - sorry, I mean C.S.S. Crockett - and stop building her where she can never reach Charleston, where, I am sure, she will be met with much rejoicing (but not nearly as much, I suspect, as that of Charlotte Lucas's parents as they announced the betrothal of their daughter - who astonished them by actually getting a man - to Mister Collins, lately rejected in his romantic pursuits by Miss Elizabeth Bennett).

heeheeheee ... sorry, boys, sometimes I just can't stop myself ...

[Pocus]

I'm not advocating that ocean going ships should be built in the Great Lakes. They are not supposed to do that, and we have a bug here. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

edit: there is one possible class of ship with the problem, wooden frigates. Armored frigates and Steam frigates should work fine, according to the database. If you manage to build one of these 2 kinds of ships in the GL area, please forward me the game.

[Wilhammer]

All part of the discussion, Spruce. The primary thrust seems to be, "Let's get boats built where boats ought to be built."


That is a great summation.

[von Beanie]

Look, if river ironclads are still going to show up in Great Lake shipyards I can deal with it (by only building them in Missouri and Kentucky). But an easy solution would be to simply include the Chicago canal that would allow a player to send them from the Great Lakes down the Illinois River to the Mississippi River system.

[Frank E]

Look, if river ironclads are still going to show up in Great Lake shipyards I can deal with it (by only building them in Missouri and Kentucky). But an easy solution would be to simply include the Chicago canal that would allow a player to send them from the Great Lakes down the Illinois River to the Mississippi River system.

There's a canal in place already. The only problem I can think of might be that you're trying to move while part of the river is frozen.

[von Beanie]

I just started the 1861 grand campaign scenario to check this. After advancing the game four turns so that the St. Louis ships are released, I tried to drag and drop the ships at the southern end of Lake Michigan. I was surprised that they found a way there, but it is via the Ohio River and then Erie, Pennsylvania. As far as I can tell, there's no canal connecting the Illinois River to Lake Michigan via Chicago on my map.

Just the fact that I now know there's a way to move from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River system has prevented many of my ships being built there from becoming useless.

On the other hand, it still might be worth adding the Chicago canal.

[pasternakski]

The Illinois Canal was, indeed, finished in 1848 and was 60 feet wide, but, unfortunately, was only six feet deep, being intended strictly for barge traffic.

It was unnavigable for river ironclads and transport steamers, I am afraid.

For the sake of those just coming to the game, I wish that the Erie Canal were marked noticeably on the map.