Naval Mod

[satisfaction]

Alright figured this should get its' own thread. I'm going to launch into a mod regarding the issues on the water. I would like to make this compatible with Clovis's mod, as I think his thoughts on land are great and I love playing it. I'm going to work on this in stages, and I would love all the thoughts and help of anyone who is interested. My first item is to address forts and blockades. Part one is to implement the following:

"With patch 1.09d it is now possible to set the following parameters in the Bombard&Blockade file to allow coastal artillery to blockade adjacent enemy ports. This should only be done for PBEM games as the AI has not been programmed to deal with this change. If you wish to allow friendly coastal artillery to counter this effect you will need to add a negative value to bloAdjFriendlyFort.

bloAdjFriendlyFort = 0 // brown water blockade, bonus given by adjacent fort
bloAdjEnemyFort = 8 // same, for an enemy fort malus)
bloMinSUToBlockade = 8 // Nb of SoL elements needed or pts given by a fort to blockade a zone

Cheers, Chris"

Thank you Chris! This takes care of one issue I had, the USA took many of these coastal forts so they would not have to blockade. In conjunction with this I'm going to adjust which spaces the forts interdict. Historically forts were at critical choke points blocking harbors or the waterway to the harbor. In relation to this forts could not effectively interdict the open ocean adjacent to them....even ships like the Monitor could sail/be towed out a few thousand yards and avoid the fire of the forts. I am going to try and focus a fort entirely on it's key waterway hex, and away from the ocean hexes. Please bring on your thoughts and ideas and let me know if I am crazy!

[satisfaction]

Alright got a working beta now! I have made several key changes:

1. Forts can cause blockades, this has impacts all over the coastlines. I had to make a few special changes outlined below for a few key installations. Each fort counts as 8 ships of the line, which effectively blockades a fort. Friendly forts will negate half of that per fort.

2. Charleston forts now focus on Charles River and not coastal areas (might need to add some of those back....). This allows the USA to blockade city with 2 of the 3 forts.

3. Ft Pulaski now blockades Savannah

4. Control of outerbanks forts will almost completely blockade all the Pamlico Sound harbors, including New Bern. Might expand this to include the last 2 harbors on the northern end of the sound.

I would love some feedback. I'm going to be testing these initial changes now and would like to get some other opinions in. Also will be looking at a few more forts. Anyone know who to post files? or what I should do to get these available to others? For now if you would like them just pm me and I'll email them.

Andrew

[beeper]

Just a thought here. I dont know what exactly is meant when we say a port is blockaded. It is somewhat confusing.
During the civilwar the forts could blockade a certain port, meaning they could prevent large merchant ships from coming or going. But the blockade runners did not use the ports as the place where they entered the ocean, nor a place where they reentered.
They used the many small shallow inlets and estuaries that were common along the barrier islands. Thus the forts and/or blocading ships in the port itself had little or no effect on the runners themself.
The blocade runners where, for the most part, intercepted in the open sea away from the ports [and forts].
So are we saying that when a port is blocaded we are stopping the large merchant ships from using it. Or are we saying that the blocade is also stopping the runners.


A footnote here... Historicaly the South did not build blocade runners. They bought a few from Europe i believe. The South was reluctant to acually operate the runners because of an idiologcal conflict between what they percieved as the role of government and the private sector should be.
Actually the government outlawed the runners early in the war in an effort to create a greater cotton shortage in Europe. When it was realized that the chances for intervention were getting small and the need was great for supplies that would aid the war effort, they changed there minds.
They had little controll over what was actually brought in through the blocade. Most cargo consisted of consumer goods like wine,fashonable clothing,ect. It has been estimated that only 10 percent of the cargo was used for the military.

[Rafiki]

Port blockaded = production in that city/region is halved

Port blockades (AKA "brown-water blockades") have no impact on blockade runners; they do their work by being in the blockade boxes.

[beeper]

Oh i should have seen that. I see that the blockade box is used to represent the effort to interdict runners on the open sea. Makes sense now. thanks Rafiki.

[Rafiki]

No worries

[Jabberwock]

4. Control of outerbanks forts will almost completely blockade all the Pamlico Sound harbors, including New Bern. Might expand this to include the last 2 harbors on the northern end of the sound.

You should include them.

[Le Ricain]

A footnote here... Historicaly the South did not build blocade runners. They bought a few from Europe i believe. The South was reluctant to acually operate the runners because of an idiologcal conflict between what they percieved as the role of government and the private sector should be.
Actually the government outlawed the runners early in the war in an effort to create a greater cotton shortage in Europe. When it was realized that the chances for intervention were getting small and the need was great for supplies that would aid the war effort, they changed there minds.
They had little controll over what was actually brought in through the blocade. Most cargo consisted of consumer goods like wine,fashonable clothing,ect. It has been estimated that only 10 percent of the cargo was used for the military.

The names used for the blockade runners in AACW were largely taken from the names of the blockade runners owned and operated by the Confederate navy. The runners that you build in AACW represent the government ships and not the privately owned ships. You are correct that only 10% of the cargo was for the military which would have been carried largely on the CSN ships. The government could have built (as the game allows you to build) more runners.

[beeper]

La Ricain, You seem to have some knowlege about the blockade runners in the CW. This subject has been an interest to me for some time. But I haven't read to much about them. They seem to be treated as a minor issue in most history that Ive read. Would you know of any material that would shed some on this for me? I would like to learn more about this. Seems like a facinating part of the war.
Seems logical that the South would have built ,or bought, fleets of them.
I assume that they just didn't have the resourses to do so.

Thanks.... Beeper

[satisfaction]

You should include them.

I believe I will in my work this weekend. Other area I'm looking at is Mobile Bay. Those forts will blockade Moblie, but I think I'm going to include the port on the opposite side of the bay too. Not sure how far up the river I should go...any ideas?

I also run into the issue of adjacency, I need to watch telling a fort to be adjacent to a port 2 regions away as I might run into the issue where a vessel is built there and then shelled as it tries to run the gauntlet and escape. Not horribly likely but might happen....which makes me think of something else. Can a ship be built in a blockaded harbor? If yes, perhaps I could correct this issue by making it impossible for a ship to be built in a blockaded harbor!?!? Love the discussion going so far.

Andrew

[Jabberwock]

I believe I will in my work this weekend. Other area I'm looking at is Mobile Bay. Those forts will blockade Moblie, but I think I'm going to include the port on the opposite side of the bay too. Not sure how far up the river I should go...any ideas?

I also run into the issue of adjacency, I need to watch telling a fort to be adjacent to a port 2 regions away as I might run into the issue where a vessel is built there and then shelled as it tries to run the gauntlet and escape. Not horribly likely but might happen....which makes me think of something else. Can a ship be built in a blockaded harbor? If yes, perhaps I could correct this issue by making it impossible for a ship to be built in a blockaded harbor!?!? Love the discussion going so far.

Andrew

Definitely include Baldwin. I would suggest including Selma, and possibly Montgomery as well. I don't have any idea about the Tombigbee river ports.

Ft Gaines had a good field of fire over the shallow water obstructions, but it couldn't effectively reach the torpedo field with its guns, and couldn't reach the deep water channel at all. That last went right under the guns of Ft Morgan at close range, though. Ft Gaines should not border on Jackson Shore.

One of the primary objectives (there were lots of secondary objectives) for the NC sounds invasions was to close off the south end of the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal. Blockade runners could get from the James River to the NC sounds (going through Norfolk) and out through Hatteras Inlet; avoiding Fortress Monroe, Fort Wool, and the Hampton Roads blockaders. The canal was too shallow for most other types of vessels, though.

I didn't realize you were doing this by modifying adjacency. That is a dangerous road to go down, lots of possible side effects. I was going to suggest consulting with lodilefty about some way to use JumpLinks, but I see you are already doing that in another thread. He has lots of creative ideas in that area.

Lots of online naval sourcebooks here. I'd start with the Scribner books (if you haven't already) and check out Battles and Leaders, Volume 4 for more information on Mobile Bay.

[satisfaction]

First pass was some simple adjacency adjustments...for example the forts you mentioned. Also places like Fischer and Wilmington and Pulaski and Savannah. Simply aligning the fact that those ports were entered under the guns of the forts. Also Charleston. I'm going to have to tackle the other ones via other means, which I've got going in the other thread...stay tuned.

[beeper]

Jabberwock, Thanks for the links. I think its just what im looking for.

[Gray_Lensman]

First pass was some simple adjacency adjustments...for example the forts you mentioned. Also places like Fischer and Wilmington and Pulaski and Savannah. Simply aligning the fact that those ports were entered under the guns of the forts. Also Charleston. I'm going to have to tackle the other ones via other means, which I've got going in the other thread...stay tuned.

I'd advise not messing with the Adjacency entries, instead block movement by assigning Naval Interdiction JumpLinks (#26). See answer in your other thread for an example.

[Le Ricain]

La Ricain, You seem to have some knowlege about the blockade runners in the CW. This subject has been an interest to me for some time. But I haven't read to much about them. They seem to be treated as a minor issue in most history that Ive read. Would you know of any material that would shed some on this for me? I would like to learn more about this. Seems like a facinating part of the war.
Seems logical that the South would have built ,or bought, fleets of them.
I assume that they just didn't have the resourses to do so.

Thanks.... Beeper

Beeper,

Thanks for your comments. When I worked on supplying the names of the ships and their captains I used a variety of sources. You can find most of them listed Jabberwock's 'ACW Naval Books online...' thread in the ACW History Club forum.

[satisfaction]

Here is a list of my adjacency fixes (as I see them ). These will be my only changes to the adjacency, as others have rightly pointed out this can get messy. I will use Gray's ideas to try my next round of harbors that can be blockaded (the ones further upstream or inland). Here are my first version fixes (they are done and I'm testing them)

1. Exit from Savannah is now Savannah Estuary, not Savannah Mouth (allows Ft Pulaski to blockade, and leaves river unimpeded by the fort)

2. This one was not needed, Charleston can be blockaded by holding 2 of 3 forts

3. Wilmington exit changed from Middle Cape Fear River to Reaves Point (allows Fischer to blockade, but Fisher does not interfere with movement on the river upstream)

4. New Bern exit changed to Pamlico Bay instead of Neuss River (NB can now be blockaded by forts in Outer Banks)

5. James Estuary removed as an exit for Norfolk (allows Norfolk to be blockaded by fort Monroe). My research shows that Monroe effectively blocked the mouth of the James River into Chesapeake Bay and the Harbor/Naval Yards for Norfolk were on the Elizabeth River, which fed into the James River/Hampton Roads.

6. Ft Pickens no longer exits to Choctawatchee Bay (seemed like too far a feach. Pickens did not appear to interdict these waterways.)

I would love some feedback on these items as I'm testing them.

[Jabberwock]

1. Exit from Savannah is now Savannah Estuary, not Savannah Mouth (allows Ft Pulaski to blockade, and leaves river unimpeded by the fort)

...

3. Wilmington exit changed from Middle Cape Fear River to Reaves Point (allows Fischer to blockade, but Fisher does not interfere with movement on the river upstream)

4. New Bern exit changed to Pamlico Bay instead of Neuss River (NB can now be blockaded by forts in Outer Banks)

Instead of changing exits, would it be possible to add the adjacencies to these with movement interdictions? Or would that just make it possible for the forts to bombard those regions?

F.E: I think making the Outer Banks forts adjacent to the Neuss River, but with no movement allowed between them, might accomplish what you want.

2. Charles River is added as an exit point from Ft. Johnson, Sumter and Moultrie. Allows Charleston to be blockaded.

This is good.

5. James Estuary removed as an exit for Norfolk (allows Norfolk to be blockaded by fort) I need to research this more perhaps, but tell me what you think.

This is difficult. It was generally not a problem getting back and forth between the James Estuary and Norfolk, the forts only cut off Norfolk from Chesapeake Bay and the ocean. They shouldn't interdict the James Estuary, but that leaves Norfolk unblockaded. See attached map.

6. Ft Pickens no longer exits to Choctawatchee Bay (seemed like too far a feach. Pickens did not appear to interdict these waterways.)

This one is also difficult. Pickens had a pier on the Choctawhatchee side, it was used for supplies and relief forces. Forces should be able to move back and forth, but bombardment shouldn't be possible.

[lodilefty]

It's been a while since Hobbes did the 'harbor mod', but as I recall, you may be getting back into an amphibious can of worms:

in particular,the Wilmington configuration was changed to the Middle Cape Fear to prevent amphibious invasion from the coastal regions... first person experiences at that location from some of us say that an amphib operation with longboats from transports 'hove to' would be disastrous... nasty surf, rip tides etc [I damn near drowned there one summer ]

So go carefully: many of these are the way they are as a compromise to make one part of the game work more realistically.... at the expense of another!

Jumplinks are your friend. Be nice to jumplinks.

[Jabberwock]

in particular,the Wilmington configuration was changed to the Middle Cape Fear to prevent amphibious invasion from the coastal regions... first person experiences at that location from some of us say that an amphib operation with longboats from transports 'hove to' would be disastrous... nasty surf, rip tides etc

It is a can of worms. It was argued by some with different first hand experiences at the time ... Fact is, there were two successful major amphibious landings in the area, both from the Atlantic side, longboats from transports 'hove to'.

I agree about jumplinks being the best solution in most cases.

[Hobbes]

I have been pushing towards realistic fort blockades since I made the harbour mod so I’m quite excited to see you improving it further. Quite a few bugs have been ironed out by Pocus to do with this over the past few months but it still seems there is a possible data problem along some internal rivers. If I set the parameters as mentioned above I can see blockades along certain stretches of river that should not be blockaded. I will hopefully get time tomorrow to examine these more closely.

One thing to bear in mind if changing harbour exit points is that these are used to determine from where a port can be bombarded and vice-versa so realistically Wilmington for example should only be able to suffer bombardment from the Cape fear river. I will post my findings on the river blockade problem here.

Cheers, Chris

[satisfaction]

I have been pushing towards realistic fort blockades since I made the harbour mod so I’m quite excited to see you improving it further. Quite a few bugs have been ironed out by Pocus to do with this over the past few months but it still seems there is a possible data problem along some internal rivers. If I set the parameters as mentioned above I can see blockades along certain stretches of river that should not be blockaded. I will hopefully get time tomorrow to examine these more closely.

One thing to bear in mind if changing harbour exit points is that these are used to determine from where a port can be bombarded and vice-versa so realistically Wilmington for example should only be able to suffer bombardment from the Cape fear river. I will post my findings on the river blockade problem here.

Cheers, Chris

Good point about bombardments. Hadn't got to playing with that yet, been so focused on getting the blockades to work. Hmm something to ponder while working. My initial thoughts on invading from certain areas like into Wilmington....I agree the surf and tides can be tough (been diving in the area), but think that is something that we just need to consider to average out over the whole map and take it into account with the cohension hits when landing (I'll need to look at these down the line). An invasion directly into Wilmington should be a bloody mess if playing PBEM...not sure how strongly AI fortifies it (not paying attention to that yet). More great questions and issues though. This whole mod is a can of worms inside a haystack...but fun anyway!

Andrew

[lodilefty]

This whole mod is a can of worms inside a haystack...but fun anyway!

and that's what makes them fun!!!!!

[Jabberwock]

and that's what makes them fun!!!!!

Indeed it is.

Hobbes has a very good point about bombardment. Mortar schooners posted almost on the beach at Masonboro might be able to reach the outskirts of Wilmington with a 'Swamp Angel' type bombardment (indirect fire by compass bearing), which would be totally ineffective and expose the mortar boats to ambushes by shore batteries and snipers. So we don't want that.

If only there were bombardment interdiction and/or blockade JumpLinks ...

[satisfaction]

I have been pushing towards realistic fort blockades since I made the harbour mod so I’m quite excited to see you improving it further. Quite a few bugs have been ironed out by Pocus to do with this over the past few months but it still seems there is a possible data problem along some internal rivers. If I set the parameters as mentioned above I can see blockades along certain stretches of river that should not be blockaded. I will hopefully get time tomorrow to examine these more closely.

One thing to bear in mind if changing harbour exit points is that these are used to determine from where a port can be bombarded and vice-versa so realistically Wilmington for example should only be able to suffer bombardment from the Cape fear river. I will post my findings on the river blockade problem here.

Cheers, Chris

One thing I saw in regards to the river blockade problem was that I didn't pay attention to the land units in the area (so focused on naval and forts). For instance down in Florida I was getting blockades up river and spent way too much time trying to figure out....until I noticed that there was a US force entrenched along the river! That was a huge waste of about an hour.

[Hobbes]

One thing I saw in regards to the river blockade problem was that I didn't pay attention to the land units in the area (so focused on naval and forts). For instance down in Florida I was getting blockades up river and spent way too much time trying to figure out....until I noticed that there was a US force entrenched along the river! That was a huge waste of about an hour.

I'm a little confused at the moment as I thought these variables were to be affected only by coastal artillery units as non coastal forts already blockaded adjacent regions before these variable were exported for mod use.

Can anyone shed any light? I will have a look through my saved posts and emails to Pocus in the next day or two.

Cheers, Chris

[Pocus]

Indeed it is.

Hobbes has a very good point about bombardment. Mortar schooners posted almost on the beach at Masonboro might be able to reach the outskirts of Wilmington with a 'Swamp Angel' type bombardment (indirect fire by compass bearing), which would be totally ineffective and expose the mortar boats to ambushes by shore batteries and snipers. So we don't want that.

If only there were bombardment interdiction and/or blockade JumpLinks ...

disclaimer, I have not read the whole thread.
if you have a naval interdiction link, you should not be able to bombard too.

[Hobbes]

I'm a little confused at the moment as I thought these variables were to be affected only by coastal artillery units as non coastal forts already blockaded adjacent regions before these variable were exported for mod use.

Can anyone shed any light? I will have a look through my saved posts and emails to Pocus in the next day or two.

Cheers, Chris

I just realised that I'm on my laptop as my PC is kaput so I have no access to the email exchange on this with Pocus but I was under the impression that the bloAdjFriendlyFort and bloAdjEnemyFort variables were to allow coastal artillery units (not forts) to blockade adjacent regions but should have no effect on other artillery units. Maybe I am wrong on this then as we are seeing an effect along internal rivers with no coastal guns?

Cheers, Chris

[Hobbes]

I think from this thread I had the idea that only coastal artillery would have an effect on the bloAdjEnemyFort variables :-

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5631&highlight=bloAdjEnemyFort

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobbes
A thought to go with the above. Maybe a coastal fort should not have the ability to blockade (bloAdjEnemyFort = 12) unless there is at least one battery of coastal artillery present.

Coastal artillery would finally be worthwhile!
Cheers, Chris

From Pocus :-
This is checked theorically.

Another old thread For info :-

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5505&highlight=fisher

It would be nice for coastal artillery to have it's own set of variables to allow the blockade of coastal regions, obviously a 6pdr at Fort Monroe would not have much effect. It's not the fort but the artillery or the combination of the fort and coastal artillery that is important.

Cheers, Chris

[Pocus]

No, there is not difference between the various kinds of artilleries, except there is a test on the range, the artillery must have a range 5 or more... which is apparently the case even for the 6", so perhaps this must be changed.

[Hobbes]

No, there is not difference between the various kinds of artilleries, except there is a test on the range, the artillery must have a range 5 or more... which is apparently the case even for the 6", so perhaps this must be changed.

Aha, it looks like my labours have been made under a misconception!

One hopes for a change so coastal artillery will finally find it's true place in the game

Many thanks,
Chris