Rework of River Linkages

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

It was changed to 8 +/-4 (from 12 +/-6) in patch 1.09

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7535

It was first introduced in 1.07 public beta

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5603

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

I know it changes for Richmond when additional troops arrive there, but I never quite determined what the mechanism is. I just add enough ships to overcome the new limit.

[Jabberwock]

It is only 8 at Core Sound and Topsail, so it looks like Fort Macon has no effect. Reaves Point should be 16, due to Forts Fisher and Caswell, but it is only 8 there. Charleston Bay has three fort exits, 8 there again.

It looks to be consistently correct along the Mississippi.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

OK - looks like where level 5+ entrenchments or a fort garrison can be seen, the modification is applied to the tooltip. Otherwise it stays at 8.

Thanks for getting me to figure that out. It solves a puzzle I was worried about in the GC.

[Jabberwock]

Here's an oddball observation...

Started up "Coming Fury" Scenario

Went to the CSA owned city "Hampton Roads" in James City, VA (#138). This specific harbor has one exit point listed... The water region named "Hampton Roads" (#1376). The Union holds Fort Monroe at the start of the scenario, but the requirements to close the exit point for the harbor in James City, VA is 12. Logic says this should be 4, not 12. (or at the most 8)

Now if the CSA captured the fort then maybe it should be 12, but since the USA holds the fort and access towards the James City region, the +4 should at least not be applied or if it is, it should reduce the number of ships required to blockade James City's harbor.

Hmm. Maybe the enemy entrenchments not only apply a +4, but also negate the fort's -4?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

Sorry, was thinking you were looking at it from the Union POV. Try that, and see if it's still 12.

Are there entrenchments at Norfolk? Also, can you see the garrison inside the fort? That seems to make the difference in the tooltip.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

Hampton Roads
Looking at Hampton Roads from the Union POV, it is 4 elements. There are three ships in Hampton Roads, so only one more is required. From the Reb POV, it is 12 elements.

Northern forces: The garrison (lvl 4), Butler's command (no entrenchments).
Southern forces: Magruder at James City (lvl 2), and Huger at Norfolk (no entrenchments).

It appears that the fort has an effect on the tooltip, no matter the level of entrenchments, as long as the garrison is visible.

Moved ships into Fort Monroe, turned off AI and ran time forward to Jan '62. Now Magruder has level 5 entrenchments, and the tooltips are 8 elements each.

Ran to early Feb; now Huger has level 5 as well. Moved one ship back out to Hampton Roads so that I could see Huger. Tooltips stayed at 8/8. It does not appear that the number of level 5+ entrenchments has an effect, only their existence.

Moved one brigade with artillery outside of fort, ran forward till they had level 5 entrenchments: 8/8. It does not appear that having both a garrison and entrenchments changes the tooltip.

Charleston Bay
Looking at Charleston Bay as the Union originally requires 8 ships (since I can't see the fort garrisons). For CSA it is 4.

Moved a ship to Charleston Bay. Tooltips at 12/4 upon arrival. The number of forts does not appear to matter.

Moved all Charleston defenders except the Sumter Garrison (infantry unit) outside of forts. Tooltip goes to 8/8. Presence of infantry garrison does not appear to matter.

Moved some artillery back into forts (not entrenched now), ran forward one more turn: 12/4

Summary
What I can deduce is that friendly level 5+ entrenchments or a friendly fort containing an artillery garrison reduces the requirement by 4 ships. Visible enemy 5+ entrenchments outside of forts, or visible enemy fort garrisons with artillery will increase the requirement by 4 ships. Numbers don't matter.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

The initial strategy was hold everywhere. When Lee became commander of the Southern Military District, he change that strategy. The new strategy was to pull most coastal garrison forces back to where the union navy couldn't get at them, except for major cities Like Charleston, Savannah, and Wilmington. Then he used most of the previous garrison troops to reinforce the main armies.

I would say don't add any permanently fixed garrisons.

[Jabberwock]

Since you are doing this, can you split up the Oregon Inlet region and close off the passage through the barrier islands, at least to deep water ships?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

Oregon Inlet itself was blocked by obstructions for most of the war (sunken hulks with masts and spars sticking out of the water). At one point they were moved by the currents, but were quickly replaced. Almost all passage through the barrier islands was through Hatteras Inlet (only slightly deeper, but wider). The "deep water" channels of Pamlico Sound and Albemarle Sound were navigable to ships of 8' draft or less. Parts of Albemarle Sound, I believe the passage from Columbia to Elizabeth City, had a 9' channel.

The original strategic importance of the Sounds was that shallow draft blockade runners from Richmond would travel through Norfolk, evading the fleet and forts at Hampton Roads, take the Elizabeth River to the Albemarle & Chesapeake Canal (7' deep), which led to Elizabeth City, across the Sounds to Hatteras Inlet, and then on to Nassau. This traffic was stopped by Union possession of Forts Hatteras and Clark. Immediately after the conquest of Roanoke Island, obstructions were placed across the southern end of the A & C, so that there was no access to the sounds from the James River.

I don't remember where I read all that, but I'm guessing most of it was buried in the Battles of the Civil War series. (That's why I'm not a historian. I can remember obscure details, but sometimes my citations suck.)

On the map, I believe the canal running from Suffolk (Nansemond River) to Elizabeth City is intended to portray the A & C.

Oh, and Ft Clark should really be renamed Ft Hatteras. It was by far the more important of the two.

Slightly difficult to portray all that in game terms, eh?

I'd check with Satisfaction, see what the status is of his Naval Mod. He may have already done some of this work for you.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

The redefinition of the Sounds is good. Don't forget Pamlico[e] Sound.

Honestly, I'd prefer to see the inlet closed altogether, unless obstructions that could affect only one adjacency/JumpLink somehow make it into the game soon. The eastern portion of the region, beyond the barrier islands, could either be incorporated into Currituck Sound, or made into a seperate region. I expect that either would take a little artwork though. Leaving it open leads to gamey invasions and river interdictions that completely bypass the forts (that's what I do there, anyway).

I'd hesitate to add a canal at that point, at this stage of development, right next door to the CSS Virginia. That's why I haven't pushed for it before now. If we had some accurate way to portray the rest of the blockade runner route, and the methods used to blockade it, I'd say that would be an overriding reason to include the canal. If we had a more detailed system of determining draft and channels, I'd say go for it, but that would be going way overboard with the micromanagement.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

What do you mean by "Don't forget Pamlicoe Sound"? Are you suggesting it should also be No_Freeze_Shallow? That would affect ocean going ships to/from Pamlicoe Bay (1393). By defining Oregon Inlet to No_Freeze_Shallow, that by itself limits the shipping to low draft vessels.

The Eastern part of Oregon Inlet will probably be absorbed into Currituck Sound (1387), as I lack the time and knowledge to create a brand new region and the resulting file changes.

I was suggesting N_F_S for Pamlicoe Sound. Is there no passage between Ocracoke Inlet and Pamlicoe Bay? That kind of obviates the need for a fort there. In fact, I dont think there was an important fort there. Fort Ocracoke (a very small fort) commanded Ocracoke harbor, but not the inlet. I never heard of Fort Morgan, NC. Also makes me wonder why that inlet didn't see more use.

I generally use brigs or monitors for river interdiction around Albemarle, brigs or transports for invasions. Those are all defined as shallow draft.

Monitors generally had a 9-11' draft, IIRC. There were several on hand during the reign of the CSS Albemarle, but they couldn't get all the way up Albemarle Sound to fight her. That makes me wonder how they got across Pamlicoe Sound. The second Summer I spent down there ('84?) I remember there was a change in the Gulf Stream, all the sounds and rivers were very high, and full of jellyfish. Maybe there was some temporary condition along those lines, some really high tides that allowed the passage. I'll have to try looking it up sometime soon.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

Currently for Pamlicoe Sound (1391)

Naval Movement is blocked to:
1.) Hyde, NC (192)
2.) Ft Morgan, NC (1104) (It exists in "The Official Military Atlas of the Civil War"
3.) Oregon Inlet (1388)
4.) Cape Hatteras (1389)

Naval Movement is allowed to:
1.) Hatteras Inlet (1390)
2.) Ocracock Inlet (1392)

I guess the question is whether Washington, NC harbor was historically capable of deep draft naval vessels. (There is also another permisable transit for deep water ships between Pamlicoe Bay (1393) and Core Sound (1436). This skirts adjacent to Ft Morgan, however, which looks correct atlas wise.

Wow, this area is complicated...

Having lived in Lil' Washington for over a year, the answer is definitely no.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

I'm not sure about Pamlicoe Bay and New Bern. New Bern has a much bigger, and probably deeper harbor than Washington. The Neuse is a fairly big river, and the Trent flows into it just above the historical part of New Bern. How much deeper it is, and whether additional depth might be due to improvements in the last 150 years, I just don't know. I've lived and worked north, south, and west of New Bern, but only spent a very limited amount of time there.

Morehead and Wilmington are the truly deep water ports in the area.

[Jabberwock]

Regarding fortifications near Ocracoke Inlet.

The Rebellion Record p. 140

While searching for this, I found a reference stating that it had 14' of water over the bar at low tide. Not a modern reference, but unsure if it dates as far back as the Civil War. However, 14' is well past where I draw the line between shallow and deep for that era.

[Jabberwock]

Regarding fortifications near Ocracoke Inlet.

The Rebellion Record p. 140

The Rebellion in the United States p. 348

Unsure which is correct, or if both are at different times. The Rebellion Record is primary documents. The Official Atlas may or may not have used The Rebellion in the United States as a reference.

While searching for these, I found a reference stating that Ocracoke had 14' of water over the bar at low tide. Not a modern reference, but unsure if it dates as far back as the Civil War. However, 14' is past where I draw the line between shallow and deep for that era.

EDIT: Found additional references. Fort Morgan, a 6-gun earthwork on the south side of Ocracoke Inlet, was abandoned by the rebels immediately after the fall of Forts Hatteras and Clark.