AGEOD Forums

I have been studying blockcade methods and one thing that perplexes me is this:

New Orleans to get to port it has outlet to Lower Mississippi, Mississippi Mouth letting out into Mississippi Delta and then out to sea. The second route is Lake Pontchartrain, Koney Island letting out to Biloxy Bay and then out to sea. This is my example but several places follow this basic structure.

Now my thinking is bottle up Mississippi Delta and Biloxy Bay and New Orleans is blockaded. Yet in the game I must Blockade Lower Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain directly to Blockade New Orleans. (Note: I cannot get a Blockade Fleet into Lake Pontchartrain, Ive tried everthing I could think of).

Ok so given the bays are huge I Blockaded both Mississippi Mouth and Koney Island still New Orleans remains open? There is no more way to bypass my Blockade Fleets in Mississippi Mouth and Koney Island than there is Lower Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain. For that matter the same applies if I blockcade Mississippi Delta and Biloxy Bay.

This make no sense to me, and in the several places this holds true beside New Orleans it means many, many, many Blockade Fleets to close off inland ports when they have only one outlet no matter how far up river they may be. Comments welcomed and appreaciated.

I believe your analysis is correct and I believe it is a bug.

It is a current game engine limitation (you must blockade the area named for the blockade to work - aka the harbor mouth). The devs have been looking at a way to change that, to allow for "long distance" blockading. The same thing happens with Richmond for example, you can't blockade Hampton Roads, you must blockade the river region next to Richmond. It has been this way since AACW 1.

I believe it is the way that supply works. In ACW I and II you are not just blockading economic activity but also the movement of supply as well. What you've done is stop the physical movement of ships to the port so that some other harbour, perhaps in Texas or Alabama, must be used to fix those ships. If you were to inflict serious damage to the blockade runners, then the confederate player (human or AI) would be forced to either run the blockade and risk his losing those precious ships or else find somewhere else and wait longer for the repairs to happen. I've only played the Union once and it was against the AI, but I found that unless you pressure both the Mississippi ports and the coastal cities then it is next to impossible to execute Scott's great Anaconda plan; the purpose of which is to bleed the south dry of resources in critical theatres of operation. I don't find the system problematic because in reality it still took Grant two years just to put Tennessee, Mississippi and Louisiana in a chokehold tight enough to stop them from producing and supporting the Western and Eastern Theatres. Think of where Hood's Texas Brigade and the Louisiana Tigers came from and realize no other brigades of such quality were fielded later in the war. While not demeaning the efforts of the North, it was because of a lack of access and not willingness that the Southwest could not give Lee more soldiers. I might sound pedantic, but if as the North you do not aggressively pursue the capture of major strategic cities in the Southeast, it becomes next to impossible to destroy the Eastern Armies in the field. At least as the CSA I find it next to impossible in the games I've played against Athena to outright destroy the Army of the Potomac and this isn't even against a human player! There is a reason that the South historically pursued blockade running and commerce raiding until the end of the war because given the lack of a navy it produced results above and beyond what could otherwise have been achieved. Sorry if I sound harpy, but blockading should be difficult because damn the torpedoes it should be!

Regards,

Laernius

Poor ol Scott if only he knew his great plan was doomed by AI limits as well as morons in the Army and Navy of his time.

The economic blockade of CSA ports you are talking off is handled abstractly. You must put more ships to blockade ports for blockade percentage to rise. For direct blockade we could request a special rule - if 12 ships are at the mouth of Mississippi, New Orleans is blockaded, but that would be untrue. NO harbor could still operate upstream and through Atchafalaya river. So blockading is at the moment handled abstractly by putting more ships to blockade box. FOr greater blockade, you should take out forts and blockade the harbor directly. There is a reason why historically US did take out CSA coastal forts.

Question about that: what is the use of taking those coastal forts? Does a coastal fort somehow interdict the sea zone it is adjacent to? I know it will fire on enemy ships passing by, but does it help blockade at all?

Yes it does. It counts to adjacent sea zones as if 4 ships are present. If you hold fort Sumter, Charleston harbor will be blockaded.

Wow, that is really useful to know! Thank you!

Wow! This should really be documented in the manual.

RE: New Orleans, I believe that if you capture Ft. St. Phillip or the other one at the head of the passes, that will blockade the port.

That's the easiest way to do it......

That fort counting for four ships is very interesting as I didn't know that. Just a reminder though: how in the hell you going to take it except by land, cause there are two forts guarding the mouth of Charleston and each one gets a turn paddling the rear of any amphibious force passing by. And if it's by land, then no player in his right mind would ever risk losing Charleston at any point in the war. Just thought I'd let you know that, by the way and not meaning to be overly critical but I don't see how that strategy could be effective except for New Orleans. Just saying that as I just completed a game handily against a Captain level AI with all the usual trimmings to ramp Athena up that her not taking NO, and she tried mighty hard at times, that as the Union you must, must, must! take NO. The War Material and industry it provided as well as safe anchorage was ridiculous in supporting my own efforts.

Regards,

Laernius

The Union Capture of New Orleans, much like the capture of Ft. Sumner is something that can’t accurately be reproduced in the game.

The Union Fleet captured Ft St Phillip and Ft Jackson by pounding them into submission. The Union fleet moved on to New Orleans and the CSA evacuated it, factories and all but the fleet could not capture the City. A company of Marines raised the flag but the city refused to surrender until Butler arrived with only about 1500 troops on May 2nd or there abouts.

Farrigut moved past the forts to New Orleans but left Porter there with his Mortar Barges to reduce the forts. After they gave in Butler was free to move from Ship Island, up the river.

In the game you will either have to run the forts to land in New Orleans or attack over land and then go back and capture the forts.

I also doubt that New Orleans will be ungarrisoned.

Ol' Choctaw wrote:In the game you will either have to run the forts to land in New Orleans or attack over land and then go back and capture the forts.

I also doubt that New Orleans will be ungarrisoned.

Couldn't you land your forces directly on the forts itself, starting immediately a siege? I remeber I did so in ACW1.

Sure you can do it that way but you need two forces or you have to cross the river which might get you shot up. Then it is a long slog through the swamp to get to NOLA and that has let them know you are coming and gives the Rebs longer to reinforce. But any way you want to do it.

Laernius wrote:how in the hell you going to take it except by land, cause there are two forts guarding the mouth of Charleston and each one gets a turn paddling the rear of any amphibious force passing by.

It might be helpful to review the Manual section on Orders > Special Orders & Movement > Amphibious Landing (page 53, in the dead tree version).
It's why Marines & Sailors, which add the Special Ability "Amphibious" to the stack their in, and a leader like Farragut, with the "Fort Runner" Special Ability, come in handy.

For multiple-fort harbors, like Charleston, I use on amphibious landing unit per fort, landing them simultaneously.
Monitors and Armored Frigates seem to be more effective at providing bombardment in support of the landing(s).
Expect to lose Transports and fire support combat ships in the operation.

By the way, the US military was reasonably adept at amphibious invasions.
Between the Spanish Armada and the Normandy landings, the largest such operation was at Vera Cruz, just 14 years earlier.