The War at Sea (or on bodies of water that lead to the sea...)

[pgr]

There are lots of discussions about land strategy, I wanted to get my feet wet in naval strategy.

So in no particular order, I was wondering how people:

Organize a blockade (fleet composition, strategies for blockading hardened ports like Charleston and Mobile, organizing supply and repair rotations to keep fleets in good condition)

Carry out naval combat (correct use of stances and ROE, blocking choke points for enemy fleets, engaging enemy fleets, avoiding the same, and running forts)

Carry out amphibious operations (fleet composition, use of mortar boats, composition of landing forces, use of transports, and shore bombardment)

Carry out defensive operations (harbor defense, blockade running, and commerce raiding.)

Of course, I assume everyone has looked at how the blockade system works, so I'm meaning more about the naval operations side.

From my limited experience, naval operations are much more micro management intensive, since it seems like as soon as you leave port cohesion seems to drop rapidly as the stance becomes more aggressive and it cannot be recovered on station. Leave a fleet on defensive, cohesion stays high while the enemy frequently slips by. Take an aggressive stance and you can better interdict the enemy, but cohesion drops rapidly. It all seems much more labor and planning intensive then most ground operations.

[Ol' Choctaw]

That is a lot of stuff there.

The Blocking Squadrons in the blockade box should be full block squadrons as much as possible. It is best to send transports to and from the box to keep them supplied and keep them there longer. Don’t use aggressive postures. It consumes supplies quickly and drops cohesion rapidly.

Close blockades will require around 12 combat elements to be effective. Providing transports and exchanging them as supplies run low is also a part of any operation and keeps them on station longer.

Don’t attempt to bombard forts with a fleet unless you plan on assaulting it with ground troops the same turn. Mortar boats are good for a siege and add their factors to the artillery of ground units if they are next to the fort. Ironclads are your best bet for bombardment. Wooden ships are going to suffer far more losses.

Invasion fleets only need enough combat elements to over come any opposition you may meet at sea. Primarily you just need enough transports to move you troops.

Landing forces should contain sailors or marines to give them more advantage if they will be attacking in the turn they are landed. Extra supply wagons and heavy artillery are a good idea if you are fort busting. Engineers and other support elements can also make a difference.

Personally I like to start a special invasion force as early as I can in the war. My base units are three planed divisions composed of two each New York or New England heavy brigades each, one I, I, A brigade, a sharpshooter, a sailor or marine, and two additional artillery batteries. Also a heavy artillery section of at least 1 mortar and 2 Rodman batteries, and not less than two supply wagons( the more you can take the better). As the troops build I sent a training officer to the stack to bring them up to regulars and add some elite brigades usually resulting in 4 or more divisions in the end. I also build 4 or more militia to send with them and the training officer will bring them up to regular status as well. These will be garrisons for captured cities.

Give them the best available leaders and a second leader should they need to operate independently of all the others.

Build a depot at you beachhead if there is none. Transports or flat boats can be used for this. Rinse and repeat.

I know that those divisions don’t meet the current beliefs in the optimum division but the extra cavalry helps your view of the enemy and large stacks with less than 4 cavalry also suffer penalties.

On the defensive side the CSA is hard put. A division in New Orleans and one in Charleston are to be strongly recommended. If nothing else they can act as fire brigades, depending on whether you are going against the AI or in PBM.

Blockade runner in CW2 I rather put into fleets and build the second element for any single ship squadrons that arrive. Keeping them on station also requires transport ships for supply, otherwise you will have to send them home for repairs fairly frequently.

Commerce raiders I only use those that a provided by event. The first brig I send to be upgraded and send it to the blockade runners. Commerce raider deprive the enemy of supply, runners provide you with supply. They also require transports for supply and will give you some naval supply points.

Just my take.

[GraniteStater]

O'C is keerect with just about everything here. A few words, if I may:

Union

* Yer gonna need a Big Navy if you really want to try to Do It All (y'know, a career and kids ). If you want to try to brown block Charleston, Wilmington (historically a big conduit for the CSA), maybe Savannah or Mobile - well, even just two is about 16 - 24 elements. I've noticed Athena getting grim about my visits offshore and, by mid-game. floating some ironclads out there to give me a rude reception. They've been effective, smashing wooden hulls fairly good. It' s a long slow process to get monitor types down south in coastal waters & you can build only four Armored Frigates. Steam Frigates are OKish, probably because they can steam, but not really the best solution. Make do.

* And your Brown Squadrons are on top of Everything Else - starts to get expensive & crowd opportunity costs quite a bit.

* Put a Sail Frigate, a Steam Frigate & a Brig with the Blockade Fleets in the Boxes. These guys help with spotting and engaging. Have at least two TPs with each Blockade Fleet.

* Put extra TPs in the Shipping Fleet; try to get to 3500 to 4000 Overseas Supply capacity, imho. Put four Frigates (either) & a Brig here, too. Discourage CSA predators mightily.

* Build extra sea TPs, you'll find uses for 'em.

* Brigs can sail up the Mississippi from N'Awlins & navigable rivers in general. Repeat: Brigs can sail up rivers. You can't build ships in NO, so this is huge.

* River fleets: as an opponent emailed me once - the Union should Rule the Rivers, not just dominate. Make it absolutely clear that the Mississippi is Mine. Crush CSA dreams on inland waters - crush them. Scare them out of launching a rowboat.

* I have been on the receiving end of good use of the USN on the rivers, denying CSA retreats across the Tennesse & Cumberland, etc. All it takes is four shooting elements to deny passage. A worthwhile endeavor - cutting Bragg to ribbons and then destroying him due to Nowhere to Go is extremely effective.

Plus, you need to hedge against FI - the Union has nothing afloat, nor can build, anything comparable to Euro Warships. Quantity is the only reply here. Build some Extra Extras now.

In my current game, I started building Naval Stuff very, very early in '61. Usually waited until the fall. Unh-uh. The lead times for some hulls are eight months. Do it today.

All this takes Mucho Stuffo. Do what you can, as much as fits in with your planning, early & often. It is a land war, after all. As the Resource Crunch eases in '62 and thereafter - build more ships.

CSA

You Are Not a Naval Power. Want a real Navy? Get the Brits to help ya. In the meantime, all I recommend is Brigs on the high seas to Get Stuff; enough on the Rivers to slow down the Union. Trying to become a serious naval power is a mistake, imo. Those are resources you could be using for things that have a more direct impact. A determined Union player will bury you in hulls if he can, as soon as he can. Be clever on the rivers - be a guerrilla fleet, surprise, deny crossings, etc. But be realistic.

[pgr]

That is a lot of stuff there.

Sorry about that, I was trying to create a one stop shop for all things naval.

All it takes is four shooting elements to deny passage.

That's a good tidbit to know.

Regarding forts, I take it they only shoot at passing ships? If the fleet ends in a region next to a fort, without passing by it, or simply stays in a region next to a fort, the fort won't engage it? Or do forts always make a bombardment check against adjacent fleets? I am thinking about ports like NO, Mobile, or Charleston where you have to maneuver fleets inside a line of forts to blockade the port.

One gets the impression that an overly aggressive approach to blockading these "fortress" ports could wind up being more trouble than its worth. (Although, on the other hand blockading a major port does wonders for the blockade %). Is the best approach to focus on filling up the blockade boxes and to only get in close for fort busting? That strikes me as unsatisfactorily passive.

[Ol' Choctaw]

To blockade most of the ports you either also have to blockade forts or capture them. Better to land and take the forts then block the harbor and maybe get lucky and take the port too. Owning the forts at the harbor entrance will block the port.

A few cities it is easier to land and attack the port, then take the forts later. Owning the port beats blockading it any day of the week.

[minipol]

In my current game the Union uses very big powerful fleets to go to the forts. I score a lot of hits but the fort guns are usually destroyed or nearly destroyed. It is a big resource drain. Once that's done, they can land at will.

[ndfan]

Hello all,

I've been looking through the documentation for CW2 and haven't found this answer. IIRC in CW1 naval elements could block a river x-ing at a rate of 25%/element, but capped at a max chance of 90%. Also IIRC posture requirements changed with patch updates, but by the end it was no longer required to be in offensive posture for that blocking to take place.

Does anyone know if all this holds true for CW2? Thanks all.

[pgr]

In my current game the Union uses very big powerful fleets to go to the forts. I score a lot of hits but the fort guns are usually destroyed or nearly destroyed. It is a big resource drain. Once that's done, they can land at will.

Has anyone tried this kind of strategy? Stack o doom fleets that blast forts and then land small forces? Have you all found the landing sailors card to be useful in this kind of thing?

And how useful are forts in naval defence? If I attack a fleet that is next to a friendly fort, will the fort bombard the fleet in support in the same way fleet bombardments support land troops?

[ArmChairGeneral]

I am really enjoying this thread, this is my weakest area of the game. You Navy types may convince me to give the Union a try one of these days. I have some questions for the Commodores among us.

1. I read in the manual that the posture of forces in sea boxes (Gulf Blockade, Atlantic Shipping, etc.) is irrelevant because combat is abstracted. This makes sense, I have never seen a battle report for blockade runners being found, the hits were reported in the log. Does this mean that we should just use passive posture in the boxes at all times to preserve cohesion? Sea units don't recover cohesion at all unless in port, right? Does passive posture use less cohesion than defensive? Or do ships in seaboxes lose cohesion at a fixed rate regardless of posture, abstracting the cohesion effects as well as the combat?

2. Is there anything I can do to increase the likelihood of spotting an enemy on the river and engaging them? A ship with better detect, a leader with a special ability? Embark a cav on a transport, anything!? The supply blocking function seems to be working fine and I can definitely prevent river crossings with 4 gunboat elements, but I can't seem to stop actual river fleets from sailing right past me and on up the Ohio. Can adjacent land forces or forts help my fleets spot ships?

3. If I am preventing a river crossing, am I also preventing the use of river-pool movement through the hex, or is this resolved through normal detection and combat? (In which case, see question #2.)

4. Slightly off-topic, but on river: If I am at nil river transport then no supplies will move up the river, say from the depot at Memphis to Island 10, right? Some might get there other ways (doubtful, it's a swamp) but not by river?

5. Not that the CSA would ever have the money, but how would I go about getting some sea transport pool? Transports in a box? Atlantic shipping?

6. Aside from supply, is there a reason to put any ships other than brigs in my blockade running fleet? I've got two scripted frigates that I never know what to do with, would they have any effect? Meat shields maybe? How about transports, do they bring in money and WS, or just the brigs? I usually automate, but might be willing to do Naval Boxes by hand if I understood things better.

7. Is there anything I can do as the CSA to reduce the blue water blockade other than make sure my ports are not brown-blocked? For that matter, what IS the effect of the blue block, I have always figured I couldn't do anything about it so didn't pay it any attention.

[GraniteStater]

I am really enjoying this thread, this is my weakest area of the game. You Navy types may convince me to give the Union a try one of these days. I have some questions for the Commodores among us.

1. I read in the manual that the posture of forces in sea boxes (Gulf Blockade, Atlantic Shipping, etc.) is irrelevant because combat is abstracted. This makes sense, I have never seen a battle report for blockade runners being found, the hits were reported in the log. Does this mean that we should just use passive posture in the boxes at all times to preserve cohesion? Sea units don't recover cohesion at all unless in port, right? Does passive posture use less cohesion than defensive? Or do ships in seaboxes lose cohesion at a fixed rate regardless of posture, abstracting the cohesion effects as well as the combat?

2. Is there anything I can do to increase the likelihood of spotting an enemy on the river and engaging them? A ship with better detect, a leader with a special ability? Embark a cav on a transport, anything!? The supply blocking function seems to be working fine and I can definitely prevent river crossings with 4 gunboat elements, but I can't seem to stop actual river fleets from sailing right past me and on up the Ohio. Can adjacent land forces or forts help my fleets spot ships?

3. If I am preventing a river crossing, am I also preventing the use of river-pool movement through the hex, or is this resolved through normal detection and combat? (In which case, see question #2.)

4. Slightly off-topic, but on river: If I am at nil river transport then no supplies will move up the river, say from the depot at Memphis to Island 10, right? Some might get there other ways (doubtful, it's a swamp) but not by river?

5. Not that the CSA would ever have the money, but how would I go about getting some sea transport pool? Transports in a box? Atlantic shipping?

6. Aside from supply, is there a reason to put any ships other than brigs in my blockade running fleet? I've got two scripted frigates that I never know what to do with, would they have any effect? Meat shields maybe? How about transports, do they bring in money and WS, or just the brigs? I usually automate, but might be willing to do Naval Boxes by hand if I understood things better.

7. Is there anything I can do as the CSA to reduce the blue water blockade other than make sure my ports are not brown-blocked? For that matter, what IS the effect of the blue block, I have always figured I couldn't do anything about it so didn't pay it any attention.

I'll try to get these right.

1) I put Union Shipping on G/G, Evade - but have a healthy escort presence. I put BluBlocks on 'default' Defensive - B/O.

2) & 3) All I can think of is fleet size. No spotting Ability that I can think of - Brigs, for spotting, at sea; Brigs can sail up rivers, so...mebbe.

4) I believe you are correct. Zero or 'nil' means so sorry, try again later.

5) AFAIK, the CSA has no Sea Transport ability whatsoever. An isolated Baltimore occupied by TJ & Co. will not get Stuff by Chesapeake Bay.

6) I put the scripted ships (as in 'ships', i. e., a three masted vessel, square rigged, with fore & aft mizzen, staysails and jibs - it's a ship, not a bark, a brig, a barkentine, a brigatine, a schooner, a sloop, a yawl, a ketch...landlubbers - they probably like stinkpots) in with a brig or two to make an 'upgraded' mini-fleet, but still the same function. Haven't bothered building TPs as the CSA, just brigs, but Athena is fond of them.

7) AFAIK, you can't do nuttin', other than sink Union vessels. AFAIK, if I have a Blockade of X %, then the effect is 1/2 of that value, e. g., a 50% Blockade Value means all Southern ports have their 'industrial capacity' reduced by a quarter.

[GraniteStater]

Uh, if FI triggers, I believe there is a Sea Transport capability for UK & the French, but, IIRC, it's only fer them funny furriners.

[minipol]

I have TP in the shipping lanes and gulf of mexico in my current game as CSA. Besides the messages of the brigs bringing in
money and WS, I also get messages about bringing in x nr of supplies out of a certain amount.

[ArmChairGeneral]

1) I put Union Shipping on G/G, Evade - but have a healthy escort presence. I put BluBlocks on 'default' Defensive - B/O.

2) & 3) All I can think of is fleet size. No spotting Ability that I can think of - Brigs, for spotting, at sea; Brigs can sail up rivers, so...mebbe.

1) Do you notice a difference in cohesion loss rate between the G/Gs and the B/O?

2) & 3) Any idea how enemies are spotted for combat purposes on the river? Is it patrol value or is it detection? If it's detection, then a brig might help (they have a 4 I think?). If it's Patrol (that's what land units use right?) then I need to increase my numbers. Still, I'm using like 15 elements already, so sheesh, if I need any more than that it may not be in the budget. I will take a look at patrol values, maybe I can find something cost effective.

Haven't bothered building TPs as the CSA, just brigs, but Athena is fond of them.

Yeah, well, she's fond of balloons too, so I don't know that I'm gonna listen to her.

Blockade of X %, then the effect is 1/2 of that value, e. g., a 50% Blockade Value means all Southern ports have their 'industrial capacity' reduced by a quarter.

Does this stack with the brown-block? So if the Union has Ft Monroe and a 50% blue-block, then Richmond produces 25% of potential?

as in 'ships', i. e., a three masted vessel, square rigged, with fore & aft mizzen, staysails and jibs - it's a ship, not a bark, a brig, a barkentine, a brigatine, a schooner, a sloop, a yawl, a ketch...landlubbers

In the 20th Century this is a barque, unless it also has a square top above the fore-and aft, and then it is a ship or more accurately a full-rigged ship (the fore-and-aft sail is almost always a gaff these days on both vessels). You are using the old definition of ship, from when fore-and-afts were still all lateens and you couldn't put a square on the mizzen-top. You are quite likely historically correct though, the definition of ship-rigged changed during the 1700's and 1800's as barque began to be applied to ships whose mizzens were strictly fore-and-aft.

Fun fact: I served on the USCGC Eagle, which is rigged just like you describe and is today referred to as a barque


[ATTACH]26764[/ATTACH]

[GraniteStater]

Cuzza the F&A rig on the mizzen. I should have more exactly written "mizzen spanker".

Whoa - you sailed on the Eagle? My God, I'll hafta salute ya - yer one o'them ossifers.

[GraniteStater]

1) Do you notice a difference in cohesion loss rate between the G/Gs and the B/O?

2) & 3) Any idea how enemies are spotted for combat purposes on the river? Is it patrol value or is it detection? If it's detection, then a brig might help (they have a 4 I think?). If it's Patrol (that's what land units use right?) then I need to increase my numbers. Still, I'm using like 15 elements already, so sheesh, if I need any more than that it may not be in the budget. I will take a look at patrol values, maybe I can find something cost effective.


Yeah, well, she's fond of balloons too, so I don't know that I'm gonna listen to her.


Does this stack with the brown-block? So if the Union has Ft Monroe and a 50% blue-block, then Richmond produces 25% of potential?


In the 20th Century this is a barque, unless it also has a square top above the fore-and aft, and then it is a ship or more accurately a full-rigged ship (the fore-and-aft sail is almost always a gaff these days on both vessels). You are using the old definition of ship, from when fore-and-afts were still all lateens and you couldn't put a square on the mizzen-top. You are quite likely historically correct though, the definition of ship-rigged changed during the 1700's and 1800's as barque began to be applied to ships whose mizzens were strictly fore-and-aft.

Fun fact: I served on the USCGC Eagle, which is rigged just like you describe and is today referred to as a barque


[ATTACH]26764[/ATTACH]

1) Do you notice a difference in cohesion loss rate between the G/Gs and the B/O?

Haven't & haven't looked or noticed.

2) & 3) Any idea how enemies are spotted for combat purposes on the river? Is it patrol value or is it detection? If it's detection, then a brig might help (they have a 4 I think?). If it's Patrol (that's what land units use right?) then I need to increase my numbers. Still, I'm using like 15 elements already, so sheesh, if I need any more than that it may not be in the budget. I will take a look at patrol values, maybe I can find something cost effective.

Not a clue.

Yeah, well, she's fond of balloons too, so I don't know that I'm gonna listen to her.

Understandable.


Does this stack with the brown-block? So if the Union has Ft Monroe and a 50% blue-block, then Richmond produces 25% of potential?

Uh...I think it's cumulative for any particular port. Unsure.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Whoa - you sailed on the Eagle? My God, I'll hafta salute ya - yer one o'them ossifers.

Well, I would have been if I had graduated. They have pretty high standards in New London. If they hadn't then I would be ArmChairAdmiral, and would be forced to be a Union player.

[GraniteStater]

I have TP in the shipping lanes and gulf of mexico in my current game as CSA. Besides the messages of the brigs bringing in
money and WS, I also get messages about bringing in x nr of supplies out of a certain amount.

Missed this.

You do??????

I'm gonna launch a CSA game, just for this. Man, if the design incorporates this...

No, no, a thousand times No. Come on, this wouldn't be modeling, this would Making Stuff Up Out of Whole Cloth.

I didn't know you could bribe the devs with Confederate bank notes...

look, Overseas Supply is abstracted, but there is an on-the-board mechanism for it - Union Shipping. Abandon the Box & you get zippo.

The Confederate merchant effort is modeled - survival at sea, plus a coupla minor gooses. AFAIK, they had Zero Ability to supply a corporal's guard across a substantive body of water.

NO NO NO NO NO

[Ol' Choctaw]

It is the very same as in AACW. No change.
I take it, it is because when GB and France chase the Union out of the box, what happens?

The overseas supply is what he is talking about.

Also while you rant. The CSA Destroyed the US merchant fleet. It never really recovered. I don’t think that has ever, ever, EVER, happened in game.

[minipol]

Tonight I will post what ships I have in what box and the messages I get (hopefully before your blood pressure gets too high )

[GraniteStater]

It is the very same as in AACW. No change.
I take it, it is because when GB and France chase the Union out of the box, what happens?

The overseas supply is what he is talking about.

Also while you rant. The CSA Destroyed the US merchant fleet. It never really recovered. I don’t think that has ever, ever, EVER, happened in game.

If I read it correctly, yeah, that's what the poster said - CSA Overseas Supply. I reread it twice. It's justified rant, if I'm reading this right, or he is observing correctly.

The CSA 'destroyed the US merchant fleet, which never really recovered'?

In all the reading I have done over the decades (more than a few) I have never seen the least allusion to this. The whaling fleet was hit hard, but whaling slipped into a much smaller economic activity because of that well in western Pennsylvania. Other than that, I'm afraid you'll have to convince me with sources. My word, man, the US led the world in significant areas of industrial production by the late 1880s. They were chasing the UK pretty close even twenty years earlier. I have a very difficult time believing that the US reconstructed its merchant fleet en masse due to Southern sinkings.

[GraniteStater]

Tonight I will post what ships I have in what box and the messages I get (hopefully before your blood pressure gets too high )

Well, I saw it on a screenshot in another thread, anyway, & you have confirmed my suspicions. Wasn't looking for it as the CSA, so didn't see it.

This is a NO Baby.

Uh, minipol, please clarify. There is a Foreign Overseas Supply capacity, for FI supply purposes. There should be no CSA Overseas Supply whatsoever - as CSA Supply.

[Ol' Choctaw]

In all the reading I have done over the decades (more than a few) I have never seen the least allusion to this. The whaling fleet was hit hard, but whaling slipped into a much smaller economic activity because of that well in western Pennsylvania. Other than that, I'm afraid you'll have to convince me with sources. My word, man, the US led the world in significant areas of industrial production by the late 1880s. They were chasing the UK pretty close even twenty years earlier. I have a very difficult time believing that the US reconstructed its merchant fleet en masse due to Southern sinkings.

At the beginning of the war the US had the largest merchant fleet in the world.

The Confederate Cursers fixed that for them.

Just like most things in history, the winning side has to show how great they did and downplay the less than glorious parts.

It is something you can find but you have to be looking for it. Actually digging for it.

I stumbled on it researching shipyards and the war. I wouldn’t want to cite some short quip of a source so I would recommend you do a search for your self.

If you find nothing I might give you a pointer or two.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Well, I saw it on a screenshot in another thread, anyway, & you have confirmed my suspicions. Wasn't looking for it as the CSA, so didn't see it.

This is a NO Baby.

Uh, minipol, please clarify. There is a Foreign Overseas Supply capacity, for FI supply purposes. There should be no CSA Overseas Supply whatsoever - as CSA Supply.

Only if they out number the Union in the box. Which is what would happen with French and GB entering the war. So as long as you have more ships in the box and hold the blockade your safe. Just don't send everyone home at once.

[GraniteStater]

At the beginning of the war the US had the largest merchant fleet in the world.

The Confederate Cursers fixed that for them.

Just like most things in history, the winning side has to show how great they did and downplay the less than glorious parts.

It is something you can find but you have to be looking for it. Actually digging for it.

I stumbled on it researching shipyards and the war. I wouldn’t want to cite some short quip of a source so I would recommend you do a search for your self.

If you find nothing I might give you a pointer or two.

Different thread needed. May I point out, though, your essential statement: "destroying" the merchant fleet, which "never recovered."

Even without a particle of research, I would, and do, have an extremely hard time believing these two characterizations. Let me point outthat in the War of 1812, US privateers did commit wholesale slaughter against British shipping and was a major reason why the UK wanted peace in North America. Lloyd's rates were astronomical and some were starting to refuse to sail outside of home waters.

They recovered. You're trying to tell me that a leading merchant nation didn't bother to rebuild?

From Wiki (History of US Merchant Marine):

The 1860s

In 1861, the American merchant marine became world's largest.[4] The final blow to clipper ships came in the form of the Suez Canal, opened in 1869, which provided a huge shortcut for steamships between Europe and Asia, but which was difficult for sailing ships to use.
Civil War era

Merchant shipping was a key target in the U.S. Civil War. For example the CSS Alabama, a Confederate sloop-of-war commissioned on 24 August 1862, spent months capturing and burning ships in the North Atlantic and intercepting grain ships bound for Europe. Other Confederate commerce raiders included the CSS Sumter, CSS Florida, and CSS Shenandoah.
1866–1870

First West Coast attempt at unionizing merchant seamen with the "Seamen's Friendly Union and Protective Society." The union quickly dissolves.[3]
The 1870s

By 1870, a number of inventions, such as the screw propeller and the triple expansion engine made trans-oceanic shipping economically viable. Thus began the era of cheap and safe travel and trade around the world. Starting in 1873, deck officers were required to pass mandatory license examinations.[4] In 1874, the union that would become the Marine Engineers' Benevolent Association formed. The Buffalo Association of Engineers began corresponding with other marine engineer associations around the country. These organizations held a convention in Cleveland, Ohio including delegates from Buffalo, New York, Cleveland, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, Chicago, Illinois and Baltimore, Maryland. This organization called itself the National Marine Engineers Association and chose as its president Garret Dow of Buffalo. On February 25, 1875 MEBA was formed. As of 1876, Plimsoll marks were required on all U.S. vessels[4]

Couple of things here - I think you meant 'Corsairs', unless that's a pun. Secondly, yes, it's Wiki, but it mentions four (4) merchant raiders, which are well known. There were probably others, but I don't recall a big effort by the CSA to issue letters of marque & reprisal (if I have to tell you what those are, uh, that would be distressing scholarship), nor extensive histories of Confederate privateering. I know Shenandoah was the most successful and was responsible for about maybe 200 vessels, just as a wild, wild guess, hazily recalled. Most of her prizes & sinkings were whalers, IIRC.

Now, although the Wiki snippet is not explicit, the tone of the comments hardly strikes me as a merchant marine that had been "destroyed" and "never recovered".

Mayhaps you are confusing steel hulls of much greater tonnage than their wooden cousins? Fewer ships, more tonnage. Do you know anything about the history of schooners, some of whose hulls were competitive with steel hulls, reaching six and even seven masts, which were plying their trade into the 1920s? One was named after my grandmother & I come from Newburyport, Mass., a small city with an important maritime history (until steel & steam - there's a sandbar at the mouth of the Merrimac and steamers of any real draft couldn't negotiate it). Portsmouth, NH, my Other Hometown, is a working port to this day.

Out of curiosity, I will do some work and examine number of vessels and tonnages. Nonetheless, I don't think a healthy growth in merchant sailor's unions, alone, indicates a commerce that was "destroyed and never recovered".

With respects,
GS

[minipol]

As promised, this is what I see in my game regarding to the CSA navy.
Expressed in elements, I have the following ships:

- Atlantic Blockade
4 brigs

- Shipping lanes
10 transports
3 steam Frigates
2 frigates

- Gulf Blockade
12 brigs

- Gulf of Mexico
6 transports

Mind that some ships were in the harbor at the time.
As I said, a bit off because some brigs were in port the previous
turn to resupply so although they are back, they will produce more the next turn, especially
the Gulf blockade. Numbers for Gulf blockade are usually double at least:

- Atlantic blockade: our runners carried 3 money and 1 war supply
- Gulf blockade: our runners carried 4 money and 2 war supplies
- Shipping lanes:
- while patrolling 22. Fleet found R. Semmes's fleet inflicting 40 hits, and begin hit 0 times
(transports were alone here, the steam frigates and frigates were in port. That's why I keep
them in 1 fleet in the shipping lanes, it disrupts Athena's shipping and brings in supply)
- transport ships in Shipping Lanes transported 966 supply points oversea, their maximum capacity being 2000 points

I'm not sure if the transports in the Gulf of Mexico are supplying, I don't see messages to them.
They could be taken in account in the numbers presented for the shipping lanes

[Ol' Choctaw]

@ GraniteStater


Nope!

If you want the short answer: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_your_merchant_marine_decline_during_and_after_the_civil_war?#slide=1

CSA Crusers or raiders if you like were the main cause.

[GraniteStater]

The Union Merchant Marine decline during the Civil War because its ships were object of a relentless and successful hunting by the cruiser of Confederate Navy or by the privateers.
It became so weakened that it was replaced in its routes by other merchant marines, mainly that of Great Britain and after the war it was no more able to restore its former importance on the top of the maritime trading he had had before the war.

From the 'source' quoted.

First, I have issues with sources and statements in sub-par English. If one can't take the trouble to get it right in expression...well...

Secondly, "privateers"? How many? How much damage? I've never run into any discussion at length about Confederate privateering and I've read more than a bit about the naval efforts of both sides.

Thirdly, it is not surprising that trade turns to neutral shipping. Same thing happened during WW One - people transferred a good bit of trade to the US (the nation whose merchant marine had been destroyed 50 years earlier and never recovered).

A displacement of trade? Sure, stands to reason. Falling to No. 2? I can believe it - if one wishes to count Canada, Australia, etc. and lump it under 'British', which is OK for some inquiries, not as good for others.

My reservations are with a US merchant marine that had been "destroyed & never recovered". Please, think about this - the short snippet about seamen's unions should tell you something, as well as standardizing tests for marine officers, imposition of Plimsoll lines, etc.

I really, really think your phrasing is somewhat inaccurate.

From the Civil War Trust website:

While the war rumbled along on the home front, the Confederates outfitted a series of commerce raiders, vessels such as Sumter, Alabama, and Shenandoah to attack Union merchant shipping worldwide. These ships were acquired by Confederate agents in Europe and most never entered a Southern port. Alabama, under Raphael Semmes, was the most famous. Destroying over 60 ships in a 21-month cruise [i. e., one a week at most - GS] and sending the Union shipping interests into a frenzy, Alabama was finally confronted by the Union cruiser Kearsarge off Cherbourg, France in 1864. In one of history's last classic one-on-one sea duels, the famed Confederate raider was sunk by accurate Union gunfire.

Finally, the last official act of the Confederate States of America was a naval one. The Confederate raider Shenandoah, far at sea in Pacific waters, only learned of the Civil War’s end four months after the Confederate armies surrendered. Shenandoah finally lowered her flag in England on November 6, 1865.

If the depredations were all that some would claim, I think the website would have more of a discussion, don't you think?

[Ol' Choctaw]

I have read far more detailed reports and explanations. Trouble is I can’t really remember exactly where or I would have given you a long, long write up. I am pretty sure it was British History were I found it. They were quite happy to take up the slack.

Alabama was not the most successful of the raiders, just the most famous.

The privateers were not that huge a factor but enough to do some early damage in the war.

Remember that the trade fleet is supplying you with money and goods. They mean a lot to the economic health of the country. When British ships were transporting the goods it was them making the profits.

A lot of the merchants were also pressed into Federal service, which means they were not hauling goods and after the war they had lost the edge. The same happened during WWI, true but the US was not the greatest Merchant Marine in the world then. It was before the Civil War. They were down to just a few dozen ships. Part of the reason they had to go after the whaling fleet.

In the game you have nothing like this. You just put some transports out in the box and leave them there, adding to them when you feel like it and all the time pulling in more cash. Aint nutten th Rebs can do bout it nether. All they kin do is cost you some spare change.

Last game they got some of that money but not this time.

Anyway they can’t sink or capture your ships and sell them in other ports, or wreck US tarde but you can sink hell out of theirs with out doing very much at all. But you are worried about transport points which they can also get by putting more brigs in the shipping box.

And you think you are being cheated.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I don't know that the Sea Transport pool matters that much to the CSA either way. Most anywhere you would have troops near the coast you would already have supply lines. An amphib invasion of the north is do-able, I guess, but I can't see it ever becoming a common tactic. There aren't that many nice coastal forts to grab in the north, like there are in the South, and the cities that would be worth taking spending resources to take like New York, Boston or Philadelphia are close to the bulk of Union troop concentrations, meaning you will only get a turn or two of surprise before the Union gets it together and kicks you out. I can't imagine being able to pull together more than a division for this type of thing, which is far too little to accomplish anything useful.

At best the sea transport pool would allow you to bust a couple of forts and brown-block a few harbors long-term without the fort garrisons starving to death, but beyond that I am not sure what use the CSA would get out of having any. Maybe it would have some benefit in shuffling supply among ports in the Gulf, where the rail network is poor?

minipol, is it doing you any good?

[GraniteStater]

I think our historical discussion needs to be on the History forum.

In the game, no, I certainly don't feel cheated or anything. I get the impression you don't care for the modelling in this respect. That's slightly different.

A 'few dozen' merchant ships by 1865?

I'm sorry, I will mail you the eyeballs that pop out of my head if I read anything even semi-authoritative asserting that the US blue water merchant fleet was down to so few. Reflagging, maybe?

The Ocean is Very, Very Big - Huge, even. A merchant a week sounds about right, maybe two. Remember, a sea chase can take all day, even longer - just ask US sub skippers, who could chase at 21 knots. Then it gets dark - and no radar in 1861.

So we have four, count 'em, four CSN antishipping vessels from two different accounts - maybe a few (as in 'few') more. Toss in an unknown number of privateers - 50, maybe, at best, which I doubt strongly, probably closer to 12 or 20? Bear in mind privateers pick on the weak, the slow, the lame - they would tend to avoid fights, even with an eight gun cutter.

Do the arithmetic - it doesn't add up at one or two vessels a week and closer to one.

Start a thread, if you would like. If you do, I will do some research.