AGEOD Forums

I have noticed that literally thousands of reb soldiers and their horses (partisans, copperheads, cavalry etc), can run about in the Union rear areas, and whenever they wish, summon up their magic yachts, and cruise to new points of interest in totally northern controlled areas.

Come on! Should they really be able to use riverine movement on northern rivers like this? Heck, next thing you know they will be sailing Confederate ironclads about in 1861 that didn't exist till 1864.

I hear ya. If it were up to me I would completely remove riverine movement from the game. If you don't have the actual ships to board, then sorry no river movement for you.

The only way I have found that limits this is your own personal house rules if you PBEM. I am a true believer in no assaults/moving to non owned region via riverine movement, strictly to move between one owned region to another.

I garrison many of the harbor cities from St. Lousis to Pittsburg each with a Division that has artillery. To quote Gandalf, "You shall not pass!"

If you set them all to bombardment they will destroy most of there river boats?

That depends on several other factors, but a small force of raiders would normally get destroyed if they challenged an artillery ZOC on a river.

True enough, but at the end of the day I still think it's silly forces can jump on invisible boats and skirt rivers. In my current PBEM I have trapped a corps in DC for the moment, yet I'm sure they'll just hop on invisi boats and sail away safely. Riverine transport should only deal with the forwarding of supplies.

Truthfully having ships only be able to transport would give the union a huge advantage...which they had in reality.

This is far more complex than you might anticipate.

Simply from the game perspective, using the RivTP (Riverine Transport Pool) costs the side using it regardless of where the unit(s) are sailing on which river(s). It is assessed basically as normal land movement, except
- the unit(s) can move up and down any number of river regions,
- units in a water region can be attacked by enemy naval combat units the same as if the units using the RivTP were on transports,
- the moving unit(s) can be bombarded as if they were sailing on real ships/boats transport units,
- they may embark from any region and debark into any region--no harbor is necessary at in either the embarking nor the debarking regions--,
- using the RivTP may be combined with using the RailTP, but neither may be combined with a unit being transported on actual naval transport units,
- debarking always takes 5 days, even for a single leader unit --too much good booze on the riverboats I guess ,
- units using the RivTP do not actually sail into a harbor, although they may enter the city-location the same as any other moving units.

So garrisoning cities on major rivers, although it will protect those cities, will not influence enemy units using the RivTP. In fact, an enemy stack may enter a region with a friendly stack inside the city-location of a city with a harbor and start using the RivTP from that region and not be influence by the garrison at all unless the garrison is set to Bombard and is allowed to do so under the rules, which includes the leader of the bombarding stack (division anyone?) being active that turn. ZOC has nothing to do with it as ZOC only considers land units attempting to enter a region with enemy MC and river regions never have any MC from either side.

The RivTP itself is not actually influenced by units being bombarded, but the units themselves will be attacked thusly, and the bombarded units may fire back with any artillery with range >=4 (minimum range for artillery to be able to bombard).

A stack using the RivTP in a water region, which encounters a stack of enemy naval combat units, may be retreated into a neighboring land region where they will end their voluntary movement, if the naval force is powerful enough, more or less the same as land units which encounter a powerful land stack, or they may actually engage the enemy stack in naval combat with their artillery.

--

The simplest solution would be a house-rule, but how might that look? Imagine the Missouri River between Saint Louis and Lexington MO. The Union controls Saint Louis and Jefferson and the Confederates control Lexington. How far away from Lexington may CS units use RivTP? How far from Jefferson may Union units use it?

In beta testing we discussed this issue at some length, but one thing was a major thorn-in-the-side and that was that it would take some major changes in the AI logic to 'unlearn' it from using the RivTP in specific areas or simply at all. Not something there was time for.

If you use water movement and pass through two areas that the artillery has (fill in the blank with a term other than ZOC) then your unit will take fire.

Unprotected riverine movement in the face an active naval force is an excellent way to throw away your troops.

It is possible that you or your foe could sneak by enemy ships, but its a real roll of the dice.

Garrison the rivers. You'll destroy those units.



I agree with the point though. Those stacks should have to carry a pontoon unit with them.

One way to imagine riverine points is that your side has X number of steamboats (as described in the manual) available to move supplies and yes, troops. This abstract way skips over how these steamboats may happen to be in AR one turn and GA the next. Another way to imagine this, is that your commanders have an intrinsic skill for movement by river, that you can increase. Local commanders will do what's necessary with whatever is available for missions that range from moving simple supplies all the way up to a miraculous Dunkirk operation. If you don't want raiders rafting around your rear areas, then build gunboats or use artillery to control the zones of your rivers.

It's the Double-Adjacency-Rule. A stack moving by water1) from one region into an adjacent region, both of which are adjacent to an enemy stack which can Bombard2), will be Bombarded by the Bombarding stack.

1) A stack sailing into or out of harbor is using water movement in the harbor's region.

2) To Bombard, the Bombarding stack must have >=1 battery with range >=4 with supply, must have the Bombard Passing Ships SO button activated, and if lead by a leader, that leader must be active at the time when the Bombardment could take place.

Gray Fox wrote:One way to imagine riverine points is that your side has X number of steamboats (as described in the manual) available to move supplies and yes, troops. This abstract way skips over how these steamboats may happen to be in AR one turn and GA the next. Another way to imagine this, is that your commanders have an intrinsic skill for movement by river, that you can increase. Local commanders will do what's necessary with whatever is available for missions that range from moving simple supplies all the way up to a miraculous Dunkirk operation. If you don't want raiders rafting around your rear areas, then build gunboats or use artillery to control the zones of your rivers.

Yes, the abstraction is very extreme. Heavy usage if the RivTP can shift between rivers with no connection to each other at all from one turn to the next. Or imagine a Union force pushing down from Arkansas to capture Shreveport and then using the RivTP to sail down the Red to New Orleans. The Union force might capture some transports in Shreveport, but generally the danger was known in advance the steamboats were moved out of harm's way.

It would be very cumbersome to depict river traffic more realistically. One would have to devise a way to determine where how many steamboats were at what time--so that they could move cargo up and down certain stretches of river--and then be able to control their presence on those stretches of river. Add more to increase transportation. Remove some or all to prevent them from falling into enemy hands, with some chances of present steamboats being forewarned and escaping without the player having had to actually order an evacuation.

But it would add a huge amount of 'micro-management' that most players would balk at. Many currently just use the game-handling of the Blockade and replacements and those are far simpler and much less work than realistic river transportation rules would be.

Gray Fox wrote:If you use water movement and pass through two areas that the artillery has (fill in the blank with a term other than ZOC) then your unit will take fire.

It's the Double-Adjacency-Rule. A stack moving by water[SUP]1)[/SUP] from one region into an adjacent region, both of which are adjacent to an enemy stack which can Bombard[SUP]2)[/SUP], will be Bombarded by the Bombarding stack.

[SUP]1)[/SUP] A stack sailing into or out of harbor is using water movement in the harbor's region.

[SUP]2)[/SUP] To Bombard, the Bombarding stack must have >=1 battery with range >=4 with supply, must have the Bombard Passing Ships SO button activated, and if lead by a leader, that leader must be active at the time when the Bombardment could take place.

In theory, if I had zero riverine transport pool, would that mean that I have zero supply coming down rivers? Or does it mean that I cannot transport any elements with weight > 0?

Not in theory, in fact. For riverine movement to be usable in one of the the three supply distribution phases, you need aa minimumof 1/3 of full capacity of the RivTP. For each additional 1/3 you may use the RivTP in an additional phase. Any RivTP points you use to transport troops are subtracted from your total before checking for how many phases you may use.

You might add the Double-Adjacency-Rule as a topic to the AGEOD Wiki so that others may share in your knowledge of it.

Captain_Orso wrote:Yes, the abstraction is very extreme. Heavy usage if the RivTP can shift between rivers with no connection to each other at all from one turn to the next. Or imagine a Union force pushing down from Arkansas to capture Shreveport and then using the RivTP to sail down the Red to New Orleans. The Union force might capture some transports in Shreveport, but generally the danger was known in advance the steamboats were moved out of harm's way.

It would be very cumbersome to depict river traffic more realistically. One would have to devise a way to determine where how many steamboats were at what time--so that they could move cargo up and down certain stretches of river--and then be able to control their presence on those stretches of river. Add more to increase transportation. Remove some or all to prevent them from falling into enemy hands, with some chances of present steamboats being forewarned and escaping without the player having had to actually order an evacuation.

But it would add a huge amount of 'micro-management' that most players would balk at. Many currently just use the game-handling of the Blockade and replacements and those are far simpler and much less work than realistic river transportation rules would be.

There are an unlimited number of private operators trading privately on the rivers. What the riverine transports numbers represent is your nations budget for renting those private transports for military use.


There you go. Easier to understand, and more historically accurate.

Though I do find the uses of the River Transport to be somewhat problematic, I also wouldn't want to get bogged down in micromanaging dozens of transports, either.

I wonder what the benefits to using transports are (aside from preserving RivTP for supply movement). You would think that troops on a transport would be less vulnerable to enemy bombardment or naval action than ones traveling naked, if only to encourage the use of transports. Is a RivTP stack more, less or equally likely to be discovered and attacked than a transport fleet? Do the troops in question suffer higher casualties if they are using plain Riverine movement versus being on board a ship? Does the Evade Combat special order apply when using RivTP? Should it? Does taking hits to a transport shield the troops it is carrying from also taking hits? If both take hits, then RiverTP is clearly advantageous compared to using a transport fleet.

Based only on experience (rather than testing or information from the game-files and logs) it feels like movement by transport is not as good. It takes more management, and it seems like the odds of interception/bombardment are about the same, so why would you spend money on building transports when you can get better, more flexible lift capacity through the RivTP?

Supposedly land troops in regions adjacent to water transports can draw supplies from them, which would be a good reason to use them rather than RiverTP, but I have not been able to confirm in-play that this is actually occurring.

ArmChairGeneral wrote:Though I do find the uses of the River Transport to be somewhat problematic, I also wouldn't want to get bogged down in micromanaging dozens of transports, either.

I wonder what the benefits to using transports are (aside from preserving RivTP for supply movement). You would think that troops on a transport would be less vulnerable to enemy bombardment or naval action than ones traveling naked, if only to encourage the use of transports. Is a RivTP stack more, less or equally likely to be discovered and attacked than a transport fleet? Do the troops in question suffer higher casualties if they are using plain Riverine movement versus being on board a ship? Does the Evade Combat special order apply when using RivTP? Should it? Does taking hits to a transport shield the troops it is carrying from also taking hits? If both take hits, then RiverTP is clearly advantageous compared to using a transport fleet.

Based only on experience (rather than testing or information from the game-files and logs) it feels like movement by transport is not as good. It takes more management, and it seems like the odds of interception/bombardment are about the same, so why would you spend money on building transports when you can get better, more flexible lift capacity through the RivTP?

Supposedly land troops in regions adjacent to water transports can draw supplies from them, which would be a good reason to use them rather than RiverTP, but I have not been able to confirm in-play that this is actually occurring.

I think one of the biggest advantages to river transport with actual ships is that you can have an admiral(s) in the stack. Many of the admirals have useful traits like seaman and fort runner.

My speculation is that units traveling on ships see the ships take most of the hits, and if a ship sinks then some unit(s) may be lost. In RiverineTP the units take all the hits all the time.

Thirdly, is was also noted that under certain circumstances movement by RiverineTP may be hindered and the troops may disembark in a region you did not intend them to disembark in.

Lastly, if unit(s) moving by RiverineTP encounter an enemy fleet and engage in battle. I have to imagine they are much squishier then when in ships, Again I'd have to imagine that when ina actual ships that are accompanied by "war" ships (like ironclads) the transport vessels will suffer less hits, since some of the "war" ships will soak them up. You have no such protection when moving by RiverineTP.

B0rn_C0nfused wrote:I think one of the biggest advantages to river transport with actual ships is that you can have an admiral(s) in the stack. Many of the admirals have useful traits like seaman and fort runner.

Of course if RiverTP stacks are using their normal Hide and Evasion values, then you would be even better off using a Screener or something as the commander of the stack and get as much or more benefit in terms of sneaking along rivers than Admirals give to transports, particularly for small raiding-type forces. I do not fully understand the mechanics of how commitment decisions are handled in the various naval movement cases.

Thirdly, is was also noted that under certain circumstances movement by RiverineTP may be hindered and the troops may disembark in a region you did not intend them to disembark in.

This is a risk in land movement as well, and ships can also bounce to unintended (water) regions when confronted with enemies. Getting put ashore is a positive outcome compared to the alternative of engaging with an Ironclad fleet.

Lastly, if unit(s) moving by RiverineTP encounter an enemy fleet and engage in battle. I have to imagine they are much squishier then when in ships, Again I'd have to imagine that when ina actual ships that are accompanied by "war" ships (like ironclads) the transport vessels will suffer less hits, since some of the "war" ships will soak them up. You have no such protection when moving by RiverineTP.

I would imagine that they are squishier too, but have not seen hard evidence of just how much squishier they really are in practice. I have lost multiple brigades at a time trying to run past entrenched divisions using both methods. My troops were just as dead either way, but in the fleet I lost the troops AND the transports.

Your third point also brings up the question of whether it is better to take expensive naval hits that take a long time to repair and can only be done in large ports, versus taking (possibly more but) cheaper and quicker to replace hits to ground forces. Transport replacement chits are fairly cheap, but warship chits are not.

I guess what I am looking for is confirmation that using transports actually IS safer or somehow more cost-effective than just using RivTP. I know it SHOULD be safer, but do we know for sure? In my games I rarely use transports for anything other than supplying fleets, because I am not convinced I get enough (or any) benefit compared to using the RiverTP, and transports are never available precisely when and where I need them.

(Speed is another factor to consider. If you are sailing both out of and then into a harbor, transports are definitely faster. If you need to load or unload directly to or from a transport, using them is often slower than using the RiverTP directly.)

Rod Smart wrote:There are an unlimited number of private operators trading privately on the rivers. What the riverine transports numbers represent is your nations budget for renting those private transports for military use.

There you go. Easier to understand, and more historically accurate.

Yes, basically the military chartered or hired privately owned steamboats to transport troops and supplies. Whether the government actually owned any transports on the rivers IDK.

The government also restricted their use of certain water-ways if those were dangerous--more or less. I read in an old newspaper article once that after the Mississippi had been cleared for public use that riverboats were still taking small-arms fire from 'rebels' on the shores. More pot-shots than any concerted effort to attack them.

ArmChairGeneral wrote:Though I do find the uses of the River Transport to be somewhat problematic, I also wouldn't want to get bogged down in micromanaging dozens of transports, either.

I wonder what the benefits to using transports are (aside from preserving RivTP for supply movement). You would think that troops on a transport would be less vulnerable to enemy bombardment or naval action than ones traveling naked, if only to encourage the use of transports.

I'm sure Grant insisted the troops kept their uniforms on while on the riverboats regardless of how much drinking and gambling went on

Whether a riverine transport unit is being used to transport troops or the RivTP, it should make no difference, but I'm not so sure if that is actually the case.

ArmChairGeneral wrote:Is a RivTP stack more, less or equally likely to be discovered and attacked than a transport fleet?

Good question. I don't know.

ArmChairGeneral wrote:Do the troops in question suffer higher casualties if they are using plain Riverine movement versus being on board a ship?

Again, good question to which I do not know the answer.

ArmChairGeneral wrote:Does the Evade Combat special order apply when using RivTP?

Yes, of course. The stack will attempt to evade combat in all regions it enters, whether water or land.

ArmChairGeneral wrote:Should it?

Why shouldn't it?

ArmChairGeneral wrote:Does taking hits to a transport shield the troops it is carrying from also taking hits?

Maybe indirectly, but I don't think in the sense of the riverboats actually offering any kind of armored protection.

ArmChairGeneral wrote:If both take hits, then RiverTP is clearly advantageous compared to using a transport fleet.

In Bombardment and Naval Combat targets are picked from the target stack, generally the toughest units are selected--ironclads for example, because they push themselves in front of weaker units. If the only actual units involved on one side are land units using the RivTP it might be that the battle-engine doesn't take into account that the land units are 'sitting on' virtual-riverboats.

I don't remember actually having read about this nor have I tested it nor that much experience in having land units attacked by bombardment or naval fighting units.

I do know that I've mauled enemy units using the RivTP and trying to sail past Ft Donelson after I had captured it, sometimes destroying a land unit completely.

ArmChairGeneral wrote:Based only on experience (rather than testing or information from the game-files and logs) it feels like movement by transport is not as good. It takes more management, and it seems like the odds of interception/bombardment are about the same, so why would you spend money on building transports when you can get better, more flexible lift capacity through the RivTP?

I believe it is cheaper to own the transports. You pay for them once and can use them as much as you wish at no further costs. However using the RivTP is quicker and often more flexible. There are also things you can do with transports, which you cannot with the RivTP, such as keep gunboats on patrol in supply, supply adjacent land units and build depots--although you'd be a bit dumb if you didn't build flatboats to build a depot with.

ArmChairGeneral wrote:Supposedly land troops in regions adjacent to water transports can draw supplies from them, which would be a good reason to use them rather than RiverTP, but I have not been able to confirm in-play that this is actually occurring.

Yes, this works. I've done it many times. The land stack should have a supply unit(s) through. I'm not sure if it's mandatory, but it will work best if they do.

You can also sail transports into harbors where you could not get any supplies through supply distribution, but there is no method to have the transports unload their supplies and remain unloaded . Nearby troops will draw supplies off the transports though, but if the harbor city is producing some supplies--and many do, but think of ammo, which not many cities produce--most of those supplies will go to filling the transports first, if the transports have the greater 'pull' because nearby land unit do not have supply wagons and/or are further away from the city that the transports.

B0rn_C0nfused wrote:I think one of the biggest advantages to river transport with actual ships is that you can have an admiral(s) in the stack. Many of the admirals have useful traits like seaman and fort runner.

You cannot stack land units with naval units without the land units being on transports. Besides, without ironclads and gunboats I'd kind of shy away from trying any naval combat with land units on transports; just sayin' .

One funny thing I did see once was two stacks of land units, both using RivTP and fighting a battle in the middle of the Mississippi

B0rn_C0nfused wrote:My speculation is that units traveling on ships see the ships take most of the hits, and if a ship sinks then some unit(s) may be lost. In RiverineTP the units take all the hits all the time.

No, if there is a single transport element still afloat, all of the land units will remain aboard and none are ever lost to having their transports sunk. If all transports are sunk they will be dropped into the nearest land region, even if at sea.

B0rn_C0nfused wrote:Thirdly, is was also noted that under certain circumstances movement by RiverineTP may be hindered and the troops may disembark in a region you did not intend them to disembark in.

Yes, if the come into a 'retreat' situation they will retreat to the nearest land region.

B0rn_C0nfused wrote:Lastly, if unit(s) moving by RiverineTP encounter an enemy fleet and engage in battle. I have to imagine they are much squishier then when in ships, Again I'd have to imagine that when ina actual ships that are accompanied by "war" ships (like ironclads) the transport vessels will suffer less hits, since some of the "war" ships will soak them up. You have no such protection when moving by RiverineTP.

First off, you cannot 'accompany' land units with naval combat units because you cannot stack land units using RivTP with naval units. You can only put land units in a naval stack if there are enough transports to carry the land units.

The rest of your statement is true.

More than once I've enjoyed the satisfaction of sending a small fleet
to utterly destroy an enemy unit using river transport.

Orso, if I am reading you correctly, when troops are aboard a transport then the transport takes hits, but the hits do not pass through to the land elements being transported. If this is the case, then it is definitely safer to use a transport in risky situations, since the transports "shield" the troops from hits. Transport chits aren't cheap, but they aren't terrible either.

As to why Evade Combat and the land-based Hide and Evasion values should or should not apply to RivTP movement, it doesn't make sense that Forrest's cavalry division is just as good at evading enemy ironclads while travelling on an ad-hoc flotilla of seized or leased civilian vessels as it is at evading an enemy division on land. That being said, I do not know if this is actually the case or not. For all I know, there is a lower Hide or Evasion value that gets used instead.

On a related note, if enemies seem to be going right past your fleet of Ironclads unharmed, adding a couple of brigs to the stack ups the Patrol value and thus the chances of finding and engaging significantly. Whether brigs ought to be allowed to operate on rivers in this way is another question entirely .

First off, you cannot 'accompany' land units with naval combat units because you cannot stack land units using RivTP with naval units. You can only put land units in a naval stack if there are enough transports to carry the land units.

The rest of your statement is true.[/QUOTE]

I never said stacking RiverineTP with "actual ships". Notice how in my post I used "RiverineTP" to refer to movement by Riverine and "actual ships" to refer to brown water naval units. I was simply noting that when you have a brown water transport fleet you can accompany it with actual war ships, including, but not limited to iron clads. I was making the point that when moving by RiverineTP you have NO such ability to include brown water "war ships" like iron clads and gun boats in the stack. So please reread again and tell me where my statement was inaccurate.


Part 2:

" think one of the biggest advantages to river transport with actual ships is that you can have an admiral(s) in the stack. Many of the admirals have useful traits like seaman and fort runner."

In response you wrote: "You cannot stack land units with naval units without the land units being on transports. Besides, without ironclads and gunboats I'd kind of shy away from trying any naval combat with land units on transports; just sayin' ."

Yes, know that. I fail to see how this adds anything to the discussion. I was simply noting that when using actual ships in a stack you can put admirals in that stack, which can convey certain bonuses to that stack. Again, no such ability is available while using RiverineTP.

Yeah, I definitely read through your post too fast. Sorry for that.

I'll not try to talk you out of using naval leaders to lead troops on transports. What ever fills your sails