We Sail the Ocean Blue

[GraniteStater]

"...and our saucy ship's a beauty.." A little Gilbert & Sullivan can't hurt.

The point:

11. Expanding the blockade is of limited use. A 100% blockade would only cause 50% of the CSA cash production per turn to be lost. Conscripts and War Supply are not affected. The South can easily replace the cash by printing money, raising taxes or selling bonds. So use the blockade squadrons you start with, but creating any further units for this purpose is not a good investment. -Gray Fox

A matter of opinion and hard to research. Me, I'm doing the research, playing HiTek Union with a Real Navy in two PbeMs right now, and having employed it before in a PbeM that wasn't finished, several patches ago.

Let's examine this:

"The South can easily replace the cash by printing money, raising taxes or selling bonds."

Really? Easily? Directly, yes, but each option has a cost in inflation, NM, or VPs, IIRC. And you can do it only every six months. When the CSA does raise money, it's $600 a pop, IIRC (I am mostly a Union player, but I have played the South in one PbeM that I 'inherited' and have played some against Athena - I'm not an authority on the CSA, but am not lost, either).

And in between, during those non-Money Turns, err, what's the CSA income? Not a lot, really. $250? $300 on a good day? Anything HiTek the CSA wants to do costs $$ - river fleet, service troops, fancy pop-guns...some others, I'm sure, plus the odd Card or two.

And 100% Blockade costs the South 'only' 50% of its cash income. Well, first of all, you can't get to 100%, it's counter-coded, I believe. You'll top out at 75%, 80%, maybe 85%. Past those numbers, the code works against you and there is a point of diminishing returns, granted.

So even a 65% Blockade is almost a third of southern $$. But that's not worth it, says Mr. Fox. Good sir, how many times have you played the Union, especially in a PbeM? Have you ever tried Big Navy, or HiTek, or both?

it's difficult to test, because Athena won't play it as the Union. The basic reason I started on it was (a) tired and frustrated of meeting southern entrenched elites, and (b) no one had ever really done it, not in any AARs I had read, not in discussions, etc.

So I've decided to be the exponent of Economic Might and applying it towards fancy hardware and many ships.

It takes time - I'm in early 62 in two PbeMs right now - the CSA has about 75 - 80 % of my land force size in both games.

But my Blockade Flotillas are coming online now. Brigs. TPs to stay at sea (plus some to join Shipping and get more $$ & WS). I've got a good amount of Industry built or about to finish.

And bear in mind some of this is for Up Close & Personal Blockading - one BF + Brig + Brig + TP shuts down any sea zone. And I'll sail right into harbors, sometimes the Johnnies are sleeping and don't fire much. Yes, prudence is necessary, but the BlkFlts can take some punishment and survive.

Plus, Landing Sailors, or even some more serious landings...

and what if the CSA actually (gasp!) loses some land battles, what if the CSA gets mauled by some Union 4-3-2's? Not every Union Leader is a nincompoop.

Replacements cost $$, even if one gets to plug 'em in twice as fast as Union Replacements.

Oh, and those lovely CSA Ueber-Brigades from a Clausewitzian wet dream - aren't they kinda expensive? How many is the CSA gonna build in a $150 Turn and keep the RRs up, and buy Replacements (including Arty), and pay for Cards, and pay for structure building (Indy, etc.)?

The CSA needs to Win Big & Win Early, otherwise, it's Reynolds, Sheridan, Meade, Gibbon, Grierson, et. al., joining Grant, Sherman, Thomas, et. al. who now have experience. If Grant has an Army and decent Corps Commanders - not quite as easy, is it?

What if Promotions work now - I won a narrow Victory in 1.03 where nobody got Promoted, hardly anyone, I was very lucky to have Grant as ***. I was attacking Richmond with McDowell and Butler, fer chrissake. Note I was attacking Richmond, not Fredericksburg - I forced the ANV back even with a bit of commanding officer handicaps.

Time is on the Union's side. I want to see what using the advantages of a bigger economy and manpower pool can do.

Just keep it close, UFBs, just keep 'em honest 'til the fifth inning. Don't let NM get out of control. Be patient, the Big Turnaround will happen, it will, I've seen it.

And it's a thing of beauty.

[1stvermont]

Interesting and great post. As the north [ few times i have been] i never saw to much good in the blockade other than declaring full blockade and maybe 5-10% Atlantic with extra ships. I like to push on land. I can say as a southern player the money does hurt with a good blockade, just not convinced its worth it yet.

[Captain_Orso]

If you declare the full-blockade you get all the blockade flotillas you need for blockading[SUP]1)[/SUP], albeit, two of them start out missing a couple of blockade ships, but those can be rebuilt before they leave harbor.

Brigs are poor replacements for blockade ships in the blockade boxes. In the blockade boxes the blockade value of ships there is counted. Brigs have something like a blockade value of 2 each, while blockade ships--there are 6 blockade ships in each fully equipped blockade flotilla, plus one steam frigate and one sail frigate--have 10 each(!!).

If you want to brown-water blockade a harbor, any tub with a gun will do, because you are only counting hulls in brown-water blockading, and I'm not sure, but probably gunboats are cheaper than blockade ships. Besides, if I'm going to get up-close and personal with BWB I'll want to drop some ironclads in the mix to protect my BWB fleet, just in case Johnny-Reb gets nasty.

But what really works best at blockading is an invasion. Then the city produces 0% for the enemy


[SUP]1)[/SUP] You get 10 blockade flotillas in total, which makes for 5 for each box. From my understanding, to increase the blockade by 50% you would have to add another 6 blockade flotillas, and that is simply not a good ROI.

The only time I build any further blockade flotillas is if mine on station are getting beat up by weather. Then I'll build another to put in one of the boxes, while I send a battered flotilla back to harbor for R&R and simply cycle through them all like that.

[GraniteStater]

Unless I'm way off, each BlkFlotilla is 8 elements. Add two Brig Sqds for 12. Some sea zones don't require this, but...

Unless you take the time to reduce the Forts on the Outer Banks, you can't get the 'clads past them, without getting All Shot Up. Then you need to turn around to a friendly port. Feel free to elucidate.

Charleston is dicey, with three forts, and I have blocked it before, and sailed out and survived, but it's not pretty. Single Fort guardians are far from Cerebus at the gates of Hades, in my experience, not really that scary.

Yes, after you get past & back and are down on Cohesion, etc., you need to recoup at a friendly port. I don't think Pickens or the FL Forts replenish elements. This is why you need a Whole Buncha Flotillas.

RebelYell, in our tragically shortened game, started building some 'clads to punch my blockers. Good - he's not spending the $$ on 165 PWR brigades, his coastal 'clads are just that, coastal, and I'll go to some other port. I will build some coastal 'clads myself, for various purposes.

One can always take a leaf from Soundoff's book and just take the NC coastal Forts, but, to go further down, you have to keep taking Forts - 'clads are not blue-water sailers. A matter of approach, perhaps.

I really don't think 'any tub' does the job, 'cuz you have to take some hits for any worthwhile target. BFs are very expensive and take a long time to build - you either start down this road from the first, or forget it. Once I have my initial BFs in 62, I'll keep building one or two, along with 'clads, Brigs and TPs. Brigs are very useful and can sail up rivers.

Have I paid some prices, here & there? Yes, I have - but I like seeing a 75% Blockade and you can't get that without getting Up Close. In my present PbeMs, the CSA is at 75 - 80% of US Army strength, but the big investments under Accounts Payable - Navy are over (don't forget River builds, too) and now I turn the wheels to more land unit builds. And Replacements, of course. Also, I had a pretty big A/P - Industry for a while; now the WS are going up.

More. And then, of course, More. And More, and More. More Special Service units, more Arty, more Big Brigades with Arty, more Cav with HArty, more Cards for Parisans and Unionists and buying Indians.

If I can throttle the CSA down to 65% of its $$ income, it's worth it, I think. Not to mention keeping his eye on that long, long coast, where the USN may show up, maybe just landing Sailors, maybe landing More.

It ain't just spreadsheets and accounting.

"We will make them dread us, and go everywhere they go, until they realize that no place is safe from us." - W. T. Sherman

[DrPostman]

Well, a brown water blockade of Richmond is always worthwhile, and fairly safe.

[Captain_Orso]

Unless I'm way off, each BlkFlotilla is 8 elements. Add two Brig Sqds for 12. Some sea zones don't require this, but...

The rule is, it takes 8 naval combat elements to blockade an harbor exit-point. If the enemy can bombard into that exit-point, an additional 4 naval combat elements are necessary. If you can bombard into that exit-point 4 fewer navel combat elements are required.

Using a steam and a sail frigate as part of the mix is unnecessary and expensive, where a gunboat does the job just as well.

Unless you take the time to reduce the Forts on the Outer Banks, you can't get the 'clads past them, without getting All Shot Up. Then you need to turn around to a friendly port. Feel free to elucidate.

Correct, but are the Outerbanks an issue? They are just a speed-bump, IMHO.

Only Fort Macon can bombard passing boats on the Outerbanks, but Fort Caswell in North Carolina can too, but those are the only ones. And if I had my way, none of them would be able to, but that's another story.

Charleston is dicey, with three forts, and I have blocked it before, and sailed out and survived, but it's not pretty. Single Fort guardians are far from Cerebus at the gates of Hades, in my experience, not really that scary.

I believe you can distant-blockade Charleston from the coastal region outside the forts, the same as you can distant-blockade Richmond from Hampton Roads and New Orleans from the Mississippi Delta. These are totally safe from bombardment, unless you yourself decide to bombard.

Yes, after you get past & back and are down on Cohesion, etc., you need to recoup at a friendly port. I don't think Pickens or the FL Forts replenish elements. This is why you need a Whole Buncha Flotillas.

Historically Beaufort (Port Royal) was first used, Fort Pulaski makes an ideal base of operation for the Atlantic Coast.

I don't think you need anything special to replace missing elements, especially with gunboats, which can be built almost anywhere. Drop a Navel Engineer into Fort Pulaski to speed repairs and you should be fine.

RebelYell, in our tragically shortened game, started building some 'clads to punch my blockers. Good - he's not spending the $$ on 165 PWR brigades, his coastal 'clads are just that, coastal, and I'll go to some other port. I will build some coastal 'clads myself, for various purposes.

One can always take a leaf from Soundoff's book and just take the NC coastal Forts, but, to go further down, you have to keep taking Forts - 'clads are not blue-water sailers. A matter of approach, perhaps.

I've never read about any gunboats being bombarded while sailing the coast during the war, and there were a bunch of them at Charleston and Mobile, but I've got some books I need to read about that . But at the moment I think it should not be possible for coastal forts to bombard shipping sailing up and down the coast, but that's just MHO.

I really don't think 'any tub' does the job, 'cuz you have to take some hits for any worthwhile target. BFs are very expensive and take a long time to build - you either start down this road from the first, or forget it. Once I have my initial BFs in 62, I'll keep building one or two, along with 'clads, Brigs and TPs. Brigs are very useful and can sail up rivers.

To blockade you don't have to take any hits at all, and should generally try not to. As the Union, it's highly unlikely that the South is going to build so many gunboats and IC's to endanger a BWB, but if they do, that's all that much money and other resources they didn't use elsewhere, and which the Union can certainly counter.

Before the point was brought up recently, I never really thought about brigs on rivers. IMHO coastal waters and rivers are too fudged in the game. Rivers should be navigable by ships/boats in relation to their draft and the water level. Draft is only covered by deep and shallow (ocean and river), but river depths are not addressed really at all. River sections where oceanic ships are allowed to sail are simply designated "Coastal Waters", which makes them very slow for river traffic, which is illogical; and varying river depth is not addressed at all.

Have I paid some prices, here & there? Yes, I have - but I like seeing a 75% Blockade and you can't get that without getting Up Close. In my present PbeMs, the CSA is at 75 - 80% of US Army strength, but the big investments under Accounts Payable - Navy are over (don't forget River builds, too) and now I turn the wheels to more land unit builds. And Replacements, of course. Also, I had a pretty big A/P - Industry for a while; now the WS are going up.

How many BF's do you have in the Blockade Boxes, and which coastal cities have you taken?

More. And then, of course, More. And More, and More. More Special Service units, more Arty, more Big Brigades with Arty, more Cav with HArty, more Cards for Parisans and Unionists and buying Indians.

Yes! always more

If I can throttle the CSA down to 65% of its $$ income, it's worth it, I think. Not to mention keeping his eye on that long, long coast, where the USN may show up, maybe just landing Sailors, maybe landing More.

It ain't just spreadsheets and accounting.

but... but...

"We will make them dread us, and go everywhere they go, until they realize that no place is safe from us." - W. T. Sherman

Sounds like my kids when they were small

Well, a brown water blockade of Richmond is always worthwhile, and fairly safe.

Yup

[GraniteStater]

The rule is, it takes 8 naval combat elements to blockade an harbor exit-point. If the enemy can bombard into that exit-point, an additional 4 naval combat elements are necessary. If you can bombard into that exit-point 4 fewer navel combat elements are required.

Using a steam and a sail frigate as part of the mix is unnecessary and expensive, where a gunboat does the job just as well.



Correct, but are the Outerbanks an issue? They are just a speed-bump, IMHO.

Only Fort Macon can bombard passing boats on the Outerbanks, but Fort Caswell in North Carolina can too, but those are the only ones. And if I had my way, none of them would be able to, but that's another story.




I believe you can distant-blockade Charleston from the coastal region outside the forts, the same as you can distant-blockade Richmond from Hampton Roads and New Orleans from the Mississippi Delta. These are totally safe from bombardment, unless you yourself decide to bombard.




Historically Beaufort (Port Royal) was first used, Fort Pulaski makes an ideal base of operation for the Atlantic Coast.

I don't think you need anything special to replace missing elements, especially with gunboats, which can be built almost anywhere. Drop a Navel Engineer into Fort Pulaski to speed repairs and you should be fine.





I've never read about any gunboats being bombarded while sailing the coast during the war, and there were a bunch of them at Charleston and Mobile, but I've got some books I need to read about that . But at the moment I think it should not be possible for coastal forts to bombard shipping sailing up and down the coast, but that's just MHO.



To blockade you don't have to take any hits at all, and should generally try not to. As the Union, it's highly unlikely that the South is going to build so many gunboats and IC's to endanger a BWB, but if they do, that's all that much money and other resources they didn't use elsewhere, and which the Union can certainly counter.

Before the point was brought up recently, I never really thought about brigs on rivers. IMHO coastal waters and rivers are too fudged in the game. Rivers should be navigable by ships/boats in relation to their draft and the water level. Draft is only covered by deep and shallow (ocean and river), but river depths are not addressed really at all. River sections where oceanic ships are allowed to sail are simply designated "Coastal Waters", which makes them very slow for river traffic, which is illogical; and varying river depth is not addressed at all.



How many BF's do you have in the Blockade Boxes, and which coastal cities have you taken?



Yes! always more





but... but...



Sounds like my kids when they were small




Yup

First, let me remind the readers this is from experience, unless they've altered things since 1.03. Game experience, I've seen these things.


Using a steam and a sail frigate as part of the mix is unnecessary and expensive, where a gunboat does the job just as well.

I don't. BF + Brig + Brig (+TP). 12 elements. Cap, you need something that can take hits. I don't know why you soft-pedal the Forts on the Outer Banks; they do, indeed, fire at passers-by.

You're going to take hits and lose Cohesion. You just about need the TPs. Yer gonna git Shot Up sailing into a CSA harbor; sometimes more, sometimes less - you don't want to start with 'clads and gunboats who are redded out with low Cohesion and who can recover only at Pickens or in the Keys or Monroe (maybe; IIRC, there's a statement about Hit recovery only in a friendly Port).

I believe you can distant-blockade Charleston from the coastal region outside the forts, the same as you can distant-blockade Richmond from Hampton Roads and New Orleans from the Mississippi Delta.

I've never seen the icon for Charleston or N. O. by parking outside the three Forts of Charleston or the mouth of Ole Man River. IIRC, the Rules state explicitly that you must be in the Exit Point(s) sea zones for the target.

*****

Various other points:

I don't commit a ton of vessels to the Block Boxes. I add some early and then quietly add some here & there. I've had an 80% Blockade before, but only if you Brown Block.

Fort Pulaski is in Rebel hands in a '61 start. havi agreed to a '62, but discovered he didn't have BRS. Good luck getting a CSA player to agree to '63 or '64 start.

If I were a CSA player and saw gunboats sitting in my harbor, I'd build a Brig (fairly cheap & quick). Bye-bye, gunboats.

The Naval Eng for Pickens or Monroe is a good idea. I don't know if it enables or promotes Hit recovery; I think I'll find out.

Landings in Strength: if I'm going to take a coastal City/Port, that's an Expedition. I want at least two Divisions, a **, and two *'s. Plus some spare 20 #ers, Wagons (plural), and some other odds & ends. A dedicated USN squadron is good. This takes time, men, money, and WS. I've pretty much forsworn an early N. O. expedition in my current games (they'e building fortifications there, according to messages), though haven't ruled it out entirely. Pity; N. O. is a huge hit to the CSA pocketbook. For N. O., I want a Very Serious Expedition and have sent Armies there, so **'s can co-ordinate and MTSG - there will be a counterstrike, if the CSA player is good.

Expeditions need to be Serious. No point in sailing away after gittin' whupped.

Taking Forts is something I haven't tried much. Might be an excellent approach.

[Gray Fox]

Just because you go away for a year, doesn't mean that suddenly a big Union navy works.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?34901-Some-more-Observations-from-a-Union-PbeM&highlight=granitestater+cw2

You're spending money/men/materiel and the CSA only loses some money that can be replaced. Math isn't a fuzzy science and I don't have to PbeM to see that something is a poor use of resources.

[GraniteStater]

Math isn't fuzzy. Neither is reading.

I didn't say anything about something 'suddenly' doing anything.

You believe building and using a real navy is a poor use of resources. Really? Letting the CSA have all the money it wants and doing little or nothing to hit them in the pocketbook, whilst throwing brigades against Longstreet in trenches is wise? Waiting for the next blow from TJ & Lee and AS Johnston and JJ and running around putting out fires from Raiding Cavaliers is The Way to Go?

The Union isn't going to win quickly. Every Union player should get that firmly in his head.

Good sir, I repeat, from what notable experience playing the Union are you drawing these conclusions? Any PbeMs? Playing a human is a different game.

Don't build Industry, don't use the blue Regions, they're a waste of time and resources. Really? Pray tell, what advantages are the Union supposed to use as a lever? Hordes of infantry with no support? I see you do see the virtues of artillery - good, that's demonstrably a Union advantage, build lots of cannon.

Anything else? Trying to improve your army with Service troops is not worth it? How about a River fleet - that's OK, in your cogent analysis? May I build a River fleet?

If you're going to do these things, why settle for half-measures? Why not see what a HiTek approach can do? Why not see what a determined blockade and Blue USN approach can do?

Have you tried, good sir? Has anyone here? Anyone? I've never read an AAR, nor seen a discussion of this approach - never, not in AACW, nor in CW2.

I'm gonna try. I started to do it against RebelYell and got far enough to see that yes, indeed, you can blockade Charleston. It's pricey, but can be done. That's three Forts - if that can be done, the other ports can be done.

Read the sticky above, for heaven's sake, from the horse's mouth, about Blockading - you increase %ages by Up Close and the CSA reaps benefits when not blockaded at certain ports.

The Union accrues Replacements and 'gets the red out' at half the rate of the CSA. Gee, ya think a Med unit might help? Think a Depot in place might help, so you don't have to leave your position to replace casualties? How about Engineers to dig in quicker, 'cuz the riposte is coming when you're parked outside a Strat City or an Objective. How about Signals, to improve your CPs and buff up Abilities?

Naah, none of those are worth it, just keep throwing bodies against entrenchments and watch CSA NM climb and climb...

Oh, we're going to outmaneuver everyone! Really? Ever check out the map of NoVA? Three Regions bottleneck the approach from DC, where, even if you hit on the end, MTSG can still be a bear. Then, when you drive them out of that, there's another lovely little jigsaw puzzle to disassemble on the Rappahannock. Oh, the Peninsula! Yes, the Peninsula, where you can't outflank a corporal's guard.

Let's not even talk about Paduchaland and the approaches to Memphis. Gee, ya think a River fleet might be helpful? That's after you defeat Hollins and the Free Stuff, which ain't gonna happen in the early going, 'cuz you gotta build all the 'clads and gunboats and river TPs...

I'm going to try Something Different, regardless of the scoffing, if I may. And, to underline the point, if you think it's such a waste of time, then play me in a PbeM. I say pitching, defense and three-run homers. You can play small ball and the running game, if you'll allow the crude analogies.

May the best player win. But I can't right now, I already have two going. I'll let the community know how it works out against havi and fiddlers25 (who just killed Sherman, 'cuz I was a bloody fool).

[ArmChairGeneral]

GS,
I think you have your metaphor backwards; YOU are playing small ball, chipping away at the South, going for the small advantages hoping they will add up over time, whereas those of us who instead spend our money on combat units and artillery are playing a power hitting game.

By the time Corps are formed the Union can have a giant lead in the number of divisions in the field if they don't waste their money and resources on the Navy. The Navy cannot win NM (well, maybe one or two per game if you are lucky) nor conquer production centers, whereas armies can. The cheapest, fastest and most effective way to reduce CSA production is reducing their NM. The next cheapest and fastest is to take their high production cities away from them. Why try to blockade NO, when you could instead, and for only slightly more resources, simply go and TAKE New Orleans?

If you find yourself unable to win battles, perhaps it is because your army is not large enough?

The onus here is on YOU to prove that HiTek Union is a better strategy than building up and going for their throats. It is important to the community that players try alternate strategies and post their results, and it is entirely possible that you may prove correct (though I am skeptical). But at this point it remains unproven, and it is not self-evident that it is a superior choice. And BTW, grinding it out to a VP win will not count as adequate proof, since the Union should be able to do that no matter what strategy they pick.

(Oh yeah, and please stop invoking PbEM when people disagree with you. It is not a valid argument, and as I've noted before is borderline offensive.)

[GraniteStater]

ACG, PbeM is about all I play. You can beat Athena on the most difficult levels and she's a good engine, but she's still not the same as a skilled human. Sorry if you or anyone takes offense, but it's a difference of kind, not degree.

If you read my posts rightly, I'm not trying to assert superiority of method. I want to see if it's viable.

Oh, yes, I'm sure the Union can be 3:2 or better in boots on the ground by early 62. Led by all those 3-1-1's who are going to steamroll Longstreet in level 4 trenches.

Against whom? Sergeant? Lieutenant? Colonel?

Or a human?

It matters.

I am deliberately eschewing certain things, to see if something works. Does this bother some here? Can't help them with that, I'm afraid.

fiddlers25 right now is at 83% overall land strength. That's a bit worrisome, but can be addressed. Now the land build-up gets into second gear.

And if you think a VP victory is unworthy, well, tell havi that. He fought very skillfully (and I wasn't HiTek and had almost no Promotions) and the tide didn't turn 'til late - but it did turn.

Or go play Pat 'Stonewall' Cleburne - he schooled me, but good, in AACW. Downright embarrasing.

And the smart money was on the '88 Athletics, IIRC. Four games to two, Dodgers.

And weren't the '04 Red Sox down 0-3 to the Yanks in the ALCS? Game Three had been an 18 - 9 loss. At Fenway.

I'm going to see if my strategy works in two PbeMs. I sincerely hope this meets with some modest degree of approval, especially, as far as I know, no one has tried it or written about it.

Keep ya posted.

[Cardinal Ape]

I agree that a Union 'big navy' strategy is rather bad, the self inflicted wound type of bad. Sure, I have always wanted to build an awesome fleet of 30 monitors but what would I use them for? It takes two to tango and the CSA never brings enough ships to the dance party to make it feel worthwhile or rewarding.

But that is just an opinion. It is a slow work night so I might as well do some testing because nobody seems to have any real numbers.

So a blockading we shall go, a blockading we will go, here are the facts that we know:

• A 95% blockade costs the CSA 40% of its city cash income per turn.
• A 40% blockade can be achieved by using your starting 11 blockade flotillas split between the boxes.
• A 95% blockade can be achieved without conquest by using 22 blockade flotillas in each box. This would require building 33 flotillas at a cost of $6,270.

Here are the numbers run against a standard CSA economy that has not lost any cities. Nor has it built any buildings. It's NM in the constant range of 102-104. The Flotillas are listed in pairs, one for each box. The 5.5 is your starting 11 flotillas, 5 in one box, 6 in the other.

[table="width: 400, class: grid, align: left"]
[tr]
[td]Flotilla Pairs[/td]
[td]Blockade %[/td]
[td]Income[/td]
[td]Loss %[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]0[/td]
[td]0[/td]
[td]214[/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1[/td]
[td]15[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2[/td]
[td]20[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]3[/td]
[td]25[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]4[/td]
[td]30[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]5[/td]
[td]35[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]5.5[/td]
[td]40[/td]
[td]180[/td]
[td]16[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]6[/td]
[td]40[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]7[/td]
[td]45[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]8[/td]
[td]50[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]9[/td]
[td]55[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]10[/td]
[td]55[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]11[/td]
[td]60[/td]
[td]162[/td]
[td]24[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]12[/td]
[td]65[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]13[/td]
[td]65[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]14[/td]
[td]70[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]15[/td]
[td]75[/td]
[td]152[/td]
[td]29[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]16[/td]
[td]75[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]17[/td]
[td]80[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]18[/td]
[td]80[/td]
[td]142[/td]
[td]33[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]19[/td]
[td]80[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]20[/td]
[td]85[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]21[/td]
[td]90[/td]
[td]132[/td]
[td]38[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]22[/td]
[td]95[/td]
[td]129[/td]
[td]40[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

The point:

11. Expanding the blockade is of limited use. A 100% blockade would only cause 50% of the CSA cash production per turn to be lost. Conscripts and War Supply are not affected. The South can easily replace the cash by printing money, raising taxes or selling bonds. So use the blockade squadrons you start with, but creating any further units for this purpose is not a good investment. -Gray Fox

As noted above, a 95% blockade only costs the CSA 40% of its city cash income per turn. You cite the blockade percentage of 65% - the difference between the starting 40% and 65% is roughly a $23 loss to the CSA income. In order to achieve this number without conquest it would require building 13 flotillas at a cost of $2,470. It would take around 6? turns to get the resources for construction and another 16 turns to build them. Throwing out the first 22 turns and the last 10 (because new units don't really matter at that point) this leaves around 83 turns of operating time. Increasing the blockade to 65% from 40% with an operating time of 83 turns loses the CSA an additional $1,900.

Can the South easily replace this loss? I'm not too sure... It doesn't seem that bad, not when it is spread over 4 years. That is $2,470 worth of infantry and artillery they don't have to conted with in the early years - that is a major boon. One way to think about it is: As the CSA would I be willing to pay $1,900 to not lose a major city before the autumn of '62? I think I would.

Obviously my numbers for the CSA income are not going to be the same in each game. The more industry the South builds the more effective the blockade will be. Same with their NM.

In the above I only addressed furthering the blockade by building flotillas. Increasing the blockade through other means, namely conquest, things look quite a bit different.

In my opinion, if you are serious about instituting an effective blockade you must take a major coastal city.

Economically, New Orleans is in the middle of Charleston and Mobile so I will use it as the example conquest. Here are the numbers:

[table="width: 400, class: grid, align: left"]
[tr]
[td]Flotilla Pairs[/td]
[td]Blockade %[/td]
[td]Income[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]0[/td]
[td]20[/td]
[td]164[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]5.5[/td]
[td]60[/td]
[td]133[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]6[/td]
[td]60[/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]7[/td]
[td]65[/td]
[td]130[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]8[/td]
[td]70[/td]
[td]127[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]9[/td]
[td]75[/td]
[td]124[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]10[/td]
[td]80[/td]
[td]121[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]12[/td]
[td]85[/td]
[td]119[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Taking New Orleans and having only your starting blockade flotillas in the boxes is equivalent to having 21 blockade flotillas in each box. That is worth 31 additional flotillas or $5,890. Add on top of that NO makes roughly 10% the CSA's conscripts...

Lets take it one conquest further. One of the easier, often overlooked targets, Fort Sumter. Taking Fort Sumter and placing a single artilery therein will induce a blockade on Charleston. Charleston is the richest un-blockaded city the South has. The effect in addition to New Orleans:

[table="width: 400, class: grid, align: left"]
[tr]
[td]Flotilla Pairs[/td]
[td]Blockade %[/td]
[td]Income[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]0[/td]
[td]30[/td]
[td]141[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]5.5[/td]
[td]70[/td]
[td]119[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]6[/td]
[td]75[/td]
[td]117[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]7[/td]
[td]80[/td]
[td]113[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]9[/td]
[td]85[/td]
[td]109[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]10[/td]
[td]90[/td]
[td]104[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Following this path would drop the CSA income to 119. If you put all your Union recruiting officers to work then you now make more conscripts per turn than the CSA makes money.

For the points to know thread we should do what Arrow did and break these bigger topics down into their own sub-section. Fox made five points in his point to know, some of them may be too subjective for the points to know thread, but his main point of, " So use the blockade squadrons you start with, but creating any further units for this purpose is not a good investment." is correct.

And to add one final point - or maybe it is a question - I sure as hell can't explain it. 50 flotillas in each box didn't get to 100% but when winter rolled around it happened out of the blue:

[ATTACH]38093[/ATTACH]

[Captain_Orso]

As with all things military, if you depend too much on one technology, you will be missing the advantages of another, and be leaving a weak-spot. Here's an anecdotal example. During WW-II when Soviet Union fielded the KV-2's the first times, they were super heavy assault tanks, with such heavy armor that PaK's and PzK's of the time could only penetrate them from the rear at close range. But they were super heavy, slow, and had no MG's. The USSR thought, with all that armor, what do they need with MG's? The Germans learned quickly how to deal with them. They stripped off their supporting infantry with MG fire and sent in a demolition team and ... *BOOM*, one less KV.

Principally, it is not a bad thing to reduce CS income; no argument there. I've played games where the South, even without a super-heavy blockade, still used all the money-making options they had and built up an army so quickly that I found myself outnumber!! That will get your sphincter to pucker .

I like to play for balance, which is to say, if the South fields 2 Ironclad somewhere I'll be sure to have 6. That's the balance I like to have.

I also like to make the other side make the difficult decisions; do I stay in Memphis and make the North fight tooth an nail for it, or do I rescue my army to fight another day. As the North I'll do either, to be sure, because destroying a southern army is worth anything it might cost me, and I'll replace my losses far quicker.

There are no simple Cut-n-Dry™ solutions. But if I cannot threaten the South in the East, and make advances in the West, I feel I'm doing something wrong. I like the idea of taking cities. That's a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

[GraniteStater]

Thanks for what I perceive as some support with cautions, Cap. Your Eminence the Ape, thass some fine number crunchin' there. But let me explain.

I don't go that nutty. Look, I would much prefer to take N. O. ASAP. Against a human, it's pretty dicey, believe me, I know. Unless the CSA player is asleep at the wheel, he's going to put men into N. O. and Charleston right away. Then he starts fortifying. In the meantime, the Union player is making Darn Sure he doesn't lose DC - or Baltimore, or get harassed at Harrisburg, etc. This takes men. Even against the AI, it's hard to get Farragut under way on that cocktail cruise before spring of '62. Again, against a human, I would advise a *** Army (even with Butler), for co-ordination purposes, two smaller Corps, at least; three to four Divs (even 10 element ones), Service troops, some 20#ers for the masonry, and three to four Wagons, plus some Cav. 'Course, if you want the Corps, that's March '62 at the earliest.

If you go into N. O. in say, fall '61, Feb '62, what are you taking? Two Divs who can't co-ordinate, at least for a few Turns? You think one Div is going to catch the Johnnies napping? BTW, you really need the Corps because you want to take Ft. Whatsisface tout suite, not for Supply, so much, N. O. has tons of that, literally, you'll be OK (you do need to clear a Supply route at some point, kinda handy); rather, to establish a flank, so to speak, spread out and establish an entrepot for further operations. Once you do that, you need a Div there, 'cuz the riposte is coming. So you need three Divs, at least, really - two for N. O. (one is not going to hold N. O. against a determined counter) and one for the Fort. And you want these as Corps for mutual support.

Charleston is a similar approach, with some differences. It's a little bit easier, with the luxury of switching to Savannah if needs must (and even that isn't a ripe fruit if the CSA knows its business). In either case, you must Go Big or Stay Home. Absolutely no sense in getting on the boats again with your tail between your legs.

In the meantime, well, we all know humans with the CSA just stay behind the Tennessee waiting for Grant, right? No one ever goes for Pittsburgh in strength, or sends the SuperStack under TJ to go rattle the cupboards in MD or PA, right? Or try to take St. Louis.

IRL, by June of 1862, the Union held:

* N. O.
* Nashville
* Fts. H&D
* #10
* Memphis

not to mention the Sea Islands in GA, Ft. Pulaski, had neutralized WVA for good, and were well on their way to putting MO behind them as a center of organized resistance.

Any Union player ever done that? Anyone? I'd settle for just the points on the starred list - never have done it, not in AACW, not in this game, Not Even Close, not against the AI, and most certainly not against a human.

So...you see, HiTek is one component. It's the primary component. If I do tack on Big Navy and Serious Blockade, what I'm doing is forswearing N. O and Charleston for the time being, but making an effort to crimp his wallet, not let him have unblotched books in the accounting department. In the meantime, I'm building up my Industry, largely for WS and $$, so that my economy is that much bigger than his slightly straitened one - AND to produce Service troops, Lotsa Guns, and oodles of Cav and Cav/HArty.

The big problem for me is me - doing stupid things. In each of my current games, I landed Grant with Sherman & Co. in late March, one at Bowling Green, one at H&D - unscouted - I had reasons to believe that these might be soft spots. I was wrong. I didn't know.

H&D was a fair fight and am going to retire without too much embarrassment. BG got wiped out to the last man and Sherman got kilt.

This is in Kentucky, essentially, mind you.

In 1.03 against havi, I was still trying to take Nashville in 1863. I wised up and did some Other Things, bottled him in Richmond, took Charleston and some other points and won narrowly on VPs. That was not Big Navy and a little bit of HiTek.

Why not use the economy as a Northern advantage? You think you're just going to steamroll the CSA with infantry by December '62? You're going to be Oh So Clever and outmaneuver southern Leaders all across the board? Gentlemen, bear in mind that 3:1 does not necessarily carry trenches (as in, it doesn't) against Div Leaders with Defense of 4, 3, even 2. You're not going to do this with 3-1-1s and semi-green troops, not even with Lotsa Guns.

Oh, yes, you'll probably bruise him quite a bit at 3:1, you might even win, but, as our cousins in Blighty say, not bloody likely, mate. And while you lick your wounds, the CSA is Replacing twice as fast as you. Sure, let's spend three Turns doing nothing but getting the red out so we can Try Again for another revival of Henry V. This where Depots in place and Med units come in - and you still won't Replace as fast as him, but it's better than vanilla methods.

So, if it's best to wait for Meade and Gibbon, wait for Sherman and Grierson, why not build a big industrial base, build an Army with Everything, put a Real Blockade on, and reap the benefits of an economic disparity the CSA cannot match?

Do you absolutely need the Big Blockade? No. But I think it helps to diminish the CSA $$ income, so your Big Economy has a better ratio in '63 than otherwise.

Gentlemen, to quote George Patton - I don't like to take the same ground twice. Once I'm there, it is mine. I'll wait for the Big Push and Big Turnaround.

I won against havi, because, at a certain juncture, I had options, different axes of approach to use, including the coast (and I never even landed at N. O.). He was tied down to certain points, I had enough strength to keep him there and choose other targets. Once I had seized enough Objectives and tilted the score, it was Over. The Union never looked back. havi is very dangerous and resourceful, he kept scrapping and contesting until the end, but he couldn't force me out of anyplace I held in strength.

The Navy is an adjunct and I wish to make it an important one - but it's not central. Big Indy (rationally; you don't need Powder Mills that much) and Lotsa Guns and Lotsa Wagons and Lotsa Toys is the central idea.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Meade? When does he become available? I wouldn't know, because I have usually ALREADY WON THE GAME by then ! No, you probably won't win the game that fast against a human, but you shouldn't have trouble getting Grant to 3* and Lyons to 2* (if not 3*) by Corps formation, and that is leadership enough. Grant in charge of an Army pretty much solves any local command problems you might have.

3:1 ratio not enough? Often this is the case when attacking key defensive positions. But how is building a factory the solution rather than building more troops and artillery so that you have 4:1? Obviously you can't win long term if you are taking heavy casualties every battle, (this is the Union, not the Soviet Union) but there are times when you just have to throw men at a position until you break through. If this exhausts all your fighting capacity, then you have a problem. If instead you have another Corp waiting right behind it ready to take up the offensive while the first stack recovers, then you can keep the pressure on. Where is this magical extra Corps stack and where are all the replacements needed to fix the first stack coming from? From all the blockade fleets and factories that you didn't build!

I'll wait for the Big Push and Big Turnaround.

Yes, and the time at which this can happen is as early as Spring/Summer '62 if you are not building factories and blockade fleets. If this is not happening until '63 or '64 then you are taking longer than necessary.

Your overall strategy is turtling, which is a solid (if conventional) plan for the Union. The place where I think you are mistaken is all the industrial and naval builds, which come with a heavy opportunity cost (on top of not giving you enough bang for their bucks in the first place). Those foregone troops are needed NOW, not in '64. The sooner you can switch over to (successful) offense from turtling, the better off you are. Sure you can have an (even larger) econ advantage in '63 and '64, but that won't hinder the CSA as much as you think, since if left unmolested they will be close to exhausting their build pools anyway, so only need enough resources for replacements.

The hardest part of playing the Union is being patient and not getting distracted by all the shiny toys they can (seemingly) afford to buy. The second hardest part is knowing when you are ready to make the Big Push. Guns, combat troops and (a judicious number of) support elements are what you need to win battles, and you need to start winning those battles as soon as possible.

[tribeticus]

I'm not a powerhouse like the lot of you guys, so please keep me off the chopping block, some of the back and forth here seems a bit too negative from some of you (not naming names) considering we are talking about what I consider to be the most FUN game of all time...lol. Many of you here, or maybe all of you, I consider to be my mentors on this game, so consider that before ripping me apart... With that said, I have logged rather ridiculous amount of hours playing for both sides at the highest Athena settings. I don't have the patience for PBEM, maybe one day.

So here is my ten cents: The CSA just doesn't bring in enough income to withstand replacements during any PROLONGED large-scale warfare which should start mid to end 1862. They have badass leaders and cool armies, but they cannot withstand the numbers the Union can throw at them over a prolonged period. As the south, the income is so low even without an extreme blockade that by 1862-1863 its just a headache to fight the Union and keep up the the replacements. I often am limited to have 15 replacements chits with the number 750+ above. I still win with the South every time by just trying to manage the resources as best I can, as I only switched to the south because the union is just too easy.

I don't see any advantage in buying anything but early Iron Works for either side. Lots of boat transports for the union in the shipping lanes. Buying lots of industry and war boats has only reduced my available funds for armies and I have seen no significant dollar returns, only EXTRA WS which I don't need by 1862. It would be nice to have a card to sell it off regularly.

For what it is worth, trying different strategies is what makes the game fun, so making the navies is a cool option, I might do that as the union to make the game harder...but the most effective way to win early is too take care in spending the resources and focus on building up the land units with the Navy and other tech only used as strategic support. As the union, after your buildup the south can't handle a prolonged fight and eventually you will overwhelm them. In fact I have started editing generals from both sides in my new games so that some come in earlier (i try to keep it balanced), because some of these guys you never get to see but in history they were commanding a division a year earlier, but that is just me messing around because I am a Civil War lover and the game never lasts long enough.

[GraniteStater]

Meade? When does he become available? I wouldn't know, because I have usually ALREADY WON THE GAME by then

Congratulations. Against whom? Yes, Athena on Colonel is no pushover and takes skill - but she can be beaten - I evolved HiTek against her, mostly 'cuz the Blue Tsunami was a tad boring, to be truthful. Now, to be fair, I haven't played Athena in a long while, so maybe a refresher wouldn't hurt. Still, a human opponent is a whole 'nuther ballgame.

but there are times when you just have to throw men at a position until you break through.

I'd rather not. Against havi, I did winkle him out of NoVA and pen him in Richmond (and came within a hair of taking it) - with McDowell, fer Pete's sake. I didn't do this by frontal attacks. I did it by (a) having a Peninsular/SE VA threat (I took Norfolk and then P-burg - with Butler?!), and (b) using the preponderance of force to create a good number of Corps, who went around, threatened his supply lines, and made his positions untenable.

A second reason not to assault is the slow Replacement stream for the Union. That second Corps assaulting against a 3/4 strength position still may not carry it. Then you get to wait for three, four Turns while you get your strength back. Oh, and what happened to my NM? When the Union attacks, it had better win.

My present NM against fiddlers25 in May 62 is 71. I made some mistakes and he has been very, very aggressive. Some defensive battles, I thought I should've won, but the program awarded the Vic to him. He has put together the usual Giant River Fleet under Hollins (that's a whole 'nother thread - where does the model justify these awesome CSN commanders with a free Ueber Fleet so early in the game?) and that needs addressing. He won some river battles, a couple of which cost some NM.

Yes, I run some risks with this approach. He can push early, but he can't stay (he did catch KY secedes, which is always good for the CSA). There's more guys coming - and don't forget, necks that get stuck out...my poor decision at Bowling Green came from wanting to catch him 'up ice'. He railed back, anticipating the landing. He has put TJ and Longstreet into KY/TN. He has serious strength there. He has Harper's Ferry.

But I'm pushing up the Peninsula, and am in Williamsburg. I've landed some Sailors in NC and TX, as a reminder. Rosecrans just showed up, and he's OK.

The first 24 Turns are over. fiddlers25 is very skilled. It's gonna be a long war and a great game.

[ArmChairGeneral]

When I say there are times, I mean a few times per game, like one to three. You are entirely correct to avoid them, and all the examples and methods you give to do so are appropriate. But there are times in every game where you simply can't avoid them, even if only during the final attacks on their capital. Presumably you will also eventually have to break through one of their defensive positions to even gain access to their capital. Obviously you do everything you can to avoid or ameliorate these situations through flanking, undermining, drawing away defenders through coastal invasions, etc. and you make sure that when you do have to fight one of these battles that every small advantage you can get is in your favor. You are entirely correct to note that if you misjudge it can quickly turn into a disaster (which is why you do everything you can to work around these kinds of battles in the first place).

There are only a few of these climactic battles per game, but when they occur they tend to be decisive one way or the other. Since winning these battles are key to victory, it is imperative that you have the weight of numbers on your side when they occur (having all tactical stuff like leadership, frontage, MTSG etc. also buttoned up is assumed). Overinvestment can limit the speed at which you can put this decisive weight of numbers into the field.

When these battles occur the Union must prevail or else they risk losing the game, and the best way to lose them is to not bring enough troops.

----

In most games technology and infrastructure investment is a no-brainer. In this game it is much less so. Technology advances without much player input and the payoff for infrastructure is (mostly) marginal. The most important tech advances for the South are the increased max entrenchment levels, which they get for free based on the calendar. The earlier you can shift to offense the lower a defenders max entrenchments will be. Entrenchments get really nasty at five and above, and you will take many more hits defeating the same size force (assuming there are a lot of artillery there, which there will be against a quality opponent). The earlier the Union can switch to offense, the easier time they will have of it. The Union's window of opportunity opens in the mid-game, but closes somewhat as higher entrenchment levels are reached, so if you are not ready until late-game it becomes a much tougher slog.

[Cardinal Ape]

For what it is worth, trying different strategies is what makes the game fun, so making the navies is a cool option...

Whatever floats your boat...

Yes, I agree. In my book being able to bring multiple strategies to the table is a strategy. If my opponent knows that I always start every fight by kicking him in the balls then eventually he will buy an iron nut protector and I will break my foot. Using the same strategy twice in a row against the same person is a major no go for me.

When I was browsing around the map, trying to find an idea for a new strategy I would use for my next game as the Union, I stumbled across a tool-tip that decided things for me. In the bio for J.C. Fremont, I learned that he had been expelled from Charleston college in his youth. Thus began the campaign of J. C.'s revenge on the heart of Dixie. Basing a strategy on that small factoid added quite a bit of fun and flavor to that game.

I am a Civil War lover and the game never lasts long enough.

The most effective strategy in this game is to seize the opponents capital as early as one can. So why don't people do this in every game? I almost never see it used against me. I've done it once as each side and have never felt the urge to do it again. I think it is because it works, and if it works it means the game is over. Its like watching sports; the most entertaining games are the ones that make it down to the final seconds before a victor is determined. I'd guess most people enjoy playing for the long game, winning be damned, they want taste of what really happened.

Having said all that, I still find it difficult to not listen to all inefficiency alarm bells going off in my head.

[Cardinal Ape]

I don't go that nutty.

It is a bit tough to discern exactly what you are doing; you haven't given a lot of specific details, like say, how many ships you build. I did get the impression that you were buying everything like it was going out of business. Sorry if I got that wrong.

If you go into N. O. in say, fall '61, Feb '62, what are you taking?

There is a big difference between these dates. I'd hesitate to conduct a landing in February of '62, nothing short of a full five division army would cut it for me. Not with corps right around the corner.

The window for this is not open long, but if you plan well and hit your timing right you can get in. To quote Straight Arrow, "The South trying to defend her coast is like a naked one-armed woman; you can only cover so much."

In the start of the war every front cries out for more troops. The South can not meet these needs. Two divisions is what should be in New Orleans by late October of '61. But who does this? Not me. I know I should - I keep telling myself that I will buy troops there next turn, on the next turn I say the same damned thing. Say someone does manage to employ the proper discipline and defends New Orleans, okay, the other coastal cities too? That is not going to happen, maybe if you find the one CSA player who devotes only 10% of their first year resources to the VA front then maybe.

In my current PBEM game this is the force that took New Orleans in early November of '61:

[ATTACH]38106[/ATTACH]

Four elite divisions led by Hooker. They will operating with a large CP penalty, though it will not matter much. No movement penalty since landing times are fixed. Nor will there be much affect on combat since the opposition is sure to fire first against an amphibious landing. I would have liked to have an army command for this invasion, but my opponent seems to be up to something in the Mississippi area so Fremont couldn't be spared. Maybe he could be, better not to though, if his army command leaves the front my opponent will wonder why. The other two armies protect the capital. Hooker is good enough to get the job done, but without an army command the prospects of making headway beyond the coast are small to nil.

The same turn the invasion force leaves New York, prepositioned scouts will leave the blockade boxes to spy on the coast. Eyes on as many targets as possible, even to those I don't desire. If I were to scout only my intended target I think my opponent might get wise to whats up. If I am feeling especially brave then I will send scouts everywhere except for my intended target. Faith in deception and blind landings have worked well for me is the past, at least until now...

The invasion force will sail from New York to the Florida Keys. From there the entirety of the Southern coast can be reached within a turn. Hopefully the scouts bring back news of a juicy city ripe for the taking. If everything is on lock down and there are no appetizing targets, well then, not much lost; its only a turn back to VA for Hooker.

[GraniteStater]

Four 17, 18 element Divs? Wow. You are guarding DC, right?

Good resource management.

[GraniteStater]

Some Lessons Learned:

* I probably did go overboard with the BFs. I'm going to have ten or so, which is about $1500 of early war money alone. I would say, build up the river fleet more. Add BFs if you wish, but at a slower rate.

* Cardinal Ape, in my 'game thread' with havi, showed he can put four 600 PWR Divs in N. O. in the fall of '61. Something to chew on there; a strong argument for Big Army.

* I need to get rid of some bad habits, most especially being lazy about intelligence. Some proper scouting would have prevented unwise river landings in both games. Also, I don't use the map overlays much, as in hardy ever. I might as well check some things out. Turns take about 90 minutes for me, as is (we're double-hosting). No need to hurry, my opponents will understand.

* I want to keep some aggression up in the early game. My unwise landings sprang from this. Difficulties in addressing CSA threats is an argument against over-indulgence in non-Army building.

* All that being said, both CSA players are at about 80% of land combat power (the yardstick mentioned in the tooltip). My present difficulties spring from the injudicious landings.

**********

FYI, havi has Foreigners at about 58. fiddlers25 is getting worrisome about NM, though - in the low 70s. That's Not Good At All, it really hurts Cohesion and fighting ability.

[Gray Fox]

FYI Cardinal Ape, if you add a 2-star to Hooker's stack, even though he would not be a Corps Commander, he would still act as stack commander and give you a small combat advantage.

[GraniteStater]

For those who might be interested, against fiddlers25 I blockaded Wilmington and Charleston recently. Wilmington takes two Blockade Fleets; Charleston, one.

Some hits, but they're sitting there in pretty good shape with good Cohesion. The Blockade is at 50%.

So, he didn't get a quarter of his $$ income tow Turns ago, last Turn, this Turn just emailed - nd likely for a few more. That's what, 50, 60, 70 $$ he didn't get and will never get - per Turn.

You know, I don't think developers spend a lot of time trying to make a good game and include features that are useless. Are mistakes made? Sure, they are, no one's perfect and I happen to work in IT, I'm very familiar with SDLC. Sometimes features don't work as planned, or don't have anticipated effects. But I don't think they would have something at your disposal which is just an utter waste of time for the player.

[Gray Fox]

Like Cardinal Ape, I ran a test over the weekend. With just the squadrons you start with, the CSA was losing $34 per turn. I then built 16 Blockade Squadrons (8 per box) and IIRC, 30 Brigs. The Brigs alone are the equivalent of an artillery Division in resources. I then did both blue and brown water blockades to get to 95%. This took away about $90 more than what I originally had from the CSA (or a total of $2340 per year). The CSA can raise taxes and sell bonds twice a year and then print money once with a net effect of zero inflation. That gets the South $3000 a year. That's more than $660 over the 95% blockade effect. The South could spend a little of that cash on RGD cards and have zero NM/VP delta too. So the Union can spend lots of resources for zero effect, while the South builds an army to take D.C.

The game should be fun to play. Players should experiment with strategies. No one wants to be in a rut. I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas. I'm just trying to help. Good luck!

[GraniteStater]

No matter how you cut it, it's money they don't get that Turn - and thus, never will.

I would say build more of a river fleet. I would also say I went a bit too far in blue water builds in my current games. If you want to try it, however, you must build some early - BFs take a long time.

Stiil, I notice on another thread, my esteemed Fox, you're advocating a judicious use of Cards, because, to paraphrase, 'every little bit counts for the South'. If that's so, well...

Also, I don't blockade the way you described. I add a little to the Boxes, for express purposes (don't want to reveal all my thinking). I then endeavor to close block high value ports. I don't expect a 75, 80% Blockade very soon. Reducing CSA $$ by 1/4 to 1/3 will do right now.

And I'm still learning.

[Gray Fox]

The "little bit" in that post amounts to about $1/1 CC/1 WS per turn. I think its not worth it, but ACG pointed out to me that several 100% loyalty cities might garner an extra Division by game's end. This isn't the same as the Union spending thousands of dollars, dozens of conscripts and hundreds of WS for zero effect.

We're all still learning.

[GraniteStater]

It's not zero effect. C'mon, if you're going to count beans, at least distinguish between 'not enough, imo', and zero (0).

For three Turns now, I have deprived fiddlers25 of 1/4 of his cash income. That's 3/4 of a single Turn's cash. He never gets that, never. It's gone.

Is it worth it? We shall see.

[Captain_Orso]

Okay, so your investment brings 25% less income for the South every turn. The question is then, take 25% of your per turn income and divide your total investment by that. That will give you the number of turns where your investment is equal to the Southern income loss. Every turn beyond that is profit, and is your ROI.

[Gray Fox]

The South needs X amount of cash, Y number of conscripts and Z number of WS per turn to make units. You do take away a small portion of X by blockading. However, the South replaces every bit of the lost cash as I described above. The CSA still has X, Y and Z to build an army and can build about a Division and two artillery batteries every other turn. It doesn't really need 2X, because they don't have 2Y or 2Z to use with it. You on the other hand, spend the equivalent of several Divisions in the early game building a blockade fleet. Even if you only build a few useless blockade ships and not the max, its having no effect, as in zero. The South still builds the same army they would have if you only used the starting blockade ships. There is no raccoon up that tree and no return on investment. Ever.