California Ports

[James W. Starnes]

Is it possible to create an event mod where if the CSA captures the CA ports, an event triggers where trade all the sudden is a lot less restricted, and foreign intervention is increased due to the free pacific (except the pacific fleet)? Getting these ports were Sibley's top priorities for this reason. I just thought it to be a nice addition to give the player a more dynamic/competitive stance in the Far Western theater, besides the player completely abandoning it to avoid the Union from achieving VP in places like Arizona.



"For years, residents in the southern part of the New Mexico Territory had been complaining that the territorial government in Santa Fe was too far away to properly address their concerns. The withdrawal of the Regular army at the beginning of the war confirmed to the residents that they were being abandoned. Secession conventions in Mesilla and Tucson voted to join the territory to the Confederacy in March 1861, and formed militia companies to defend themselves.[9][10] In July 1861, Lieutenant Colonel John Baylor led a battalion of Texas mounted rifles into the southern portion of the New Mexico Territory, entering Mesilla and repulsing the attack of the Union garrison of Fort Fillmore at the First Battle of Mesilla. The victorious Baylor established the Confederate Territory of Arizona south of the 34th parallel.[citation needed]

The 1862 campaign was a continuation of this strategy formulated by Sibley in a plan presented to Confederate president Jefferson Davis. Sibley's strategy called for an invasion along the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains, seizing the Colorado Territory (then at the height of the Colorado Gold Rush) and Fort Laramie (the most important United States Army garrison along the Oregon Trail), before turning westward to attack the mineral-rich Nevada and California. He planned to take minimal supplies along with him, intending to live off the land and to capture the stockpiles of supplies at Union forts and depots along the Santa Fe Trail. Once these territories had been secured, Sibley intended to take the northern Mexican states of Chihuahua, Sonora, and Lower California, either through purchase or by invasion.[11]"





Brig. Gen. Henry H. Sibley, a former regular army officer serving in New Mexico, resigned his commission and traveled to the Confederate capital to present such a plan to Jefferson Davis. Sibley proposed to lead a mounted force to New Mexico, live off the land, defeat the Federal forces encountered and secure the military supplies and natural resources of the territory (encompassing modern New Mexico and Arizona, as well as part of Nevada) for the Confederacy. He would then march north, capture the rich mines of the Colorado Territory and proceed west through Salt Lake City and across the Sierras to occupy the California seaports of Los Angeles and San Diego. In one stroke, Sibley would bring the entire Southwest, its gold and silver and the terminus of the transcontinental railroad under Confederate control. Though farfetched, the scheme cost the Southern treasury little and retained the possibility of a sizable return. It was approved, and Davis commissioned Sibley a brigadier general, giving him authority to raise a mounted brigade in Texas for the campaign.





Sources: CivilWar.org; Wikipedia

[Durk]

Playing the Sibley scenario, it is possible to capture these ports without an event mod. I have never tried in the Grand Campaign, but I suspect if you spend the same resources you can also capture them without a mod. As I recently discovered this ability in an ongoing game of the Sibley scenario, I will try this the next time I play a Grand Campaign as the South. Capturing Southern California is the key and is easy to do.

[Captain_Orso]

Capturing San Francisco will already give you a large unblockaded harbor; one which can only be brown-water blockaded. What more do you want? In reality, trade with Europe through San Francisco would be minimal. It's a hell of a long way from Europe to California. Plus, anything imported through San Francisco would then have to be transported over land to the east. In-game any WSU and money earned through San Francisco is immediately available to the Confederacy, so simply having captured San Francisco will give you an unrealistic advantage.

[James W. Starnes]

Capturing San Francisco will already give you a large unblockaded harbor; one which can only be brown-water blockaded. What more do you want? In reality, trade with Europe through San Francisco would be minimal. It's a hell of a long way from Europe to California. Plus, anything imported through San Francisco would then have to be transported over land to the east. In-game any WSU and money earned through San Francisco is immediately available to the Confederacy, so simply having captured San Francisco will give you an unrealistic advantage.

Okay, thanks. About the "what if," I think it was ment for a long run trade source, after all, as you said, it would be hard getting the supplies all the way to the CSA. I think it was ment to profit over time, when steady supply routes could be found and established.

[DrPostman]

Sorry for the slow reply - I've been offline for 2 weeks! Having only an FM radio
for news sucks - anyway, Sibley's plan to "live off the land" was his biggest mistake.
The game reflects this very well. The Far West is a supply game. If you bring
enough you can win. I wish capturing San Fran would give you at least access to
a few ships that could have been fitted out for war. The Union navy always gets
the hell out of dodge and leaves nothing behind.

[DrPostman]

One thing that's a bit gamey is that I've sometimes shipped CSA divisions to California
to take some of the smaller ports. Never got intercepted by Athena.

[Captain_Orso]

Hey, DrP! nice to have you back

The Pacific Fleet gets away if you don't capture San Francisco fast enough. It is locked, and remains locked until it is attacked, which can only happen per Assault.

I'm not sure of the mechanics of whether ships/boats in the harbor of a city are captured or escape, but it seems that the quicker the garrison of the city is subdued, the more likely any ships/boats in the harbor will be captured.

Of course, the Union doesn't send a fleet around to the Pacific to chase your invasion fleet. The Union probably has no idea that it's even on the way. But even if the Union did know that a CS fleet were on the way to the West Coast, there are no unlocked Union ships on the West Coast to intercept them, and any unlocked Union ships on the East Coast would never have time to catch up.

But as the South, I'm not sure I'd send any troops by ship around the Horn anyway; it's a long grueling trip by sea (every day at sea causes cohesion loss) and you have no place to recover on the way nor when you arrive. I've done this at least once, and IIRC I landed in the SF region and then had to sit there in PP for a couple of turns while recovering Cohesion, while drawing supplies off the transports, what little was left. If the Union garrisons unlocked or a reaction force were raises or something I it would have been a total loss.

If there is a depot in Los Angeles that would probably be a better place to land. It will likely not be heavily garrisoned (how friendly of them!!) which will buy you time to recover cohesion before marking on SF.

Still, though, without Naval Shipping, which the South does not have, non of the GS on the West Coast will ever arrive in the East. Because of game mechanics, however you will get is the money and WSU which make the gold mines especially interesting .

But if you capture the the 'California Trail', maybe improve it, and get a depot in each OMB, you can get all those supplies in San Francisco to start flowing through Arizona and on into New Mexico. But that also contains an inherent danger; an attack along the Texas-New Mexico flank to cut supplies.

No simple solutions here muchachos

[DrPostman]

Yea, I've never even tried landing in San Fran. Always take LA with a landing and convert
one of the transports into a depot.

[Captain_Orso]

... or, once you have taken LA, you could build a flatboat and use that to build a depot .

But the depot will still only store the resources created by LA itself, until you have captured other CA regions. Remember, the South does not have naval supply, even if you put transports into the Shipping Box.

BuUuUut, since the engine is pretty generic on some things, a depot in LA will still give you increased replacements

[DrPostman]

Building a flatboat takes an extra turn, so I build one right away. I always
bring plenty with me.

[Captain_Orso]

The first question is really, how much supply is LA actually producing, and do you.. the first two questions are, how much supply is LA actually producing, and do you need a depot for that amount, and how quickly do you.. three!!, there are three questions, of which the first three.. are ..... h-h-how much supply is LA actually producing, d-do you need a depot for that amount, and how quickly do you need that depot ......


When you're invasion fleet has arrived off the coast of CA, it will have been underway for several months. They will have used a fair amount of supplies, depending on force size and how much they are carrying. If you immediately take LA, the first thing that will happen, is that your land force will soak up supplies captured in LA. Then when the fleet sails into port the next turn, it to will soak up supplies, because transports, just like supply trains, are supply sponges, even if you would rather the transports were empty of supply so that they can be more easily distributed elsewhere.

If you have to besiege LA before taking it, to allow for time to recover cohesion and to gain a breach, your force will be consuming further supplies which they are carrying. Also, during the siege, LA will not be getting supplies into the city if the harbor is blockaded other than supplies produced in the city, plus supplies the besieged force uses, plus the supplies destroyed during the siege bombardment, so there will be fewer supplies yet when LA is captured. So when it is, there will be even less need for a depot.

In the end, a depot my be of no use in LA at all, especially if you then abandon LA to take SF, why leave a depot full of supplies dangling like a 2" thick, sirloin steak in front of a hungry bear ...

[DrPostman]

I always bring 2 divisions and about 6 supply wagons, and more than enough transport
to carry them. That's why I use the transports instead of the supply wagon or building
a flatboat. Also, I usually have a force coming up from Arizona towards LA to connect
to the supply network.

[Captain_Orso]

Great Caesar's Ghost!! You'll double the population of California!

Confederates in California
>> <- Obviously Sibley



<<

Rest of California population
>> <<

With that investment, you'd better get ALL the gold mines pretty quickly

[DrPostman]

That's the plan. Go for ALL the gold. San Fran isn't nearly as important.

[Captain_Orso]

Taking every region in which the Union can build and support units to slow you down is however important.

Since SF is fortified, and the Union generally has more forces to spare, taking SF will deny the Union a harbor into which he can simply sail a relief force to then recover safely within the fortifications, before coming out fully recovered to take after your invasion force.

Also, IIRC SF does produce a lot of supplies you don't want to fall into Union hand, although it doesn't hurt the Union nearly as much as it does the South, because as soon as the Union takes SF, it will commence receiving naval supply too. Remember, naval supply does not measure distances; every coastal harbor is equally distant from every other, eg supplies going from New York City to Brooklyn takes exactly as long as from Boston to SF. So the turn after taking SF, SF can start receiving supplies.

[DrPostman]

Oh, I always want San Fran too. The gold is the main objective though.

[James W. Starnes]

I just demolished the CSA as the Union in 63. I've started a CSA campaign, my main investments are building factories, and extending riverine/railroad pools. However, I have been forming brigades of infantry out west, going to send some good generals that are skilled in reducing supply usage, and are fast movers if possible. I'm going to focus on New Mexico and CO first, I don't want those forces to consolidate and take NM (therefore cutting me while in AZ/CA). From there I'm going to decide to either haul ass through Fort Laramie and invade from the North for a quick capture, or go all the way back around through AZ. I might choose the latter, to maintain a steady supply line. If I have enough supply wagons, I'll go through Fort Laramie. Hell, sometimes I send army commanders there. Usually I'll have Lee and Jackson in VA, Beauregard and Sydney Johnston in TN, and a compilation of brigade/corp commanders in IT and MO. So this leaves me with Joseph Johnston, who I send in the far west. Sometimes I'll think about switching division commanders like Kirby Smith over there where I can reduce supply and move quick in those rocky mountains. I'm quite confident that I'm going to win the far west, and put that Biderman Flag BACK OVER SACREMENTO apy:

[Straight Arrow]

These plans all involve major investment.

If you want the goldfields, I suggest using demonstrators to lower the loyalty to the point you can muster copperheads or create a swarm of partisans.

If the North fails to garrison, or only weakly garrisons, the mines, this is a cheap and efficient way to grab the gold.

[Cardinal Ape]

Sometimes I'll think about switching division commanders like Kirby Smith over there where I can reduce supply and move quick in those rocky mountains.

Ya, if you have multiple divisions in the Far West, you do really need a general with the 'Master Logistician' trait. E. K. Smith, is an excellent choice, but he doesn't get the trait until rank two. Its been a while since I played the CSA, no other early war generals with the trait are coming to mind.

Sadly, the 'Supply Ranger' trait is almost useless in the theater because it doesn't cover deserts and steppes terrain types. This has always bothered me a bit, and I've wondered if it was an oversight to not include them since the trait seems to be intended for use in the theater. Several of the generals who start in the theater, like Carson and Baylor, have the trait, so it leaves to question if it should be more useful.

[DrPostman]

These plans all involve major investment.

If you want the goldfields, I suggest using demonstrators to lower the loyalty to the point you can muster copperheads or create a swarm of partisans.

If the North fails to garrison, or only weakly garrisons, the mines, this is a cheap and efficient way to grab the gold.

That is a great way to do it, and against Athena it's fool proof.