Naval CP

[pgr]

So I recently got myself a copy of TEAW (much to the disgust of my girlfriend...) and was quite pleased to notice that CP considerations had been applied to naval units.

Considering that there seems to be a lot of cross-pollination going on between TEAW and ACWII in the patching process, I was wondering if the naval CP system in use in TEAW could be brought into ACWII in a 1.05 patch?

My main complaint is that currently a Union player can create a naval Stack-o-Doom and can run batteries and shore bombard with impunity. Historically speaking, fleet coordination was as difficult in the high sees, if not more so, in the ACW than in WWI. Add to that the dangers of currents, narrow banks, bends, sand bars etc inherent in river operations, and the command and control problems of large river flotillas becomes pretty apparent.

It would also help the CSA navy be more survivable and relevant. The sort of small, no CP penalty fleet, vs the big CP compromised force.

I suggest this thinking that the change wouldn't be too hard to do, just kinda grafting some TEAW code and assigning CP cost to ship types and CP points to naval leaders.

[VigaBrand]

+1

[minipol]

It would indeed be nice. I still have to get back to TEAW after the RC patches

[grimjaw]

Sounds like good suggestions. Additionally, there are naval options not available to the CSA in the form of regional decisions that there ought to be. Dismounting guns for land use wasn't invented by the Union army, for instance.

[ajarnlance]

So I recently got myself a copy of TEAW (much to the disgust of my girlfriend...) and was quite pleased to notice that CP considerations had been applied to naval units.

Considering that there seems to be a lot of cross-pollination going on between TEAW and ACWII in the patching process, I was wondering if the naval CP system in use in TEAW could be brought into ACWII in a 1.05 patch?

My main complaint is that currently a Union player can create a naval Stack-o-Doom and can run batteries and shore bombard with impunity. Historically speaking, fleet coordination was as difficult in the high sees, if not more so, in the ACW than in WWI. Add to that the dangers of currents, narrow banks, bends, sand bars etc inherent in river operations, and the command and control problems of large river flotillas becomes pretty apparent.

It would also help the CSA navy be more survivable and relevant. The sort of small, no CP penalty fleet, vs the big CP compromised force.

I suggest this thinking that the change wouldn't be too hard to do, just kinda grafting some TEAW code and assigning CP cost to ship types and CP points to naval leaders.

+1. Look at what ONE CSA iron clad (the merrimac) was able to do at Hampton roads to a whole Union fleet... naval CP penalties would make the game more realistic...

[Captain_Orso]

Yeaaaah-no, bad example. The USS Cumberland was a sloop-of-war and the USS Congress a sail-frigate. Both lay at anchor down by Newport News and these were the two that were sunk. Since the sailing ships could not move the Virginia and the 3 gunboats of the James River Squadron could attack them one at a time without the other Union ships present being able to assist. They were not under enough steam to set out, or else they would have and easily outrun the Virginia. There were only 6 Union ships at the peninsula during the attack--tugs and other small auxiliary boats excluded--and one of those was a transport. They were not a fleet or a squadron or anything. They were at anchor.

Besides, an ironclad vs wooden-hulls... not a contest.

[aship]

During the Peninsula Campaign, the Merrimack/Virginia did tie up the entire Union fleet until it was blown up. Goldsborough planned to have a majority of his fleet try and ram the Merrimack/Virginia if she came out to attack again and was in deep enough water. This plan left McClellan with about 10 ships to use as gunboats during his advance until the Confederate naval threat was dealt with.
Aaron

[Merlin]

There was never anything close to the entire federal fleet involved in operations on the James and Chesapeake.

[aship]

Merlin, that is true. I should have worded that differently. The Merrimack/Virginia tied up most of the fleet under Goldsborough's command at Hampton Roads is what I should have said. Thank you for helping clarify my statement.
Aaron

[Merlin]

Ah. Yes, that is what happened.

[pgr]

well of course in game, if you tried to re-do the battle of Hampton Roads, 9 times out of 10 the reb fleet gets hammered quite a bit by Ft Monroe and cohesion goes to heck...

[Merlin]

I've never been hit by Monroe. Are you coming down the James after going to Richmond or leaving straight from Norfolk?

[Captain_Orso]

You cannot actually reenact the historic battle. To do that you would have to sail into Fort Monroe harbor to attack the ships 'within'. Now that would be a big surprise to the Union player

[pgr]

I've never been hit by Monroe. Are you coming down the James after going to Richmond or leaving straight from Norfolk?

I come down the James... What, are you telling me I can go to the roads directly from Norfolk?!?

Oh, and what do you fellas think of naval cp?

[ajarnlance]

I come down the James... What, are you telling me I can go to the roads directly from Norfolk?!?

Oh, and what do you fellas think of naval cp?

Thanks for getting us back on track pgr. Maybe Hampton Roads was a bad example. A better case study is the example of the CSA iron clad Arkansas. One CSA iron clad kept a lot of Union ships busy on the Mississippi early in the war. Here is an excerpt from Shelby Foote's classic:

'The combined might of two victorious Union fleets had been challenged, sundered, and repulsed by a single home made ten-gun ironclad, backed by the industry and daring of her builder and commander. Coming as it did, after a season of reverses, this exploit gave the people of the Lower Mississippi Valley a new sense of confidence and elation. They were glad to be alive in a time when such things could happen, and they asked themselves how a nation could ever be conquered when its destiny rested with men like those who served aboard the Arkansas under Isaac Newton Brown.'

I think the main point is to discourage super river stacks from completely dominating the water ways. River combat was also about surprise and daring. I think a naval CP is long overdue.

[Captain_Orso]

AJ, you're ironclads love hitting ships at anchor

I suppose it would probably be fitting depending on exactly how it were implemented. I don't know how it's done in TEAW, but I don't think a 1-1 conversion of the land unit's CP's would be such a good idea nor realistic.

Maybe for every 4 or 6 boats in a fleet require a CP, and on rivers reduce there frontage. It would be difficult to bring a lot of boats in a large fleet to bear on a river with limited room to maneuver.

As far as ironclads and wooden ships go, I think there will always be some issues with that. The game is just no geared for taking armor, high-velocity guns, penetration and critical hits into account, unless I've missed something with TEAW.

[pgr]

In TEAW it seems like they have different CP values and different CP caps compared to land units....though I'm just scratching at the surface at this point.

[elxaime]

I think at the level of abstraction of CW2 the naval system is OK. Historically, despite some minor victories, the Confederacy was never able to seriously threaten the supremacy of the Union brown or blue water fleets. They simply lacked the industrial capacity to do so. The game allows the CSA player to build a larger fleet than was possible due to the abstraction of WS. In reality, certain parts and industrial processes necessary to build credible modern warships just could not be done at that time in the south. What they accomplished was remarkable, but it was jury-rigged for the most part.