Riverine movement suggestion

[RebelYell]

Could we get an option to turn it on/off?

[RebelYell]

Anyone else feel this is the most unrealistic feature in the game?

[Blutch]

+1

I think this option should be study by developpers.
In fact with river transport possible you really don't mind about geography.

Playing against RebelYell who is a partisan, I discover how it increase union's side interest !

[Pocus]

You mean it is just too convenient, right? There was a feature request about that during beta but it was not done in the end.

[Blutch]

Yes, just an option to forbid use of river transport without ships would be great.

[Ol' Choctaw]

That is a problem. The Problem.

It is needed by the AI. If you just eliminate it, it is also going to give you supply problems.

Solutions are much more complex and not deemed worth the results.

[veji1]

Aye.

It was already the case in AACW. Might make it very difficult for the AI to conduct river operations though, and it might mean more micromanagement for troops transport behind the lines, but it should just not be possible to do that in contested territory. I would advocate something (complicated though) along the lines of abstract river transport only possible up to a point where an ennemy has more than 50% MC of an adjacent land province. Ie that should still allow river transport of troops along rivers far behind the front (on the Mississippi for the CSA up til Memphis or so at the beginning of the war, etc, on all northern rivers for the Union). But as soon you end up having to go near combat zone. Zou blocked. That way up until the union secured the coastal approaches to its objective, it would have to use actual physical transports. You can't just hop on the river and appear at Memphis or Nashville if you don't have a secure control of the provinces along the river. You can get there via river, but you then have to use actual river transports.

[veji1]

That is a problem. The Problem.

It is needed by the AI. If you just eliminate it, it is also going to give you supply problems.

Solutions are much more complex and not deemed worth the results.

I think he only meant troops transport, abstracted supply transport via rivers is a great thing and works fine I think, as entrenched artillery on the side of a river would block it if I am not mistaken.

[Ol' Choctaw]

This is all stuff brought up in development and beta.

Players and Devs working to gather to find solutions.

It just didn’t turn out at the time to be practical.

[veji1]

Cool, we are not criticizing or demeaning the work. Just saying that it was a known issue carried over from AACW and leads to some real game play problems with troops "traveling" on rivers on phantom transports to faraway under enemy control lands... Cool to see it get the attention it deserves.

[RebelYell]

I think he only meant troops transport, abstracted supply transport via rivers is a great thing and works fine I think, as entrenched artillery on the side of a river would block it if I am not mistaken.

Yes, only to disable the button. You can mention in the option that it is recommended for PBEM games.

CSA player is crazy if he allows the use of the button by the Union opponent..

[RickInVA]

I would think that this would only be both a) unrealistic and b) a problem if actual river naval units cannot attack units/forces moving this way. I know I have accidentally moved forces by "river movement" near an enemy fort and the whole stack got sunk. So if you don't patrol your rivers why would it be unrealistic for a unit/force to requisition a bunch of barges or other civilian river craft and sail up/down the river? So long as the calculus includes the likely possibility that your whole force may get sunk by a couple of small military craft I don't see what the problem is.

[RebelYell]

I would think that this would only be both a) unrealistic and b) a problem if actual river naval units cannot attack units/forces moving this way. I know I have accidentally moved forces by "river movement" near an enemy fort and the whole stack got sunk. So if you don't patrol your rivers why would it be unrealistic for a unit/force to requisition a bunch of barges or other civilian river craft and sail up/down the river? So long as the calculus includes the likely possibility that your whole force may get sunk by a couple of small military craft I don't see what the problem is.

Think about it.

Union moves an army of tens of thousands of men to Fort Smith AR and jumps on transports to move down river, how is that possible in real life?

Where would they get those transports? Would the enemy not move or destroy them?

It should be possible to observe the enemy gather transports at some harbor before movement, now they appear out of thin air.

The game has cheap flatboats you can build fast, the button is basically a cheat in a PBEM.

[Ol' Choctaw]

There is also a matter of casualty assessments. These forays usually pass by forts and guns with little loss. In reality troops and ships take damage simultaneously. Losing a ship also results in the loss of a regiment or two. If a player risked losing a brigade when doing this, you would find it far less likely he would try a second time. Instead we get a few losses spread across the force which are quickly replaced.

[Pocus]

I for one would not be against preventing river moves if the nearby regions are 'hostile'. This demands thinking and we must be sure it is not a CPU sink in calculations also.

[Skibear]

Seems like this has not been mentioned for a while but remains for me the single most unsatisfactory feature of the game. Without a house rule it is too easy for a unit to rustle up an armada of magic canoes and transport potentially thousands of troops, horses and guns over sea or river. Its a bit crazy really and nothing upsets my historical sensibilities more than seeing 20,000 CSA troops invade Evansville by canoe, or a defeated army disappear by sea from a province with 100% MC, presumably from rafts they made from driftwood on the beach.
I can see the need for the AI to be able to cut corners maybe however a few things I think would help for humans (and maybe could still work to be flexible enough for the AI too:

-Riverine transport can only begin and end at a friendly harbour with at least 'X' MC. This should get riverine transport back to what it should be; a ferry service to ease micromanagement in rear areas (not the emergency get out of jail free card it can be now). Similar to railroad conditions this can prevent invasions with rivinerine transports, or magic evacuations from a tight spot after a defeat. There might be a question of what happens if intercepted on route by naval forces. I would say at least disastrous losses and bouncing back towards nearest friendly harbour, or disastrous losses and continue to destination harbour. But either way should discourage use in dangerous areas given that theses are replicating civilians barges and rafts etc..

-A further feature to consider if the first feature is too tough to code might be that riverine transport incurs cohesion and hit damage to a) make sure that by the time they try to raid/invade they are too re-organised to suceed b) to recreate the losses and confusion inherent in trying to move an army by water using unseaworthy requisitioned barges and rafts unsuiable for the task causing losses to men and material.

-Riverine transport blocked by sea/river areas covered by forts. Pretty straight forward really, disaster would ensue.

[pgr]

Perhaps the simplest fix would be to up the day movement cost as the size of the transported stack goes up. Correct me if I am wrong, but the bigger the stack, the more days it takes to move from region to region? If stacks bigger than 2 divisions end up taking ages to go anywhere, it might make the more gamey use of riveriene transport less practical.

(As an aside, I tend to have similar complaints about RR transport. It would be good to have a bit more friction IMO)

[Captain_Orso]

Moving on rivers has been on my mind -again- for a while now. Yes, its a thorn in my side too. More to that in a moment.

Rail movement is far from historical. It does not take into account that there were not national rail roads, that they were generally, relatively local or only crossed a couple of states, rail lines nearly always ended in each city they entered with the next line starting on the other side of town and continuing from there. Still rail travel itself historically was far quicker than it is in the game. Look at the movement of Hooker's corps in '63 from Virginia to Chattanooga for an example.

Back to river transportation. Much of the transportation on the western rivers the military used was hired. It didn't belong to the army nor the navy, but was privately owned.

Actually, simply moving across a major river without having first procured river transportation was a major issue. For example, it kept the Army of the Ohio and Tennessee from coordinating in moving on Nashville in '62, because A. J. Johnson had cleared the Columbia of steamers near Nashville specifically to cause this cleft. But, it didn't take that long for Buell to alleviate the situation; a week or so IIRC.

On the other hand Banks couldn't find two steamers to rub against each other on his retreat from his Red River campaign, but then again, he was in a bit of a hurry .

Still, local transportation was often used in crossing rivers quickly for small forces, even in enemy territory. Think about how Morgan got his cavalry into Indiana on his '63 raid. But once it was known that he was on hand, he too couldn't find transports to get back to the south side of the Ohio.

What is also a major, unhistorical PITA is that it simply does not take days to debark from transports. Look at Sherman's movements during the Battle of Chickasaw Bayou. It didn't take 5 or 7 days to get his 30,000 men off the transports and into battle at all. And there was no harbor with quays to facilitate unloading troops and equipment, but they still did it within a matter of hours, not days.

Also, if you use riverine transports from the pool to move into a town with a harbor, you don't sail into the harbor, but 'unload' in the field and then 'move' into the town. If course if your town is being besieged, you are screwed.

Further, if you use riverine transport units to move your forces by sailing them into a harbor, once they arrive, there is no possibility to move further during that turn regardless of how short the trip on the river was.

Pgr, AFAIK the size of a stack does not affect its movement rate--other than with regards to the new, not yet finished traffic rule. But increasing the disembarking or movement penalties is for my taste a step in the exact opposite direction of how things should be.

I wrote extensively during brainstorming and beta testing about what might be done to alleviate at least some of these situations, but everything got pushed back for more pressing matters.

There is much that could be done, but I'd like to hear what others are thinking on the situation.

[tripax]

I can think of a couple things:

Did the either side use the Mississippi alongside Kentucky before Kentucky picked a side? I think that riverine movement interior to Kentucky should be impossible before Kentucky picks a side, and maybe Mississippi invasions of Island 10 as well.

Forces on shores with good MC should be able to draw supplies from the water without having a harbor on hand.

Regarding skibear's point about escaping by sea, Units trapped in a region because they have too low power and MC should not be able to use riverine travel to escape a region.

[Mickey3D]

Regarding skibear's point about escaping by sea, Units trapped in a region because they have too low power and MC should not be able to use riverine travel to escape a region.

+1

[Skibear]

Re. Battle of Chickasaw Bayou. That was Sherman being transported by a fleet of gunboats and troop transports. Thats an entirely different proposition to utilising riverine transport points for combat or offensive movement in enemy territory. As Capt Orso states generally folks made sure there wasn't steamers left lying around waiting to be acquired and used ad hoc by the enemy. In this case a) Buell had to bring his own ie. this should be specific transport units. b) Banks has to do without. Its not like the Union is short of resources to ensure that it has adequate transports to use for offensive operations.
For me the mission statement for riverine transport points is that there are to avoid micromanagement of supply, and for ferrying units in friendly territory. This is how I restrict their use for my games by self discipline/house rule and find it works fine, is not a game stopper in the slightest. But in 'no house rule' tournaments etc.. then obviously it becomes a free for all and for me personally seeing it used for offensive ops spoils my enjoyment quite a bit.
I think at a minimum there are 2 solutions to consider as covered above; a) riverine transport must start at a friendly harbour to ensure a supply of boats to requisition b) cohesion hits should be incurred to simulate working with civilian boats unused to the amphibious task and make sure that fighting at the other end is less possible. These 2 things would be a step in the right direction I think and should still be workable for the AI.

[Captain_Orso]

I can think of a couple things:

Did the either side use the Mississippi alongside Kentucky before Kentucky picked a side? I think that riverine movement interior to Kentucky should be impossible before Kentucky picks a side, and maybe Mississippi invasions of Island 10 as well.

I'm not sure, but either side could have. The Mississippi 'belonged' to the state(s) bordering on it. Kentucky could have no issues with either side using the Mississippi, or the Ohio for that matter.

What exactly the status of the Tennessee and Columbia Rivers passing through Kentucky to reach the Ohio was, I honestly don't know. But I feel it would have been a very harsh thing for Kentucky to do if they 'tried' to forbid CS river traffic through those portions of the rivers which pass through Kentucky. It would probably also be illegal, because the US has laws specifically allowing moving through somebody else's property to transition it or access your own property. So I don't think Kentucky could have even legally forbid the use of those sections of the rivers to either side.

Forces on shores with good MC should be able to draw supplies from the water without having a harbor on hand.

This is and has always been the case. The receiving force must simply be close enough to a supply source and or have--if further than 1 region away from a source--have a supply unit.

Regarding skibear's point about escaping by sea, Units trapped in a region because they have too low power and MC should not be able to use riverine travel to escape a region.

I think the current rules may already cover this pretty much, although I'm not certain. Using the riverine transport pool simply allows you to move into river regions. If you try to do that the enemy still has the opportunity to attack the 'retreating' force before they can leave their current region, and the defending--retreating--force will have the river-crossing penalty in the battle if it occurs.

The one thing that may be in contention is that compared to being surrounded by land regions which are all in enemy hands, river regions have no control from either side.

The real question is, how should the use of the riverine transport pool be regulated overall.

Re. Battle of Chickasaw Bayou. That was Sherman being transported by a fleet of gunboats and troop transports. Thats an entirely different proposition to utilising riverine transport points for combat or offensive movement in enemy territory. As Capt Orso states generally folks made sure there wasn't steamers left lying around waiting to be acquired and used ad hoc by the enemy. In this case a) Buell had to bring his own ie. this should be specific transport units. b) Banks has to do without. Its not like the Union is short of resources to ensure that it has adequate transports to use for offensive operations.

This is the crux of the situation. Historically there was no difference between what is in game transport units and the riverine transport pool.

From the way the game works each have their own functions. You cannot for example transport supplies to a harbor with a depot using transport units. In fact the opposite of such an intention would occur. The transport unit would try to take supplies from the depot, but not give an up to the depot, even if the transport unit is in the harbor and the depot is empty while the transport is is full.

The transports will however give supplies to friendly units in the same or adjacent regions.

The riverine transport pool will move supplies to any region within range--and that's the crux of this situation--and with enough 'pull' to attract supplies over the distance and ability to move through the necessary regions.

For me the mission statement for riverine transport points is that there are to avoid micromanagement of supply, and for ferrying units in friendly territory. This is how I restrict their use for my games by self discipline/house rule and find it works fine, is not a game stopper in the slightest. But in 'no house rule' tournaments etc.. then obviously it becomes a free for all and for me personally seeing it used for offensive ops spoils my enjoyment quite a bit.

I think the main contention is in general using the riverine transport pool from enemy territory, where one might expect that it would not be so simple to find access to transports. But as with the example of Morgan's raid it's also not entirely impossible.

I think at a minimum there are 2 solutions to consider as covered above; a) riverine transport must start at a friendly harbour to ensure a supply of boats to requisition b) cohesion hits should be incurred to simulate working with civilian boats unused to the amphibious task and make sure that fighting at the other end is less possible. These 2 things would be a step in the right direction I think and should still be workable for the AI.

There are no simple solutions. Simply owning a harbor should not necessarily allow you to find enough transports to move away from that region. Think about capturing a harbor somewhere deep in enemy territory. On the one side, one might assume that since the harbor was captured, the 'local transports' might also have been captured, but then again, with enough forewarning they might have been ordered away. Getting a generic rule to reasonably regulate this without an overall view of the situation which developed over a number of turns is practically not possible.

I strongly believe that cohesion should not be touched at all. Transports were nearly--if not completely--all civilian. Every historic example of troops being transported along or over a major river demonstrate that there was no issue with this.

[Skibear]

I strongly believe that cohesion should not be touched at all. Transports were nearly--if not completely--all civilian. Every historic example of troops being transported along or over a major river demonstrate that there was no issue with this.

The point here is there should be a difference between an expedition (represented by in game units) organised by the navy and likely led by a Commodore (even if not an in game leader), and an ad hoc flotilla of locally requisitioned steamers, barges and rafts that is not fitted or trained for purpose for amphibious operations and is much more likely to turn into a clusterf***. The cohesion loss represents this disorganization, prevents it being used for for assaults, but still allows its flexibility to ferry drafts of re-reinforcements in friendly territory that will need a few days to re-form on arrival. Not very restrictive but prevents miss-use.

[Captain_Orso]

I have no knowledge of any boats "fitted or trained for purpose for amphibious operations". If you do, I'd be greatly interested in hearing about them. Sources are always welcome.

Most major military actions on the western Rivers were accompanied by gunboats and ironclads, which were under the command of Foote, Porter, Davis, etc.; so these naval commanders were necessarily a part of these operations. They were also very motivated to support the army where possible and encouraged by their high command to readily do so.

The idea that the simple transportation of troops to a disembarking location without the guidance of the highest ranking naval officer in the department would result in a clusterf*ck is I believe just your imagination.

However there has been some talk about implementing CP requirements for naval units, which might the require some sort of naval commander to enable the efficient transportation of troops by riverine transports. How and whether this might also be expanded to include troops using the riv.trans.pool remains to be seen.; but you just might get your wish fulfilled.

[Skibear]

I did not saw anything about needing the highest ranking naval officer, but I did say that some sort of naval officer not necessarily an in game character implied by using specifically chartered transport units would improve co-operation and make operations run more smoothly. Without such co-operation with an ad-hoc flotilla thrown together as would be implied by using riverine transport at any point anywhere would almost certainly involve the possibility of things going at best sub-optimally, and at worst a cluster hence some sort of cohesion loss.

Thats always been a the story of logistics in warfare since the dawn of time til now. Its your imagination running wild if you think that you can magically rustle up transports for a whole corps of 40k men, guns and horses in a day in the depths of alabama, arkansas or wherever and ship them hundreds of miles without any dramas.

There is an old military maxim that amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics for a reason. I am all for the abstraction of supply and reinforcements units in the rear to avoid a lot of unnecesary micromanagement, but I feel that this has been hijacked as a mechanism to make front-line

I think there is a difference between a troop transport and a supply barge or flatboat. While of course transports could be used for supply too, then barges and flatboats used for carrying supplies are not likely to be very appropriate to transport troops for anything but a short trip. http://www.transportation.army.mil/museum/transportation%20museum/civilwar.htm

[Captain_Orso]

One idea we tossed around way-back-when was to eliminate being able to use the riverine transport pool at all to transport troops in exchange for RGD's which would allow for the free transfer of transports between actual on-board units and the RivTP. The player would simply play one or more RGD(s) in a friendly harbor for as many transports as he needs. These appear on the map the next turn with an equivalent number of points removed from the RivTP. Once he doesn't need them, or any portion of them, he can play another RGD to return them to the RivTP.

We would still need to have the disembark time reduced to 1 day though and I don't think there will ever be a solution to having a stack on transports sail into a harbor and then march out of the town and into another region.

[Skibear]

Its nice thinking but I can see why went with current system instead as really it does the same thing without having to play the card, except without the delay of the transports next turn.
Unless the turn cycle is reduced there will not be a satisfactory solution to the time dimension for a lot of things. But actually in a lot of other ways it does nicely represent the pace of operations. The physical act of unloading might take just 1 day but the planning cycle, faff factor and general command and control issues would always eat up time. One day somebody will make a massively detailed battalion scale game with 1 day turns and I will get no work done and my wife will despair of me.

[Captain_Orso]

Its nice thinking but I can see why went with current system instead as really it does the same thing without having to play the card, except without the delay of the transports next turn.

No, not really. It allows for rules to restrict and prohibit the use of RivTP transports in certain situations.

Unless the turn cycle is reduced there will not be a satisfactory solution to the time dimension for a lot of things. But actually in a lot of other ways it does nicely represent the pace of operations. The physical act of unloading might take just 1 day but the planning cycle, faff factor and general command and control issues would always eat up time. One day somebody will make a massively detailed battalion scale game with 1 day turns and I will get no work done and my wife will despair of me.

My Bohemian friend, you make many assumptions.

Currently we have what we had previously. Nothing has changed since AACW; deep in enemy territory a force can simply jump onto their generic transports and sail away from the enemy without limit and without any chance of retribution.

[INDENT]This was actually one of the first reasons why I learned to break-out turns to analyze Athena's strategies. She used to love to take Pittsburgh on me; and then when my forces started to form up to retake that *a-hem* lovely town, she would drop Longstreet and his corps onto the RivTP transports and sail away down the Ohio to then make a quick march across the Appalachians and back into Virginia, all the while snickering and mumbling something about amateurs and ....

*ahhh* the good ol' day [/INDENT]

This is also the type of situation for which we couldn't find a simple solution. If the South is sitting in Pittsburgh at 100% MC, how can you determine whether the force should be allowed to use RivTP to escape or not?

You make so many assumptions. How do you know any details of what it took to organize the movement of troops on the Mississippi? You also do realize that there was a war going on. The army could--and did--simply "press into service" steam boats, their captain and crew--against good pay of course--when they needed them. But often the steam boats did not have much to do anyway, as long as the Mississippi was closed.

The greater efforts the military expended was on organizing the supplies, equipment and troops for a campaign, at all. But they had to do this whether they were marching or sailing from their supply base.

The current rules are completely arbitrary and indifferent to situation. Sitting in Saint Louis or Cairo or Cincinnati you could always be assured of a large number of steamers waiting to take on a load. Way off up the Missouri River above Council Bluff probably not. And if you've raided from Fort Smith AK into Texas, nothing will stop your raiders from jumping on to steamers and steaming away down the Sabine or the Red at any time.

But why am I now arguing your arguments?

[Skibear]

Ok, re. the cards I can see on reflection that playing a card might at least restrict the size of shipping found to smaller forces. This is something missing in a big way at the moment that if you are the Union and want to find boats for 100k men in an instant they are there.

This is also the type of situation for which we couldn't find a simple solution. If the South is sitting in Pittsburgh at 100% MC, how can you determine whether the force should be allowed to use RivTP to escape or not?

Well assuming having gained 100% control of Pittsburgh might at least increase the chance of sourcing captured shipping then allowing them to move on using riverine transport is certainly preferable to them sitting at Pittsburgh at 0% MC and still be able to use riverine transport to escape, or even 0% MC of any coastal region too. Progress is good, it would be an improvement on what currently is in place for many of the arguments you make yourself that support what I have been saying.

Sorry you are not a fan of my assumptions about military logistics, they are based on 16 years infantry service where, in training and operations all over the world and a lifetime studying it, the reality is that if it can go wrong it likely will. Every game of simulation should factor in that while it might in reality take 2 days to cross a region or 1 day to load a boat there are a multitude of factors that go into the planning and execution and a multitude of things to throw a spanner in the works.
I'm not Bohemian BTW I just lived there when my profile was set up many moons ago.

[Captain_Orso]

Ok, re. the cards I can see on reflection that playing a card might at least restrict the size of shipping found to smaller forces. This is something missing in a big way at the moment that if you are the Union and want to find boats for 100k men in an instant they are there.

One could refine that even further to reflect:

• If the occupying force 'surprised' the city/harbor on capturing it;
• The development level of the region;
• Size of the city and harbor; especially the latter;
• Loyalty in the region;
• Take the same factors from neighboring regions into account--being across from Louisville or Saint Louis would be good indicators of having increased trade and transportation activity compared to the same sized town/harbor without a major city across the river.

Use this to create a formula with a small random factoring--because reality is a bitch--to use to determine the maximum number of transport elements, which might be used at a given time.

Well assuming having gained 100% control of Pittsburgh might at least increase the chance of sourcing captured shipping then allowing them to move on using riverine transport is certainly preferable to them sitting at Pittsburgh at 0% MC and still be able to use riverine transport to escape, or even 0% MC of any coastal region too. Progress is good, it would be an improvement on what currently is in place for many of the arguments you make yourself that support what I have been saying.

One might also assume that the district commander ordered all steamers to be send off before Johnny Reb arrived, this leaving nearly nothing for the Confederates to use.

It's very difficult to ascertain good information on such matters, because only when such actions actually became historically relevant for the mainstream interest do these things land in book meant for the general public and not only academic use.

I've never read what happened to the steamboats in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Natchez, Memphis, Little Rock, any of the cities on the Red River.

I suppose one might add to the list of things to be evaluated above the connection to other major cities of the same faction--once Memphis was taken, even if every single steamer were removed southward in advance of it's capture, it would be expected for the army to first require supplies be moved in directly and then for normal trade to be commenced as before the war. There already is code to determine if the rail line you are standing on allows you to use only railroad movement to strategically move leaders to a new distant location. The same might be done for determining river movement capacity.

Sorry you are not a fan of my assumptions about military logistics, they are based on 16 years infantry service where, in training and operations all over the world and a lifetime studying it, the reality is that if it can go wrong it likely will. Every game of simulation should factor in that while it might in reality take 2 days to cross a region or 1 day to load a boat there are a multitude of factors that go into the planning and execution and a multitude of things to throw a spanner in the works.

Actually I do appreciate logistics very much. But I also know that in need many corners will be cut and just about the last factor to be considered is the comfort of the soldier. Troops were moved on barges during the war, and steamboats were not built to house hundreds and thousands of soldiers on a journey. I imagine the holds of the steamers were misused extensively for housing troops during a trip.

If I have hard facts on which to judge a situation, I'll hold on to those until I find more and/or better information. Lacking that I go with what I have, but try not to then factor conjecture in to greatly. A bad decision is better than none at all. But arbitrarily picking a conjecture and ignoring all other possibility will lead to some solution. Just one that might later prove to be very far off from reality.

A softer more generic solution--look at what we have currently--may not be completely satisfying, but it generally centers around know facts.

It's when this 'soft' solution no longer satisfies that we can go and look for more facts to lead to a new, more firm solution.

I'm not Bohemian BTW I just lived there when my profile was set up many moons ago.

I'm not German either, but I am still living in 'Motortown', what the locals started calling Stuttgart after Chrysler took over Daimler... I mean the other was around --some people in the Motor City were a bit surprised . I was actually born just outside of Detroit. So I can't get away from the cars... but they are way better now/here, than they were when I was growing up in Motown