It might be fair to say that heavy rains and the subsequent mud made more of a measurable impact on campaigning and battles during the American Civil War than instances of flooding. In some instances rain was beneficial, most notably the Battle of Chancellorsville, the rain suppressed the dust allowing in this instance Jackson to march unnoticed in his flanking march.
Mud was a real demon. Burnside's “Mud March” in early 1863 brought his offensive plans to a halt. Other battles also were impacted by mud, The Battle of New Market was one. McClellan's troubles in Virginia were not all to be blamed upon his timidity and Pinkerton's over estimation of Confederate forces, but also the rain and flooding Virginia rivers. These mud marches were not due to rivers flooding, instead, heavy down pouring rain was the cause.
Sherman was the most successful general at marching through the mud and swollen rives even laying corduroy roads.
But as for major flooding, except for in Virginia in the 1862 Peninsula Campaign, little is noted in the records for impacting campaigning or battles. However, if there is a desire to add flooding as an option or semi-random event, the Mississippi flooded about every three years at the time of the ACW. Occasionally, but rarely, the flood would last for four months or more. There was a major flood a year before the war began, but none during the war. Before the war major efforts had been done to channel the major rivers. But these were much more for keeping rivers in place.
Many members of the forum will know that Robert E Lee was in the Engineering Corps. One of his major efforts was re-channeling the Mississippi so that it once more ran past St. Louis, as St. Louis had lost its port when the Mississippi's flow dug new channels leaving St Louis high and dry. This returning the river to its former path was more typically the efforts of the corps at this time.
Weather records were well maintained during the war. More often comments on the weather impacting campaigning or battles were associated the very hot weather affecting troop health and ability to fight.
If floods it must be, my recommendation would be to use the three year major flood cycle to create the event. Those of you better at game algorithms would need to calculate more precisely than my estimate. From March through June floods could happen, (actually December though June). So maybe a 10% chance each of those months with a higher chance of persistence if a flood happens. For simplicity, all navigable rivers with maybe a roll east of the Appalachian and one west of these mountains. All regions touching these rivers would have a movement penalty, but units could still move. As all of the navigable rivers and most of the other rivers were susceptible to flooding a similar routine could apply to minor rivers, but the penalty would likely apply to river crossing only.
Mud was a real demon. Burnside's “Mud March” in early 1863 brought his offensive plans to a halt. Other battles also were impacted by mud, The Battle of New Market was one. McClellan's troubles in Virginia were not all to be blamed upon his timidity and Pinkerton's over estimation of Confederate forces, but also the rain and flooding Virginia rivers. These mud marches were not due to rivers flooding, instead, heavy down pouring rain was the cause.
Sherman was the most successful general at marching through the mud and swollen rives even laying corduroy roads.
But as for major flooding, except for in Virginia in the 1862 Peninsula Campaign, little is noted in the records for impacting campaigning or battles. However, if there is a desire to add flooding as an option or semi-random event, the Mississippi flooded about every three years at the time of the ACW. Occasionally, but rarely, the flood would last for four months or more. There was a major flood a year before the war began, but none during the war. Before the war major efforts had been done to channel the major rivers. But these were much more for keeping rivers in place.
Many members of the forum will know that Robert E Lee was in the Engineering Corps. One of his major efforts was re-channeling the Mississippi so that it once more ran past St. Louis, as St. Louis had lost its port when the Mississippi's flow dug new channels leaving St Louis high and dry. This returning the river to its former path was more typically the efforts of the corps at this time.
Weather records were well maintained during the war. More often comments on the weather impacting campaigning or battles were associated the very hot weather affecting troop health and ability to fight.
If floods it must be, my recommendation would be to use the three year major flood cycle to create the event. Those of you better at game algorithms would need to calculate more precisely than my estimate. From March through June floods could happen, (actually December though June). So maybe a 10% chance each of those months with a higher chance of persistence if a flood happens. For simplicity, all navigable rivers with maybe a roll east of the Appalachian and one west of these mountains. All regions touching these rivers would have a movement penalty, but units could still move. As all of the navigable rivers and most of the other rivers were susceptible to flooding a similar routine could apply to minor rivers, but the penalty would likely apply to river crossing only.
Durk wrote:It might be fair to say that heavy rains and the subsequent mud made more of a measurable impact on campaigning and battles during the American Civil War than instances of flooding. In some instances rain was beneficial, most notably the Battle of Chancellorsville, the rain suppressed the dust allowing in this instance Jackson to march unnoticed in his flanking march.
Mud was a real demon. Burnside's “Mud March” in early 1863 brought his offensive plans to a halt. Other battles also were impacted by mud, The Battle of New Market was one. McClellan's troubles in Virginia were not all to be blamed upon his timidity and Pinkerton's over estimation of Confederate forces, but also the rain and flooding Virginia rivers. These mud marches were not due to rivers flooding, instead, heavy down pouring rain was the cause.
Sherman was the most successful general at marching through the mud and swollen rives even laying corduroy roads.
But as for major flooding, except for in Virginia in the 1862 Peninsula Campaign, little is noted in the records for impacting campaigning or battles. However, if there is a desire to add flooding as an option or semi-random event, the Mississippi flooded about every three years at the time of the ACW. Occasionally, but rarely, the flood would last for four months or more. There was a major flood a year before the war began, but none during the war. Before the war major efforts had been done to channel the major rivers. But these were much more for keeping rivers in place.
Many members of the forum will know that Robert E Lee was in the Engineering Corps. One of his major efforts was re-channeling the Mississippi so that it once more ran past St. Louis, as St. Louis had lost its port when the Mississippi's flow dug new channels leaving St Louis high and dry. This returning the river to its former path was more typically the efforts of the corps at this time.
Weather records were well maintained during the war. More often comments on the weather impacting campaigning or battles were associated the very hot weather affecting troop health and ability to fight.
If floods it must be, my recommendation would be to use the three year major flood cycle to create the event. Those of you better at game algorithms would need to calculate more precisely than my estimate. From March through June floods could happen, (actually December though June). So maybe a 10% chance each of those months with a higher chance of persistence if a flood happens. For simplicity, all navigable rivers with maybe a roll east of the Appalachian and one west of these mountains. All regions touching these rivers would have a movement penalty, but units could still move. As all of the navigable rivers and most of the other rivers were susceptible to flooding a similar routine could apply to minor rivers, but the penalty would likely apply to river crossing only.
Very nice summary and suggestions.
Do I remember correctly that Red River Campaign was depended on the water levels?
You do remember correctly, water levels matter in several campaigns. But this is very different from flooding. Many rivers were only navigable from early spring until mid-summer when the runoff from the mountain snows no longer fed the rivers. So as in the Red River campaign, there was sometimes a race to stay afloat. A fix for water below levels necessary for boats would be to build a series of dams, kind of like locks on a canal. The game actually represents flow level very well with the shallow shoals off Decauter on the Tennessee River.
Durk wrote:You do remember correctly, water levels matter in several campaigns. But this is very different from flooding. Many rivers were only navigable from early spring until mid-summer when the runoff from the mountain snows no longer fed the rivers. So as in the Red River campaign, there was sometimes a race to stay afloat. A fix for water below levels necessary for boats would be to build a series of dams, kind of like locks on a canal. The game actually represents flow level very well with the shallow shoals off Decauter on the Tennessee River.
That could be represented in the game by blocking access to those rivers when they cant be navigated.
Naturally there should a be tooltip telling what is happening.
[ATTACH]34208[/ATTACH]
- Attachments
-
- Gx_Blocked.png (4.08 KiB) Viewed 4751 times
Been thinking about doing the variable flow rates, not sure it would add to the game.
It appears to me that adding variable navigation to rivers would not be worth the return. It might add just a bit a historical hydrology for player edification, but not much to the simulation. Because West Point graduates of this era were all primarily trained as civil engineers, in each instance a boat or a fleet got into trouble, they were able to engineer a solution.
It might be as desirable to put in an option card to allow Grant to bypass Vicksburg by creating a new channel from the Mississippi to the Boeuf River between the regions of Columbia AR and Providence LA with some kind of low probability. If successful, the Boefu becomes navigable. It is hard to rate the probability of success, but given Grant's talents, his plans and efforts to open a new channel to bypass Vicksburg were likely not an inevitable failure.
It appears to me that adding variable navigation to rivers would not be worth the return. It might add just a bit a historical hydrology for player edification, but not much to the simulation. Because West Point graduates of this era were all primarily trained as civil engineers, in each instance a boat or a fleet got into trouble, they were able to engineer a solution.
It might be as desirable to put in an option card to allow Grant to bypass Vicksburg by creating a new channel from the Mississippi to the Boeuf River between the regions of Columbia AR and Providence LA with some kind of low probability. If successful, the Boefu becomes navigable. It is hard to rate the probability of success, but given Grant's talents, his plans and efforts to open a new channel to bypass Vicksburg were likely not an inevitable failure.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests