How can river crossings and the blocking of them best be portrayed in AACW?

[runyan99]

The easiest solution code-wise is to up to say 2 elements the quantity of ships needed.

Not enough in my opinion. How about 4 elements?

[arsan]

I agree with the 4 elements idea.
Two elements its just a standard gunboat unit, so it would not change much the atual situation.
Also adding either the offensive posture or the bombard on stationary ships ideas could be a good, so one could not put the ships on a zone on turn 3 and leave them there without problems until turn 100.

Instead, i don't agree with Antonyo idea about limiting numbers on ship stacks, sorry .
In my opinion on the fleet vs fort engagements currently the ships are clearly the unerdogs and the forts/enternched guns have a too high killing power and protection against damage.
You need a pretty heavy fleet just to barely survive bypasing a simple field battery entrenched on the riverside. Not to mention to actually damage the land guns

Regards

[WillisNYC]

I find this thread fascinating because it finally answers many of the questions that I have about the blockade, river blocking of raiding, etc game. The end result of this looks like I have to build even MORE gunboats to keep the pesky rebs from raiding me relentlessly!

Jabberwocky, any chance that I could beg you to put together a tutorial covering all these details of river blockade and running so I don't have to pick the choice bits out of this beautiful ongoing thread?

[Jabberwock]

I don't have the time for that project right now, but I will add it to my 'to do' list.

[WillisNYC]

Always the same, whatever the enterprise, those with knowledge have no time to share it and those of us without knowledge have too much time!

[Jabberwock]

I did put together a little list of different threads discussing these issues, though. This can be the basis for a fairly adequate naval FAQ, or for planning a tutorial. After the first two, they are in chronological order (oldest first). I'd plug my Naval books thread again here, but I think I've already done that twice in this thread.

AGEod's American Civil War FAQ (English)

AACW Quick Reference Guide V1.7


Question on Blocking Land Movement Across Rivers

Duels between forts and ironclads

River Patrols

Shelling passing ships

Forts and River Crossings

Naval Bombardment and 1.6

Moving along coastal waters w/ironclads

Assorted Noob Questions

Shore bombardment

US River Naval Strategy

CSA War Supplies

How to prevent those pesky raids...

coastal artillery on rivers

That river zone between Richmond and Petersburg/VA...

The Real Civil War

Tennessee River Navigability

Naval Engineers and CSA

PBEM - strange behaviour

Artillerist Ability

generic river transport in hostile waters

questions and advice

Naval usage

Log reports improvement for naval actions

Amphibious invasions

Gun boats, forts, & ironclads

Union Naval Units Best Use?

War supply, how to increase the volume?

PBEM Mod release

CSA Blockade Runners out of supply?

Naval operations

Regarding blockade boxes.

Raiders and harbors

I am sure this has been asked.....Sorry bear with me

newbie question

Sink The CSS Alabama

Naval Combat: Ironclads vs. Wooden Ships and other questions

Coastal Artillery in 1.09d

Naval Mod

Grand Campaign USA Starting Move

River boats questions

Question on adjacency

Forts & the Garrisons

Why am I buying boats?

Starting Off I Need A Little Help.

Fun with Blockades

EDIT: Those plugs were in a different thread. ACW books online from Google books

[ANTONYO]

In my opinion on the fleet vs fort engagements currently the ships are clearly the unerdogs and the forts/enternched guns have a too high killing power and protection against damage.
You need a pretty heavy fleet just to barely survive bypasing a simple field battery entrenched on the riverside. Not to mention to actually damage the land guns

Regards

That is certain when the fleet is not very numerous, but when the USA joins more than 30 ironclads in a fleet, can pass any fort or entrenchment without problem, usually receives on 50 hits (to distribute between 30) and it gives a minimum of 7 hits (therefore artillery eliminated). This way a powerful fleet can take a walk by the river without no problem.

[arsan]

That is certain when the fleet is not very numerous, but when the USA joins more than 30 ironclads in a fleet, can pass any fort or entrenchment without problem, usually receives on 50 hits (to distribute between 30) and it gives a minimum of 7 hits (therefore artillery eliminated). This way a powerful fleet can take a walk by the river without no problem.

Hola Antonyo!
Yes, but o think with those numbers a fleet should be able to overpower and bypass a single batery entrenched or in a fort.
And i would not call "no problem" to recieving 50 hits I would call it "take a pounding"
If not, whats the use in spendig LOTS of money on ships when a paltry 10 lb parrot battery entrenched can stop all the USA river fleet
Now, if we talk about a fort with heavy guns or more than one batery things can get very ugly for the fleet. Much more ugly that historical engagements show.
Really i think the game is now heavely unbalanced against the navy.
Regards!

[ANTONYO]

Hola Antonyo!
Yes, but o think with those numbers a fleet should be able to overpower and bypass a single batery entrenched or in a fort.
And i would not call "no problem" to recieving 50 hits I would call it "take a pounding"
If not, whats the use in spendig LOTS of money on ships when a paltry 10 lb parrot battery entrenched can stop all the USA river fleet
Now, if we talk about a fort with heavy guns or more than one batery things can get very ugly for the fleet. Much more ugly that historical engagements show.
Really i think the game is now heavely unbalanced against the navy.
Regards!

The maximum hits that can receive a fleet of a fort or entrenchment is 50, to distribute for example between 25 ironclads are 2 hits by boat, that for me is little punishment, to pass in front of fort island nº 10 or of fort Henry & Donelson leure:

The problem is that with so powerful fleets, fort Island and fort Henry & Donelson, lose their strategic value. Why it serves to maintain the possession of fort Island nº 10 and fort Henry & Donelson if in any case fleet the USA can dominate to the rivers although not has taken them?

For my, to dominate the rivers Mississippi, Cumberland and Tenneesse, would only have to be possible if they have taken previously fort island nº 10 and fort Henry & Donelson.

[arsan]

Well, bear in mind that a heavy combat fleet can bypass the forts (paying a a price EACH time), but the forts will not let pass supply, reinforcements, riverine movement, small and medium fleets...
So, in the end, to dominte the river you should take the forts.
The big fleet bypassing is more of a heavy raid that river dominination, IMHO
On the real ACW, combat fleets (ironclads, sea ships coming forn New Orleands) bypassed forts and artillery positions (paying his toll), but until Vicksburg, Fort Hudson and the like where taken the Mississippi remained closed.
Regards!

[ANTONYO]

Well, bear in mind that a heavy combat fleet can bypass the forts (paying a a price EACH time), but the forts will not let pass supply, reinforcements, riverine movement, small and medium fleets...!

If you take great amount of transport you do not have problems of supplies.

So, in the end, to dominte the river you should take the forts.
The big fleet bypassing is more of a heavy raid that river dominination, IMHO
Regards!

I agree, but the problem in the game is that for example passing through fort donelson, you can block completely the Tennessee river preventing totally its crossing for the CSA, for me, that is to dominate the river.

Limiting number of boats (only in shallow waters) that can compose stack, the USA would not have so easy to use these strategies.

[Pocus]

The limitation on damages is per stack. It means that if you take the risk of having 3 differents stacks with batteries in each, and they manage to fire each on an incoming fleet, the fleet can take 150 damages... and will retaliate 3 times too!

[ANTONYO]

The limitation on damages is per stack.

Indeed, for that reason the USA group their fleet in single stack to cross in front of the forts.

[tagwyn]

New Orleans did fall early in the war and there was no "foreign" intervention. Memphis and Nashville in my home state of Tennessee also fell quite early. Due to the patriotic efforts of Rebel citizenry, both were major Rebel supply sources throughtout the war, even when under Union control. T

[Jabberwock]

That is certain when the fleet is not very numerous, but when the USA joins more than 30 ironclads in a fleet, can pass any fort or entrenchment without problem, usually receives on 50 hits (to distribute between 30) and it gives a minimum of 7 hits (therefore artillery eliminated). This way a powerful fleet can take a walk by the river without no problem.

In this situation, the north has invested very heavily in their brown-water navy, while the south hasn't invested in the strategies to counter this. What were they doing while all them ironclads were a-buildin? I'll bet they were concentrating on a land-based strategy. Running past forts with powerful fleets is not totally unfair, it is a question of resource allocation.

The south must pre-position shore battery gauntlets along the rivers in numerous locations to contest this. They must put divisions at the chokepoint forts, and put several batteries of artillery inside each one, to keep artillery from getting eliminated. They must build several ironclads of their own, to either use in hit-and-run strikes on the smaller interdiction forces (pushing them around in front of the shore batteries), or to hold river crossings open. If necessary, they must trade some space on land, for the time it takes to get these defenses in place.

The unfairness occurs once a well supplied river fleet is on station - it is just too difficult to get rid of them, and interdiction is too difficult to counter.

I would prefer to see the ratio of damage adjusted in favor of ships, and the limit of damage that shore batteries can do raised, to limiting the number of ships in a stack.

I would also like to see more specificity in where ironclads get built. I would like to see obstructions and torpedoes added to the game. These would take more effort to code.

I do see your rationale - on an operational/tactical level, it was often better to try to sneak past forts with smaller groups of ships.

EDIT: Perhaps if ships were grouped in divisions (smaller than land divisions), and each division had to face bombardment, whether there were multiple divisions in a stack or not, it would limit this, but that leads to more shore batteries getting wiped out, and I don't think Pocus will like this idea either.

[Pocus]

Indeed, for that reason the USA group their fleet in single stack to cross in front of the forts.

No, I mean by firing stacks. A lone stack if fired by 3 enemy stacks, can take 150 hits.

[ANTONYO]

No, I mean by firing stacks. A lone stack if fired by 3 enemy stacks, can take 150 hits.

Sorry, had not understood to you.

You are right, did not know that, from now on I will do it thus. Thanks.

[Torca]

I am currently in a game where my opponent simply loves to block every possible river crossing whenever possible.

I've just stumbled on this post via link on the thread I recently made http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=8911
I'm the opponent Skibear is talking about. One thing I hate most about people is hypocrisy otherwise I wouldn't bother to write this. My attention was not to be gamey and to exploit but the game was like that from the start and not from my side. After two division corps walked in Nashville (clear terrain) besieged by entrenched also two division corps, probably left some supplies and reinforcements there in one turn, than walked out in following turn without engagement I said ok lets be gamey. Was ready to give up but was curios how far this Skibear host charade will go.
Anyway haven't heard from Skibear since he said he'll be away for 10 days and that was about 2 months ago. I will not bother to reply or post or even look at this thread anymore.

Skibear I give up now, you won, congratulations.

[soloswolf]

I'm not really sure what your Nashville situation is saying, but this whole post would probably be better served as a PM.

The best solution to problems like this is to communicate with your opponent. Ultimately, the game allows it. If you want to keep certain things from your game(s), decide like adults and discuss it like adults.

[tagwyn]

My experience is that private communication between players is necessary to the enjoymnet of a PBEM game. No communication - game will die or end in a rules fight. apy:

[Pocus]

My experience is that private communication between players is necessary to the enjoymnet of a PBEM game. No communication - game will die or end in a rules fight. apy:

Quite a wise comment indeed!

[Turbo823]

Regarding the river blocking:
I hope the river blocking stays broken -- the feature is unrealistic and silly. In addition, I doubt the AI uses it anyway.

At best, there should either be a slight movement penalty for crossing the river or a low probability roll of preventing it.

Consider that the Union could not 100% successfully blockade port entrances which are considerably smaller in distance. That river gunboats of this era could successfully maintain a constant and 100% success movement interdiction given the map scale, the technology of the gunboats, and the time scale is really ridicious. Seriously...

Regarding the reinforcement location:
The game seems to take into consideration whether the city is strategic and the city size. A random location fits the lack of central planning that was involved during this period.

[runyan99]

So, why couldn't the Confederates cross the Mississippi after the fall of Vicksburg and Port Hudson?

[Turbo823]

So, why couldn't the Confederates cross the Mississippi after the fall of Vicksburg and Port Hudson?

You need river transport to cross the river at almost all spots. This is different from most other rivers. AACW really fails to adequately simulate the importance of the river and its effectiveness as a natural barrier to movement.

I've travelled the Mississippi by Riverboat from Memphis to Natchez and you can see why crossing it is problematic to begin with. The width of the river is huge (over a mile in many parts) and much of the river contains sandbars/marsh areas that would make navigation across almost impossible. Navigating the river was a treacherous affair in those days.

Ground troops would have required ferry and steam boat access which required docks and infrastructure (roads, raillines, etc). Some areas are clearly better suited for crosspoints than other regions. It was Union seizure of those areas and gunboat blockade of those regions that blocked split the Confederacy in 2.

Crossing the Mississippi should require river transport AND should only be possible from one river port to another.

[berto]

Regarding the river blocking:
I hope the river blocking stays broken -- the feature is unrealistic and silly. In addition, I doubt the AI uses it anyway.

With perhaps the sole exception of the Mississippi--Runyan's observation is perfectly correct about the Confederates' utter inability to ferry troops east from the Trans Mississippi after the fall of Vicksburg and Port Hudson--I rather agree with you.

In the central theater, I don't know that--in general--the Confederates ever worried that Union gunboat interdiction would thwart a determined attempt at crossing the Tennessee or Cumberland (or other) Rivers. Hindered a bit by gunboats--maybe--but stopped cold--no. In Hood's 1864 Franklin campaign, for instance, I'm not aware that the Rebels fretted about Union gunboats preventing their crossing the Tennessee, even though by then Union gunboats on that river were undoubtedly ubiquitous.

There were night and quicky daytime crossings of lesser rivers, even whole divisions and corps ferrying across, using makeshift pontoon bridges, small boats, rafts, etc.

The Mississippi, on the other hand, is so vast and wide that interdiction should be possible, and exceptional rules for that river (and perhaps also the Ohio and several obvious wide rivers (coastal waters and estuaries) to the east--the Lower James, for instance?) should apply.

[W.Barksdale]

Consider that the Union could not 100% successfully blockade port entrances which are considerably smaller in distance. That river gunboats of this era could successfully maintain a constant and 100% success movement interdiction given the map scale, the technology of the gunboats, and the time scale is really ridicious. Seriously...

This has already been discussed in considerable detail. Consider the scale of the game and two week turns. If the rebels decided to force a crossing into union controlled areas think of the quick reaction that the bluebellies would have. The best way to simulate this is to have boats able to block the crossing. How else would you model union control of the rivers? Seriously...

You can build your own river fleet and challenge their boats to force a crossing. Besides I have noticed some SERIOUS game balance issues when this rule is not in place especially in the April '61 campaign.

[berto]

Consider the scale of the game and two week turns.

Precisely. If the Confederates were ever blocked on a given day at one point, they would just move upstream or downstream, or wait a few days and attempt a night crossing. There's much potential for working around surmountable "obstacles" within a 15-day time frame.

If the rebels decided to force a crossing into union controlled areas think of the quick reaction that the bluebellies would have.

Imprecisely. This is not quite the era of instant communications. The Rebels could catch the Yankees by surprise, and cross at times and places where they were not expected.

People worry about some changes in 1.10 fostering blitzkrieg tactics. I worry that excessively restrictive river interdiction rules will have the opposite effect and (with the exception of the Mississippi River example) render impossible later war tactical, much less strategic, moves into the Union rear areas (Hood's 1864 Franklin Campaign, for instance; or Forrest's forays across the Tennessee).

[W.Barksdale]

This is why the compromise was to have 4 gunboats in offensive posture.

[Turbo823]

With perhaps the sole exception of the Mississippi--Runyan's observation is perfectly correct about the Confederates' utter inability to ferry troops east from the Trans Mississippi after the fall of Vicksburg and Port Hudson--I rather agree with you.

In the central theater, I don't know that--in general--the Confederates ever worried that Union gunboat interdiction would thwart a determined attempt at crossing the Tennessee or Cumberland (or other) Rivers. Hindered a bit by gunboats--maybe--but stopped cold--no. In Hood's 1864 Franklin campaign, for instance, I'm not aware that the Rebels fretted about Union gunboats preventing their crossing the Tennessee, even though by then Union gunboats on that river were undoubtedly ubiquitous.

There were night and quicky daytime crossings of lesser rivers, even whole divisions and corps ferrying across, using makeshift pontoon bridges, small boats, rafts, etc.

The Mississippi, on the other hand, is so vast and wide that interdiction should be possible, and exceptional rules for that river (and perhaps also the Ohio and several obvious wide rivers (coastal waters and estuaries) to the east--the Lower James, for instance?) should apply.

Agreed about the lesser rivers control had more to do with ability to supply and move troops from one point to another than it did about preventing river crossing from one side to another.

I think the Mississippi river and other wide areas should just block normal movement and require river transport. Gunboats already provide interdiction against river transport. So, other than some map changes, there is no need to add this function.

[berto]

This is why the compromise was to have 4 gunboats in offensive posture.

Maybe it's an empirical question then. Whether 4, or 6, or 8, or whatever--with enough gunboat resources, maybe it should be possible to totally block any given river region, but it should be beyond the Union's resources to employ the strategy of purchasing a massive gunboat fleet to garrison each and every river region anywhere on the map and throttle absolutely all Confederate river crossings up and down the entire length of all rivers.

Otherwise, if this were a historically viable strategy, why wouldn't the Union high command have seen the solution to their "Forrest Problem" (and the vulnerability of Sherman's supply lines)--swarm the Tennessee River with gunboats, thereby blocking all Confederate penetrations into the state of Tennessee?