Brown-water blockade: What kind of ship do I need?

[Drakken]

Allright, now I am really confused...

I hover my mouse point on the river just before Richmond, VA. It says I need 8 elements to blockade that harbor. I send a 5-ship fleet there with a mixed composition of Frigates and Brigs, totalizing exactly 8 navy elements. However, the turn after it arrives, it still says I need 4 more Navy elements to blockade that port.

So, what exactly does it need to blockade a port with 1.10? What is the value of a brig compared to a frigate? And if brigs are useless to blockade, what is their use, then?

Thanks!

[Jabberwock]

Just discovered the solution to this recently. Richmond has a fort with artillery in it. A fort with artillery adds 4 units to the number required to blockade. The tooltip is based on what you can see. You can't see the artillery until you are adjacent, so the tooltip only says 8 units, even though the actual requirement is 12.

Gunboats, brigs, ironclads, monitors, and frigates (all flavors) count exactly the same.

[Banks6060]

Well that's good to know. I like that rule. The more guns on shore, the more ships you need to stand up to them. I like it.

[Jabberwock]

It's not more guns. Any number of guns in an enemy fort create the +4 effect. If they can be seen, then they affect the tooltip.

EDIT: Any number of guns in a friendly fort adjacent to the region in question produce a similar -4 effect.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[chainsaw]

I will do some research, but having traveled that area I think the answer may be the river was deep enough to allow deep draft vessels to dock in Richmond (there is a large port on the south-east side of the city today), but that the tight narrow turns of the river near the crossing of Interstate 295 allowed the Confederates to block passage by using sunken vessels and entrenched artillery placed on bluffs above (esp Drewry's Bluff). Union gunboats either could not elevate guns or could not bring enough firepower to bear at once, so had to concede defeat until they captured the riverbanks.

This linkshows images of the battle of Drewry's Bluff and Fort Darling - you can see how narrow the river is, and how it was blocked with hulks and debris.

This linkto google maps give you an idea of the nature of the James downstream of Richmond

[StatboyVT]

There's soon to be a change in that particular area of "James River". I just haven't figured out quite exactly how to implement it. Supposedly, historically, deep draft ships were not capable of moving past Bermuda Hundred and City Point on the James River during the Civil War. If anyone can provide some documentation/links that prove otherwise I would definitely like to review it.

Currently, in the game, the James River is defined as CoastalWater, all the way to Richmond, which allows easy access for any and all types of naval units to get to Richmond This is one of the reasons why Butler landed at City Point and Bermuda Hundred instead of closer to Richmond. It also allowed him to be "corked" up like the cork in a wine bottle at Bermuda Hundred.

The problem I'm having is that the in-game "James River region encompasses areas where deep-draft shipping can get to and areas that deep draft shipping should not be able to get to, leading to a necessary regional boundary change for the James River. This is just FYI information for anyone interested in this future change and comments are definitely welcome.

Well, Richmond does currently have a port. The river does get a lot more narrow closer to Richmond than it is at its entrance into the Chesapeake. So I'd guess that the post above is correct, about Confederates blocking access. I'd say it's ok to leave as is for now, unless research proves that to be false.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[tagwyn]

GL: Why would a fort with any kind of guns have an effect on deep water blockaders? Make no sense? apy:

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

The battle of Trent's Reach (the long E-W area around the I295 crossing) ... from a previous discussion.

http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/naval_battles/3025591.html

The three confederate ironclads were:

Richmond: 16'
Virginia II: 13'
Fredericksburg: 11'

They were able to make it down the river at high tide, but Virginia II and Richmond were stranded under fire when the tide went out. Since the tide was about 4' here, I surmise the historic channel at high tide was about 18', and CSS Va2 was slightly out of the channel.

Earlier episodes in the war:

The USS Pawnee threatens Richmond.

The Virginia is scuttled, because even completely unloaded, her draft (18-19') is too deep to pass through the area.

If modelling shore batteries that were significantly downstream (Drewry's, Chaffin's, Signal Hill, etc.) is getting in the way of adjusting the region, then the border of the region needs to be adjusted. Drewry's & Chaffin's Bluffs are about 3.5 miles upstream from Trent's Reach, I would put the border of the region just north of that.

As I see it, the problem is not with a massive landing on Richmond from transports, that can be done no matter what depth is used. It is not with the blockade of Richmond, which was accomplished by a combination of deep water ships near Fort Monroe and the invasions of the NC Sounds. That leaves naval fire support as the problem. The ability to support a direct amphibious assault on Richmond with Steam Frigates and Armored Frigates is gamey. I think everybody knows my opinions about balancing fire support, but I would like to see this issue fixed, just in case naval fire support ever gets fixed for vanilla.

I think what really throws off any discussion of this area is CSS Virginia. She was an ironclad, just like an Eads city-class (in game). In RL CSS Virginia had a 21' draft, as compared to 6-7' for a city-class ironclad. She was built for local service in Hampton Roads, and would've had great difficulty in getting anywhere else.

[Jabberwock]

GL: Why would a fort with any kind of guns have an effect on deep water blockaders? Make no sense? apy:

I know this was addressed to Gray, but I'd like to take a stab at a rationale. I believe the idea is that a fort would create a no-go zone for blockaders, which blockade runners could use to transit the area. Additional ships would need to be deployed to intercept runners outside the zone.

[Coregonas]

Regarding this issue, I remember playing BoA long ago, than some units had bonus / malus into entering areas.. Dont remember...but perhaps some leaders/units could even not be moved outside his "natural areas"?

Could this be implemented here?

Reading that Lee didnt want to go to the West for various questions, I asked myself time ago he should have some kind of "East" preference (as in BoA--- i.e. canadian)

Or CSS Virginia could have a "locked in Virginia state"?

Just asking...

[chainsaw]

As I see it, the problem is not with a massive landing on Richmond from transports, that can be done no matter what depth is used. It is not with the blockade of Richmond, which was accomplished by a combination of deep water ships near Fort Monroe and the invasions of the NC Sounds. That leaves naval fire support as the problem. The ability to support a direct amphibious assault on Richmond with Steam Frigates and Armored Frigates is gamey.

Agree, that is the biggest impact from a game standpoint.

Perhaps we need to model river zones somewhat like land zones, emphasizing military control (MC). MC is "neutral" on all river zones until US or CS places entrenched artillery along the shoreline - and then all river zones upstream/downstream are allocated to the owning side. It gets complicated because artillery would only project control in certain locations where the river is narrow or constrained.
.