Henry D. wrote: One of my pet union tactics is scrounging together a command of two or three full divisions of infantry with some assorted militia for garrison duties under a 2** general and ship them along with my entire atlantic fleet under Farragut to Cheasapeake Bay, invading Norfolk. Even if it is well garrisoned, the assault rarely ever fails, the vast firepower of the fleet bombardment sees to that.
wyrmm wrote:What corps? Historically there were no confederate troops to oppose the union landings in SC for months afterwards.
I'm afraid that is the point of our reasoning: Why did the Union "not make an effort to enlarge their beachheads in Norfolk or the Carolinas"? You make it sound like it was a deliberate choice on their part not to, our stance is that they couldn't on account of logistical difficulties, because historically taking supply inland was not nearly as easy and efficient as it is in the game. And that makes all the difference between the Invasions along the eastern coast and New Orleans. In the latter case the Union could continue to move forth inland because there was a rather nice big navigable river at hand along which supply was relatively easy to bring forward by ship.runyan99 wrote:...Just because historically the Union did not make an effort to enlarge beachheads they held in Norfolk or the Carolinas, doesn't mean an AACW opponent shouldn't have that option, in my opinion.New Orleans, for one, was a beachhead that was used for further conquest of the interior historically. Your house rule would prevent that, by the way, as I understand it.
Henry D. wrote: "converting" RR for the Unions use took a lot longer and did even require to establish a special branch of military engineers to be done on a great scale.
Yes, "finally". In my experience, bypassing river batteries and even forts in the game never posed nearly as much of a "real" threat to fleets as it was historical. It would be quite nice if an entrenched battery or two actually could repel an attempt to bypass them by ship now once in a while...Jabberwock wrote:Finally?
I will concede this for "on-map" forts like Donelson, Island No.10 or the coastal forts, but not for "player-built" ones. At least the AI's little river fleet never seemed to mind my proud and somewhat expansive Fort at Cairo/Il in the least, boldly steaming upriver past St. Louis and into Missouri unnoticed, because my own fleet had some fun on the Cumberland at the same time...Jabberwock wrote:Ok. It has been my experience that every time I approach a fort with any size fleet since the changes in 1.04, that I come out very much on the worse end of the exchange. I wish I had more time this month to post historical data about encounters between gunboats and riverside batteries, then we could have a good discussion about those success rates. Maybe in November . . . In the meantime, this is your mod, not mine.
Henry D. wrote:I will concede this for "on-map" forts like Donelson, Island No.10 or the coastal forts, but not for "player-built" ones. At least the AI's little river fleet never seemed to mind my proud and somewhat expansive Fort at Cairo/Il in the least, boldly steaming upriver past St. Louis and into Missouri unnoticed, because my own fleet had some fun on the Cumberland at the same time...
Henry D. wrote:Not to mention that it is possible to "river transport" troops through riverzones with a adjacent fort (just by using transport capacity, not actual ships, I mean), which does not feel quite right to me.
Henry D. wrote:And, It's not a mod, just two grumpy old farts publically grumbling about Houserules, in a "sitting alone on a bench in the park, aggressively gesturing and arguing with their invisible friend Harvey" sort of way...
Regards, Henry
You don't build forts?Jabberwock wrote:Well, I don't have any experience with player built forts. I will have to demur to your expertise there.
And I concur that it would be a really neat thing if there was something like a distinction between coastal/shore and inland forts/batteries ingame. But then again, regarding Cairo: The only logical point of building a fort in the Alexandria/Il region for the Union is control of the Mississippi-Ohio confluent. What other purpose should a permanent fortification there serve?On that topic, I agree that it does not feel right, but I can see the argument for a fort not being able to control everything that happens in about a 600 square mile region.
Honestly, I don't mind and I don't think wyrmm minds, either. Part of the point of this thread is getting input by others players in regard of our opinions, any kind of input, even if it's not directly related to houserules or changes in the game we'd like to have. You never know where a little exkursus or two may lead to, maybe to some whole new issues to grumble about we wouldn't have thought of otherwise...Sorry, I edited my post while you were replying . . . your mod and houserules ideas, . . . just saying I don't want to hijack your thread any more than I already have
Regards,
JWK
Henry D. wrote:You don't build forts?
Henry D. wrote:
And I concur that it would be a really neat thing if there was something like a distinction between coastal/shore and inland forts/batteries ingame. But then again, regarding Cairo: The only logical point of building a fort in the Alexandria/Il region for the Union is control of the Mississippi-Ohio confluent. What other purpose should a permanent fortification there serve?
Henry D. wrote:Honestly, I don't mind and I don't think wyrmm minds, either. Part of the point of this thread is getting input by others players in regard of our opinions, any kind of input, even if it's not directly related to houserules or changes in the game we'd like to have. You never know where a little exkursus or two may lead to, maybe to some whole new issues to grumble about we wouldn't have thought of otherwise...
We don't mind being told we're wrong, neither (Though, of course, we will most likely not concede it... )
I don't build many forts (as the Union), either. Mainly only at Cairo, Harpers Ferry, Washington, Alexandria/Va and certain forward "jump-off" points that act as bases for my offensives, like Springfield/Mo or Memphis. I don't know if I really need them, but they do sure act as a good deterrent, against the lady as well as against humans, neither ever seem to dare assaulting them...Jabberwock wrote:Not yet. I'm only on my third PBEM, one of which has progressed into summer of '62 but is currently on hold. So far its all been about mobility, aggressiveness, and making the other guy worry about what I was going to do to him next. (The one I played as the CSA against Runyon I paid for that - he has a thorough understanding of how to dig in and hunt cavalry. If we had continued, I might have needed a few forts.) I certainly never needed one when I was fighting Athena.
And in the game, all three would get through, as well as every other transport in the river transport pool. That is not a problem of bombardment per se, but of how the supply distribution system works, but that is another of our grievances.I could see a fort controlling a major river, if it had patrolling gunboats. Even Vicksburg didn't control the Mississippi after the gunboats were gone, it threatened the Mississippi, and kept the Union from completely controlling it. Grant had Porter send three supply ships past Vicksburg (the equivalent of transports with no troops embarked). Two got through.
Yes, in a ways. We may no longer have Iwo Jima bombardments, but we still have "Operation Neptune" sized fleets. For example: even if you're building no more than 1 or 2 monitors and gunboats and a few steam- and armored frigates in each of the eastern departments until early 1862, You may combine anything that floats and is not a blockade or transport squadron in the shipping lanes box by that time under Farragut or Dahlgren and send it up the James. That will be a force of 30+ elements with 1.000+ strengthpoints under a first class leader. Try to block off that behemoth with a division sized or even greater force on shore. The most likely outcome is is smoldering crater ashore and a few dents and bruises aboard. That would be realistic, if all 30+ ships really would have engaged the shore batteries simultanously, but in reality the couldn't. We need something like the front rukes for land engagement that limit the maximum number of elements engaged at the same time for bombardment, too. That they could only be attacked piecemeal was one of the major advantages of river batteries against fleets. As it is, the game denies them that advantage. A malus for ships attacking upstream would be a nice thing, too.I won't tell you you're wrong. But since you invite it, I will just point out my own experiences (like don't go near forts with your fleet, ever, in any version since they got rid of Iwo Jima bombardments) (also don't go near entrenched troops that have artillery with your bombardment on if they are more than a single brigade - no matter how powerful your fleet is). Those are my house rules. So it's not the naval bombardment that's the issue for you, its the control and engagement?
Regards
Henry D. wrote:And in the game, all three would get through, as well as every other transport in the river transport pool. That is not a problem of bombardment per se, but of how the supply distribution system works, but that is another of our grievances.
Henry D. wrote:Yes, in a ways. We may no longer have Iwo Jima bombardments, but we still have "Operation Neptune" sized fleets. For example: even if you're building no more than 1 or 2 monitors and gunboats and a few steam- and armored frigates in each of the eastern departments until early 1862, You may combine anything that floats and is not a blockade or transport squadron in the shipping lanes box by that time under Farragut or Dahlgren and send it up the James. That will be a force of 30+ elements with 1.000+ strengthpoints under a first class leader. Try to block off that behemoth with a division sized or even greater force on shore. The most likely outcome is is smoldering crater ashore and a few dents and bruises aboard. That would be realistic, if all 30+ ships really would have engaged the shore batteries simultanously, but in reality the couldn't. We need something like the front rukes for land engagement that limit the maximum number of elements engaged at the same time for bombardment, too. That they could only be attacked piecemeal was one of the major advantages of river batteries against fleets. As it is, the game denies them that advantage. A malus for ships attacking upstream would be a nice thing, too.
Return to “American Civil War AARs”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests