AGEOD Forums

Pun intended. Henry and I are going to start a new game when 1.07 comes out with a new set of quite restrictive house rules. After three games through mid 1862, we both noticed that the game did not 'feel' like the civil war. Thus we agreed to try an AAR game, with new rules specifically designed to make the game challenging and get the feel we are looking for. So as we wait for 1.07 to finalize, it was decided to start hashing out the house rules now, with the boards support.

Premises: We both feel that the game moves too fast, and have decided production is a big part of that.

Supply trace rules are too generous for the era

Too many generals, especially Union are active too early, though limiting independent commands may help with that.

Sea invasion is too easy without the countervailing union disinterest in expanding amphibious bridgeheads.

I'm sure Henry will add more when he chimes in. Some of the ideas we have knocked around is massively limiting the use of financial and draft options, those allowed determined by year, a 2 or 3 area limit of advance from a depot, and mandating maintaining a supply trace til 63 or 64, when the Grant and Sherman started doing without, A 2 region depth limit for seaborne landings, either excepting the James and Mississippi, or giving a hard limit on expandable invasions, among many other things.

We opened the thread early with the hopes of producing a standard set of 'historical' house rules for those of us grogs who want to 'replay' the civil war, hopefully 'modular' so that at somepoint we can have a list of rules pbem opponents can pick and choose from as community standards. Henry and I will test these rules in the 1.07 game, so it may be restarted once or twice.

So feel free to critique, add or modify ideas for our ruleset, with the caviat that we want the game to 'feel' right. (whatever that means)

wyrmm

I don't think the game moves to 'fast', and I don't think house rules for limiting seaborne invasions are necessary (counterattack and cut off the base of the invasion!).

I do think that the game allows too much manpower availability, and some house rules on the draft might be a good idea.

Being the one who pulled them off with impunity, I do think that seaborne invasions are a bit too easy in the first year of the game. It's especially too easy to venture deeper inland after the initial landing. 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.

After establishing a foothold at Norfolk quickly nothing really stops the Union from moving inland and taking Suffolk and even Petersburg in the very next turn before the south can react. Yes, the CSA can then threaten Norfolk, but do I really have to worry about that? Even if Norfolk falls, I'm still supplied along the James because supply is not at all hampered by any batteres my opponent might have stationed along the James' northern shore. Admittedly the union, that early in the game, will most likely not be able to hold onto its conquests for a longer periode of time, but I can easily break up my multi-division command into single divisions and turn my invasion into a series of large scale raids against which, provided my division commanders have good strategic ratings like Hooker and Lyon, the south is nearly helpless. Even if he chases one of my divisions down, the rest will just capture themselves another port to embark home or walk home north by foot, using the "evade" order. And if I don't stop them to wreck some RR on the way, that retreat from behind enemy lines rarely takes longer than two turns. And, if I were to combine this tactic with having a halfways competent commander in the AotP instead of Tardy George McClellan (like Grant as soon as he makes 3***), being able to activate the main army in Virginia too while rummaging around in the southern rear, that's an almost sure recipe to bring down the CSA before mid 1862. I wonder why nobody tried this in the real war?

And, given the current game mechanics, I wouldn't even have to bother to land at Norfolk and continue by land, I could just sail my mighty invaders by ship directly to the very doorsteps of Richmond because neither man nor gun along the river prevents them from reaching it. Coastal and river batteries and forts do not have the very severe adverse effects on fleet movement they had historically, unfortunately.

I also think that naval invasions are too easy because naval supply capacity is directly tied to the amound of transport in the shipping lanes box. As it is now, buying new transport for the box is a double-win, You get more money and WS by trade AND increase Your supply capacity at the same time. That seems unrealistic to me, ships couldn't have been used for both at the same time, havig to "buy" additional naval supply capacity the same way as rr and river SC are "bought" would have been a better choice, IMHO. I also agree with wyrmm that supply distribution is generally too easy and leaving Your supply bases far behind does neither have great immediate risks nor any other serious drawbacks. Commissaries simply do to good a job in the game...

However, these are, I'm afraid, points which cannot be easily modded nor, at this stage and with the team under the heavy workload of preparing NCP, be addressed in a patch any time soon. Therefore I'm joining wyrmm in a call for stricter Houserules for a more "historical" gameplay.

Another thing is the generally unbalanced naval system to me. Batteries and forts need to have at least something more of a stopping effect to river movements and bombardment needs to be tweaked in favor of them. Until this can be done, there needs to be houserules that at least somewhat recreate these effects, too, like limiting the maximum number of ships that can be used for bombarding a region and having ships not always bypassing batteres without impunity...

There are some more things I'm currently to tired to think about, but they will sure come up in time and this post is already long enough as it is.

Just as a final closing note to it: Neither wyrmm nor myself want to force players to a "slower" playing style, we merely think that the engine currently allows to many "exploits" that some of the more historically oriented players may want to aviode. To discuss how to best do this shall be the meaning of this thread and we hope You'll join us in establishing a set of rules to choose from to recreate a more historic campaigning feeling, even If You don't mind a faster, more "ahistoric" pace of the game yourselves (which I personally don't mind neither, but I still think, wyrmm has more than just a point in his assessment from a strictly historical point of view.)

Regards, Henry (who also thinks this thread would better belong to the PbEM forum, because houserules only make much sense in multiplayer´ )

True, but I know I only ever go there to look for an opponent, and we will have an AAR, so....

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.

So, you're basically invading with a corps. In that case, the CSA player is going to have to take a corps of his and run them down to defend and/or counterattack south of the James, in the best tradition of R.E. Lee. I don't see why that's an unbeatable Union strategy. I've done that once myself. Maybe your opponent just wasn't prepared for it. A two division assault especially should be easy to contain or stop short of Petersburg. All the more so if Norfolk, Suffolk and Petersburg are well defended (as possible) and entrenched when the invasion force lands. Knocking out those garrisons will disrupt and weaken the invasion force, making a Confederate counterattack likely to push them back.

The CSA player always has to be flexible enough to react to these kinds of seaborne invasions, just as Lee reacted to McC's invasion. The York and the James are one reason why Richmond makes a bad choice for the Confederate capital. They are potentially highways of invasion.

In AACW, the main thing that gives the Union an edge here is that, if the CSA player hasn't sniffed out the coming invasion beforehand, the Union gets a 15 day head start on its movements before the CSA player can react to them.

Allowing the CSA player to host the game balances this disadvantage somewhat, because at least then the CSA player may see the fleets moving around and be able to guess at what is coming.

1.07 will also change the fleet bombardments yet again, so we'll have to see how that affects the game.

What corps? Historically there were no confederate troops to oppose the union landings in SC for months afterwards. In game, since the whole point is to avoid huge ahistorical builds, I would expect a secesh player to be in a similar situation. I will admit I did not spend anywhere near as much on builds as Henry did, thus magnifying the existing troop disparity in the games I was a confederate.

edit: another thing is that I was not the host as the rebels, another of my pet peeves was my inability to spot his ships. Making the confederate player the host may aleviate this problem to some extent.

wyrmm wrote:What corps? Historically there were no confederate troops to oppose the union landings in SC for months afterwards.

Well, if the Union lands a force anywhere on the east coast, you had better find some troops somewhere to oppose them, even if it means you have to take divisions from the Army of Northern Virginia or the Shenandoah. You're responsible for reacting to these sorts of situations. That's the whole point of playing a strategic level game. The historical situation is irrelevant. You cannot just throw up your hands and decry the disparity in forces, obviously.

As a CSA player, as soon as I have an extra leader and a few extra brigades, I start putting together a force which will be able to react to an invasion. Even if it is just two loose brigades, I hold it seperate as long as possible. If there is no invasion, they defend Norfolk or help with the defense of Richmond.

No matter what happens in Virginia or Tenessee, the CSA player must plan for the defense of the coast, and must anticipate a landing will occur somewhere, sooner or later.

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.

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.

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.

IMHO, a good compromise for a houserule regarding this might be to allow an invading force only to venture much deeper inland than, say, three regions from it's base if it can do so along a navigable river that is not blocked by enemy batteries or forts without building a depot on the way.

Regards, Henry

In the game I'm in with Jim the pesky Rebs have no trouble keeping my invaders near the coast. I'm scared to move inland. leure:

I agree the inland supply rules are too liberal.

Well, there are a lot of navigable rivers along the east coast... And what about port cities with rail lines running inland? Couldn't those be arteries of supply? Are you sure that a large port city with a depot and a rail line couldn't make a good supply base for an invasion?

You guys can make whatever house rules you want, obviously, but I think you're getting into a tricky area. I'll stick with AACWs supply rules for now. Even in AACW, I think a land invasion not based on a large depot and port is going to get insufficient supply in game.

Sure, and for the most part you are right. But in the mostly unregulated enviroment of our first couple games, the Union was moving too far, too fast for either of our comfort. I do not want to impose my playstyle on anyone, but I would hope you would contribute in the spirit of ' if there had to be a house rule what is a good one?'. Part of the idea is to get a list of house rules that are playtested right here, so we know they 'work' for what they are intended to do.
With a list of 'standard rules' pbem opponents can advertise for a game with 1, 3 and 7, ambivalent on all the rest except 9, which I'll use over my dead body.
Obviously our game will be played with all of them that help us get the feel we are looking for, and 'war in 64'.

I agree the manpower model give you too many guys, and I applaud the attempt to put a damper on that. What about a schedule that limits takes on the DRAFTS button? Obviously you have to trust your opponent. But you could do this:

1861: Partial Mobilization Only
1862: Partial Mobilizations Only
1863: All Options allowed
1864: Volunteers turned OFF

Or some variation thereof. That favors the Union slightly, since the regular everyday production is heavily Union (CSA gets maybe 28 per turn at outset, and Union maybe 60 if you use the recruitment generals, and that gap widens).

Something along those lines, Henry has some ideas I'm sure. I was also intending on limiting the amount of money in the game, either through a graduated (0 inflation options in 61, 1 in 62 etc), or some other method to be decided. All of this will hurt me (the assumed Confederates, Henry does like his Yankees) more than the Union, which is fine, as long as the great blue hordes are properly ineptly handled.

Edit: All of this assumes an implied trust,thats why it's the real Civil war . The game at this point does not give enough information about the opponents turn. And don't get me started on ships...

Yeah, in case i haven't mentioned yet, I suck with the CSA.

runyan99:

The easiness with which both sides can use each others railroads to me is to much of a simplification in game terms, too.

I once read that during the ACW, there were more than 20 different track gauges in use throughout the Confederacy, which hampered railroad transport for the CSA immensely but also forced the Union to convert most conquered rail lines, even if undamaged, to their own standard gauge, before they could use them themselves. That's why a whole new branch of military engineers was founded, the US Military Railroad under Gen. Herman Haupt. Those are, unfortunately, not represented in the game.

Regardinging RR from ports inland: To use a RR, You do not only need the tracks, but also engines, wagons and such, and those were in most cases destroyed or evacuated when the foe moved close. Replacements had to be brought by ship, often track gauges be converted to US standards and so on, too. It should take weeks, in more remote areas months, to achieve this.

Bottom line: Usage of conquered RR is generelly too abstract and easy in the game, IMHO, too...

Regards, Henry

To put some order into this, ole Henry has made a list:

Points that may need to be addressed for a "realistic" Civil War Gameplay:

1. Manpower: Access to additional Manpower needs to be restricted for both sides. Restrictions need to be harder for the Union, IMHO, after all, historically there was no draft prior to Summer 63.

2. Naval movement along river shores that are occupied by enemy batteries/forts: At present, this can be done almost with impunity, allowing players rather a historical exploits.

3. Naval bombardment: Way to strong in favor of fleets against those poor land units as it is now.

4. Use of "captured" RR: IMHO far to easy in the game now, historically "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.

5. Supply: Way to efficient at the moment. This is partly tied to 4. and most likely the most difficult to address by houserule. Bottomline should be (IMHO), that supply used in enemy territory should primarily come by river (if not blocked by enemy batteries along the way) instead of RR. Likewise Units should not be allowed to venture too far away from their river harbor bases or frontline depots without having to establish (and guard) a new depot on the way. How far "too far" is, is certainly a point for intense debate...

Wyrmm will surely chime in with other things I have overlooked.

I was wondering how much of the supply issue could be modded and would be rather thankful if some of our resident modding grogs could chime in and comment on this issue, me being quite a dummy modding-wise, I'm afraid...

Regards, Henry

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.

just on a sidenote: this RR engineer corps was lead by a german engineer (there have not only be running jokes like the german generals in civil war )

You talk about invasion of Norfolk! Sure, CSA would have to gather a force to counterattack but towards Washington DC. Richmond can hold if well garrisoned long enough for ANV to take Washington especially in this game and if Union send it's best commanders to landing site. Before any invasion or push inland Union must be quite sure Washington is well secured or it will have rebels rampaging through Maryland. Perhaps this was the reason why Union never pushed inland vigorously. The best countermeasure to prevent seaborne invasions is to maintain threat on Washington.

With 1.07 being pretty much out, we need to actually come up with our rules. I agree with Henry on areas that need covered, so we should use that as the basis for our game.

1) Units are required to maintain an x area suppy trace to the nearest depot. (x=?)

2) Volunteers may be called from the start of game, through the end of 1863 (or 4). All levels of bounty may be used, but once used that bounty is as low as you can go. (i.e. once you offer $x for volunteers, $x is the minimum bounty allowed)

3)No Drafts til 186x (early or late 62 IMHO), No Full drafts ti a year later.

4)Only 5% bonds in 1862, increasing 1 level per year.

5)Only 0% inflation options in 61-2 in regards to taxes, increasing in 63-4-5.

6)Limit to number of elements in naval stack. (how many?)

7)Limit to amphibious beachhead expansion. (How much? Where?)

8) limit on size of raiding forces, til 63?

9) Any others I have forgot.

I will await Henry's (and other) comments.

Short Notice:

I'm down with a bad case of the measles and therefore not in a state to concentrate much on anything except avoiding to scratch of my face in the next couple of days at least.

However, when I'm back and up and about, I would be glad to read an accessment about the moddability of supplies...

Regards, Henry, currently also known as "The Masque Of The Red Death"

Question:

Has anyone tried out the new "batteries bombard bypassing ships"-order yet? How effective is it? Is bypassing batteries finally a costly and risky business for fleets or is it more kind of a death sentence for the batteries themselves?

Regards, Henry

I haven't noticed a difference vs the AI, But I have noticed that McDowell is so bad that he retreats south...

Henry D. wrote:Question:

Has anyone tried out the new "batteries bombard bypassing ships"-order yet? How effective is it? Is bypassing batteries finally a costly and risky business for fleets or is it more kind of a death sentence for the batteries themselves?

Regards, Henry

Finally?

Jabberwock wrote:Finally?

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...

Regards, Henry

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 thread is for your mod ideas, not mine.

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.

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...

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.

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

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...

Well, I don't have any experience with player built forts. I will have to demur to your expertise there.

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.

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.

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

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

Jabberwock wrote:Well, I don't have any experience with player built forts. I will have to demur to your expertise there.

You don't build forts?

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.

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?

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

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... )

But, once again, it's nearly 3.00AM over here, it's time to lurch to bed. Read You tomorrow.

Regards, Henry

Henry D. wrote:You don't build forts?

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.

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?

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.

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 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

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.

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...

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.

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 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

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.

Regards, Henry

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.

That has not been my experience. I have experimented sending transports past Mobile and Savannah, the one at Mobile got through, but was damaged enough that it could not return. The transports at Savannah got sunk. I think we are talking about two different things, you are talking about pushing supllies past Vicksburg, Porter sent transports past Vicksburg to establish a depot downriver.

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.

I agree some frontage would be nice, but over the course a day long bombardment, a large fleet could cycle units back and forth between the front line and reserve, much more easily than land units. Fleets are too large, but I have all that extra $ and WS to spend.

What is frustrating to me is that the division sized force, with one or two elements of artillery, consistently survives just fine for several turns, while the fleet is rapidly depleted. No smoldering crater - no hint of a smoldering crater. I have tried this all at once, I have tried this in relays. I usually do this on the James Estuary, I am skeered of trying to bombard any force entrenched in the Richmond area. All I would accomplish would be to activate Lee early. If I was seeing those kinds of results againts a built fort at Drewry's Bluff (in Prince George or Henrico region) , it would not be such a problem, but the Confederate does not have to invest in a fort to have this happen. (I agree with your post from another thread - the James River region should be shallow, not coastal, anyhow.)

I know this is counter-intuitive, but with steam power the advantage is in attacking upstream. If you are attacking downstream and get temporarily disabled, you float under the enemies guns, and have to surrender, as opposed to pulling back and doing some repairs.