keith wrote:the naval game confuses me, as the csa i am able to build virtually unlimted amounts of ironclads simply because i have money and supplies to burn, but no conscript coys, so i might as well use my assets in this way, i had 15 defending n orleans, my question is historically what was the naval capacity of the south besides the merrimac and the arkansas, how many ironclads did the south build, to my mind being able to build 15 is simply not possible under any circumstances, if the south did build more what were there names
keith wrote:yep, thanx for that, i never knew they built so many, just one question though, was the south ever able to combine a large force of ironclads into 1 fleet as i have and if so were and was that
keith wrote:the naval game confuses me, as the csa i am able to build virtually unlimted amounts of ironclads simply because i have money and supplies to burn, but no conscript coys, so i might as well use my assets in this way, i had 15 defending n orleans, my question is historically what was the naval capacity of the south besides the merrimac and the arkansas, how many ironclads did the south build, to my mind being able to build 15 is simply not possible under any circumstances, if the south did build more what were there names
Clovis wrote:War supplies are just too abundant in AACW, for both sides. Reducung them is going to hinder such abuses better than any ruleset designed specially to cope with the problem.
CSA built many ironclads but not the same year and a large part remained inachieved.
So the second solution should be too to raise considerably the time needed to complete an Ironclad for South...
Clovis wrote:CSA built many ironclads but not the same year and a large part remained unachieved.
So the second solution should be too to raise considerably the time required to complete an Ironclad for South...
Jabberwock wrote:I agree with both as well, if done in moderation.
Ideally, I think ironclads should require some sort of replacements in order to get up to full strength (replacements with a high WS cost). That would allow scenario designers to add understrength ironclads, instead of locked ironclads.
In conjunction with the second one, I'd like to see Isaac Smith added to the game, with naval engineer as an ability. That would make it possible to prioritize one ironclad at a time (build it at about the current rate), but slow down building of others. Once he finished one, he could either become its captain, or move on to help build another.
Coffee Sergeant wrote:Do naval engineers speed build times as well as repair times?
keith wrote:yep, thanx for that, i never knew they built so many, just one question though, was the south ever able to combine a large force of ironclads into 1 fleet as i have and if so were and was that
Jabberwock wrote:I agree with both as well, if done in moderation.
Ideally, I think ironclads should require some sort of replacements in order to get up to full strength (replacements with a high WS cost). That would allow scenario designers to add understrength ironclads, instead of locked ironclads.
In conjunction with the second one, I'd like to see Isaac Smith added to the game, with naval engineer as an ability. That would make it possible to prioritize one ironclad at a time (build it at about the current rate), but slow down building of others. Once he finished one, he could either become its captain, or move on to help build another.
keith wrote:my question is historically what was the naval capacity of the south besides the merrimac and the arkansas, how many ironclads did the south build,
Return to “AACW Strategy discussions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests