AGEOD Forums

Its April 1862 and i have 7 ironclads under Semmes this just kicked the hell out of a union fleet near Hampton roads inflicting 800 casulties and only taking 150 in return surly i should get some NM for that but i didnt does Naval combat not trigger NM scores when you win?

Lucky you!

I had 6 of mine sunk attacking a huge Union fleet and all of them were sunk, costing me around 5 or 6 NM..... leure:

you need to sink something to get NM, not just damage.

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: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

The ship names used in AACW are taken from the actual ship's names. If you are building ships and they arrive complete with names, then you are still within the historic build schedule. The names of the Confederate ironclads that at least started construction were:

CSS Virginia, CSS Richmond, CSS Fredericksburg, CSS Virginia II, CSS Texas, Unnamed Double-ended (rams & propellors at each end) ironclad ram, CSS North Carolina, CSS Raleigh, CSS Albemarle, CSS Neuse, CSS Wilmington, Unnamed (CSS Pamlico ??), Unnamed (CSS Roanoke ??), CSS Palmetto State, CSS Chicora, CSS Charleston, CSS Columbia, Unnamed (Charleston #1): Similar to Milledgeville, Unnamed (Charleston #2): Similar to Milledgeville, Unnamed (Charleston #3): Similar to Wilmington, CSS Georgia, CSS Atlanta, CSS Savannah, CSS Milledgeville, Unnamed (Savannah): Similar to Milledgeville, CSS Jackson, CSS Baltic, CSS Huntsville, CSS Tuscaloosa, CSS Tennessee, CSS Nashville, Unnamed (Selma) Sister-ship of the Tennessee, Unnamed (Oven Bluff #1): Similar to Huntsville, Unnamed (Oven Bluff #2): Similar to Huntsville, Unnamed (Oven Bluff #3) Possibly similar to Nashville, CSS Manassas, CSS Louisiana, CSS Mississippi, CSS Missouri, CSS Mobile, Unnamed (Yazoo City), CSS Arkansas, CSS Tennessee (never completed). Begun at Memphis. The sister ship of the Arkansas, CSS Eastport, CSS North Carolina, CSS Stonewall, Unnamed (France) Similar to Stonewall, Unnamed Ironclad frigate, Unnamed (Scotland) Sometimes known as "Santa Maria," "Frigate No. 61," "North's Ironclad," and "The Scottish Sea Monster", CSS Barataria, CSS Columbus, CSS J.A.Cotton, CSS Phoenix

"Dismal Swamp Ironclads": Several vessels (from four to eight?) laid down in 1862 in the tidewater region of Virginia between Norfolk and Elizabeth City NC, bearing some resemblance to the Albemarle and her sisters. None were completed.

If you have a CSA navy with 15 ironclads, you are well behind the number that the South actually built.

Thx for that info Le Ric really well researched m8 , Btw my seven ironclads are now down to 4 on the way back from the battle i passed Fort Monroe which decided to bombard my fleet , Longstreet must get his act together and take that damm fort but i think the north has put more troops in there oh well...

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: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

The closest they came to that were at Charleston and at Trent's Reach on the James River, but they only had two or three at each of those places.

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

War supplies are just too abundant in AACW, for both sides. Reducing them will 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 unachieved.

So the second solution should be too to raise considerably the time required to complete an Ironclad for South...

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...

Agree w/ both solutions....

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...

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.

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.

Do naval engineers speed build times as well as repair times?

Coffee Sergeant wrote:Do naval engineers speed build times as well as repair times?

Yes they do, although I believe port size has a much more significant impact.

As the Union, when the time comes to start building river ironclads ... I always buy the ones in Missouri first. Only one port, pretty big, with a naval engineer. Once those are building, I buy a naval engineer, so I have one unlocked that can travel up and down the Ohio River, speeding the ironclads wherever they show up.

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

As can be seen from my list, a great number of the of the Confederate's ironclads did not even get far enough into their construction to be named before they were captured or destroyed. As construction was spread amongst various ports and over time as resources allowed, being able to concentrate large numbers of ironclads in one location was not practical. The exceptions to this point were the major port cities such as New Orleans, Charleston and Mobile where CSN naval forces were concentrated.

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.

I am not sure who Isaac Smith was. Would not a better candidate be John L Porter, who was Chief Naval Constructor for the Confederate Navy? He did exactly what you have outlined for Smith by moving from shipyard to shipyard supervising construction of warships.

Doh! I meant Isaac Newton Brown, CSN. Built and commanded the CSS Arkansas. Manufactured torpedoes after she was blown up - until the fall of Vicksburg; then given command of CSS Charleston.

Porter designed most of the confederate ironclads, Brown got one built from a hull in 5 weeks, in Yazoo City, MS. (grognard translation: less than 3 turns, in a place too small to qualify for level 1 city)

USS Isaac Smith was a gunboat. Became the CSS Stono when the rebs captured her.

You know all these historical war games sacrifice some portion of historical accuracy for playabilty....its the old historical vs play-ability factor.
Yes the south didnt have the resources for these ironclads....but what fun is it to play a side and not be able to build squat....geesh this game is already lopisided as it was historicaly, to lean for a northern victory....to win as the south you have to feltch a victory over the AI....glad they at least threw me a few bones to play as the south such as pumping out ironclads lol
You know i like this game.....but see it could use a lot of improvement but really dont think thats the area IMO

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,

Hi Keith,

MERRIMAC, that is the name of that Yankee frigate of whose hull was used to become the CSS Virginia. It was a bunch of Yankee historians that called that classic first battle of ironclads the Monitor versus the Merrimac. History should refer to it as the Virginia versus the Monitor.

Just received my copy of AACW. It looks to be every bit the great game that BOA was.

Thanks AGEOD for another classic.

Later,

Mazra