Q about troops landing from the sea

[asdicus]

As a regular union pbm gamer I find it annoying that I cannot surprise the csa player with naval landings.

The problem is you have to sail your fleet into an adjacent naval zone (where it is spotted by the csa player) and then wait til the next turn before you can disembark your troops. This gives the csa player plenty of time to move in troops by rail next turn.

This seems wrong as the naval force plus troops can arrive on day 1 of the turn and then have to spend 14 more days doing nothing for the rest of that turn. Am I missing something obvious here about naval landings or is this the way it is designed to work ??

[squarian]

Ask Jabberwock?

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=102839&postcount=24

[Jabberwock]

I plan to come clean about it, after the next campaign season in the Grand Campaign. I know that could be awhile ... sorry.

asdicus - You've made a wrong assumption, that's all I can say. Keep experimenting.

Similar to this issue, it seems wrong that it can take 14 days to react to a cavalry raid. Now that we've gotten the movement rates more accurate, the big delay is more obvious. Maybe the new seven-day scenarios will help.

[soundoff]

Given that these days with my wargaming I have no desire to 'understand' what goes on under the engine of a game I suspect its all to do with these Hide values though I've no real idea.

What I do know though is that if I sail into a coastal region that does not have a structure then I'm not spotted. Try moving a fleet into Deadmans Bay off of Florida and you will see what I mean. Then disembark the troops into Taylor its a marsh region but what the heck. I like to have some cavalry along but I'm not sure its vital. You should still remain hidden. It seems to work for me...there are one or two other similar places for employing the same tactic.

Dont suppose I'm remotely on Jabbers track but as I said it seems to work for me.

[soundoff]

Of course the other way which is as gamey as hell and I cant believe is a WAD....though I'm probably wrong is to do the following.

Just take a fleet out to sea lets say the Atlantic Ocean or perhaps you'd prefer the Gulf of Mexico. Keep them just out of the coastal hexes. Now move the troops off of the ships. Click on the transport by river icon and hey presto you land them via riverine transports. All you have to do is make sure the weather is good and pick a decent landing region. Aaaagh....leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Coffee Sergeant]

Well consider it from the CSA perspective - they can't react to your amphibious assault for a full turn (14 days). In the case of places like Gulf Coast (Galveston to Pensacola), it takes more than one turn to move troops from the Tennesee/Virginia theaters to counter the invasion, thus you do have an element of 'surprise' at least in those theathers. Even if you land somewhere in the Carolina/Georgia coast, in most places you are talking about more than 5 days to move troops there, which is enough time for your troops to disembark and gain a foothold.

[asdicus]

Thanks for the tip re using riverine transports from the ocean instead of the coastal regions. It does seem slightly gamey but on the other hand forcing the union transports to sit for up to 15 days without landing anyone is also wrong - this option at least allows some sort of surprise for naval landings.

[soundoff]

Thanks for the tip re using riverine transports from the ocean instead of the coastal regions. It does seem slightly gamey but on the other hand forcing the union transports to sit for up to 15 days without landing anyone is also wrong - this option at least allows some sort of surprise for naval landings.

Its not 'slightly gamey' its horribly gamey. Just picture the scene. There is old Horatio Nelson on the poopdeck looking with his one good eye out onto the vast expanse of the Atlantic Ocean and low and behold the Southern Belle paddle steamer sails sedately over the horizon to offload his wearwithalls whilst Paul Robeson on the bow sings Ol' Man River .............nasty nasty hobbits'sss......should'nt be allowed

[johnnycai]

Of course the other way which is as gamey as hell and I cant believe is a WAD....though I'm probably wrong is to do the following.

Just take a fleet out to sea lets say the Atlantic Ocean or perhaps you'd prefer the Gulf of Mexico. Keep them just out of the coastal hexes. Now move the troops off of the ships. Click on the transport by river icon and hey presto you land them via riverine transports. All you have to do is make sure the weather is good and pick a decent landing region. Aaaagh....leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Also factor in that the game log will be very non-descriptive, frigates or other patrol ships in the ocean regions wont do much reporting on passing Union fleets (ie. whether its a 1-ship fleet or a D-Day type flotilla, we just hear that ??.fleet has bypassed our ships) and that if your the non-host and cant follow the day-to-day movements you likely will be caught by surprise most of the time.
Its gamey for sure. I would not use it as a Union player.

[Jabberwock]

Umm - have any of you actually tried that? You can't use riverine transport in ocean regions.

Unless there's a bug in a recent patch? Hope not.

Picture this:

David Farragut sails up to the docks of New Orleans, bringing the troops past the forts with him, but then has to wait 14 days or more before he can convince the city to surrender, because the citizens of New Orleans laugh when he threatens to level the town with naval firepower, and those troops just aren't ready to go ashore. They don't even have a good "Ben Butler has a sniffle" excuse, they're just not ready. In the meantime, Felix "I'm still alive" Zollicoffer arrives in town with a division from Sidney Johnston's army. Now of course Felix can't do anything about those ships in the river, because he's not sufficiently entrenched, and won't be for months, besides they won't moving around in front of his entrenchments when those do get built because they brought a bunch of empty transports along, so he won't be shooting at them anyway, but at least Felix is not able to send anything across except with a 10% chance every 2 weeks, and Farragut can't do anything about that ...

THAT's gamey.

Don't tell me about landing troops with surprise being gamey. Please don't tell me about riverine transport being made up only of casino steamboats, or only of barges, or only of whatever is convenient to the current argument, either.

Sorry folks, nothing personal, just me ranting again.

BTW - WIA has a distant unload feature, which I'm sure will be incorporated into AACW at some point. Personally, I prefer the way I do it. I'm proud of the way I do it. It takes skill and effort the way I do it.

[Dixicrat]

Please excuse the interruption, gentlemen. What does "gamey" mean, exactly?

[Jabberwock]

Gamey -
1. an ahistorical strategy or tactic, used to take advantage of a "hole" in game rules
2. an ahistorical modeling of a situation created by game rules

[soundoff]

Umm - have any of you actually tried that? You can't use riverine transport in ocean regions.

Unless there's a bug in a recent patch? Hope not.

.

Forgive me Jabber for saying that I believe you are being deliberately misleading with this first bit. I actually said originally something to the effect that you could sail your troops into a sea zone and then offload them and then by clicking on the 'move by river order' which is effectively a riverine transport option you could get them to shore. Now I still stand by that assertion. And I still reckon to use it is gamey. Solving a game design fault by using a tactic/ability in a way that was evidently not envisaged by the designers is 'gamey'

I also fully accept where you are coming from in having troops being unable to disembark in the same turn and would love to see this corrected. But if its gamey we are looking at I'd include giving more of a chance of intercepting cavalry raids and certainly not allowing cavalry to magically conjure up river transport whilst in enemy territory. I'd also make it impossible or damned near suicidal to switch commanders or remove from command just to overcome the 'inactive' box. That too is 'gamey'

My rant also over and apologies to all

[Daxil]

Please excuse the interruption, gentlemen. What does "gamey" mean, exactly?

Just using everything at your disposal to win, including manipulating flaws in the game.

[Le Ricain]

Forgive me Jabber for saying that I believe you are being deliberately misleading with this first bit. I actually said originally something to the effect that you could sail your troops into a sea zone and then offload them and then by clicking on the 'move by river order' which is effectively a riverine transport option you could get them to shore. Now I still stand by that assertion. And I still reckon to use it is gamey. Solving a game design fault by using a tactic/ability in a way that was evidently not envisaged by the designers is 'gamey'

I went and played 1.11a as the Union to confirm that the tactic of offloading troops from an ocean region onto a coast land region using river transport button still works. It does.

[johnnycai]

Jabberwock is right with his points about realistic and historic amphib operations and games rules as they currently compare.

Amphib from the Sea Zone (ASZ) does make amends from a point of view.
Just not as the designer envisioned I believe.
I ask for clarity...Pocus?

[Jabberwock]

Forgive me Jabber for saying that I believe you are being deliberately misleading with this first bit. I actually said originally something to the effect that you could sail your troops into a sea zone and then offload them and then by clicking on the 'move by river order' which is effectively a riverine transport option you could get them to shore. Now I still stand by that assertion. And I still reckon to use it is gamey. Solving a game design fault by using a tactic/ability in a way that was evidently not envisaged by the designers is 'gamey'

Alright ... but this is not what I've been doing. I don't disembark in ocean regions, and I can still accomplish nearly the same thing.

I also fully accept where you are coming from in having troops being unable to disembark in the same turn and would love to see this corrected. But if its gamey we are looking at I'd include giving more of a chance of intercepting cavalry raids and certainly not allowing cavalry to magically conjure up river transport whilst in enemy territory. I'd also make it impossible or damned near suicidal to switch commanders or remove from command just to overcome the 'inactive' box. That too is 'gamey'

Maybe gamey, but certainly more historically justifiable. In the few historical instances we have of extended raids, creatively acquiring transport was occasionally required, although not for the extended distances possible in the game. I'd have to agree about switching commanders. However, both those ideas belong in separate discussions.

[Jabberwock]

I went and played 1.11a as the Union to confirm that the tactic of offloading troops from an ocean region onto a coast land region using river transport button still works. It does.

I think so far we're all in agreement that it should be fixed. Both offloading and riverine movement in ocean regions should be disallowed. There are more realistic ways of doing landings.

[soundoff]

I think so far we're all in agreement that it should be fixed. Both offloading and riverine movement in ocean regions should be disallowed. There are more realistic ways of doing landings.

I really am looking forward to finding out how you do it. Be blowed if I can figure it out.

[Jabberwock]

Forgive me Jabber for saying that I believe you are being deliberately misleading with this first bit. I actually said originally something to the effect that you could sail your troops into a sea zone and then offload them and then by clicking on the 'move by river order' which is effectively a riverine transport option you could get them to shore. Now I still stand by that assertion. And I still reckon to use it is gamey. Solving a game design fault by using a tactic/ability in a way that was evidently not envisaged by the designers is 'gamey'

I also fully accept where you are coming from in having troops being unable to disembark in the same turn and would love to see this corrected. But if its gamey we are looking at I'd include giving more of a chance of intercepting cavalry raids and certainly not allowing cavalry to magically conjure up river transport whilst in enemy territory. I'd also make it impossible or damned near suicidal to switch commanders or remove from command just to overcome the 'inactive' box. That too is 'gamey'

My rant also over and apologies to all

I just re-read this ... and there's not a single thing about it I can find to disagree with. I therefore cannot accept your apology.

[Daxil]

I think I know now. There are only so many things that can be done that wouldn't be considered gamey. Although what I'm thinking of, if you really think about it, seems a tad gamey. Time to test...