hidden ship's holds for oceanic fleets

[andatiep]

I just "translate" quickly a proposal from the french speaking forum about debarquement problem (http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=137438#post137438) :

Is it possible that the troops inside Naval transports units just be really hidden so that the Union can really do surprising landing.

It seems unrealistic that confederate units from the coast can see what is inside the ships.

[Pocus]

Good idea... I'll add that to the to do list!

[tagwyn]

It is not necessary for the Rebs to see what is in transport ships! Since they had no transports; any ships approaching their shore (not ports) would be up to no good. Not a good idea. t

[tc237]

Spies at Union ports sometimes passed along information on transports being loaded.

hmm....off topic but a thought for future games.....maybe an espionage box on the economics page, similiar to the rail/river transport purchase box, amount payed out increases espionage/counter-espionage efforts in friendly/enemy territory.
A subtle method to simulate spying perhaps?

[gchristie]

If you consider going this route, might you want to consider that CSA could potentially have some intelligence through their spy networks on an amphibious operation and therefore have some advance warning as to troop strength and/or destination? Some percentage yes or no could be developed and factored in? I don't think it should be all or nothing.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[andatiep]

It is not necessary for the Rebs to see what is in transport ships! Since they had no transports; any ships approaching their shore (not ports) would be up to no good. Not a good idea. t

Maybe it is not necessary for your Rebs to see what is in transport ships but it is for my Yanks to be sure that they don't !!
I believe i have to try to translate more what i want to say.

The point is : When the North organize a debarquement, how can he surprise the South and at which logistical costs.
The usual historical way to surprise the ennemy before a landing is to place simultaneously a fleet with transports in front of a maximum of potential objectives.
Then enemy HQ get the first reports of standing potentially debarquement fleets in different points. But till the end, they will not know where exactly to send reinforcement.
Currently, the surprise is not preserved if the whole details of the ship's holds are displayed in each fleets...

About Intelligence reports on the fleets : Whatever there is spy or newspaper's journalist relating the departure of troops in ships in some ports, we can still suppose that the final roadmap and objectives of their captains are still confidential, isn't?
If need, you can simulate this witnesses with random display of the main ports region without Fogg of War, ...but not in the see region in front of them...

[Brochgale]

Playing as CSA - I always wondered how to make best use of Belle Boyd. As it is she always gets caught and ends up being not a lot of use? Curious as to how Yanks make use of Pinkerton? It is something that might be thought about ACW2 - the use of and role of spies in game?

[Heldenkaiser]

The point is : When the North organize a debarquement, how can he surprise the South and at which logistical costs.

If the "remote unload" (or whatever the name) function of BoA2 could be ported to AACW, that would solve most of that problem. (I.e. you can send a fleet to a hostile shore and disembark in the same turn, sufficient MP provided. Surprise is thus perfect.)

Otherwise you can still select a sea zone for your landing that has access to several land regions, so the enemy at least won't know for sure on which of those you're going to land.

[Heldenkaiser]

Curious as to how Yanks make use of Pinkerton?

I have been paying his beer tab in a Washington pub for two years now. He is happy and can file reports of 200 Reb spies gathering all in a bar with room for 30.

[Chertio]

I find Belle Boyd comes in handy for searching out Union assembly areas, Pinkerton for spying on CSA ports looking for weak points.

In a recent PBEM I was besieging Richmond but couldn't see the state of the depot because Belle was standing in the way, masking it. Clever.

Maybe could add the ability (if there are spies at all in ACWII) to put the spies in the enemy capital and see things like the enemy's build orders, disposition of fleets etc.

[andatiep]

If the "remote unload" (or whatever the name) function of BoA2 could be ported to AACW, that would solve most of that problem. (I.e. you can send a fleet to a hostile shore and disembark in the same turn, sufficient MP provided. Surprise is thus perfect.)

The BoA2 turns represent 30 days and AACW 15 days. I guess that's why it have really to be implemented for BoA2. But i wonder if it will not be to much painfull for the South if we apply this rule for AACW.

Otherwise you can still select a sea zone for your landing that has access to several land regions, so the enemy at least won't know for sure on which of those you're going to land.

Yes, i already used that trick , but the enemy still know in wich areas he have to send strategic reinforcments.


The fact that the enemy knows the details of the troops inside the boot is still a big problem, but hopefully it will be solved for AACWII...

[Heldenkaiser]

The BoA2 turns represent 30 days and AACW 15 days. I guess that's why it have really to be implemented for BoA2.

Although I agree that the need must have appeared more pressing for 30 day turns, technically I think there's no reason why it shouldn't be useful with 15 day turns too. If the combined move fits within 15 days it would be legitimate to make it possible. You'd just do the entire sea movement in smaller steps. But for the last leg, sail another couple of seazones and then disembark within the remaning days.

It's one of those things that, if implemented, would make the finite turn length less constrictive for the player. Like the suggestion to enable the player to order a force to rest in place at the beginning of a turn, then move. Presently it's only possible the other way round, a restriction that seems to make not much sense historically, IMHO.

[Spharv2]

About Intelligence reports on the fleets : Whatever there is spy or newspaper's journalist relating the departure of troops in ships in some ports, we can still suppose that the final roadmap and objectives of their captains are still confidential, isn't?

In this time period, you really couldn't assume that. Quite often reporters and newspapers would give away way too much information regarding marching orders, destinations, even orders of battle. Some people think the slimy journalist willing to risk other people's lives to break a story are a new thing, but they've been around since newspapers began. Of course, in the North, a newspaper who went too far or was too critical of the government ran the risk of being shut down and it's owner/editors imprisoned for some length of time, but it still happened. Some people just can't resist I suppose.