Missouri, what do you do?

[Coldsteel]

So in this game. . . . the Union has the Army of the Potomac fighting in Kentucky right now. . . . .
I haven't mustard up the courage yet to try it, but I think I could walk a corp up to Philly and NY City without much standing in my way.

I just worry about a Northern Army appearing in my back door once I do that. . .

[Coldsteel]

Whoooo Hooo! I'm a Corporal now!

Dig me!

:-)

[ohms_law]

If you can take NY or Philly, then do it. The morale hit for loosing those cities (especially DC) is worth it, and that lasts much longer than the time that you'll end up holding the cities anyway.

Just be sure that your units are supplied while on enemy soil.

[Dixicrat]

Whoooo Hooo! I'm a Corporal now!

Dig me!

:-)

Congratulations, on your achievement, Corporal!
I'll inform the Queen.

[Coldsteel]

I just won for the first time, the Grand Campaign. The South did indeed prevail!

[dolphin]

Here's how I do Missouri as the Union:

If the CSA builds up divisions and corps in Arkansas to stop you, so much the better. Tying up a big CSA army in the West is even better than taking Little Rock. The farther you go, the harder it is for the CSA to get a foothold to fight back. Each new objective you take along the Springfield-Little Rock route makes all the others more secure.

I have much less experience with the CSA, but consider the obvious handicaps he faces. It is very hard for the CSA to mount an early fight for Missouri, because he can't afford to risk building anything there except militia. Militia will have a short life, but might be worth it to delay the fall of J. City, Rolla, and Springfield, or at least destroy the depots. He can build up expensive units in Arkansas to stop your relatively cheap ones at Fayetteville or Fort Smith, and you might as well hope that he does because he'll be spending a dollar for every dime you spend.

I think a CSA player who aims at St. Louis had better be crazy or at least have Forrest's crazy luck. The Union can rapidly raise huge forces in St. Louis, to throw against CSA forces that will be at the exteme end of their supplies. Likewise J. City and Rolla are extremely precarious things to aim for. As the CSA I would ultimately focus on hanging on to the axis of Little Rock-Madison-Memphis, hitting back hard at anything near them, and regard Missouri as expendable.

I have never played the Union. I have only played a couple of PBM games and was not able to finish one of those, but in the first PBM I did win in MO and did take St Louis. I always do well in MO playing the CSA against Athena.

I might add that all those militia the CSA builds in MO, Ark, and Texas in the beginning turn into line infantry as the war progresses and frankly it does not take that long.

I got it in my head that as the CSA taking those recruitment cities and holding the ones you start with is way too important to just give up on.

I am still playing 1.16 rc4a. Not sure if that makes the difference.

[Stauffenberg]

Seems like the time to weigh in with my own thoughts on bringing Missouri into the Confederacy.

While one can perhaps develop an overall winning plan for the Union at start (i.e., the “Anaconda” essentially), for the South one has to turn on a dime against one’s opponent and whatever strategy is being used against you, employing your best strengths and assets according to the situation. This certainly applies to Missouri and a contingency plan should be in place to pounce if the Union player is weak there, or flubs his hand in some way.

I have been looking at this “Mississippi First” strategy for the South (MF Plan), and a part of this will allow for a very strong campaign for Missouri to be developed if the conditions seem right. The main essentials of the MF Plan are:

--Start building up gunboats and ironclads on the river early on
--Buchanan and Semmes moved to command the north and southern river fleets.
-- Forts in Memphis, Vicksburg, New Orleans ; building extra coastal batteries in Georgia ASAP and moving them to forts on the river
--Early invasion of Kentucky with the key aim of taking Paducah and fortifying it with coastal artillery from Georgia (and with this in place a major naval-assisted offensive for St. Louis MI can be contemplated).
--Capital moved from Richmond to New Orleans as needed
--a grand division with first class general stationed New Orleans ASAP
--army commands for North and South Miss. established.

In pursuing the MF Plan, the Missouri option can be used if the situation seems favourable. In this case it is envisioned to fall into a number of phases:

1) Charleston force at the opening of hostilities immediately sent towards Fayetteville AR in anticipation of Price appearing there. Additional cavalry and artillery building for this western army, and the western supply unit at start sent to AR. Beginning to start building a powerful Mississippi Fleet, destined to be under the command of Semmes. As many additional ironclads built as possible. Early builds of brigs sent to the Gulf will provide additional war supplies for this in ’62.

2) Kentucky-Paducah strike force under Magruder ideally, building up in Humbolt (Gibson, TN) to be used to grab Paducah at the earliest opportunity. Coastal artillery units starting to be built as a priority in Georgia to be sent west, and up to Norfolk as well. Columbiad artillery built in AL to be sent to Paducah as well.

3) Advance in ’61 into MO with the aim of at least being able to hold and base in Springfield for the following winter. West Army under Johnston builds up in MO.

4) Beauregard and Jackson sent west winter of ’61 to form new Tennessee army south of Paducah. Paducah is taken and Kentucky invaded according to situation—perhaps the union will trigger Kentucky active first, perhaps not, but the South must move to secure Paducah at all costs. River transports and supply units ready to fortify Paducah and build a depot there immediately upon capture. With Paducah secured, Beauregard's Tennessee Army (or Lee's if he is activated) should pivot across the river to the Charleston/Reel MO area, with a depot built in Reel Harbour for a logistical base using river transports. Once Kentucky is invaded begin building all of that state's 10 & 20 lber artillery to be used by the MO army in the spring.
The army across the Miss in MO should be put under Lee's command as soon as he is freed up in the east, and another army can be established in Nashville.

5) Spring of ’62 Missouri offensive begins with the Miss. Fleet under Semmes clearing the Missouri river up to St Louis and completely interdicting traffic across the river from Cairo to Peoria IL. Cavalry raiders (using house rule that requires a commanding general present to raid beyond border states) begin an intensive campaign to tear up RR tracks east of the Missouri R.

6) Beauregard (or Lee) with Jackson’s Corps advances on St. Louis, joined by Johnston’s Western Army advancing from Springfield. Johnston’s army can be moved to Texas or elsewhere and his corps placed under this command when CSA forces close on St. Louis.

This plan is an optional component of the MF Plan, and depends upon strong navy assets and the capture of Paducah surprising the Union player, as well as the effective use of cavalry raiders. MO should be isolated from Union support for months if handled properly—long enough to take down St. Louis and bring Missouri firmly into the Confederacy. An early strong showing by Price in s. MO (Springfield) could be the bait to lure the Union to stick his neck out down there, and Lee's surprise thrust along the river to St. Louis in the spring could bag their entire Army. The fact that you have a very strong fleet under Semmes in the Miss. R. should be masked until the turn they are set loose for the MO offensive.

In particular it depends upon using Paducah as a shield while Semme’s naval sword strikes north on the Missouri river, clearing it of Union ships. The Union fleet east of Cairo will think twice about sailing past Paducah after their first attempt and they notice, to their dismay, their ships take 60+ hits from the fort there. The city itself, fortified, with a depot, supply cart(s), a very strong division under a general like Magruder (3-2-3), will be a major thorn in the side of the Union in the West. With St. Louis also flying the stars and bars, this should cause major headaches for the Union.

[dolphin]

Seems like the time to weigh in with my own thoughts on bringing Missouri into the Confederacy.

An interesting read with some pretty neat ideas, but I can't help thinking the obvious that occurs to me. That being that such a disposition of forces and expendature of resources to support such a plan sounds like it would seriously jeapordize the entire Northern Virginia area including Richmond.

[Stauffenberg]

An interesting read with some pretty neat ideas, but I can't help thinking the obvious that occurs to me. That being that such a disposition of forces and expendature of resources to support such a plan sounds like it would seriously jeapordize the entire Northern Virginia area including Richmond.

Well you're right, and it would entirely depend upon the sort of strategy the Union is following. If they figure out what you are up to, you are sunk; if they don't and they give you a little breathing room, this can all be enacted by summer '62, after which you can recover in Virginia.

In any case, the historical strategy played by the South was "Virginia First" and we all know the result of that out West. I wanted to try the reverse somehow.

[Hohenlohe]

An interesting read with some pretty neat ideas, but I can't help thinking the obvious that occurs to me. That being that such a disposition of forces and expendature of resources to support such a plan sounds like it would seriously jeapordize the entire Northern Virginia area including Richmond.

You are right,with his plan Stauffenberg endangers the important city of Richmond and reduces his NM and VP for nothing...Missouri holding against a human player in this way is a oneway-ticket to Richmond cause the best generals are elsewhere but not in North Virginia. To hold Paducah you must not move all the best generals westwards,Jackson und A.s.Johnston are enough, with some decent troops. Semmes is needed for hitting Union fleets aka merchants in the Atlantic but Buchanan is enough on the Mississippi.

only my opinion...

Hohenlohe...

[Stauffenberg]

You are right,with his plan Stauffenberg endangers the important city of Richmond and reduces his NM and VP for nothing...Missouri holding against a human player in this way is a oneway-ticket to Richmond cause the best generals are elsewhere but not in North Virginia. To hold Paducah you must not move all the best generals westwards,Jackson und A.s.Johnston are enough, with some decent troops. Semmes is needed for hitting Union fleets aka merchants in the Atlantic but Buchanan is enough on the Mississippi.

only my opinion...

Hohenlohe...

The Missouri option can be played or not played, depending upon the situation. Semmes can be used in the Atlantic and Buchanan used out West.

I am wondering if the NM loss for Richmond is really so prohibitive if the entire Mississippi river is secured, New Orleans a fortified capital. These are things to consider. Johnston and Longstreet in Virginia are certainly no pushover in '62 by any stretch.

[Longshanks]

While I think Stauffenberg's plan is "high risk" it fits in well with the metagame, in which most Union players assume the South will defend Virginia, and so send units elsewhere to fight, such as MO, KY, Coastal invasions, etc. and are content to put light pressure on Virginia, or play defense there.

[oberst_klink]

I love this theatre the most and the options are more than interesting, especially if you manage to kick Johnny Reb out of Ft Smith before 1861 ends. The next step is to push the secessionists with their back to the west bank of the Mississippi. Maybe I am wrong, but the Eastern theatre I just stay put and use the navy and landings along the coast; which seems to put dear Athena into panic mode. No food, no ammo, no fighting Johnnies.

Klink, Oberst

[charlesonmission]

In my 2nd tournament game, we've had some great battles and movement in MO. Keep an eye out for Lonshanks update on the game in the future. Let's just say that Lyon and Price are really going at it.

Charles

I love this theatre the most and the options are more than interesting, especially if you manage to kick Johnny Reb out of Ft Smith before 1861 ends. The next step is to push the secessionists with their back to the west bank of the Mississippi. Maybe I am wrong, but the Eastern theatre I just stay put and use the navy and landings along the coast; which seems to put dear Athena into panic mode. No food, no ammo, no fighting Johnnies.

Klink, Oberst

[dolphin]

The Missouri option can be played or not played, depending upon the situation. Semmes can be used in the Atlantic and Buchanan used out West.

I am wondering if the NM loss for Richmond is really so prohibitive if the entire Mississippi river is secured, New Orleans a fortified capital. These are things to consider. Johnston and Longstreet in Virginia are certainly no pushover in '62 by any stretch.

Its not just the NM loss, but also the supply, materials, and manpower. In addition to a massive hit to unit morale affecting combat performence to all troops everywhere.

[charlesonmission]

Richmond would no longer be the capital in the MS first strategy, so there would be a hit, but it wouldn't be massive.

Charles

Its not just the NM loss, but also the supply, materials, and manpower. In addition to a massive hit to unit morale affecting combat performence to all troops everywhere.

[gotrek]

This makes interesting reading. I only ever played agaisnt the AI and wonder are coastal batteries all that efficient? I never bothered so much with them (as in not all ).
Does a heavily reinforced battery cause major damage to ships and does it actually prevent raids down the river? Or it just wounds the parties and makes the AI think twice?

Also should you set your forts on attack for them to shoot at passing ships or leave it on defence? I'm never sure, since the batteries don't move I didn't figure changing their status did anything.

[Captain_Orso]

Batteries in pre-war forts or the fortifications you can build in towns and cities always fire on passing enemy shipping and the coastal batteries can be devastating. You cannot expect to outright sink anything passing by, but you will do a world of hurt to them; that means that the troops being transported arrive at their destination already damaged and with less cohesion and supply.

Field artillery will also do some damage to passing shipping, but not nearly as much as coastal artillery. But coastal artillery is only used against shipping and field artillery will be effective against land units in the region too. If you want to be really versatile you can put Columbiad or Rodman batteries in forts--depending on your nationality--, they are slow movers but have good range and detection values, but coastal, though very expensive, will be the most effective vs shipping.

[Stauffenberg]

Batteries in pre-war forts or the fortifications you can build in towns and cities always fire on passing enemy shipping and the coastal batteries can be devastating. You cannot expect to outright sink anything passing by, but you will do a world of hurt to them; that means that the troops being transported arrive at their destination already damaged and with less cohesion and supply.

The program will build most new coastal artillery units in Georgia, sometimes even up-river, but if you order a few at once you will often get a build for one in Virginia as well. Having one of these units sent to Norfolk is a must and it will inflict a huge number of hits on union shipping going by, though not outright sinking (that I have seen) as you say. I think you get a total of 4 builds, maybe more for '64 and '65 I'm not sure.

With the M.F. strategy these additional coastal guns would obviously be placed in key forts; e.g. N.O., Vicksburg or Memphis, and Paducah if you can grab it. One nice advantage if you manage to keep rivierine superiority or parity, is that of moving these guns downriver as forts become untenable due to the inevitable Union land advances. With beefed-up garrisons of elite troops these batteries can be sited around New Orleans later on: at Fort Pike guarding Lake Pontchartrain against a backdoor sneak attack (done to me in one of my first pbems), Fort Phillip or Jackson guarding the Mississippi Mouth, and one last battery of 24 guns in N.O. itself, plus some columbiads and ironclads all set to bombard. With all this in place, Farragut should have a hellacious time of it battling into the fortified Confederate capital itself. This is the end-game of the Miss. First Plan I am looking forward to trying out.

[Captain_Orso]

There are some technical things to know about bombardment.

1. your "bombard passing ships" button will turn off every time the commanding general goes from ready to unready and back (brown cookie/white cookie), if you have a commanding general, unless they are in a fort or fortification.

[INDENT]I actually put a unit in Surry VA and dug them in with engineers and then gave them a Columbiad battery and a supply train(units with a supply train with at least 1 point of supply give the units in the stack a 10% combat bonus), because the Union insisted on having a blockade fleet in front of Norfolk. Every time I chased the fleet away from Norfolk with a fleet of ironclads and gunboats, they simply retreated up to Richmond taking some hits. But it didn't seem to spoil their game. So I put a coastal artillery in Surry and the first time they sailed by *bang*. They suddenly grew tired of this game.

I also fortified Norfolk and put a coastal battery there too, firstly because the Union kept threatening to land in Norfolk--which they had done earlier in the war--and the smaller batteries there just didn't effectively discourage the Union from sending blockading fleets in to the James Estuary. By this time I had also repatriated Ft. Monroe into the confederacy.

These measures put an end to the Unions attempts to disrupt the James River economy.[/INDENT]

2. They still only bombard passing ships or if the ships decide to bombard you, which I've never seen done by Athena; it's also very costly to do if they are your ships.

So you can put as many coastal artillery batteries into New Orleans as you wish. If the Union only wants to land there and invade those batteries will never fire off a shot at any union ships.

The same goes for all of the other Mississippi and Ohio River cities.

[INDENT]Personally If the CSA fortified Paducah like this I might simply amass an invasion force in Cairo and sortie out of there for Island 10 and land directly on it, siege it for a few turns until I've softened the inhabitants up a bit an then assault the fort. I've done this many times successfully. Paducah will unfortunately have no affect on shipping going up and down the Mississippi, only across the Ohio.

If Paducah is in CSA hands, Island 10 is an excellent jump-off point to invade western Kentucky. The swamp makes it almost impossible to attack overland--I tried that a number of times with poor results, before I came up with the naval invasion idea--but you can sortie out of there without any trouble. You had just better be successful at taking some locations with or to put up a depot, because if you go running back to Island Momma, she's going to slam her swampy door in your face.[/INDENT]

If the Union manages to sortie out of Island 10 and take Humboldt, you had better have a depot in Donelson or Paducah will starve and be an easy take for the Union.

The important part of defending the Mississippi is fortifying the locations where the Union will be wanting to strike so that they will hold out long enough for the CSA to send an army to the rescue. So coastal batteries will do nothing to defend the fortifications, only to force the Union to take them before moving on. Force the Union to defend it's bridgeheads. Without supply they are lost; and the further they advance from their bridgehead, the more vulnerable their supply line.

The Union will decide where to fight; the CSA can only decide whether to fight.

[Stauffenberg]

There are some technical things to know about bombardment.

1. your "bombard passing ships" button will turn off every time the commanding general goes from ready to unready and back (brown cookie/white cookie), if you have a commanding general, unless they are in a fort or fortification.

[INDENT]I actually put a unit in Surry VA and dug them in with engineers and then gave them a Columbiad battery and a supply train(units with a supply train with at least 1 point of supply give the units in the stack a 10% combat bonus)....

These measures put an end to the Unions attempts to disrupt the James River economy.[/INDENT]

2. So you can put as many coastal artillery batteries into New Orleans as you wish. If the Union only wants to land there and invade those batteries will never fire off a shot at any union ships.

The Union will decide where to fight; the CSA can only decide whether to fight.

Some very good insights.

1) I knew that and basically check bombard every turn out of habit at this point. Good addition re the supply dug-in columbiads.
Why Surry and not Suffolk?

2) It took me awhile to get a handle on the bombard function here, and I suggested elsewhere it might be considered that a bombard order will fire against all available targets in brown water locations (only), especially against incoming enemy landings at that location. How would you view such a change? "Amphibious assault" as we know, vastly overstates the cumbersome mechanics of landing at an enemy beach or harbour in the 1860s. If you are landing in the face of coastal artillery, your ships should surely pay a price. Right now, if a fleet sails past coastal artillery they will get fired at, if they sail at it... they won't. Perhaps I am missing something...

And re Paducah, that location was given for the MF strategy, to form a shield for the Mississippi behind which a large CSA riverine fleet can clear things up to St. Louis as an option.

[Longshanks]

2) .... Right now, if a fleet sails past coastal artillery they will get fired at, if they sail at it... they won't. Perhaps I am missing something...

It's the "dreaded double occupancy" rule, which has been discussed in length in other posts. You got it right. I agree with your assessment, but that's not how the game is designed. So, it's a little flaw we live with.

[Captain_Orso]

LOL Yes, the most important rule for bombardment at all is the Double-Adjacency-Rule (DAR). It's so obvious to me that I thought it was understood . It's the reason why Union ships passing Norfolk from the Chesapeake Bay get bombarded only in the James Estuary, or when sailing in the other direction, are bombarded in Hampton Roads. Both water regions, Hampton Roads and James Estuary, are adjacent to Norfolk. So When ships sail from one to the other they are subject to being bombarded by artillery in Norfolk with the Bombard Passing Ships button is activated.

This also answers the question of why Surry VA. Because it is the only land region adjacent to both James Estuary and James River.

So why should ships be or not be able to be bombarded when landing units in a region defended by batteries that can use the Bombard-Passing-Ships button? Because the regions are very large in comparison to the range of artillery defending in that region. Depending on the region you could have a shore line many dozens of miles long. In Real-Life invaders could land miles away from emplaced batteries without ever coming under their fire. Of course in Real-Life the situation could also be the other way around. The problem is then, when would emplaced batteries actually have the opportunity to fire on an attacking fleet and when not. At the scale of AACW this situation cannot be simulated in detail. IIRC at one time if a fleet sailed into a region adjacent to shore batteries these had one opportunity to fire on this fleet, but only one. This opportunity was removed, because of the reasons I've stated above; the regions are too large to suggest that an arriving fleet would necessarily not be able to avoid shore batteries that they should very well know were present.

As far as the affects of landing in a region occupied by defending units, this is already implemented in the game with drastic disadvantages to the landing units.

All-in-all, I feel that the game fits all of the facts quite well together to generically represent the situation very well.

[charlesonmission]

Very good post. We talked about the actual historical Battles of Fort Fisher a while back. Let's just say, the Union didn't land at a place where coastal artillery would fire on the incoming transport ships. The game represents this very well currently.

LOL Yes, the most important rule for bombardment at all is the Double-Adjacency-Rule (DAR). It's so obvious to me that I thought it was understood . It's the reason why Union ships passing Norfolk from the Chesapeake Bay get bombarded only in the James Estuary, or when sailing in the other direction, are bombarded in Hampton Roads. Both water regions, Hampton Roads and James Estuary, are adjacent to Norfolk. So When ships sail from one to the other they are subject to being bombarded by artillery in Norfolk with the Bombard Passing Ships button is activated.

This also answers the question of why Surry VA. Because it is the only land region adjacent to both James Estuary and James River.

So why should ships be or not be able to be bombarded when landing units in a region defended by batteries that can use the Bombard-Passing-Ships button? Because the regions are very large in comparison to the range of artillery defending in that region. Depending on the region you could have a shore line many dozens of miles long. In Real-Life invaders could land miles away from emplaced batteries without ever coming under their fire. Of course in Real-Life the situation could also be the other way around. The problem is then, when would emplaced batteries actually have the opportunity to fire on an attacking fleet and when not. At the scale of AACW this situation cannot be simulated in detail. IIRC at one time if a fleet sailed into a region adjacent to shore batteries these had one opportunity to fire on this fleet, but only one. This opportunity was removed, because of the reasons I've stated above; the regions are too large to suggest that an arriving fleet would necessarily not be able to avoid shore batteries that they should very well know were present.

As far as the affects of landing in a region occupied by defending units, this is already implemented in the game with drastic disadvantages to the landing units.

All-in-all, I feel that the game fits all of the facts quite well together to generically represent the situation very well.

[Stauffenberg]

LOL Yes, the most important rule for bombardment at all is the Double-Adjacency-Rule (DAR). It's so obvious to me that I thought it was understood .

lol - I guess my mind was resisting the concept, or hoping it was not a 100% effect, 100% of the time. More likely the fact I only have a few pbem games under my belt so far. Playing Athena, besides the obvious limitations of an AI (actually a misnomer as it isn't an "artificial intelligence" at all, but is a PO: a "programmed opponent"), can also provide a surprising dearth of battles and detailed situations that do arise against a player.

This also answers the question of why Surry VA. Because it is the only land region adjacent to both James Estuary and James River.

So why should ships be or not be able to be bombarded when landing units in a region defended by batteries that can use the Bombard-Passing-Ships button? Because the regions are very large in comparison to the range of artillery defending in that region. Depending on the region you could have a shore line many dozens of miles long.

With obvious clear exceptions; e.g. a straight-in landing on Sumter which should result in a massacre, just from Sumter's guns alone (if they hadn't been silenced first), and then again from the other forts ringing Charleston harbour.

The problem is then, when would emplaced batteries actually have the opportunity to fire on an attacking fleet and when not. At the scale of AACW this situation cannot be simulated in detail.

Yes that makes perfect sense of course, but then it drives you into contemplating rather absurd artillery emplacements that will whack an invasion fleet en route to the target as you did in Surry. I'm now looking all over the map for similar sites above Island 10, Donelson, Memphis, etc. Above all, I am concerned with New Orleans in which case it looks as though a coastal gun/columbiad fortified site in Duras LA would cover the Lower Miss. river and the Koney Island approach to Fort Pike and Lake Pontchartrain. Duras is also connected by RR north.

As far as the affects of landing in a region occupied by defending units, this is already implemented in the game with drastic disadvantages to the landing units.

All-in-all, I feel that the game fits all of the facts quite well together to generically represent the situation very well.

Again, agreed with one note: that of at least rendering "sister fort" support against landings in places where you have other forts close by, but the configuration of sea or river boundaries are such that this support is likely not present; e.g. the forts in Charleston harbour, the two at the mouth of the Miss. R. etc.

In any case, as LL pointed out somewhere, if one feels strongly enough about a particular issue, or situation, one can always fall back on house rules.

All in all, I'm glad to put this issue pretty much to rest--no more sleepless nights.

[veji1]

Wouldn't a fairly simple code change solve a substantial part of the issue by making landing on forts impossible ? One would have to land on a neighbouring land province and than move overland onto the fort to siege it or assault it. No landing on fort Sumter, one has to land on Charleston (suicide) or rather on one of the neighbouring provinces and then walk in and reduce the forts from land..

I don't know if is doable but it make sense, it might lead to fort spamming by players to protect their coast, but in a sense why not, it would be interesting to try it, if codable. At least it should be doable for the forts present at the start.

[Altaris]

I kinda like the idea of no amphib landing on fort regions, but it should be restricted to the starting forts, IMO - leaving it open to player-made ones would be very exploitable. The pre-existing ones in game are all on regions dedicated to the fort itself, whereas other regions are much larger areas of land.

[Jim-NC]

I know one area where that would really change the game - the outer banks of NC. Currently, there are no land regions next to the fort, only the forts themselves. If we eliminated landing on forts, we would have to reconfigure the area to create some land regions. Also, how do you simulate the bombardment of forts into submission (I am thinking of Ft. Sumter, and Ft. Pulaski, both of which were surrendered by their garrisons after bombardment). Currently, as the CSA, you must assault the fort to capture Sumter.

[veji1]

Well land forces could still reach the fort, just not from the sea or river, ie make it impossible to land on the fort, not to reach it. I see what you mean about the forts outside NC. I don't know how to answer that question really, same for the Keys. I suppose you could make their garrisson weaker so that they could be wiped out by bombardment after a few turns, leading to an event spawning a Union garrisson ?

Just thinking out loud here but It would be interesting to see the game play implications of such a change, notably in western Tennessee and the Savannah Charleston area.