I'll get this out of the way first- as the son of a merchant seaman who flies a "Merchant Marine 1775" flag, and the grandson of a merchant seaman who was torpedoed in '44, I do not consider using resources to create a viable merchant fleet to be cheating, gamey, ahistorical, or otherwise bad.
With that said- I've heard that transports work for the South. Do they work better than Brigs? If they don't, are they still worth it because they are cheaper? If I do use transports, how many supporting frigates are needed to keep them safe?
You can build 18 ocean transports and put them in the sea box. You have 9 more that can only be built in VA, but they would have to get by the guns of Fort Monroe to be of any use. Here is an income message:
[ATTACH]33228[/ATTACH]
I didn't bother escorting them. This is a pretty good return on investment and does give the CSA a lot of WS.
This was an experiment. I usually win before I need a merchant fleet.
[ATTACH]33228[/ATTACH]
I didn't bother escorting them. This is a pretty good return on investment and does give the CSA a lot of WS.
This was an experiment. I usually win before I need a merchant fleet.
- Attachments
-
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
How can the usa fight against this? With a big fleet? Is that a usefull idea for csa player?
Das Bedürfnis nach Sicherheit steht jedem wagemutigen Unterfangen im Wege.
Lieber tausend Feinde als einen Idioten als Verbündeten!
The Rebell-Yell ein AACW II Einsteiger AAR
Du suchst ein deutsches AGEOD Forum, um dich zu Spielen zu verabreden, deine Strategien auszutauschen oder um andere Mitspieler zu finden?
Dann bist du hier genau richtig!
Deutsches PoN PBEM
Lieber tausend Feinde als einen Idioten als Verbündeten!
The Rebell-Yell ein AACW II Einsteiger AAR
Du suchst ein deutsches AGEOD Forum, um dich zu Spielen zu verabreden, deine Strategien auszutauschen oder um andere Mitspieler zu finden?
Dann bist du hier genau richtig!
Deutsches PoN PBEM
I've asked in several other threads if this is meant to be part of the game or an oversight. No judgement yet. The CSA used warships, like brigs, as raiders. Clipper ships of the time were actually faster than warships, so if I were a smuggler, that is what I would use. The problem is that the CSA merchant fleet really gives them a big boost to WS.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
The South plying the shipping lanes the same as the North circumvents the blockade rules. Historically the North did not have to contend with their shipping having to pass through blockading squadrons which would attack them when they attempted to sail into harbor; the South did.
Although clippers were in their heyday during the second half of the 19th century, they were not the most numerous type of merchant ships. A large portion of American merchants were built to service the American Atlantic and Gulf coasts and not for trans-Atlantic trade.
To work against Southern shipping the Union should send small squadrons of their own 'raiders' into and out of the Shipping Box the same as the South does with her raiders.
Although clippers were in their heyday during the second half of the 19th century, they were not the most numerous type of merchant ships. A large portion of American merchants were built to service the American Atlantic and Gulf coasts and not for trans-Atlantic trade.
To work against Southern shipping the Union should send small squadrons of their own 'raiders' into and out of the Shipping Box the same as the South does with her raiders.
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
The concept of the Shipping Box is to generically represent Northern shipping both doing trade and transporting supplies from Northern coastal harbors other coastal harbors under their control. It was never intended for the South to put ships in the Shipping Box nor for those ships to earn income.
Previously the South received no income for transports in the Shipping Box nor was any Naval Supply Transportation generated for them.
Please don't be ridiculous and use a little reason. Read a little on what blockade runners actually were and how they were used, any why. I believe you will then understand that any question of the South using the Shipping Box will become moot.
Previously the South received no income for transports in the Shipping Box nor was any Naval Supply Transportation generated for them.
Please don't be ridiculous and use a little reason. Read a little on what blockade runners actually were and how they were used, any why. I believe you will then understand that any question of the South using the Shipping Box will become moot.
Yes, that's the way Gray Fox plays and more power to him. It would never occur to me to put CSA merchant ships in the shipping box because I know it defeats the blockade mechanics. If you're into PBEM, agree on a house rule. I'll have to rely on self-control and hope the next patch fixes the problem.
I was pointing out that this works and asked several times if it is supposed to work. I only did it as an experiment to demonstrate my point. I usually win as the CSA in 1861 and don't need a merchant fleet. But this is also something that many judge as "shouldn't be possible" but is.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
Hhhm, there seems to be a growing tension between people playing "historically" and those finding the limits in the game.
To each his own offcourse. But what rules would one need to follow to allow a "historical" correct game.
For instance, the artillery. First some people thought it was ahistoric, now it seem there is a consesus that from 1863 onwards, sometimes artillery was used in a division or something similar.
We could define a set of rules HRS (Historic Rule Set) that describes the limits players should take in account when trying to find the limits of the game but still within wat history allowed.
For instance:
- no artillery division before 1863
- only 1 art. division in 1863, 2 in 1864, ...
- ...
You could define some other rules regarding the type of artillery in such a division, where to put what type of fleet, what to build when etc.
When you're playing Athena, you could also simple follow the HRS rules or make a new version of the ruleset.
It might be handy when talking on the forum about certain games if we know in advance what rules you use.
Just my 2 cents
To each his own offcourse. But what rules would one need to follow to allow a "historical" correct game.
For instance, the artillery. First some people thought it was ahistoric, now it seem there is a consesus that from 1863 onwards, sometimes artillery was used in a division or something similar.
We could define a set of rules HRS (Historic Rule Set) that describes the limits players should take in account when trying to find the limits of the game but still within wat history allowed.
For instance:
- no artillery division before 1863
- only 1 art. division in 1863, 2 in 1864, ...
- ...
You could define some other rules regarding the type of artillery in such a division, where to put what type of fleet, what to build when etc.
When you're playing Athena, you could also simple follow the HRS rules or make a new version of the ruleset.
It might be handy when talking on the forum about certain games if we know in advance what rules you use.
Just my 2 cents
When I posted about this weeks ago, I wanted to know if it should be fixed. I have made several other posts about things I have found that have been fixed. If it is an exploit, then don't do it in the mean time and I assume someone will eventually do something about it.
The game already starts you with brigades only, then Divisions and finally Corps. You have randomly active and inactive leaders. Both sides had to create a huge military, mostly with people who had no idea what really should be done. The game shouldn't teach you that all leaders in the CW were fools, forcing the player to do things that make little sense. Some of the leaders were fools, but some of them were sharp as razors. Why should I play like the fools and not like the razors?
P.S. If the Union player puts 38 Ocean Transports in the shipping lanes to increase his sea trade, is this also an exploit?
The game already starts you with brigades only, then Divisions and finally Corps. You have randomly active and inactive leaders. Both sides had to create a huge military, mostly with people who had no idea what really should be done. The game shouldn't teach you that all leaders in the CW were fools, forcing the player to do things that make little sense. Some of the leaders were fools, but some of them were sharp as razors. Why should I play like the fools and not like the razors?
P.S. If the Union player puts 38 Ocean Transports in the shipping lanes to increase his sea trade, is this also an exploit?
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Experimenting with it a little bit, and the Union can 100% blockade the shipping box. Similar to how the South can put raiders in there and "blockade" the north, except its much easier for the North because so many more ships.
Makes me think it might be working as designed- as a third blockade runner zone, that isn't tied to the penalties of losing ports.
Perhaps its banana boats plying the Caribbean waters. Or merchant ships plying the far flung reaches of the world, perhaps getting credit on English markets by trading opium and tea between India and China.
Of course, I'm biased because I'm a fan of merchant shipping.
Makes me think it might be working as designed- as a third blockade runner zone, that isn't tied to the penalties of losing ports.
Perhaps its banana boats plying the Caribbean waters. Or merchant ships plying the far flung reaches of the world, perhaps getting credit on English markets by trading opium and tea between India and China.
Of course, I'm biased because I'm a fan of merchant shipping.
As the Union player I can put Ocean transports in the sea lanes box with the Merchant fleet and gain a lot of money and WS. When I posted that the CSA player seems able to do the same thing, you posted that I shouldn't be ridiculous and should use a little reason. This was a few minutes after you also posted that the Union player should just counter Confederate transports with raiders. So...are merchant ships the only ships that should be transporting extra money and WS? If this is an exploit for the CSA, then it should be an exploit for the Union.
Either all transports should be usable as merchant ships and this is not ridiculous or unreasonable or this is something that might eventually be fixed so that only the Union merchant ships can transport money and WS, if that was the intent.
Either all transports should be usable as merchant ships and this is not ridiculous or unreasonable or this is something that might eventually be fixed so that only the Union merchant ships can transport money and WS, if that was the intent.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Gray Fox wrote:As the Union player I can put Ocean transports in the sea lanes box with the Merchant fleet and gain a lot of money and WS. When I posted that the CSA player seems able to do the same thing, you posted that I shouldn't be ridiculous and should use a little reason.
I was obviously unclear as to what I meant is "ridiculous" in your stance. That is my fault and I apologize for that.
You have taken up the stance that the Union can put transports into the Shipping Box to earn trade-income, so the South should be able to do the same. As to what the Shipping Box actually represents I'll write a bit later in this post.
What I find you are overlooking, whether purposefully or not, is that during the war there was a Blockade in progress. The blockade was historically not only ships posted outside Southern harbors, but also patrols along the coasts and in the trade routes between the Southern coasts and mostly Caribbean ports searching for blockade runners.
To represent this directly the players would have been burdened with having to micro-manage not only Union fleets outside Southern harbors, but patrols in the actual shipping lanes between Southern and mostly Caribbean ports, and Confederate blockade runners having to actually shuttle between their coastal cities and Caribbean destinations to actually facilitate trade and income from it.
This was deemed by the devs to be too much work and micro-management and thus the Blockade Boxes were conceived.
The drawback of this concept is that ships entering and exiting Southern harbors not bound for the Blockade Boxes are now not affected by the blockade in any way. I believe there are two reasons this was let to remain in this status. 1. It was not expected that the Confederate player would have any reason to be active with ships on the open seas beyond blockade runners and raiders, and 2. it allowed the Confederate player to base his raiders in Southern ports--completely unhistorically--instead of having to program special rules for them to use neutral port for resupplying and repairs.
Allowing the Confederate player to send transports into the Shipping Box negates the blockade completely. Ships in the Shipping Box never have to return to harbor as they represent the ships plying international trade. They are thought to be traveling between American and foreign harbors; always some of them coming and going, in harbor or in sail. If Southern transports never enter the Blockade Boxes to earn their trade-income they have negated the blockade; sailing over it like so many summer clouds.
Gray Fox wrote:This was a few minutes after you also posted that the Union player should just counter Confederate transports with raiders.
That was in responce to VigaBrand's question:
VigaBrand wrote:How can the usa fight against this? With a big fleet? Is that a usefull idea for csa player?
It was an answer in the academic sense and not meant to be understood as an implied agreement to the situation in general.
Gray Fox wrote:So...are merchant ships the only ships that should be transporting extra money and WS? If this is an exploit for the CSA, then it should be an exploit for the Union.
Merchantmen are a new addition to the game since CW2; they did not exist in AACW. You are reading into them the idea that they represent the only actual commercial shipping occurring during the period, when actually the transports, and now merchantmen, spawned into the Shipping Box and those placed there by the Union player, in the history of the game, were always considered to represent American commercial shipping.
Gray Fox wrote:Either all transports should be usable as merchant ships and this is not ridiculous or unreasonable or this is something that might eventually be fixed so that only the Union merchant ships can transport money and WS, if that was the intent.
I principally agree that that Southern transports should be able to take part in international trade, BUT only under the condition that they are subject to the rules of the blockade and duly susceptible to interception by the blockade, which in my opinion would mean that they would be intercepted on their first attempt to leave or return to harbor. I believe, and history supports this, that anything else delves into the realm of fantasy.
Thanks! So the devs intended merchant ships to be ocean transports and the opposite, but for the Union only and never the Confederacy. The two dozen plus Confederate ocean transports were meant to re-supply the blockade runners, I suppose and should never have been mistaken for any other use. If that is the answer, then it was also the answer weeks ago. The CSA transports should be fixed so that they don't transport cash/WS. That way players months from now won't have to wait weeks to get another clarification.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
The merchantmen I believe were put in to represent commercial shipping at the outset of the war. After all commercial shipping didn't just start with the outset of the war.
Why the South was given the ability to build transports from the beginning I can only guess. Possibly with the idea that were Britain and France to enter the war the South might realistically have the opportunity to use transports to conduct invasions or trade once the British and French had cleared some coastal cities to traffic, but the game doesn't really go into such details. Blockading would have to be changed a lot to represent that correctly. It is very rare that foreign intervention actually comes into play and maybe the devs never got around to actually implementing some of their early intentions. I can only guess about this.
Using transports to resupply blockade runners should theoretically not even be necessary. They were never actually at sea very long, just from the American coast to some Caribbean port. I'm not sure what the actual affect of putting transports into the Blockade Boxes would be. I expect that they would keep blockade runners in supply.
Yes, CS transports should not earn money and WSU the way the rules are otherwise currently implemented.
I would personally like to have all the blockade, shipping and blockade running rule completely revamped to be more historic and flexible to cover unusual situations. However since they currently --when working as intended-- cover everything in nearly all situations, I'm sure that will remain my pipe dream.
Why the South was given the ability to build transports from the beginning I can only guess. Possibly with the idea that were Britain and France to enter the war the South might realistically have the opportunity to use transports to conduct invasions or trade once the British and French had cleared some coastal cities to traffic, but the game doesn't really go into such details. Blockading would have to be changed a lot to represent that correctly. It is very rare that foreign intervention actually comes into play and maybe the devs never got around to actually implementing some of their early intentions. I can only guess about this.
Using transports to resupply blockade runners should theoretically not even be necessary. They were never actually at sea very long, just from the American coast to some Caribbean port. I'm not sure what the actual affect of putting transports into the Blockade Boxes would be. I expect that they would keep blockade runners in supply.
Yes, CS transports should not earn money and WSU the way the rules are otherwise currently implemented.
I would personally like to have all the blockade, shipping and blockade running rule completely revamped to be more historic and flexible to cover unusual situations. However since they currently --when working as intended-- cover everything in nearly all situations, I'm sure that will remain my pipe dream.
I'm not sure. I have had lots of merchants (CSA) in the shipping lanes, but they only brought in money and WS when the Union blockade ship left the area to resupply.
I will have to check this but if this is so, then the blockade works. If it's implemented like this, I personally don't have a problem with this.
I will have to check this but if this is so, then the blockade works. If it's implemented like this, I personally don't have a problem with this.
1. Ocean transports are extra merchant ships and should work only for the Union.
-This is not the case currently, nor is this documented anywhere.
2. Ocean transports are extra merchant ships and should work for both sides. The Union player can use raiders to negate their effect just like the Confederate player does for Union ships.
-This is not the case in my example. I got a lot of income and the "4 Raiders have been spotted.", were only spotted and didn't do anything. Does Athena have an agent to use Union brigs as raiders to combat this every turn? Would a Union player know to do this in Pbem?
3. Confederate Ocean transports should work in the blockade boxes as blockade runners.
-Just a suggestion.
Choose wisely.
-This is not the case currently, nor is this documented anywhere.
2. Ocean transports are extra merchant ships and should work for both sides. The Union player can use raiders to negate their effect just like the Confederate player does for Union ships.
-This is not the case in my example. I got a lot of income and the "4 Raiders have been spotted.", were only spotted and didn't do anything. Does Athena have an agent to use Union brigs as raiders to combat this every turn? Would a Union player know to do this in Pbem?
3. Confederate Ocean transports should work in the blockade boxes as blockade runners.
-Just a suggestion.
Choose wisely.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
Gray Fox wrote:2. Ocean transports are extra merchant ships and should work for both sides. The Union player can use raiders to negate their effect just like the Confederate player does for Union ships.
-This is not the case in my example. I got a lot of income and the "4 Raiders have been spotted.", were only spotted and didn't do anything. Does Athena have an agent to use Union brigs as raiders to combat this every turn? Would a Union player know to do this in Pbem?
It takes less blockaders to 100% blockade the shipping box than the blockade boxes.
Yes, but as I understand it, only #1 should be possible. So #2 should not be done. Apparently, Confederate Athena would not do it or be aware to counter a human Confederate player doing it. A human player might also not know this in Pbem. If it is only #1, then maybe someone should fix it. If it is #2, then Athena should have an algorithm to do it and we can advise human players to do it as well. Or, if the CSA has 27 Ocean transports that should not be used in the sea lanes box, then maybe they should be usable as blockade runners in the blockade boxes.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
Cardinal Ape
- General of the Army
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am
It is good see the Devs are looking at this. I haven't used it since it seemed to be against the game design - I don't know jack about the history of CSA naval operations.
It may not need to be a yes or no decision. One could change the rate of return per unit for the CSA in the shipping box to reflect their lack of control over the high seas, maybe even base it on the blockade percentage.
Something not mentioned so far is that transports in the shipping box also help move GS and ammo. I imagine that could help alleviate some of the stress on the CSA river and rail pools?
If CSA transports were allowed to earn in the shipping box why would one ever build brigs? Don't they cost twice as much as transports?
It may not need to be a yes or no decision. One could change the rate of return per unit for the CSA in the shipping box to reflect their lack of control over the high seas, maybe even base it on the blockade percentage.
Something not mentioned so far is that transports in the shipping box also help move GS and ammo. I imagine that could help alleviate some of the stress on the CSA river and rail pools?
If CSA transports were allowed to earn in the shipping box why would one ever build brigs? Don't they cost twice as much as transports?
I suggested that CSA Transports should work as merchant blockade runners. After all, it is blockade running, not fighting. The brigs would be used as raiders. I suppose the use of CSA Ocean Transports to import cash/WS may just be something that the players should steer away from. Some day it might be fixed after more important features get attention.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests