User avatar
Straight Arrow
General
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:44 pm
Location: Washington State

Brown Water Blues

Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:46 pm

Thanks gents for the excellent input on blockade %s.



Here's a related question: are brown water blockades worth the time and effort?


I've never used them or have noticed there being used against me; does anyone bother with inshore blockades?
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth.

LCcmdr
Captain
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 3:15 pm

Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:32 am

Straight Arrow wrote:Here's a related question: are brown water blockades worth the time and effort?



Great question!

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2934
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:48 am

I am not the greatest technical player, so other may be able to do a statistical rundown of why not, but within what I know of historical play I do both types of blockade. The brown water blockades serve a tactical purpose in that you control the waters, but they also help when you are ready to turn the game to control of ports. I think they reduce production in the ports, but also reduce the supply.
I actually set up stations, as the Union did. For instance, Beaufort, South Carolina makes no historical sense for Union occupation except as a resupply for the brown blockade. But these resupply ports also become stations for launching spoiling attacks or even full out invasions.
Remember, part of pbem play is presenting threats your opponent has to consider. Each blockade has an impact even if not a consequence.
Besides, the Union has a large fleet which out to be used for something, why not in this manner.

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:48 am

Tactically, brownblocks prevent supplies from entering the harbor via Riverine or Ocean transport, potentially helping to starve out defenders when sieging. Thus brownblocking can be useful to the war effort in ways a blueblock cannot.

If the city has sufficiently high production it can be worth blockading simply for the direct production hit to that city. That has to be compared to the global effect you could have gotten by blueblock, so will typically only be cost effective if the production in the city is large to begin with. It is probably worth brownblocking Richmond (which is a special case since it can be blockaded remotely) but it wouldn't be worth brownblocking, say, Galveston.

Overall, my experience is that the naval side of things is rarely decisive, and only useful around the margins. You either win in the field or you don't. Slowly choking off enemy resources by spending a lot of your own resources (to build the navy you need for a strong blockade) is IME not as effective as spending those resources on extra divisions that can then go out and decisively win battles (and thus NM). Sure, I put all my free stuff into the blockade boxes, that would just be leaving money on the table otherwise, but I don't spend anything to add to what I already start with.

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:14 am

I rarely do so. I use it more often in the early game when the blockade percent is still low. After it gets to around 50-60% it can be tough to increase it further because of diminishing returns.

If I lost Fort Monroe as the Union, and with it the blockade on Richmond, then I would look to put that back in place with ships. Charleston might be the next best target. I would say New Orleans first but if the CSA has any ironclads they tend to hang around there.

I generally keep my grand Union fleet in port, ready and waiting for combat missions. It seems anytime I send it out along the Southern coast it runs into sea mines.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1583
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:09 pm

If you play both sides to test a brown water blockade, then you will see that the "production" the blockade reduces is only the supply of cash. WS production is not affected. So if you spend money/men/materiel to enforce a brown blockade, and the enemy only loses money, then it doesn't make much sense. Plus, 100% blockade means 50% reduction in production of cash presumably from business lost, but not cash from raising taxes, selling bonds and/or printing money. The CSA can get lots of funds and never worry about the blockade. I do use the existing blockade squadrons to enforce a blue water blockade and I have a fleet protecting Fort Monroe that incidently blockades Richmond. Strategically, I take Fort Clark and station some ironclads there to prevent the CSA Gulf ironclads from taking any action against operations in VA. The rest form two escort forces for the Shipping Lanes box, one on duty and the other rotated out to resupply ammo.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests