We Sail the Ocean Blue

[Captain_Orso]

The South needs X amount of cash, Y number of conscripts and Z number of WS per turn to make units. You do take away a small portion of X by blockading. However, the South replaces every bit of the lost cash as I described above. The CSA still has X, Y and Z to build an army and can build about a Division and two artillery batteries every other turn. It doesn't really need 2X, because they don't have 2Y or 2Z to use with it. You on the other hand, spend the equivalent of several Divisions in the early game building a blockade fleet. Even if you only build a few useless blockade ships and not the max, its having no effect, as in zero. The South still builds the same army they would have if you only used the starting blockade ships. There is no raccoon up that tree and no return on investment. Ever.

This is however assuming the South will not use Bonds, Taxes, and Printing Money if the blockade is not ramped up. From my experience, the South will use those options no matter what.

[RebelYell]

This is however assuming the South will not use Bonds, Taxes, and Printing Money if the blockade is not ramped up. From my experience, the South will use those options no matter what.

Printing money maybe to a point, over 20% inflation is not nice either.

The bonds and taxes hit NM hard and affect many other variables, including economy, IMO no veteran CSA player will use these options without serious consideration every time.

[PJL]

This debate has been interesting with regards to a blockade strategy. It appears the optimal solution would be not to build any extra ocean going ships whatsoever, if you want to do damage to the CSA economy without actually invading. Alternatively the best blockade / economic warfare strategy is an actual invasion one anyway, since it's the only one that can take critical resources where it hurts.

Why so? Well the most scarce resources in the game IMO are war supplies, manpower and money in that order. In fact getting money is easy compared to the other two. This applies for both sides, though it is more critical for the CSA than the USA. So by expending the two more critical resources to prevent your opponent from getting the most easily accessible one is actually sub-optimal play, as it's effectively trying to empty a lake with a spoon. Not to mention it takes away resources in building up your forces and supplying them.

Even the potential NM losses from taking more of the taxes option can be mitigated though by the automatic balancing events. The same also goes for inflation. Although arguably VPs are the most scarce resource, the game is rarely decided by that, and even if it is, then again taking territory is the best way to do that.

[Cardinal Ape]

I should correct myself. I said in my test that "Economically, New Orleans is in the middle of Charleston and Mobile.."

As far as the blockade % goes, that is wrong. New Orleans' production is in the middle, but when it is under a physical blockade (or lost) the effect is greater than any other two cities combined. It's value is 16, but the game rounds it to 20. Any other city only reaches 10.


@GS, Maybe using your fleet to seize the forts around NO and Charleston for a physical blockade would do more damage to the CSA economy than keeping them in the boxes. You can destroy the coastal forts if you don't want hold them. Havi having 4 divisions in NO? That is a ton. Did he build a bunch of industry there? Might be even more worth it blockade the place. If your opponent hasn't built any new iron works the WS lost from physical blockades might hurt more than the lost cash. They don't have any decisions to gain 600 WS in a pinch, just an RGD for 8.

[Gray Fox]

Captain O, as the south, I start off raising as much cash as I can in 1861. I can then pay a premium to raise conscripts and build all of the IWs (Ironworks). So in this instance, money buys men and materiel. However, thereafter no more IWs are available. WS is the bottleneck that more money and/or recruits won't fix. Before the Union player can ratchet up the blockade to 95%, I have all the WS I can build. So I raise taxes/sell bonds/print money and chug along as if no extra blockade were in effect. Otherwise, if the blockade stays as is, then I don't do these things. Twice as much money won't help me and I don't do what doesn't help.

RebelYell, I posted that the CSA player can use RGD's to erase the negative effects of raising taxes and selling bonds. These have the positive effect of lowering inflation 1% each. So after doing each twice in one year, the CSA can print money with no down side. So you're not losing NM, VPs or eventually suffering 20% inflation.

PJL, the Union should most definitely build every Ocean Transport and put these in the Shipping Lanes box for a big income boost. The threat of an invasion ties down CSA forces along the coast. An actual invasion ties Union units down in the target port for the rest of the game. If the Union builds a big blockade fleet, then obviously he's going for the long game where this pays off. Then VPs count.

Cardinal Ape, during my test over the weekend, I noticed that NO cannot be blockaded by ships. The city harbor has two exits, the Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain. The lake cannot be entered from the Gulf side, even if you take the fort guarding it, and the fort does not exert blockade over that route if occupied by the Union.

[Captain_Orso]

Okay, if the South basically has 'enough' money, with the possibility to get more, then blockading will not have such a great affect. On a side note, it's strange that blockading doesn't lower WS production, but that's an entirely different subject.

BTW, what is IW?

BTW2 If you cannot blockade NO because of the Lake Pontchartrain exit-point, taking Fort Pike would be the first step, because you can then sail brigs into Lake Ponchartrain with brigs, and unless NO has a battery set to bombard you would only need 4 element to blockade that exit-point, because the batteries at Fort Pike reduce the need by 4--if you capture them, of course.

NO is a weird place. Must be the voodoo

[Gray Fox]

According to the Blockade sticky, all three forms of production and supply etc. are supposedly reduced by blockade. However, when I ran tests years ago, the cash was the only one affected.

If Fort Pike is the fort on the lake, then you can't sail from the fort to the lake. The harbor doesn't exit to the lake. That's what I meant by "The lake cannot be entered from the Gulf side, even if you take the fort guarding it".

IW is ironworks. I'll fix that.

[Captain_Orso]

According to the Blockade sticky, all three forms of production and supply etc. are supposedly reduced by blockade. However, when I ran tests years ago, the cash was the only one affected.

Way-back-when, well in AACW, industry worked far different that in CW2. You had the option to invest in a state, and each turn per chance production in that state could increase. That is, the cities would produce more money, GS, WSU, and Ammo, especially the large cities, but it was none-the-less city production. There were no structures with fixed production values. So the calculation reducing production through blockading was, and I believe actually may still be, only against city production. But I'd have to look into it far closer to be sure.

Cities themselves still to produce resources, but far less than in AACW, because we now have all these structures, which produce resources in accordance with their structure definition files. It would be difficult to assess in detail, because even with verbose debugging of supply, the production phase simply states how many resources are in a location before and after production, and not even how much money and WSU were produced.

If Fort Pike is the fort on the lake, then you can't sail from the fort to the lake. The harbor doesn't exit to the lake. That's what I meant by "The lake cannot be entered from the Gulf side, even if you take the fort guarding it".

Sh*t-n-Shinola™ you are right! There used to be an harbor exit-point from Fort Pike into Lake Pontchartrain, but it's been removed . One more thing for my list. Thanks

IW is ironworks. I'll fix that.

I guess my brain is on vacation today

[Gray Fox]

" Sh*t-n-Shinola™ you are right!"

It's a curse.

[Cardinal Ape]

Wow. You can't blockade New Orleans? I've never tried it myself... It seems weird that you can't blockade the jewel of the Mississippi. Even weirder still that no one has brought this up before, at least not that I can remember. I guess that Anaconda ain't got none.

[Gray Fox]

I often wonder if everyone else is playing the same game that I am.

[Cardinal Ape]

I definitely wouldn't expect you to bother with blockading New Orleans.. Not your style, nor mine. But no one else trying it? That is surprising.

[RebelYell]

Wow. You can't blockade New Orleans? I've never tried it myself... It seems weird that you can't blockade the jewel of the Mississippi. Even weirder still that no one has brought this up before, at least not that I can remember. I guess that Anaconda ain't got none.

• Brown Water Blockade: Union naval units and Union control of key coastal forts will blockade directly the adjacent port(s). For instance, Fort Monroe will blockade all CSA ports on the James River, and ships in Charleston Bay will blockade this port directly.

Blockaded Harbors
Those harbors blockaded via naval units (or forts) will add a certain percentage of blockade, as follows:

Region / (Harbor name) : / Blockade %

James City, VA (Hampton Roads) : 1
Richmond ,VA (Richmond) : 1
Norfolk, VA (Norfolk) : 5
Warwick, VA (Suffolk) : 1

Currituck, NC (Edenton) : 1
Tyrell, NC (Plymouth) : 1
Hyde, NC (Swan Quarter) 1
Beaufort, NC (New Bern): 3
Carteret, NC (Beaufort) : 3
New Hanover, NC (Wilmington) : 8

Georgetown, SC (Georgetown) : 1
Charleston, SC (Charleston) : 8
Jasper, SC (Hardee's Station) : 1
Beaufort, SC (Beaufort) : 1

Ebert, GA (Augusta) : 1
Chatham, GA (Savannah) : 6
Pullman, GA (Jacksonville) : 1
Wayne, GA (Brunswick) : 1
Calhoun, GA (St. Mary) : 1

Franklin, FL (Appalachicola) : 1
Leon, FL (Tallahassee) : 1
Duval, FL (Jacksonville) : 1
Levy, FL (Waccasassa) : 1
Saint John, FL (St. Augustine) : 1
Volusia, FL (New Smyrna) : 1
Hillsboro, FL (Tampa) : 1
Escambia, FL (Pensacola) : 3

Mobile, AL (Mobile) : 5

Gulf, MS (Mississippi City) : 1

Iberville, LA (New Orleans) : 16
St Joseph, LA (St. Joseph) : 1
Alexandria, LA (Alexandria) : 1
Pierre, LA (Plaquemine) : 1
Berwick, LA (Berwick) : 1
Baton Rouge, LA (Baton Rouge) : 1

Beaumont, TX (Beaumont) : 1
Galveston, TX (Galveston) : 5
Matagorda, TX (Matagorda) : 7
Cameron, TX (Brownsville) : 2
Kleberg, TX (King Ranch) : 1
Nueces, TX (Corpus Christi) : 1
Jackson, TX (Indianola) : 1


Non Blockaded Harbors
Those harbors that are NOT blockaded via naval units (or forts) will remove a certain percentage of the accumulated blockade (to a maximum of -16% if all are left unblockaded), as follows:

Region / (Harbor name) : / Blockade %

Norfolk, VA (Norfolk) : -2

New Hanover, NC (Wilmington) : -2

Charleston, SC (Charleston) : -3

Chatham, GA (Savannah) : -1

Escambia, FL (Pensacola) : -1

Mobile, AL (Mobile) : -1

Iberville, LA (New Orleans) : -5

Matagorda, TX (Matagorda) : -1

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?33534-The-Blockade-System-Explained

[Cardinal Ape]

I'm sorry Rebel Yell, I don't follow. What did I miss?

I was responding to what Gray Fox said, "Cardinal Ape, during my test over the weekend, I noticed that NO cannot be blockaded by ships. The city harbor has two exits, the Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain. The lake cannot be entered from the Gulf side, even if you take the fort guarding it, and the fort does not exert blockade over that route if occupied by the Union. So holding the forts won't cause a blockade either."

[RebelYell]

I'm sorry Rebel Yell, I don't follow. What did I miss?

I was responding to what Gray Fox said, "Cardinal Ape, during my test over the weekend, I noticed that NO cannot be blockaded by ships. The city harbor has two exits, the Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain. The lake cannot be entered from the Gulf side, even if you take the fort guarding it, and the fort does not exert blockade over that route if occupied by the Union. So holding the forts won't cause a blockade either."

For instance, Fort Monroe will blockade all CSA ports on the James River,

This contradicts the test.

[RebelYell]

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?33534-The-Blockade-System-Explained&p=300571&viewfull=1#post300571

[Cardinal Ape]

Okay, I think I see what you meant.

It doesn't contradict the test to blockade New Orleans with ships. That seems to be impossible with its unreachable harbor exit. But you do raise a good point - That there is a script in the game to force a blockade upon New Orleans if Ft. St. Phillip or Ft. Jackson are Union controlled. No entry for Ft. Pike in the script though.

According to the script one does not even need to have units present for it to work. You just need to control it. That is a fair amount of damage done for taking one fort.

[Gray Fox]

I just tried this and NO is indeed blockaded.

[ATTACH]38117[/ATTACH]

Good job all around! I added a link to this thread in my post to the Union Points to Know.

P.S. Fort St. Phillips apparently disentegrated when I captured it. I took all three forts with an army under Grant. You know me, I didn't want to poke it with my finger...

[GraniteStater]

The Blockade works. Here's a report from two current PbeMs.

Take your starting fleet. Add a scout (brig) to each Box Blockade stack (just make sure you have at least one). Add a TP (maybe two for Atlantic).

Pensacola is a given. Bogue's Inlet, for that smaller NC port, is a freebie, no guns.

Charleston, Wilmington, and Mobile are two Exits each. My standard Up Close & Personal fleet is a Blockade Flotilla with two Brig units (2 x 2) (for 12 elements) and a TP.

So that's eight Blockade fleets: six for the three ports and one each for Pensy & NC. There's also Savannah (I'm doing things slightly differently in each game).

I think I've got about nine, maybe ten fleets of at least 12 'points' each. Not all are alike, some are a bit cobbled together.

Plus there's Shipping, the Boxes, Farragut, Dahlgren, and a few odds and ends and some spare TPs, etc. Plus a Potomac squadron.

65% Blockade, depending on what you block. Maybe flirting with 75, 80, if I get all those points mentioned at once.

The ships don't hurt all that much, really, running the forts. Haven't done this multiple times yet, just a couple for relief sailings, but, so far, the ships don't really suffer all that much. And once they're there, they're there for quite a while, Turn after Turn...

after Turn. At least six Turns, and more, especially with TPs. I've just started relieving and it's been in the neighborhood of five, six months that the CSA has had a 50%+ Blockade.

What are we depriving the CSA of? - let's call it a $75 loss each Turn - maybe higher, maybe $90, but let's be conservative.

Six Turns - $450, maybe more? That's an entire Turn's income for the CSA, I would guess, in the neighborhood for a "normal" cash Turn. Six months, twelve Turns - $900. One year - $1800 that the CSA did not get and never will and the expense of your fleet, in $$, has almost been met.

Six months would roughly equal two Turns CSA cash income - gone, gone forever.

That's gotta hurt, imho.

[GraniteStater]

Oh, one note - as I may have mentioned above, you have to decide upon this at the beginning. BFs take too long to build. You need to do this out of the gate.

You see, now I get a full two years of 50%+ Blockade. Per the arithmetic above, every three months is a Turn of CSA cash gone.

Eight Turns of no cash over two years Blockade. I just think that has to hurt, especially if one gets to 65%, 75%, maybe 80% Blockade. The Union can spend this to build this, and survive, at least. The CSA can do little about it, except get into a ruinous naval arms race.

[Cardinal Ape]

Granite, I applaud your commitment to this strategy. It has raised some questions that have provided valuable answers.

The statement of 'The Blockade works' is not specific enough to be true. Whether or not it works is really about the details. There are many ways to go about instituting a blockade, some far more efficient than others.

Because of this thread I have come to the conclusion that the most cost effective way to increase the blockade % is to seize control of vital coastal forts. And the least effective way, I believe, is to build large amounts of blockade flotillas. The more money the Union invests into the venture the less effective it becomes.

Assembling a rag-tag division of volunteers brigades with a single sailor is enough to take coastal forts. Taking Fort Sumter and one of the New Orleans forts in the Mississippi delta gets the blockade % to 70. This can be done months before the $2,500 fleet is finished building.

The end game goal of a blockade strategy is to create an economic disparity that allows the Union to massively out produce the South so they can overpower them with both quantity and quality. This Union starts with this advantage; they produce far more than the South. You can press this advantage from the start and achieve a 2:1 strength ratio within the first half of '62. Or the Union could invest large amounts of resources into both the industry and the navy, this will allow the CSA to outproduce the Union in the first year and close the strength gap. During the year of '62 the Union will bring the gap back to where it started, and then in '63 progress finally begins. But now the opposition has troops with years of experience and significantly better entrenchments so you will need even more men...

Spending thousands of dollars on blockade flotillas in the first year does more damage to the Union position than it will ever do to the CSA.

[GraniteStater]

But it's fun!

*****

In one of the PbeMs, I've got something like two dozen TPs alone. Not really that exorbitant. About ten BFs built, and twenty brig squadrons. Someone do the arithmetic, open the game up - call it somewhere north of $2,000?

OTOH, just how many of the Rag-Tag Fort Takers are you gonna build? How bad, or good, are they? Can they keep the fort? The generic Garrison with Guns that gets spawned has a challenge holding off a Div or two. Heck, Athena will take Pickens and Monroe if you're not careful.

Is that all you're going to do, just take the forts and sit there, sipping café au lait whilst the folks in Blockade Harbor, South Cakalakee, scrimp up chicory?

The CSA isn't going to try to retake them?

My approach is perhaps not the most cost-effective when viewed from certain angles. But, it does deprive the South of some income and the fleets, essentially, are fairly invulnerable.

I must say I haven't tried taking forts that much.

[Cardinal Ape]

But it's fun!

And that is all that matters.

_____

Union transports are awesome, better earners than buildings. I hear they can also be used to move troops.

Taking coastal forts is something I haven't tried much. This thread prompted me to give it a try. The numbers look pretty good. In my current game I've assembled one of these rag-tag divisions of 3 volunteer brigades, 1 sailor, and one of those 2 Inf, 1 6lber brigades. Maybe I should add another piece of artillery, not sure. I won't really know how this pans out for a while; my opponent is writing his thesis and an AAR of the game so the game goes around two turns a week. My game is also still in January of '62 so the CSA is spread a bit thin. Another big draft or two by him and these easy targets will be gone.

Ya, defending the fort might be tricky. Maybe I will just burn it to the ground. A small group of frigates might be good enough to contest a force moving via riverine. Perhaps the east coast forts would be easier to protect than the Gulf ones.

But in your game it sounds like you have the ships to protect a few captured forts. Have a go at one of those New Orleans forts if you can.

[Gray Fox]

GS, Charleston and Wilmington only have one exit each. If you cursor over the anchor icon in their respective regions you can see this. So you only need one blockade force for each:

[ATTACH]38290[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]38291[/ATTACH]

Enjoy your experiment!

[GraniteStater]

I've been blocking the forts, too, just for completeness. Perhaps don't need to.