How can river crossings and the blocking of them best be portrayed in AACW?

[Jabberwock]

My bad, that one is pretty gamey. However, having forts and entrenched stacks being able to fire on stationary fleets should be a very small and therefore feasable change (I imagine).

I have to admire it, though.

MY post referred to the suggestion of having more batteries than naval elements to be able to cross and that kind of thing, though.

OK, you want a well thought out proposal for that.

Have gunboats automatically bombard any land forces they detect crossing or travelling via river, but reverse the current shore bombardment odds. Halve the chance of evasion for land forces in a river.

like this:

bmbHitCoeffRiver = 20
bmbHitCoeffFording = 5
bmbMaxHitsDoneByRiver = 50
bmbMaxHitsDoneByFording = 25

That allows land forces to force a crossing, possibly even damage or sink the gunboats if the land force is big enough. Against anything less than a division, gunboats will win, without taking much (if any) damage. It would probably take several squadrons (or an ironclad) to completely destroy even a small land force, but only one to cause severe casualties and cohesion loss, which would likely prove fatal to raiders with no good line of retreat shortly thereafter. If any sized land force tried to deal with a large fleet by the direct method, they would be severely punished, but a large force would not be destroyed.

I say do it automatically and include any riverine movement for three reasons.
1. No new buttons!
2. If you don't want to get in a fight with an entire army, you will be discouraged from putting gunboats in front of an entire army. That will require some forethought. Grognards should love it.
3. It will discourage riverine penetrations by small land forces deep into enemy territory (another gamey tactic I use but would gladly do away with). At the moment, if I am prevented from travelling through a river region, I know it is because there is a warship there. So I get out of the river and hit the nearest target at that point. I would prefer to see a system that lets me steam around a bend and right under the grapeshot-loaded guns of a boat coming the other way. Oops! Or, just possibly, if I am lucky, sneak past.

That gives the land force two ways to manage an opposed river crossing. They can take the time to entrench, set up artillery, and blast the gunboats out of the way; or they can plunge in and feel the pain.

[Jagger]

Rafiki - your 'given' is debatable.

If the rebs post a division (or corps) at Donelson, and get just four gunboat squads into the Cumberland River, those gunboats can just sit. They can use the gunboats they start with and get them there before any Union shore batteries are set up.

They can't be bombarded if they don't move, and they never have to move because they draw supplies from Nashville. This is gamey (not that I won't do the same thing, unless it is fixed). Combine it with slightly too much mud in the hills and mountains to the east, and you can have a beautiful static line, even without corps marching to guns. Throw in some more gunboats on the Tennessee, and there are only three possible axis of attack - through the Great Confluent directly into Donelson, from eastern Tennessee, or by running an ironclad fleet past Donelson. In my current PBEM, I expect to get past this defense sometime in late '62 or early '63.

I am curious why you wouldn't send in 5 or 6 Union ironclads and just sink or drive off the reb gunboats? Gunboats don't fare well against ironclads.

This is an example of why I think the primary issue here is the inability of land forces to bombard non-moving fleets.

Another example is what I am doing by sitting in the James River to blockade Richmond, although that involves the occasional supply run past the batteries. My opponent should be able to attack the non-moving ships if he wants to.

I think it is important to bear in mind that naval vessels have the initiative in determining and sustaining combat versus land artillery.

Ships have great mobility and can easily remain out of range of fixed or low mobility land guns while often still performing their mission.

The reality is that land guns cannot hurt ships unless ships make the decision to enter a guns kill zone. Guns kill zones are extremely small considering the area represented by a water region. Personally, I can readily accept the inability of land guns to bombard a stationary ship within the game.

If anything, land guns are too effective in forcing combat on any ships that enter or leave their water regions. Guns shouldn't really have any impact unless ships run the guns. Ships should decide whether combat occurs or not.

Currently, it is very dangerous for a single ship to scout certain locations because they cannot survive the initial bombardment by anti-ship artillery. In reality, a scout ship would never enter the kill zone of anti-ship artillery for more than a very short time frame. If a scout ship felt any sort of danger, it would quickly retreat out of range instead of fighting till quickly sunk. As it is now, scout ships are simply sunk immediately as they can't take the volume of fire from any sort of reasonable artillery. Although I don't know of any easy solution to this problem.

[Jagger]

2. If you don't want to get in a fight with an entire army, you will be discouraged from putting gunboats in front of an entire army. That will require some forethought. Grognards should love it.

This is an interesting idea but has any army, without supporting friendly naval ships, ever crossed a significant water obstacle in the face of enemy naval ships at any time in history?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

[Jabberwock]

This is an interesting idea but has any army, without supporting friendly naval ships, ever crossed a significant water obstacle in the face of enemy naval ships at any time in history?

This is similar to another post earlier that I wanted to answer as well. You are assuming that naval ships always stuck around when faced with mobile land forces with rifled artillery. They generally did, because one of three conditions generally applied.

1. They had a supporting land forces of their own.

2. They had sufficient armor to face down the guns that were available.

3. They had sufficient manuever room to stay out of effective range, but still interdict the area.

However - Land forces should be able to interact with naval forces in the immediate area. Naval forces should be able to interact with land forces in the immediate area. It may not be as deadly, because either side had an easier time breaking off conflict than when faced with a force of their own type. Interaction was more common in the Civil War than earlier conflicts for three reasons.

1. Steam power.

2. Rifled artillery.

3. Armor.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

I read and hear this far too often. I don't consider it a sufficient argument to be included in debate. I read it as: "I don't want to do the research, I want you to have to do it."

It ranks with "I personally don't use this part of the game, so AGEod shouldn't make any changes." I hate that.

Jagger, I apologize. I'm probably picking on you because this is not a heated debate, and I know you're not as likely to take it personally as some others. Please don't take it personally. It's a trigger phrase for me. It is just time that I need to publicly post my feelings about that particular phrase for everyone to read.

[Jabberwock]

I am curious why you wouldn't send in 5 or 6 Union ironclads and just sink or drive off the reb gunboats? Gunboats don't fare well against ironclads.

They are in Clarkesville now, healing up from the run past Donelson. They took time to build. They will need their strength, there are corps with big guns in Nashville and Carthage as well. We aren't playing using your bombardment rules, but with a compromise between yours and and vanilla, so moving into the river is going to hurt. The gunboats trick gave him plenty of time to build up a nice entrenched army all along the south bank, so I don't expect the ironclads clearing the gunboats to be the solution here. I'm trying several things at once. It is an ongoing game so I can't be much more specific.

I think it is important to bear in mind that naval vessels have the initiative in determining and sustaining combat versus land artillery.

Ships have great mobility and can easily remain out of range of fixed or low mobility land guns while often still performing their mission.

Not always. Especially on rivers. See below.

The reality is that land guns cannot hurt ships unless ships make the decision to enter a guns kill zone. Guns kill zones are extremely small considering the area represented by a water region. Personally, I can readily accept the inability of land guns to bombard a stationary ship within the game.

Too general. Are you thinking of the Charleston Bay region, or Malvern Ferry in Arkansas?

If anything, land guns are too effective in forcing combat on any ships that enter or leave their water regions. Guns shouldn't really have any impact unless ships run the guns. Ships should decide whether combat occurs or not.

Currently, it is very dangerous for a single ship to scout certain locations because they cannot survive the initial bombardment by anti-ship artillery. In reality, a scout ship would never enter the kill zone of anti-ship artillery for more than a very short time frame. If a scout ship felt any sort of danger, it would quickly retreat out of range instead of fighting till quickly sunk. As it is now, scout ships are simply sunk immediately as they can't take the volume of fire from any sort of reasonable artillery. Although I don't know of any easy solution to this problem.

Quite a few were sunk or captured. Or sunk then raised off the bottom by the other side and used for something else. Or forced aground and the crew had to run off into the woods. Many times ships didn't know when they were entering a kill zone. Sometimes two or three batteries would be set up overnight overlooking a known patrol area. The USS Isaac Smith a.k.a. CSS Stono is a great example of several of those circumstances. I think you can find that one in The Blockade and the Cruisers, although it might be The Atlantic Coast. Also, look up the USS Cricket for a good ambush example, that's in Foote volume 3 p.60. Actually, start from around p.58 to get a good contextual idea of gunboat hell. USS Shawsheen - there's a wikipedia entry for that one.

It is true that scouting is too dangerous along the coast. The numbers for shore bombardment are unbalanced. We both know that. I think fixing either problem will help obviate the need for the other fix. Maybe we could even get them both fixed at the same time.

There should be different rules for initiating coastal water bombardment than for shallow water.

It is also true that gunboats generally had the initiave and maneuverability advantages, and that they won most of these little fights. If they were on a mission targeting a specific known battery, they often took along a small landing force to circle around. Then they almost always won.

[Pocus]

I still prefer the quick fix of rising a bit the number of elements needed to cut the link. At least, Athena can cope with that inately (ie if the link is not there, she can find another way). Otherwise you end up with the same problem she have when ships are sent nearby forts, they are often toasted. And you really don't want to have the AI suffers another outrage by moving troops over the river, being fired upon & weakened. Again and again.

Unless I find by miracle the time to redo a complete pass on the riverine AI (the embryo of it), but when I will have this time for the AI, I prefer to spend it on more important matters (a real amphibious AI would be cool)

[Jabberwock]

I still prefer the quick fix of rising a bit the number of elements needed to cut the link. At least, Athena can cope with that inately (ie if the link is not there, she can find another way). Otherwise you end up with the same problem she have when ships are sent nearby forts, they are often toasted. And you really don't want to have the AI suffers another outrage by moving troops over the river, being fired upon & weakened. Again and again.

Unless I find by miracle the time to redo a complete pass on the riverine AI (the embryo of it), but when I will have this time for the AI, I prefer to spend it on more important matters (a real amphibious AI would be cool)

leure: It is up to you to decide the priorities.

I don't believe you can find an adequate solution for the amphibious problem, unless Athena's issues with being restless and unfocused (as discussed here) are addressed. That would also decrease the chances that she would make the kind of mistakes you mention here.

These issues all become interrelated. An improvement in one area either indirectly improves another, or draws attention to the need for improvement in another, or allows improvement in another where it wasn't possible before.

[Jabberwock]

If you do go with the quick fix, is it possible we could get the bombard stationary ships quick fix at the same time?

[Jagger]

If you do go with the quick fix, is it possible we could get the bombard stationary ships quick fix at the same time?

Before adding this feature into the game, I would ask a couple of questions.

1. Is it historical/realistic?

2. What impact will it have on game play and balance?

In my humble opinion, it is very difficult to justify the bombard stationary ship as historical or realistic considering that navy ships have the initiative in entering combat and the amount of area represented by water regions.

In game terms, ships will not be able to remain in any region covered by land artillery due to the extraordinary power of land artillery vs ships. Artillery will chase off ships even though realistically only ships can initiative combat with artillery. Artillery only controlled a very limited area due to their range and lack of mobility. Very unrealistic with a significant impact on naval gameplay.

Second, are we trending back to the point where the demands of navy blockades are so difficult that people simply quit playing the naval game? In particular, I am thinking of the increase in blockade numbers but also the stationary bombard ships feature. So why buy or play navy if the demands are so great that the costs and results are no longer justified?

At one point, I quit playing the naval game. I just bought land units and played a land game as the navy game wasn't worth playing. Now I play a navy game but I would hate to see us go back to where it is pointless.

[W.Barksdale]

During the civil war one of the main goals of the Union forces was to take control of the Mississippi river in order prevent to flow of troops and supplies coming the west of the river to the east side.

If ships are unable to prevent a crossing how are you going to model Union control of the rivers? Even if Federal forces control the main cities this change would make it near impossible to cut the Confederacy in two.

[Jabberwock]

Before adding this feature into the game, I would ask a couple of questions.

1. Is it historical/realistic?

2. What impact will it have on game play and balance?

In my humble opinion, it is very difficult to justify the bombard stationary ship as historical or realistic considering that navy ships have the initiative in entering combat and the amount of area represented by water regions.

In game terms, ships will not be able to remain in any region covered by land artillery due to the extraordinary power of land artillery vs ships. Artillery will chase off ships even though realistically only ships can initiative combat with artillery. Artillery only controlled a very limited area due to their range and lack of mobility. Very unrealistic with a significant impact on naval gameplay.

Second, are we trending back to the point where the demands of navy blockades are so difficult that people simply quit playing the naval game? In particular, I am thinking of the increase in blockade numbers but also the stationary bombard ships feature. So why buy or play navy if the demands are so great that the costs and results are no longer justified?

At one point, I quit playing the naval game. I just bought land units and played a land game as the navy game wasn't worth playing. Now I play a navy game but I would hate to see us go back to where it is pointless.

I should've been more specific, and will modify the request as well. Can we have the bombard stationary ships in shallow water regions fix? It looks like something that could be done fairly easily.

If a ship is just sitting somewhere in shallow water long enough for level 5+ entrenchments to be built next to it, then those entrenchments will include batteries overlooking the areas that said ship has to patrol in order to interdict land units. Any level 5+ entrenchments will overlook those areas, whether there is a ship there at the moment or not, and whether there is a battery currently in that section of entrenchments or not. They take three months to build up to that level, even with an engineer present.

I am not in favor of increasing the number of ships required for interdiction as a fix here. I have a number of reasons, but that's my opinion. Moving on ...

In regards to your last point, you are saying that we shouldn't fix one thing because something else is broken. This leads, in the end, to endless gameyness.

I say we fix one thing, and if it makes it that much more obvious that something else is broken, so be it. That is what is happening with the support units inside divisions fix leading to movement and attrition fixes.

I mostly quit playing the naval game as well, until I started finding these gamey uses for ships. Maybe some more of those who quit playing the naval game will [SIZE="4"]SPEAK UP[/size]. If AGEod doesn't hear from more than just the same few voices that there is a problem, and there are always two or three grognards to argue "I just don't want Iwo Jima again" against them, then this will always be low priority.

On a personal note, I recognize that you have worked on the naval bombardment imbalance issue in a different way than I have. You have changed the bombardment rules in your mod, and now have gamers coming to you asking for just that part of the mod.

You do deserve a hearty cheer for that.

Hopefully, they will consider what you have presented for vanilla. I think that it should have been vanilla all along.

[Jabberwock]

If ships are unable to prevent a crossing how are you going to model Union control of the rivers? Even if Federal forces control the main cities this change would make it near impossible to cut the Confederacy in two.

We are not looking for a solution that makes ships unable to effectively interdict a crossing.

Also, cutting the Confederacy in two was historically never complete until Union forces took control of all the land regions (major and minor) adjacent to the river. The gunboats weren't enough by themselves.

[runyan99]

During the civil war one of the main goals of the Union forces was to take control of the Mississippi river in order prevent to flow of troops and supplies coming the west of the river to the east side.

If ships are unable to prevent a crossing how are you going to model Union control of the rivers? Even if Federal forces control the main cities this change would make it near impossible to cut the Confederacy in two.

I would tend to agree. I don't think there is anything gamey about using riverine power to block movement across rivers. It represents ships patrolling the river and preventing exactly this sort of thing.

Although I am the opponent blocking the Cumberland in JW's game, I have been a bit hazy on exactly how this works in the game. Often I just park ships in the river and hope for the best.

The game doesn't use already present patrol and evasion values to determine if a force can cross? If not, why not? Wouldn't that make a lot of sense? In computer speak that would be evasion value > fleet patrol value, unit can cross river.

I imagine a small force with a high evasion value like a cavalry regiment could cross a river patrolled by one gunboat, but a large force like a two division corps maybe couldn't because they would not be able to construct a pontoon in the face of enemy gunboats.

[Jabberwock]

How about this -

Level 5+ enemy entrenchments in an adjacent region nullify the interdiction from that adjacent region for shallow regions only. If the gunboats aren't powerful enough to knock back the batteries, then troops can cross at the point where those batteries have control.

That wouldn't result in lots of sunk gunboats, as Jagger is worried about. However, it would probably be harder to program than bombarding stationary ships.


Hi Runyan. Whether it is totally intentional or not, it is very effective. Any frustration I have expressed about it here should be taken as a compliment.

[runyan99]

How about this -

Level 5+ enemy entrenchments in an adjacent region nullify the interdiction from that adjacent region for shallow regions only. If the gunboats aren't powerful enough to knock back the batteries, then troops can cross at the point where those batteries have control.

But in our game, we both have 5+ entrenchments on both sides of the river. So, if your 5+ entrenchments nullify interdiction, why can't my 5+ entrenchments interdict your crossing, and nullify your nullification?

Too complicated. Again, this gets back to the most tricky issue of the interaction between naval forces and entrenched guns not part of a fort (usually an intrenched division in actual gameplay). Again, I would argue that the corps you have entrenched to 5+ on the north bank probably would not be oriented towards the river in real life (they are field units), and probably shouldn't be able to interdict the river at all, unless they are part of a fort which is dedicated to river interdiction.

There is a problem in the game when an intrenched division is simultaneously using its guns to interdict a river AND is in position to defend against land forces at the same time. It does not stand up to reason.

[Jabberwock]

But in our game, we both have 5+ entrenchments on both sides of the river. So, if your 5+ entrenchments nullify interdiction, why can't my 5+ entrenchments interdict your crossing, and nullify your nullification?

There is no reason a force shouldn't be able to cross a major river into the face of level 5+ entrenchments if it wants to under those circumstances. Ouch! It deserves whatever results it obtains. This situation is adequately provided for in the current rules.

If the defending artillery is positioned to overlook the pontoon bridge (or ford) sites, it is highly likely that it is positioned where counter-battery fire will be able to suppress it. Any West Point trained general deliberately chose sites for pontoons accordingly. Even Burnside's pontoons were far enough from the main Confederate position that artillery wasn't a problem. I hate to think what would have happened to any Confederate gunboats or even ironclads on the Rappahannock that day.

Too complicated. Again, this gets back to the most tricky issue of the interaction between naval forces and entrenched guns not part of a fort (usually an intrenched division in actual gameplay). Again, I would argue that the corps you have entrenched to 5+ on the north bank probably would not be oriented towards the river in real life (they are field units), and probably shouldn't be able to interdict the river at all, unless they are part of a fort which is dedicated to river interdiction.

There is a problem in the game when an intrenched division is simultaneously using its guns to interdict a river AND is in position to defend against land forces at the same time. It does not stand up to reason.

I agree it is too complicated. I don't think it is the optimal solution. I don't think Pocus will like it. I wanted to present it as an option, an alternative to bombarding stationary ships. Just trying to make everyone happy.

I disagree with everything else here. There are some special cases where a land force with a river on one or more sides is being threatened from a direction opposite the river, but those tend to resolve rather quickly. Level 5+ entrenchments imply to me that the entrenchments face in multiple directions and include multiple abstracted redoubts and emplacements suitable for artillery; and field artillery as well as other units can be shifted as required to different areas.

[W.Barksdale]

Also, cutting the Confederacy in two was historically never complete until Union forces took control of all the land regions (major and minor) adjacent to the river. The gunboats weren't enough by themselves.

You can't be serious. Once Vicksburg fell that was it. General Gardner surrendered Port Hudson as soon as the fall of Vicksburg was confirmed. The rebs remained in control of small sections of the riverbank until the end of the war, however, it was of no use to them. General Grant did not worry about occuplying all these little banks. His main concern was Joe Johnston.

[runyan99]

Agree. Once Vicksburg and Port Hudson fell, it seems to have been all the Confederacy could do just to get small things like mail and individual leaders back and forth across the river.

[Jabberwock]

You can't be serious.

I can be absolutely serious. Look again at a map of controlled areas after mid '63.

Once Vicksburg fell that was it.

What does that have to do with the river being solely controlled by gunboats ?

General Gardner surrendered Port Hudson as soon as the fall of Vicksburg was confirmed.

You state that as if you think I wasn't aware of it. Again, what does that have to do with the river being solely controlled by gunboats? I think you are proving my point for me. Land areas needed to be controlled in order to interdict Confederate use of the river.

The rebs remained in control of small sections of the riverbank until the end of the war, however, it was of no use to them.

Generally because the other side and surrounding stretches of the river were under Union control, in addition to the gunboat patrols. It wasn't just the major outposts like Vicksburg, Port Hudson, and Memphis that the Union held. They controlled the bank on one or both sides of the river for a good ways inland.

General Grant did not worry about occuplying all these little banks. His main concern was Joe Johnston.

This is true. He did not split up his entire army to station a brigade with artillery and a cavalry regiment in every swamp along the river. However, large sections of the river were already adequately secured by the time Vicksburg fell. Grant and Banks didn't worry about this, they assigned those kind of tasks to mid-level subordinates. Usually the ones they didn't like. Whether or not the Union had feet on the ground in a given region, and they usually did, there was always a nearby force accompanied by gunboats ready to land at any trouble spot.

History books are written about the big battles at the major strategic points, because they have limited space and usually want to appeal to a wide reading audience that gets easily bored with details. That is not everything that happened.

If all we are aiming for here is to just generally hit on the major points, then sign me up to buy the next cival war frst-persun shoot-em-up. Watch me handle a gatling Rambo-style! That was me not being serious.

[W.Barksdale]

Okay I believe my point is that control of a river is based upon holding key points along the river. In the case of the Mississippi this is Island No. 10, Memphis, Vicksburg, Port Hudson, etc. These places were built because they commanding positions on the river and crossing at these points is considerably easier than crossing elsewhere. Once these are taken gunboats can do the rest.

If it was as simple as building a fort along any stretch of the river why would the rebels not do it? Most of the commanding points where guns would have an effect on river movement already had cities or forts in place. The Mississippi is a wide river. Given the range limitations guns just can't be placed anywhere and expect to be able to hit boats on the far side. Only where the river was sufficiently narrow could this tactic work.

[Jabberwock]

Okay I believe my point is that control of a river is based upon holding key points along the river. In the case of the Mississippi this is Island No. 10, Memphis, Vicksburg, Port Hudson, etc. These places were built because they commanding positions on the river and crossing at these points is considerably easier than crossing elsewhere. Once these are taken gunboats can do the rest.

If it was as simple as building a fort along any stretch of the river why would the rebels not do it? Most of the commanding points where guns would have an effect on river movement already had cities or forts in place. The Mississippi is a wide river. Given the range limitations guns just can't be placed anywhere and expect to be able to hit boats on the far side. Only where the river was sufficiently narrow could this tactic work.

That is a good point. I was speaking of complete control; completely cutting the Confederacy in half; restricting usage of the river to the occasional general or mail courier, to paraphrase runyan. Control was primarily achieved through the points you mentioned, for the reasons you mentioned.

I believe that once Union operations began on the river, no new forts were set up in immediately threatened areas, because the Confederates were well aware that the response to such a move would be swift and painful. They didn't have the resources to throw away like that. Besides, they already had strongholds at the major chokepoints. By the time those strongholds fell, it was far too late.

My point is that given time to entrench and emplace batteries, they could have forced a crossing at one of the more difficult to reach points, if their only opposition was a couple of unarmored or tinclad gunboats. It would have been more difficult to do this on the Mississippi than most rivers, because, as you say, it is wider than most. Given the strategic situation, they were not foolish enough to try it.

[AndrewKurtz]

The game doesn't use already present patrol and evasion values to determine if a force can cross? If not, why not? Wouldn't that make a lot of sense? In computer speak that would be evasion value > fleet patrol value, unit can cross river.

I imagine a small force with a high evasion value like a cavalry regiment could cross a river patrolled by one gunboat, but a large force like a two division corps maybe couldn't because they would not be able to construct a pontoon in the face of enemy gunboats.

This seems like the right solution to me. It makes total sense. Large forces are prevented from moving but small cavalry raiders are able to cross.

I look at it this way. The reprentation of patrolling is somewhat abstracted. If a HUGE enemy force was detected as trying to cross, other gunboats on the river would react to stop the crossing. The key is being smal enough to be able to cross undtected. Otherwise, control of the river wold (and did) win every time....

[W.Barksdale]

Sounds good to me.
And about bombarding stationary fleets? Seems logical.

[runyan99]

Bumping this.

Jabberwock being Jabberwock, he is taking this game mechanic and using it ad absurdum. He has purchased scouting squadrons, and is now choking the Confederacy to death by blockading every inland river on the entire eastern seaboard with single ships.

It isn't that I think this should be impossible, but I do think we need to at least make this expensive. It should take more than one brig to prevent land forces from crossing a river.

So again, I'd like to see this get looked at again, and have the rules changed so that either

1) River forces use patrol values to determine if land forces are blocked, or

2) Land movement is only blocked if the river is officially "Blockaded" by the number of elements required by the sea/river zone.

[Jabberwock]

I left you the PeeDee River.

leure: I wanted to use this dirty trick in the GC. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

[Hobbes]

Bumping this.

Jabberwock being Jabberwock, he is taking this game mechanic and using it ad absurdum. He has purchased scouting squadrons, and is now choking the Confederacy to death by blockading every inland river on the entire eastern seaboard with single ships.

It isn't that I think this should be impossible, but I do think we need to at least make this expensive. It should take more than one brig to prevent land forces from crossing a river.

So again, I'd like to see this get looked at again, and have the rules changed so that either

1) River forces use patrol values to determine if land forces are blocked, or

2) Land movement is only blocked if the river is officially "Blockaded" by the number of elements required by the sea/river zone.

Does this actually work though? I just sent Pocus a save where my PBEM opponent managed to cross a river even though there were 9 Ironclads on it! Probably something daft I'm missing though.

Cheers, Chris

[Pocus]

The easiest solution code-wise is to up to say 2 elements the quantity of ships needed.

[Hobbes]

The easiest solution code-wise is to up to say 2 elements the quantity of ships needed.

Would it make any sense to also demand that fleets have to be in an aggressive posture to block movement? This would at least stop players just leaving fleets on rivers to block movement – they could only be on station for a few turns before the cohesion loss forces a return to port.

Cheers, Chris

[Jabberwock]

You can't see it from just one screenshot, but Mosby moved across the Lumber River the turn before. I believe it was because I didn't control either side of the river where he crossed. I can't be sure, but I think I may be stopping the flow of supplies into NC from here, regardless of control.

Hobbes suggestion about posture makes a lot of sense.

Pocus, I already have about a dozen more brigs in less strategic locations that are looking for ways to be more useful. Buying more is easy if I need to. Doubling up here would be no problem.

Also, two elements or two units?

[ANTONYO]

Would it make any sense to also demand that fleets have to be in an aggressive posture to block movement? This would at least stop players just leaving fleets on rivers to block movement – they could only be on station for a few turns before the cohesion loss forces a return to port.

Cheers, Chris

Totally in agreement with this one suggestion.

Additionally to the previous thing, I would put the following rules:

A stationary fleet in shallow waters (only in shallow waters) and in offensive position (only in offensive position), would have to be able to be bombarding by +5 entrenchments each turn, asi would be avoided that the fleets can block during long time the cross a river defendant by entrenchment +5.

It would limit I number of boats (only in shallow waters) that can compose stack for example to 10 boats (for example) and would put a penalty of -55% by each additional boat that composed stack. Thus it would be avoided for example that the group of fleets to cross the forts, that cause that hits is distributed between many boats and that the bombing of answer of the fleet is lethal for artillery of the fort. Additionally with this rule the CSA would have some possibility of facing powerful fleet the USA and of breaking some blockade of river.

Sorry by my badly English.