Amphib Landings and what prevents them

[johnnycai]

What are the factors in determining amphib landings interdiction?

I had Grant's Army with 4 divisions in the river zone south of Island10 for 3 turns with a big fleet and was unable to land them on Island 10 where Rosecrans/Pope were sitting (not seiging as they were recovering cohesion) with about 50%MC of Island10/Lake TN region.
Yes, the rebs were in the fort having been forced inside by Rosecrans/Pope who had no problem landing. Grant showed estimates of 5 days to land from the fleet for 2 turns and 1day on the 3rd turn during my orders phase.
I did encounter small or even single ironclad sailing in the river zone, which US fought off, and always showed >200-0 in the zone of control for the river region. Only in turn2 was there any reb ships in that zone when beginning the turn.
Anyways for 3 turns I tried to get Grant to land and finish off the fort but was unable. My fleet was interdicted by single or smallish reb forces but US won the naval battles but werent landing as expected. Weather conditions were fair over the 3 turns (Lake/Island10 is swamp terrain).

Any insight on these 2 unusual river/amphib issues?

[Le Ricain]

What are the factors in determining amphib landings interdiction?

I had Grant's Army with 4 divisions in the river zone south of Island10 for 3 turns with a big fleet and was unable to land them on Island 10 where Rosecrans/Pope were sitting (not seiging as they were recovering cohesion) with about 50%MC of Island10/Lake TN region.
Yes, the rebs were in the fort having been forced inside by Rosecrans/Pope who had no problem landing. Grant showed estimates of 5 days to land from the fleet for 2 turns and 1day on the 3rd turn during my orders phase.
I did encounter small or even single ironclad sailing in the river zone, which US fought off, and always showed >200-0 in the zone of control for the river region. Only in turn2 was there any reb ships in that zone when beginning the turn.
Anyways for 3 turns I tried to get Grant to land and finish off the fort but was unable. My fleet was interdicted by single or smallish reb forces but US won the naval battles but werent landing as expected. Weather conditions were fair over the 3 turns (Lake/Island10 is swamp terrain).

Any insight on these 2 unusual river/amphib issues?

In my experience, if the South is able to attack my fleet with some ships (even at unfavourable odds), the action is enough to cancel the invasion regardless of the result.

[johnnycai]

In my experience, if the South is able to attack my fleet with some ships (even at unfavourable odds), the action is enough to cancel the invasion regardless of the result.

So in essence, an amphib force and fleet, no matter how large and with overwhelming zone of control of the riverzone can always be interdicted in this manner...? Doesnt seem right, almost gamey.

So the rebs can just throw any small naval force to disrupt a landing, even if after the anticipated landing day. eg. in 2 of the 3 days, my landing force was expected (ordered) to land in day5 or day1 and the naval interdiction, with the rebs ships losing the encounter, occured in later days of the turn.

[Coregonas]

Yes...

Just start wiping out all those pesky rebel wooden ships...

[denisonh]

I think it is an issue that needs to be addressed, as it allows defending key places from invasion by simply having a gunboat or brig in a key city such as New Orleans, Memphis, etc.., to effectively defend them from invasion.

That means you can skip having to keep a substantial garrison without significant risk.

I keep thinking how one German DD would have done to stop the invasion of Normandy..........

[johnnycai]

Yes...

Just start wiping out all those pesky rebel wooden ships...

That wont happen if the CSA uses early-retreat engagement stances. CSA can just send an ironclad on defensive/retreat stance against a huge US fleet, take some minor losses, retreat and yet still foil the landing. In my example, 2 of the 3 reb interventions by single ironclad were days after the anticipated landing time of 5 days and 1 day. In the defensive/early-retreat stances, ship losses and sinking are very rare in my experience.
Its still gamey, and should be considered for augmenting in the future.

[Pocus]

So in essence, an amphib force and fleet, no matter how large and with overwhelming zone of control of the riverzone can always be interdicted in this manner...? Doesnt seem right, almost gamey.

So the rebs can just throw any small naval force to disrupt a landing, even if after the anticipated landing day. eg. in 2 of the 3 days, my landing force was expected (ordered) to land in day5 or day1 and the naval interdiction, with the rebs ships losing the encounter, occured in later days of the turn.

All is in the details, gents!

Set the disembarking fleet passive and then the rest in offensive or even defensive, and the former should be screened.

[Jabberwock]

It should also be possible to screen this particular location by sending part of your fleet to Obion Confluent. If you defeat the rebel naval forces there, they aren't likely to retreat in the direction of additional forces.

Also, a shore battery in Haywood, Osceola, or Reel would do nicely to eliminate this threat to your future operations. I do, however, understand that Reel and Osceola can be difficult to reach with artillery.

[denisonh]

But when "disembarking", the ground forces seem to form a separate stack and then "move" to the destination region, so why is a second naval stack necessary?

All is in the details, gents!

Set the disembarking fleet passive and then the rest in offensive or even defensive, and the former should be screened.

[denisonh]

They could evade and hit the landing fleet.

All is takes is one.

Having a large force covering the landing should be more than adequate to the task. If I have a big enough force to blockade, I should be able to land forces without having it negated by a single enemy vessel.

It should also be possible to screen this particular location by sending part of your fleet to Obion Confluent. If you defeat the rebel naval forces there, they aren't likely to retreat in the direction of additional forces.

Also, a shore battery in Haywood, Osceola, or Reel would do nicely to eliminate this threat to your future operations.

[Coregonas]

Navy issues are hard to master against another humans:

We humans dont like to play until the end, once the game is a little lost, we concede, and...
as naval operations in 61 are still limited...
Too few big naval battles
Southern commanders disregard navy too much (why? )
Too little navy compared to army .. perhaps 600 army elements vs 50 navy
There is more fun working around all those corps/division combinations, is not fun to mass 2000 power navy without restriction...
and so on...

Surely, some more "gamey tricks" are available to navy issues than army. I´m talking about USA with that all-out-powerful navy... But hard to know all of them most of them due to the facts before. Army tricks are easier (it s not the same as easy) to master.

[johnnycai]

It should also be possible to screen this particular location by sending part of your fleet to Obion Confluent. If you defeat the rebel naval forces there, they aren't likely to retreat in the direction of additional forces.

Also, a shore battery in Haywood, Osceola, or Reel would do nicely to eliminate this threat to your future operations. I do, however, understand that Reel and Osceola can be difficult to reach with artillery.

The rebs are likely to have multiple locations to bombard passing ships and splitting into smaller fleets or using separate fleets in different river zones, only leads to more hits/sinkings. With the advantage shore batteries/forts have now over ships, it is almost necessary to have a 500+ fleet before going down river against such targets as Island10 or Memphis

[Jabberwock]

True that. My last naval breakthrough on the Mississippi was accomplished by buying all the ironclads available, and then running them downriver in fleets of about 10 (1 fleet each for Foote, Porter, and DuPont) with bombard off (letting the rebs bombard me instead). That eliminated the auto-bombarding batteries inside the fort as well. Of course, the first fleet in took a quite pounding, but it was survivable. That was after my multiple shore batteries around the confluents had considerably damaged the reb ironclad fleet. If the rebs have multiple batteries set up, go slow.

I was playing with slightly modified bombard rules, about halfway between Jagger's mod and vanilla.

[soundoff]

Navy issues are hard to master against another humans:


Southern commanders disregard navy too much (why? )
.

I'd have thought that was fairly obvious Coregonas. Given the war supplies cost of a single Iron Clad its easy to see why the vast majority of CSA players ignore navies....particularly if they are playing PBEM

[Brochgale]

That wont happen if the CSA uses early-retreat engagement stances. CSA can just send an ironclad on defensive/retreat stance against a huge US fleet, take some minor losses, retreat and yet still foil the landing. In my example, 2 of the 3 reb interventions by single ironclad were days after the anticipated landing time of 5 days and 1 day. In the defensive/early-retreat stances, ship losses and sinking are very rare in my experience.
Its still gamey, and should be considered for augmenting in the future.

In the games I have played - Athena has just come in sufficient force to move my ironclads out of way and conducted the landings anyway. It has happenned in my latest game where Buchanan and Viginia just get pushed up the James and Yanks land and take Norfolk. This is on hard settings. Dont know how it would work out in a PBEM game though?
The game before it failed to take Norfolk but lays seige to it instead and I cant relieve Norfolk As Richmond is also under attack. Amphibous landings I think will work if they are well planned and thought out but then there is always the FOW to contend with.

[Brochgale]

I'd have thought that was fairly obvious Coregonas. Given the war supplies cost of a single Iron Clad its easy to see why the vast majority of CSA players ignore navies....particularly if they are playing PBEM

It is a question of resources and applying a balance to spending. The need for troops on the battlefield will always be pressing for CSA I think. Especially in a PBEM game where any tough Yank opponent is going to go for CSA as fast as he can - do a Jackson - press press and keep pushing on - Grants lesson?

[Coregonas]

War supply RoI of a brig can be 3 months if correctly applied...

[pepe4158]

I have to think this is a good-case of the arquement for the 7 day turn instead of 15.....your landing is interfered with say on day 3, you win the naval, but the troops just sit idile for 12 more days? Inconcievable!

[Brochgale]

I have to think this is a good-case of the arquement for the 7 day turn instead of 15.....your landing is interfered with say on day 3, you win the naval, but the troops just sit idile for 12 more days? Inconcievable!

I am now one of those falling on the side of 7 day turns. Even for land movements. To send whole divisions on 15 day trips that might end up to be pointless exercises can be irritating - also I happen to think that in the real world on the War - commanders might have to change plans faster than on a 15 day time scale?

[Jagger]

I am now one of those falling on the side of 7 day turns. Even for land movements. To send whole divisions on 15 day trips that might end up to be pointless exercises can be irritating - also I happen to think that in the real world on the War - commanders might have to change plans faster than on a 15 day time scale?

The same can happen when attempting an evacuation. A single ship can stop loading on to transports which can be absolutely devastating if your troops are trapped on land and must escape.

[Inside686]

I'm not an expert about war strategies but I agree with Pepe. I guess 2 weeks were enough for a civil war general to get intelligence about enemy moves or plans and as a consequence to change his own plans.

[soundoff]

War supply RoI of a brig can be 3 months if correctly applied...

They can indeed but if as the CSA player I'm building Brigs I sure as heck dont want them engaged in a pitched naval battle with the Union navy.