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

[bigus]

Instead of combat or "all or nothing", why not tie to evasion?

If undetected, you can cross the river, and if detected halted.

An excellent idea!
IMHO the presence of a single gunboat might be enough to delay or halt a crossing.
Edit: On second thought This might pose problems though. Say you have a flotilla of Ironclads and gunboats. This should definitely stop movement.

bigus

[pepe4158]

at least delay for sure....some here like me, are certainly not convinced given a strong enough land force, would stop.

[Fern]

But that is not how the game simulates it if gunboats physically prevent crossing large stretches of river for substantial periods of time.

At present the game allows players to cross any river sector anywhere and anytime provided no enemy riverine forces are present. Even if there are enemy forces waiting on the other bank (the crossing force will fight at a disavantadge though) and both banks have been previously controlled by the enemy (so they could have burned down or moved away bridges and any crossing item before the enemy force moved to the river) and there is no friendly naval forces (i.e. transports) in the area. However we know that there were no fords everywhere, most of them were not always available (spring thaw, after heavy rains etc.), some others were available for a few months (drought) etc., so that was NOT always the case. This is a game compromise which favours CSA forces. They can ALWAYS cross any enemy controlled river, even the Misissippi, provided no enemy gunboat is present.

OTOH gunboats (most of the time Union ones) cancel river crossings in non-contested river sectors. I think it is another game compromise which compensates for the CSA capability to cross any river anywhere anytime. It is supported by the real facts because it seems there is no record of a sizeable ACW army daring to cross a big river in face of enemy riverine forces.

Moreover. According to 1.10 an Union player (rivers are mostly controlled by the Union) must have 4 gunboats in a river sector in order to cancel enemy crossing capability. It would be more realistic to allow him to patrol a sector with one or two gunboats and cancel any river crossing provided enough friendly riverine forces were based in an adjacent sector, even if they were inside a port because those forces could heavily reinforce those patrolling gunboats in a short time. CW Generals knew it., that's the reason they did not cross rivers facing enemy riverine forces. It was TOO dangerous. In the game it is NOT dangerous at all because forces cannot be split between two banks, cannot be stopped cold while crossing leaving some of the forces in the wrong bank of the river, enemy riverine forces in a sector cannot be reinforced by forces in adjacent sectors (or inside a port in the same sector) etc.

They are game compromises and I think they are pretty good chosen ones.

In fact I would allow riverine units in a port to interdict crossing movements in their sector as long there was just ONE gunboat element out of the port patrolling the river sector because the forces inside port would be naval reserves available to reinforce the patrolling forces in a VERY short time.

Neither would I force patrolling gunboats to be on attack mode. Defensive mode would be enough.

In short, I don't know if it would be doable, but in order to deny crossing capability to an enemy force I would suggest to force the river controlling player to have 6 or 8 elements (ironclads would count as 2 elements each), but forces in adjacent river sectors, even if they are inside a port and in passive mode, would be counted for the total. If if was not doable, then I would leave things as they are.

[Brochgale]

An excellent idea!
IMHO the presence of a single gunboat might be enough to delay or halt a crossing.
Edit: On second thought This might pose problems though. Say you have a flotilla of Ironclads and gunboats. This should definitely stop movement.

bigus

The idea of Ironclads delaying movement across rivers is fair enough til they would have to get resupplied or just to let the crews breathe oxygen for a little while?
On Gunboats surely if forces on land deployed thier artillery then Gunboats might have to back off or get sunk? I pose the question.

[Jabberwock]

OTOH gunboats (most of the time Union ones) cancel river crossings in non-contested river sectors. I think it is another game compromise which compensates for the CSA capability to cross any river anywhere anytime. It is supported by the real facts because it seems there is no record of a sizeable ACW army daring to cross a big river in face of enemy riverine forces.

From my reading completely unopposed forces in the CW did cross rivers pretty much at will. Certainly within a 15 day stretch, even if the river was in flood during part or all of that time. This is supported by facts.

Moreover. According to 1.10 an Union player (rivers are mostly controlled by the Union) must have 4 gunboats in a river sector in order to cancel enemy crossing capability. It would be more realistic to allow him to patrol a sector with one or two gunboats and cancel any river crossing provided enough friendly riverine forces were based in an adjacent sector, even if they were inside a port because those forces could heavily reinforce those patrolling gunboats in a short time. CW Generals knew it., that's the reason they did not cross rivers facing enemy riverine forces. It was TOO dangerous. In the game it is NOT dangerous at all because forces cannot be split between two banks, cannot be stopped cold while crossing leaving some of the forces in the wrong bank of the river, enemy riverine forces in a sector cannot be reinforced by forces in adjacent sectors (or inside a port in the same sector) etc.

In the game it is not dangerous at all because gunboat patrols are not dangerous or porous. I fail to see how stopping crossings completely makes it more dangerous, other than as a dangerous (and IMO unrealistic) abstraction. However, if gunboat patrols were made dangerous to forces crossing rivers, it would allow for situations where different stacks in the same army could wind up on opposite sides of a river with low cohesion. If this wouldn't be a deterrent, I don't know what would.

Saying it was not done (which I concede) is not sufficient IMO to go from deterrence to total interdiction. Gunboats deterred land forces from crossing rivers, they did not stop land forces from crossing rivers. It's like the Cold War. The US and USSR were not physically incapable of launching nuclear missiles at each other. They didn't do it, for fifty years. However, removing the ability to launch nuclear missiles from a model of the Cold War, even though supported by that historical fact, would be a very dangerous abstraction.

I expect this will be paraphrased as: Jabberwock says "Not launching nuclear missiles is dangerous." Just another reason for "normal" people to think I'm nuts.

They are game compromises and I think they are pretty good chosen ones.

Naval warfare is one of the most abstract parts of this game, and while it should never be the primary focus of the game, and I (as a programmer) certainly recognize the need for easy fixes and compromises, it is (IMO) one of the areas of the game that could most stand improvement.

In fact I would allow riverine units in a port to interdict crossing movements in their sector as long there was just ONE gunboat element out of the port patrolling the river sector because the forces inside port would be naval reserves available to reinforce the patrolling forces in a VERY short time.

I don't think anyone has suggested steaming-to-the-sound-of-the-guns before, although the way it is proposed, it is more of a steaming-to-the-lack-of-sound-of-the-guns. Good original thought there. I think we should bounce that idea around a bit.

Neither would I force patrolling gunboats to be on attack mode. Defensive mode would be enough.

I think this is a proposed easy fix forced by other compromise choices. If we stick with total interdiction, then they need to be in attack mode.

In short, I don't know if it would be doable, but in order to deny crossing capability to an enemy force I would suggest to force the river controlling player to have 6 or 8 elements (ironclads would count as 2 elements each), but forces in adjacent river sectors, even if they are inside a port and in passive mode, would be counted for the total. If if was not doable, then I would leave things as they are.

Saying we shouldn't change things unless we can do it in a way that is probably inconvenient, could be more simply stated as the opinion that we shouldn't change things. However, combining your idea of supporting naval elements with the idea of contested crossings, is likely to be more doable, because it could be modeled on the pre-existing march-to-the-guns code. That deserves further consideration.

[bigus]

The idea of Ironclads delaying movement across rivers is fair enough til they would have to get resupplied or just to let the crews breathe oxygen for a little while?
On Gunboats surely if forces on land deployed thier artillery then Gunboats might have to back off or get sunk? I pose the question.

Yes I would say for gunboats this forces you to deploy your forces to fight off the gunboats. Hence a small chance for a delay in movement. If there are ironclads present then the chances to cross would be stopped or be very slim. I don't think an army or mobile force carried the ordanance to do much damage to Ironclad ships. This is strictly interdiction and not combat. Thats why IMHO "evasion" might be the way to go.

It's a touchy subject. But an interesting one.

Bigus

[Jabberwock]

Yes I would say for gunboats this forces you to deploy your forces to fight off the gunboats. Hence a small chance for a delay in movement. If there are ironclads present then the chances to cross would be stopped or be very slim. I don't think an army or mobile force carried the ordanance to do much damage to Ironclad ships. This is strictly interdiction and not combat. Thats why IMHO "evasion" might be the way to go.

It's a touchy subject. But an interesting one.

Bigus

That's a good point for consideration. I don't think land forces ever successfully assaulted one of the big ironclads, although I would like to see what could've been done with the 4 1/2" siege rifles the AotP lugged around (called Rodmans in the game). On one or two occasions swarming tactics were tried, but they were driven off with canister and grape. On one occasion (in Red River) I believe an ironclad was scuttled to prevent it from falling to land forces (CSS Virginia was scuttled at the dock, so I don't think its a good example). I'll have to look the Red River one up. Land artillery against ironclads was only successful with plunging fire, with the exception of Charleston Harbor (Fort McAllister was a draw). The biggest threat to ironclads was torpedoes, but that should probably be a different discusssion.

I'm not against the idea of delay, especially if it is modeled on delayed commitment, where the amount of delay can vary for different stacks that are trying to do the same thing.

[Fern]

From my reading completely unopposed forces in the CW did cross rivers pretty much at will. Certainly within a 15 day stretch, even if the river was in flood during part or all of that time. This is supported by facts.

However river crossings doesn't take 15 days in the game, but a few ones. Even less time if a lone marine regiment is used.

In the game it is not dangerous at all because gunboat patrols are not dangerous or porous. I fail to see how stopping crossings completely makes it more dangerous, other than as a dangerous (and IMO unrealistic) abstraction. However, if gunboat patrols were made dangerous to forces crossing rivers, it would allow for situations where different stacks in the same army could wind up on opposite sides of a river with low cohesion. If this wouldn't be a deterrent, I don't know what would.

It seems it was NEVER made. CW armies had four years an a full continent (from an European point of view the theater of operations was really huge) for doing lots of things, and they did indeed, but it seems they never made river crossings in face of enemy riverine forces. Why? Perhaps CW generals were not as optimistic as players are regarding their ability to cover and protect a river crossing intercepted by enemy naval forces.

Saying it was not done (which I concede) is not sufficient IMO to go from deterrence to total interdiction. Gunboats deterred land forces from crossing rivers, they did not stop land forces from crossing rivers.

It seems it is a fact that Gunboats deterred land forces during the whole war, so the real effect is that they stopped river crossing where they were present during the whole war. That's seem to be a hard fact. It doesn't matter whether the gunboats actually had the power or not to sytop it. The fact is the it seems generals thought they could not. I trust more on the real generals than in us, armchair generals.

It's like the Cold War. The US and USSR were not physically incapable of launching nuclear missiles at each other. They didn't do it, for fifty years. However, removing the ability to launch nuclear missiles from a model of the Cold War, even though supported by that historical fact, would be a very dangerous abstraction.

Launching nuclear missiles would mean "game over" most of the time. Anyway it doesn't make sense to include many what-if's. For example I would like to be able to produce lots of breechloaders for the infantry or more Gatlings (I like to issue a battery to units which must defend its post all the time), but the game doesn't allow me to do it because it never happened. However it was doable at the time.

I don't think anyone has suggested steaming-to-the-sound-of-the-guns before, although the way it is proposed, it is more of a steaming-to-the-lack-of-sound-of-the-guns. Good original thought there. I think we should bounce that idea around a bit.

Moving-to-the-sound-of-the-guns was implicit in my suggestion, and I'd like to see it for naval forces. IMHO naval forces have always been more mobile than land forces because they can move for days at a sustained speed without need for rest (I am speaking of steam ships of course). Moving 6 miles an hour (I think most gunboats were able to sail a bit faster) along a river may look slow, but it is faster than the common infantry soldier and can be sustained for days until coal reserve is used while the soldiers must rest EVERY day (and for some full days after sustained marches).

[willgamer]

Disclaimer: I'm solidly of Fern's point of view.

Random $.02s worth:

1. Mobile land arty had zero experience at shooting moving targets; fortress arty was ranged into known kill zones that opposing boats were forced to cross.

2. To move any sizeable force would require large numbers of transports or a long time or both. Long enough for lots of gunboats to reinforce if available.

3. Gunboat captains were likely smart enough to attempt to sink opposing transport on the side of the riverbank opposite any opposing arty making hitting them a long shot.

4. On the other hand, gunboats could get as close as they want to transports, even ramming them!

I'd just as soon see this whole process abstracted like rail and transport. Thus you can pay for the number of gunboats commited to river interdiction. Attempted movement across a river would then succeed or fail based upon the commitment level vs the size force attempting to cross (smaller is better) and perhaps year (earlier is easier).

Or just have a startup option to specify the number of gunboats you think is right with todays blocking system.

[W.Barksdale]

Let's see how 4 boats in OFF works.

[Fern]

Disclaimer: I'm solidly of Fern's point of view.

Random $.02s worth:

1. Mobile land arty had zero experience at shooting moving targets; fortress arty was ranged into known kill zones that opposing boats were forced to cross.

2. To move any sizeable force would require large numbers of transports or a long time or both. Long enough for lots of gunboats to reinforce if available.

3. Gunboat captains were likely smart enough to attempt to sink opposing transport on the side of the riverbank opposite any opposing arty making hitting them a long shot.

4. On the other hand, gunboats could get as close as they want to transports, even ramming them!

I would add that we shouldn't forget that gunboats carried guns which were usually heavier than the field ones used by land mobile field forces. I think the more common guns carried aboard CW gunboats were 24 pdr and 32 pdr smoothbores which usually fired shells rather than solid shot. I have read that one gunboat carried a 130 pdr one. That's a lot of punch, I guess.

[Jabberwock]

However river crossings doesn't take 15 days in the game, but a few ones. Even less time if a lone marine regiment is used

Then your problem is with the movement rate across rivers. That shouldn't affect gunboats.

It seems it was NEVER made. CW armies had four years an a full continent (from an European point of view the theater of operations was really huge) for doing lots of things, and they did indeed, but it seems they never made river crossings in face of enemy riverine forces. Why? Perhaps CW generals were not as optimistic as players are regarding their ability to cover and protect a river crossing intercepted by enemy naval forces.

Note the word 'Perhaps'. Perhaps Confederate gunboats backed off from Union land-based artillery, and the Union forces were the ones doing most of the strategic river crossings. They feel no need to back off under the current system, except to resupply. Perhaps Confederate generals were proud of their skill at finding places to cross where they weren't interfered with by gunboats.

It seems it is a fact that Gunboats deterred land forces during the whole war, so the real effect is that they stopped river crossing where they were present during the whole war. That's seem to be a hard fact. It doesn't matter whether the gunboats actually had the power or not to sytop it. The fact is the it seems generals thought they could not. I trust more on the real generals than in us, armchair generals.

No, you don't trust them. You use 'fact' and 'seems' in the same sentence. You are letting your assumptions about what they may have thought allow you to armchair general this issue to your own satisfaction. You use the effect of no opposed crossing to make one single assumption about the cause of no opposed crossing, then apply that assumption universally.

Launching nuclear missiles would mean "game over" most of the time. Anyway it doesn't make sense to include many what-if's. For example I would like to be able to produce lots of breechloaders for the infantry or more Gatlings (I like to issue a battery to units which must defend its post all the time), but the game doesn't allow me to do it because it never happened. However it was doable at the time.

I was using missiles a illustration for a point of logic, not as a what-if. That may not have been the best choice of examples on my part, because any debate that mentions them is almost bound to get tied up in irrelevencies.

Moving-to-the-sound-of-the-guns was implicit in my suggestion, and I'd like to see it for naval forces. IMHO naval forces have always been more mobile than land forces because they can move for days at a sustained speed without need for rest (I am speaking of steam ships of course). Moving 6 miles an hour (I think most gunboats were able to sail a bit faster) along a river may look slow, but it is faster than the common infantry soldier and can be sustained for days until coal reserve is used while the soldiers must rest EVERY day (and for some full days after sustained marches).

A solid argument. We agree on something.

[Jabberwock]

I would add that we shouldn't forget that gunboats carried guns which were usually heavier than the field ones used by land mobile field forces. I think the more common guns carried aboard CW gunboats were 24 pdr and 32 pdr smoothbores which usually fired shells rather than solid shot. I have read that one gunboat carried a 130 pdr one. That's a lot of punch, I guess.

A 130-pounder was a special heavy version of the 10" Dahlgren designed to fire shot (aka Super 10). It was generally mounted as a pivot gun.

[Jabberwock]

Mobile land arty had zero experience at shooting moving targets

???

To move any sizeable force would require large numbers of transports or a long time or both. Long enough for lots of gunboats to reinforce if available.

Certainly dependent on the size of the river at the chosen crossing point, but OK.

Gunboat captains were likely smart enough to attempt to sink opposing transport on the side of the riverbank opposite any opposing arty making hitting them a long shot.

Sounds like you are talking about some pretty big rivers there. If ideas that apply perfectly on the Mississippi or in Mobile Bay are generalized to the James, or the Tennessee, not so good.

On the other hand, gunboats could get as close as they want to transports, even ramming them!

Absolutely true. Some gunboats would be more useful as rams than others. Some transports would be more useful as rams than others. If we are talking about barges as transports, barges would not make good rams. They were, however, used for floating artillery batteries throughout the war. Not as effective as a gunboat, but something is better than nothing.

I'd just as soon see this whole process abstracted like rail and transport. Thus you can pay for the number of gunboats commited to river interdiction. Attempted movement across a river would then succeed or fail based upon the commitment level vs the size force attempting to cross (smaller is better) and perhaps year (earlier is easier).

And this is the root of the argument. I don't want the navy abstracted. The Civil War saw major developments in naval technology, leading to new doctrines, strategies, and tactics. I don't want river crossings abstracted. The rest of the game gets improved based on solid research, but the navy gets ignored for the most part, except by a few modders. Total interdiction is not even a moddable solution, except on an numerical basis.

Or just have a startup option to specify the number
of gunboats you think is right with todays blocking system.

As long as this is viewed as a strictly numerical situation, a variable is a good idea.

[Fern]

Then your problem is with the movement rate across rivers. That shouldn't affect gunboats.

It's a fine balance between conflicting needs and game compromises. Everything (movement rate across rivers, use of gunboats etc.) is related.

Note the word 'Perhaps'. Perhaps Confederate gunboats backed off from Union land-based artillery, and the Union forces were the ones doing most of the strategic river crossings. They feel no need to back off under the current system, except to resupply. Perhaps Confederate generals were proud of their skill at finding places to cross where they weren't interfered with by gunboats.

The reasons they did not make a river crossing in face of enemy gunboats are irrelevant. They did not if gunboats were in the area. Everything else are speculations. Yours and mine.

No, you don't trust them. You use 'fact' and 'seems' in the same sentence. You are letting your assumptions about what they may have thought allow you to armchair general this issue to your own satisfaction. You use the effect of no opposed crossing to make one single assumption about the cause of no opposed crossing, then apply that assumption universally.

It reminds me of gas during WWII. The soldiers of all armies carried gas masks during the whole war and all major countries had huge gas depots, but it was NEVER used during the war despite great efforts to train and equip the troops for that kind of war (i.e. during the Normandy landings, US troops were dressed in gas treated garments, carried a gas mask in waterproof bags and had gas alarm devices). Should we allow players of a tactical or strategic WWII game to use gas? Few games allow it. If there is one which allows it, that is.

It happens the same here. No CW army made an opposed crossing during the war if gunboats were in the area. Should AGEOD allow players to do it under some circumstances? It depends on the level of what-if's you are ready to include in the game.

[Fern]

A 130-pounder was a special heavy version of the 10" Dahlgren designed to fire shot (aka Super 10). It was generally mounted as a pivot gun.

I have read that the 130 pdr mounted on the wooden ram CSS Webb was the rifled version of the 64 pounder smoothbore (8 1/2"). They were called James guns and were the product of rifling several bronze smoothbores. The rifled projectiles weighted twice than the previous solid ones so designation was doubled (a 64 pdr became a 130 pdr). I have read that Dahlgrens were mounted on oceanic ships most of the time.

My source is Osprey's book about Misissippi river gunboats. I don't know how reliable it is, but it is better than nothing

[pepe4158]

It reminds me of gas during WWII. The soldiers of all armies carried gas masks during the whole war and all major countries had huge gas depots, but it was NEVER used during the war despite huge efforts to train and equip the troops for that kind of war. Should we allow players of a tactical or strategic WWII game to use gas?

It happens the same here. No CW army made an opposed crossing during the war if gunboats were in the area. Should AGEOD allow players to do it under some circumstances? It depends on the level of what-if's you are ready to include in the game.

No Offense, this example is almost ludicrous....comparing gas warfare to river crossings?...youve tried to make the comparison, it doesnt fly IMO

You know your carrying your arguement mostly on it didnt happen, but you fail to realize the reasons for the north why it didnt happen, is they destroyed the southern navy on the Mississippi with Foote's navy in the north and Faragaut in the south...so its all speculation in the game anyhow as what if that doesnt happen in the game?

The level of what if is a given...the southern player doesnt wish his navy destroyed and usually hides it (in game play) unlike his historical counter-parts who rushed out to engage at Memphis and New Orleans; now he uses it to oppose northern crossings....and you would have Grants army and howitzer's cower in fear?
As far as southern crossings historically very few needed...unless hypothetically they are really kicking the Norths butt in the game then need to cross....as historically that wasnt the case and there are simply not too many crossings even done by the south since in the west they were uaually not on the offensive.....Well you want your attack in the face of gunboats...it DID happen and is the best example I can give you is Shiloh historically....as Grant brought up his gunboats as support artillary and the rebs certainly didnt just run away, they attacked anyway even with gunboats shelling them! :

The Last Charge of April 6

About 6 PM, Jackson's and Chalmer's Brigades moved through the Dill Branch ravine, aiming straight at the hill above Pittsburg Landing. The mass of Union artillery opened fire on them, joined by the gunboats Lexington and Tyler with their 8-inch guns. As these two brigades struggled through the flooded branch and rugged ravine, the remnants of Anderson's, Stephens', and Wood's Brigades joined in the attack without coordination, a mere 8,000 Confederates attacking without artillery support uphill and across rugged terrain into a strongly fortified Union position manned by at least 10,000 infantry, studded with nearly 40 artillery pieces and with reinforcements hustling down the road to join in.

The reason in history you dont see a lot of confederate crossings is their are only two major offensives in the west Shiloh and Chickamauga....and at Shiloh the confederates sure didnt run in fear from union gunboats, they attacked anyway...the latter irrelevent.

[pepe4158]

Disclaimer: I'm solidly of Fern's point of view.

Random $.02s worth:

1. Mobile land arty had zero experience at shooting moving targets; fortress arty was ranged into known kill zones that opposing boats were forced to cross.

2. To move any sizeable force would require large numbers of transports or a long time or both. Long enough for lots of gunboats to reinforce if available.

3. Gunboat captains were likely smart enough to attempt to sink opposing transport on the side of the riverbank opposite any opposing arty making hitting them a long shot.

4. On the other hand, gunboats could get as close as they want to transports, even ramming them!

I'd just as soon see this whole process abstracted like rail and transport. Thus you can pay for the number of gunboats commited to river interdiction. Attempted movement across a river would then succeed or fail based upon the commitment level vs the size force attempting to cross (smaller is better) and perhaps year (earlier is easier).

Or just have a startup option to specify the number of gunboats you think is right with todays blocking system.

Hmmm I may be miss-understanding you when I critize your points, but I am getting the feeling you think that land forces never drove off naval forces?..Ok this isnt a crossing , its better, Forrest wishes to defeat the gunboats and take the prize, the depot, the gunboats are guarding:

4 Paddle-wheelers U.S.S. Key West, Acting Lieutenant King, U.S.S. Tawah, Acting Lieutenant Goudy, and small steamer U.S.S. Elfin, Acting Master Augustus F. Thompson, were destroyed after an engagement with Confederate batteries off Johnsonville, Tennessee, along with several transport steamers and a large quantity of supplies. Acting Lieutenant King, in command of the naval group, was patrolling the river and protecting the Union depot and headquarters at Johnsonville as the forces of Confederate General Forrest suddenly struck the city. On 3 November, King discovered a strong Confederate field battery emplaced to command a narrow channel in the Tennessee River between Reynoldsburg Island and the west bank two miles below Johnsonville. Confederate gunboat Undine, lately captured from the Union (see 30 October), twice attempted on the 3rd to lure King and his gunboats downriver in range of the batteries without success. On the morning of 4 November, Undine again came upriver from the Confederate batteries, and this time King took his three ships down to engage her. At about the same time, Lieutenant Commander Fitch, commanding U.S.S. Moose and five other small steamers, Brilliant, Victory, Curlew, Fairy, and Paw Paw, approached the downstream side of Reynoldsburg Island, to support King. The Confederates burned Undine and opened on the Union gunboats with shore fire. Because of the narrowness of the channel and the commanding position occupied by the batteries Fitch could not bring his ships closer to Johnsonville to aid Key West, Tawah, and Elfin, which had retired to a position off the town to protect the transports and supplies. The Confederates then moved their main batteries along the river to positions opposite Johnsonville, leaving suffi-cient guns to block Fitch's passage, and commenced a fierce bombardment of the gunboats, trans-ports, and wharf area. After fighting for nearly an hour against great odds, King at last ordered his three riddled gunboats fired. Army Assistant Quartermaster Henry Howland, a witness to the action from ashore, described it: ". . . for nearly thirty minutes the cannonading was the most terrific I have ever witnessed. The gunboats fought magnificently and continued firing for more than twenty minutes after they were all disabled, when Lieutenant Commander King was compelled to order them abandoned and burned." King and most of his men escaped to the waterfront, which by this time was itself a roaring inferno as Union officers put the torch to supplies on the wharves to prevent them from falling into Southern hands. The gunboats and transports were lost, but General Forrest was prevented from capturing them intact, and was thus unable to cross the river in force and capture Johnsonville. Instead, the Confederate commander, anxious to press his advantage, moved his batteries downstream to cut off Fitch and the gun-boats below Reynoldsburg Island. Fitch, nevertheless, succeeded in withdrawing his forces safely. Later reflecting on the action at Johnsonville, he commented: "The Key West, Tawah, and Elfin fought desperately and were handled in magnificent style, but it is impossible for boats of this class, with their batteries, to contend successfully against heavy-rifled field batteries in a narrow river full of bars and shoals, no matter with what skill and desperation they may be fought." By this time it was clear that the Confederates were moving in force, and that Forrest was threatening to close the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers completely. Decisive events both on the rivers and the hills of Tennessee were imminent.

N hahaha Jab, your Cav aint getting these boats, we burned em before your cav men could steal em.

[Fern]

No Offense, this example is almost ludicrous....comparing gas warfare to river crossings?...youve tried to make the comparison, it doesnt fly IMO

Both things (river crossing in face of enemy naval opposition and starting gas warfare during WWII) could be done, but no one was ever done. People who could take the decision, never did. It is a different matter if you want players to be able to do things that real "players", the ones who played the big game for real, never dared to do.

You know your carrying your arguement mostly on it didnt happen, but you fail to realize the reasons for the north why it didnt happen, is they destroyed the southern navy on the Mississippi with Foote's navy in the north and Faragaut in the south...so its all speculation in the game anyhow as what if that doesnt happen in the game?

IIRC if you contest enemy control of a river sector with your own fleet, even a lone gunboat element, you can cross the river because it is not blocked anymore. In that case it doesn't matter whether the Confederated fleet has been destroyed or not. In the game if a rebel player keeps or builds a sizeable fleet he can contest river sectors allowing his land forces to cross them. However we are not speaking about it. We are speaking here about land forces trying to cross a river controlled by enemy forces when no friendly naval support is available. It doesn't matter if the friendly naval forces which could support the crossing are not available because they were previously destroyed or are beign reserved for a better opportunity in a far, hidden place.

The level of what if is a given...the southern player doesnt wish his navy destroyed and usually hides it (in game play) unlike his historical counter-parts who rushed out to engage at Memphis and New Orleans; now he uses it to oppose northern crossings....and you would have Grants army and howitzer's cower in fear?

Union players in the game usually have enough naval forces to contest any river sector controlled by the confederated player. As a Union player I think most of the time you can call the help of the navy in order to sweep away the Rebel naval forces or at least allowing you to contest a river sector and cross a river wherever and whenever you want.

As far as southern crossings historicaly very few needed...unless hypothetically they are really kicking the Norths butt in the game then need to cross....as historically that wasnt the case and there are simply not to many crossings even done by the south since in the west they were uaually not on the offensive.....

Tell Hood he was not in the offensive. Or Bragg. Not all confederate commanders in the West were J.Johnston/Pemberton-like guys.

Well you want your attack in the face of gunboats...it DID happen and is the best example I can give you is Shiloh historically....as Grant brought up his gunboats as support artillary and the rebs certainly didnt just run away, they attacked anyway even with gunboats shelling them!

Perhaps my English is too bad. We have been speaking about river crossings in face of enemy gunboats/naval forces. I have never spoken about gunboats stopping attacks made by land forces on other land forces. AFAIK in Shiloh the confederated forces never tried to cross the Tennessee river in face of the Union gunboats, so I don't know why you are using that battle as an example.

If the rebels had tried to cross the Tennessee river with a division in order to block Pittsburgs landing and isolating Grant's army from Nashville and Buell army, we could discuss about the Union gunboats role on that river crossing. However AFAIK they never did, so this example looks irrelevant

The reason in history you dont see a lot of confederate crossings is their are only two major offensives in the west Shiloh and Chickamauga....and at Shiloh the confederates sure didnt run in fear from union gunboats, they attacked anyway...the latter irrelevent.

Don't forget the 1862 Kentucky-Tennnessee Campaign which ended in the battle of Perryville. Confederates, crossed the Cumberland and almost arrived to Luisville and the Ohio river. In Murfreesboro and Corinth the confederates were on the offensive as well, though I think they did not move too far away from their starting base.

Anyway it doesn't matter if you are on the STRATEGIC offensive or defensive. From an operational point of view, armies could still make offensive moves even if they are on the strategic defensive. Confederate armies often did it as late as 1864.

[Rafiki]

[color="Blue"]Setting up a new thread for this, since it goes a fair bit beyond 1.10 itself [/color]

[pepe4158]

Perhaps my English is too bad. We have been speaking about river crossings in face of enemy gunboats/naval forces. I have never spoken about gunboats stopping attacks made by land forces on other land forces. AFAIK in Shiloh the confederated forces never tried to cross the Tennessee river in face of the Union gunboats, so I don't know why you are using that battle as an example.

If the rebels had tried to cross the Tennessee river with a division in order to block Pittsburgs landing and isolating Grant's army from Nashville and Buell army, we could discuss about the Union gunboats role on that river crossing. However AFAIK they never did, so this example looks irrelevant

Don't forget the 1862 Kentucky-Tennnessee Campaign which ended in the battle of Perryville. Confederates, crossed the Cumberland and almost arrived to Luisville and the Ohio river. In Murfreesboro and Corinth the confederates were on the offensive as well, though I think they did not move too far away from their starting base.

Anyway it doesn't matter if you are on the STRATEGIC offensive or defensive. From an operational point of view, armies could still make offensive moves even if they are on the strategic defensive. Confederate armies often did it as late as 1864.

No it isnt your english Im disagreeing with, its your reasoning which seems to me at times to be non-sequitur;or maybe I am not making myself clear?
1. If they are willing (rebs) to charge up a hill while being shelled by gunboats. One would certainly expect them to charge across a river while being shelled if at a ford crossing point.
2. When I said offensives...I meant major offensives (requiring large troop movement), I can find many smaller battles or skirmishes. Mainly large campaign type offensives require this movement across rivers.
When you talk about Hood or Bragg, the important word to consider is they were counter-offensives, to the true union offensive.
3, You seem tottaly dismisive about what goes on in the game (regards to navies), and I cant really follow you there.....perhaps its my fault.
My point being that its hard to simulate in game the exact historical conditions here, because one element was missing, the southern navy was out of commision early on in the war...or at least the bulk of it that would guard union river cossings...so your arguement there doesnt seem to follow.

[George40]

Just my 10 cents:
Reading the history suggests to me that a few gun boats can readily block crossing in many areas within the US interior in this era. There is good history for them doing so. I also think that the resource demands for universal river patrol will make it unlikely to occur.

I think a seperate class of river is need for much of the Mississippi and parts of the Ohio for example in which you can not cross without a port or transports in that river zone.

I also think in my experience so far, that the issue of long deep, frequent, and I think exageratedly effective cavalry raids is a bigger issue. It seems to me it is simply too easy to constantly raid far deeper into enemy territory than happened historically.

[Fern]

No it isnt your english Im disagreeing with, its your reasoning which seems to me at times to be non-sequitur;or maybe I am not making myself clear?
1. If they are willing (rebs) to charge up a hill while being shelled by gunboats. One would certainly expect them to charge across a river while being shelled if at a ford crossing point.

I already asked it. Does Every river sector on the game map have a ford (in the real world)? Were those "real" fords always available no matter the season?

If there was at least a ford on every river sector, then no problem, I would allow armies to cross a river no matter how many enemy gunboat were trying to intercept it. If there is not at least a ford on every river sector, then it means that a force trying to cross a river had to do it the hard way (i.e. using boats, a pontoon bridge, riverine shipping etc.). In that case I think that a few gunboats were enough deterrent to make a general cancel the crossing and look for an easier place to cross the river.

Unfortunately fords are included but in an abstracted way, so it is an all or nothing issue.

2. When I said offensives...I meant major offensives (requiring large troop movement), I can find many smaller battles or skirmishes. Mainly large campaign type offensives require this movement across rivers.
When you talk about Hood or Bragg, the important word to consider is they were counter-offensives, to the true union offensive.

A counter offensive is just an offensive aimed to counter an enemy offensive and the enemy gains derived from that offensive. We should not confuse counterattack and counteroffensive. The Perryville campaign was a true confederate counteroffensive which involved armies moving far away from their bases.

3, You seem tottaly dismisive about what goes on in the game (regards to navies),

No, I am not dismisive at all. I think the game is really good, but it is a game, so game designer had to simplify things and make design compromises. I think the overall result is really good. Can it be improved? Maybe (moving-to-the-sound-of-the-guns for river fleets might be a way to do so), but at present I am pretty happy with the current game. That's the reason I support leaving the game as it already is regarding gunboat blocking of river sectors. It's you who are not happy with it, so you would like players were allowed to cross a river in face of enemy gunboats.

My point being that its hard to simulate in game the exact historical conditions here, because one element was missing, the southern navy was out of commision early on in the war...or at least the bulk of it that would guard union river cossings...so your arguement there doesnt seem to follow.

I still don't understand why the Southern navy is so important. Can an army cross a river in face of uncontested enemy riverine forces? That's the question. I think it doesn't matter what navy, Union or confederate, is involved.

[willgamer]

Hmmm I may be miss-understanding you when I critize your points, but I am getting the feeling you think that land forces never drove off naval forces?..Ok this isnt a crossing , its better, Forrest wishes to defeat the gunboats and take the prize, the depot, the gunboats are guarding: ......

Surely you jest, using Forrest, the best small unit commander on either side in this (or argueably any modern) war as an example!

Forrest also used a Union trooper as a human shield, holding the unlucky trooper with one hand and the reigns in the other as he pulled out of a charge that helped cover the Confederate retreat from Shiloh. Should there be a special "troops as human shields" rule?

Point is, extremely rare people like Forrest perform amazing feats that hardly define a norm.

This whole river crossing discussion seems to raise the following question: Who is this game intended for anyway? Gamers looking for an historical challenge, or ACW fantasy? (Setup options for both are possible, of course, as feeling clearly differ as to what is "close enough" to history).

There are only a few, argueable, counterpoints to the premise that ACW armies did not cross rivers with unarmed transport against gunboats.

History shows river control was a major Northern strategy! Thus, the rankest beginner at this game, playing "historically" as the North, should be able to prevent transport only river crossing by the South, using gunboats. Too bad the most recent update already subverts this. leure:

This is all in context of the present level of naval warfare detail. If Jabberwock got his wishes for a much more detailed treatment, then what constitutes history/fantasy could take a much finer cut.

[Jabberwock]

I have read that the 130 pdr mounted on the wooden ram CSS Webb was the rifled version of the 64 pounder smoothbore (8 1/2"). They were called James guns and were the product of rifling several bronze smoothbores. The rifled projectiles weighted twice than the previous solid ones so designation was doubled (a 64 pdr became a 130 pdr). I have read that Dahlgrens were mounted on oceanic ships most of the time.

My source is Osprey's book about Misissippi river gunboats. I don't know how reliable it is, but it is better than nothing

That certainly sounds correct, except for calling it a James Gun. "James Gun" is a loaded term (punny :niark among CW artillery experts and sources. James developed a technique for rifling smoothbores, and then later designed a 3.8" (14lb) rifled gun. A 6 pounder rifled with his technique is generally classified as a James Gun Type 1, and the 3.8" as a James Gun Type 2. It is unfortunately fairly common to see the term applied indiscriminately to any rifled smoothbore, as in the Osprey book.

Partial source here.

[Jabberwock]

I already asked it. Does Every river sector on the game map have a ford (in the real world)? Were those "real" fords always available no matter the season?

If there was at least a ford on every river sector, then no problem, I would allow armies to cross a river no matter how many enemy gunboat were trying to intercept it. If there is not at least a ford on every river sector, then it means that a force trying to cross a river had to do it the hard way (i.e. using boats, a pontoon bridge, riverine shipping etc.). In that case I think that a few gunboats were enough deterrent to make a general cancel the crossing and look for an easier place to cross the river.

Maybe we can convince you after all. Each region is about 25-30 miles across (say 35-45km). I myself was surprised in an earlier discussion with a local expert to find out how many fords and ferries there were in just one region of the Tennessee River. My personal experience is more with the eastern rivers, where there were generally fewer fords but still several in each region. There is an issue in this regard with the very large rivers such as the Mississippi and Ohio, as there are very few fords of the Mississippi south of Minnesota. However to classify all rivers the same way, and using only the largest as a model, would be silly.

In regards to your question as to seasonal availability of fords, the same issue can be taken with seasonal navigation of rivers. Making this objection the basis of an argument is counter-productive. The designer may decide to improve the game in terms of seasonal navigability, or add new terrain types to better model the rivers. To argue against improving the game in one area because it could stand improvement in a related area leads to nothing being done, or gamey quick-fix solutions.

Unfortunately fords are included but in an abstracted way, so it is an all or nothing issue.

Again, I don't think this follows.

No, I am not dismisive at all. I think the game is really good, but it is a game, so game designer had to simplify things and make design compromises. I think the overall result is really good. Can it be improved? Maybe (moving-to-the-sound-of-the-guns for river fleets might be a way to do so), but at present I am pretty happy with the current game. That's the reason I support leaving the game as it already is regarding gunboat blocking of river sectors. It's you who are not happy with it, so you would like players were allowed to cross a river in face of enemy gunboats.

The game designer is making constant improvements to the game. He is willing to improve it in other areas, but in the face of continued opposition to any proposed changes that increase interaction in the naval arena from a large portion of the community, does not seem willing to address many issues here. Fortunately, I am stubborn, and will continue to address these issues in the face of any opposition. The ACW was the first modern war with extensive interaction between naval and land forces. To model it prohibiting or effectively prohibiting large parts of that interaction is unrealistic.

I still don't understand why the Southern navy is so important. Can an army cross a river in face of uncontested enemy riverine forces? That's the question. I think it doesn't matter what navy, Union or confederate, is involved.

The southern navy (or lack thereof) is important due to the non sequitur in your logic regarding the ability of an army to make contested crossings. Union crossings were uncontested, so you say that therefore no contested crossings should be allowed. It does not follow. Lack of positive evidence does not automatically make this an all or nothing situation.

The Confederacy can build quite a lot more riverine forces in the game than they did historically. We are already dealing with a what-if situation. Total interdiction under these circumstances is not only unrealistic, it is unbalancing.

[Jabberwock]

It's a fine balance between conflicting needs and game compromises. Everything (movement rate across rivers, use of gunboats etc.) is related.

Everything is related. Improvement in one area calls attention to needs for improvement in another. That should not stop improvement in the first area.

The reasons they did not make a river crossing in face of enemy gunboats are irrelevant. They did not if gunboats were in the area. Everything else are speculations. Yours and mine.

Why gunboats were not in the area is a valid speculation, given the opposing assumption of total interdiction.

It reminds me of gas during WWII. The soldiers of all armies carried gas masks during the whole war and all major countries had huge gas depots, but it was NEVER used during the war despite great efforts to train and equip the troops for that kind of war (i.e. during the Normandy landings, US troops were dressed in gas treated garments, carried a gas mask in waterproof bags and had gas alarm devices). Should we allow players of a tactical or strategic WWII game to use gas? Few games allow it. If there is one which allows it, that is.

I think a better point that could be made from this example is that soldiers of all armies carried gas masks. If it was important enough to concern the generals to that extent, then it should be allowed, as long as the game is on a scale that could make it important to strategy.

It happens the same here. No CW army made an opposed crossing during the war if gunboats were in the area. Should AGEOD allow players to do it under some circumstances? It depends on the level of what-if's you are ready to include in the game.

The level of what-ifs is already built into the game, in the models chosen for navies, and the numbers available. In game, players can put many more gunboats on the rivers than were historically built. The game is on a scale that makes this very important to strategy. To not accurately model the interaction between gunboats and land forces under those circumstances leads to gamey strategies and play.

[Jabberwock]

Surely you jest, using Forrest, the best small unit commander on either side in this (or argueably any modern) war as an example!

Forrest also used a Union trooper as a human shield, holding the unlucky trooper with one hand and the reigns in the other as he pulled out of a charge that helped cover the Confederate retreat from Shiloh. Should there be a special "troops as human shields" rule?

Point is, extremely rare people like Forrest perform amazing feats that hardly define a norm.

Point is, we need to differentiate between personal exploits and operational command when making these arguments.

This whole river crossing discussion seems to raise the following question: Who is this game intended for anyway? Gamers looking for an historical challenge, or ACW fantasy? (Setup options for both are possible, of course, as feeling clearly differ as to what is "close enough" to history).

There are only a few, argueable, counterpoints to the premise that ACW armies did not cross rivers with unarmed transport against gunboats.

There is only one argument, based on lack of evidence, for total interdiction. You are arguing based on unarmed transport as the exclusive means of crossing any river. That could certainly be considered fantasy.

History shows river control was a major Northern strategy! Thus, the rankest beginner at this game, playing "historically" as the North, should be able to prevent transport only river crossing by the South, using gunboats. Too bad the most recent update already subverts this. leure:

The rankest beginner is not playing historically if he has total interdiction available. He is playing historically if he has deterrence available.

This is all in context of the present level of naval warfare detail. If Jabberwock got his wishes for a much more detailed treatment, then what constitutes history/fantasy could take a much finer cut.

True that.

[pepe4158]

Surely you jest, using Forrest, the best small unit commander on either side in this (or argueably any modern) war as an example!

Forrest also used a Union trooper as a human shield, holding the unlucky trooper with one hand and the reigns in the other as he pulled out of a charge that helped cover the Confederate retreat from Shiloh. Should there be a special "troops as human shields" rule?

Point is, extremely rare people like Forrest perform amazing feats that hardly define a norm.

This whole river crossing discussion seems to raise the following question: Who is this game intended for anyway? Gamers looking for an historical challenge, or ACW fantasy? (Setup options for both are possible, of course, as feeling clearly differ as to what is "close enough" to history).

There are only a few, argueable, counterpoints to the premise that ACW armies did not cross rivers with unarmed transport against gunboats.

History shows river control was a major Northern strategy! Thus, the rankest beginner at this game, playing "historically" as the North, should be able to prevent transport only river crossing by the South, using gunboats. Too bad the most recent update already subverts this. leure:

This is all in context of the present level of naval warfare detail. If Jabberwock got his wishes for a much more detailed treatment, then what constitutes history/fantasy could take a much finer cut.

Well I would certaainly arque that it should be one of his perks...hee-hee the union human shield perk; Yes Forest was obviously more gritty then most commanders, as he refused to surrender at Donaldson and sliped away instead disgusted with the other officers.Still Forest alone could not work all his batteries, some credit most be given to his men.

Again as I said though, this event you want micked, was partly done by in reality by the union, by destroying the southern navy with their own superior navy, to be historical, would you then force the southern player to engage the usually superior northern navy and be destroyed, or will you allow the player the choice and create in the game an alternate realiity?

It IS the theoritical we are discussing....and certainly if Forest could sink gunboats to try and take a town, the union commander destroying his own transports to prevent Forest from stealing them and crossing, a large army could drive off a x amount of gunboats and cross...as the number gets bigger much harder of course, type of ships,etc...Jabber and I want the game to reflect this option if possible, we agree at times it might have been a foolish move, but so was Shiloh second day, Pickett's charge, and Burnside attacking at Fredricksburg.

Point being is if a union commander...aka Grant was faced with the fact the southern navy WASNT destroyed and needed to cross...would he be as gritty as Forest and of course we are speculating but I say yes!

I hear you though Will ....not to mix apples and oranges, but you know when Jabber uses the Cav trick and runs his southern Cav. up, down, and all around, upstate NY my skin just crawls and I want to yell this is whimsical non historic BS....but I do agree some non-historic concessions must be made to allow for a smooth balanced game, so I grin and bear it.

[Jabberwock]

IIRC if you contest enemy control of a river sector with your own fleet, even a lone gunboat element, you can cross the river because it is not blocked anymore. In that case it doesn't matter whether the Confederated fleet has been destroyed or not. In the game if a rebel player keeps or builds a sizeable fleet he can contest river sectors allowing his land forces to cross them. However we are not speaking about it. We are speaking here about land forces trying to cross a river controlled by enemy forces when no friendly naval support is available. It doesn't matter if the friendly naval forces which could support the crossing are not available because they were previously destroyed or are beign reserved for a better opportunity in a far, hidden place.

It does matter however, if unfriendly naval forces which could oppose do not do it. It requires speculation as to why. Should I make a case for southern gunboats being completely unable to contest union river crossings, because they didn't do it historically? Following your logic, that would seem reasonable.

Union players in the game usually have enough naval forces to contest any river sector controlled by the confederated player. As a Union player I think most of the time you can call the help of the navy in order to sweep away the Rebel naval forces or at least allowing you to contest a river sector and cross a river wherever and whenever you want.

Unless you need to get past a shore battery to do it. Then you're sunk.

Tell Hood he was not in the offensive. Or Bragg. Not all confederate commanders in the West were J.Johnston/Pemberton-like guys.

Hood was making a desperate strike north with troops that had very little in the way of supplies. He lacked Forrest's tactical genius, and couldn't afford to make a contested crossing. He therefore made an uncontested crossing, because there was a place available to do it. This is not evidence that a contested crossing was completely impossible.

Bragg made an uncontested crossing, because there were no gunboats in the area. This is not evidence that a contested crossing was completely impossible.

Johnston was not in a situation requiring crossing a river that had gunboats on it. This is not evidence that a contested crossing was completely impossible.

Pemberton made a very active defense against union troops and gunboats for a year, before being penned up in Vicksburg. He then considered the possibility of trying to escape across the Mississippi, but decided against it due to the condition of his troops, lack of supplies, and the presence of gunboats. Why would he consider the other factors if gunboats made it completely impossible?

Perhaps my English is too bad. We have been speaking about river crossings in face of enemy gunboats/naval forces. I have never spoken about gunboats stopping attacks made by land forces on other land forces. AFAIK in Shiloh the confederated forces never tried to cross the Tennessee river in face of the Union gunboats, so I don't know why you are using that battle as an example.

If the rebels had tried to cross the Tennessee river with a division in order to block Pittsburgs landing and isolating Grant's army from Nashville and Buell army, we could discuss about the Union gunboats role on that river crossing. However AFAIK they never did, so this example looks irrelevant

I don't just shut down when I see that there were no attempted contested crossings. I look for the reasons. Pepe is doing the same. His example shows some of what was possible during interaction between land forces and gunboats. There are numerous examples of interaction, which can be used as the basis for a realistic model, rather than the rock/paper/scissors issues we deal with now.

EDIT: I forgot lack of adequate transport for Pemberton. They actually were throwing around crazy ideas like dugout canoes.