Civil War Historical Accuracy Pre-Patch

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[arsan]

Hi!
Excuse me if this have been reported or discussed before. But my ignorance about the great lakes and his canals is huge
The thing is that i´m playing an USA campaign with the 1.09b patch and can freely move The USS Michigan from lake St Claire to the Atlantic
Its this a bug or an improvement?
I remember having read that this fine ship was locked on the great lakes historically and on previous game versions

Regards!

[Jabberwock]

BUG. What path did it follow to get there?

[Jagger]

The rest of the regions were specifically blocked to remove them from the blockade list for each port/fort in question. This was done all along the coast line, not just at New Orleans, btw, at about the same time as the blockade unit/element change. I'm rather surprised you had not noticed until now.

Using version 1.09, Fort Jackson and Fort Phillips are unique amonst CSA coastal forts in only listing one harbor exit point even though adjacent to two water regions.

Forts Gaines is adjacent to three water regions and all are listed as exit points. Fort Morgan is adjacent to two water regions and both are listed as exit points. Fort Pickett is adjacent to two water regions and both are listed. Fort Zachery and Fort Gadson are both adjacent to two water regions and both are listed. Fort Johnson, Fort Moultrie and Fort Sumner are both adjacent to two water regions and all are listed. I could list every single fort but I think you get the point. The only Forts along the coast which list a single harbor exit are completely contained within a single water region.

So Forts Jackson and Phillips are unique within the CSA coastal region in that they are adjacent to two water regions and only one water region is listed as a harbor exit.

West Baton Rouge at Pierre, La is located on an island between rivers and is adjacent to four water regions. Only one water region is listed as a harbor exit.

Yet when I look at other similiar locations, I find different results. Fort Donelson is adjacent to 4 river regions, just like West Baton Rouge, but in this case all four are listed as harbor exits. Vicksburg is adjacent to three river regions and all three are listed as harbor exits. Paducah is adjacent to two river regions and two are listed as harbor exits. Bolivar is adjacent to two river regions and both are listed as harbor exits. Austin is adjacent to two river regions and both are listed as harbor exits. Island Number 10 is adjacent to two river regions and both are listed as harbor exits. Nashville is adjacent to two river regions and both are listed as harbor exits. I could list quite a few more examples but I think you see how I reached my conclusion.

There are a couple exceptions along the river in which a harbor is located along multiple water regions but only lists a single region as an exit (Vidalia, New Orleans). There may be others as I did not look at every harbor along every single river in the game. But it is sensible the few found are mistakes as the great majority list all adjacent water regions as harbor exits.

Perhaps these have all been corrected since 1.09?

I remember discussions about blockading Richmond from way back when. At the time, a blockade of Richmond required blockading the entire James river from Fort Monroe to Richmond. It made more sense to require blockade of the adjacent water regions of Richmond rather than the entire James river. I belive Hobbes worked that project. Now to blockade Richmond, you only have to blockade the single, and only, adjacent water region.

I also vaguely remember Hobbes talking about a harbor located at Westmoreland, Va which had a formal harbor along the peninsula. It was located on the north side of the peninsula. Yet exit points were located on both sides of the peninsula. So ships could enter the harbor from either side of the peninsula and then exit it from the other side. An impossibility. I believe he fixed that exit. I am not going to look up the whole discussion but I believe the change was driven by the oddity of ships leaving the harbor to any water region rather than by supply issues. I could be wrong but that is what I remember.

So, IIRC, Hobbes modifications was focused on requiring blockades of adjacent water regions rather than entire rivers. That is exactly what I see with a very few exceptions such as Fort Jackson, Fort Philips, New Orleans, West Baton Rouge, Vidalia. I strongly suspect those exceptions are errors. Logically, they are errors if considered from a real world perspective.

If I am correct, then Fort Jackson, Fort Phillips, West Baton Rouge, New Orleans and Vidalia are all wrong as they only list a single harbor exit when adjacent to multiple water exits. These locations are in sharp contrast to the vast majority of exits listed for other forts/harbors.

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[arsan]

Hi
I´m at work now, so i can't check it on game but roughly, the USS Michigan zigzagged east through the Great lakes then went through a Union fort on the east of the lakes and just at the north map border (Fort Ontario maybe?). Curious thing is that on that region the ship movement icon was a land one…
From the fort it went across one or two Canadian off map boxes and then to the Boston box and the Atlantic.
You get all this just by dragging and dropping the ship from its starting location to the Atlantic sea.
Now that we are at it… on my campaign with the Leader Mod with 1.09 patch that i commented on the “AI and leaders repositioning” thread I saw the union AI moving a sea transport up the Hudson river and then hopping to the Ohio-Cumberland- Mississippi network.
Don’t know if that’s intended or a bug.
I will post screenshots of both strange movements when I arrive home this afternoon.
Regards!

PS: Gray, don’t hurry fixing this… I will love to make use of the USS Michigan on the Atlantic meanwhile!

[Jabberwock]

Now that we are at it… on my campaign with the Leader Mod with 1.09 patch that i commented on the “AI and leaders repositioning” thread I saw the union AI moving a sea transport up the Hudson river and then hopping to the Ohio-Cumberland- Mississippi network.
Don’t know if that’s intended or a bug.

Transports can move through shallow regions, including the Erie Canal start and end points, so that is not a bug. I will check Fort Ontario though ...

[Jabberwock]

I never D/Led 1.09b, but the issue does exist in 1.09c.

The USS Michigan can pass through 26 Ontario, NY into 1351 Eastern Lake Ontario (coastal), 1495 Northern Lake Ontario (coastal), 1494 Saint Lawrence (ocean), and into Massachusetts Bay. The Saint Lawrence, being ocean, was keeping monitors built in Rochester from escaping, but it lets the Michigan out.

The best solutions I can think of are either close the Ontario canal (and possibly change the Saint Lawrence to coastal); or (don't know if this is possible) change 1494 to coastal and non-enterable territory until FI (maybe make 1495 non-enterable as well).

[lodilefty]

I never D/Led 1.09b, but the issue does exist in 1.09c.

The USS Michigan can pass through 26 Ontario, NY into 1351 Eastern Lake Ontario (coastal), 1495 Northern Lake Ontario (coastal), 1494 Saint Lawrence (ocean), and into Massachusetts Bay. The Saint Lawrence, being ocean, was keeping monitors built in Rochester from escaping, but it lets the Michigan out.

The best solutions I can think of are either close the Ontario canal (and possibly change the Saint Lawrence to coastal); or (don't know if this is possible) change 1494 to coastal and non-enterable territory until FI (maybe make 1495 non-enterable as well).

How is it getting from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario? That, methinks, is the real issue. The second Welland Canal [1848-1887 or so] had lock limits of 150' long x26.5' wide x9'deep. The navigable St. Lawrence was also opento 9' draft by then.

Michigan's Dimensions were 167 x 27 x 9, so we have to keep her out of Lae Ontario somehow....

I'd hate to lock regions, but we may have to. Changing water types will also limit the influx of FI fighting ships, so that's no good.....

[Jabberwock]

How is it getting from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario? That, methinks, is the real issue. The second Welland Canal [1848-1887 or so] had lock limits of 150' long x26.5' wide x9'deep. The navigable St. Lawrence was also opento 9' draft by then.

Michigan's Dimensions were 167 x 27 x 9, so we have to keep her out of Lae Ontario somehow....

I'd hate to lock regions, but we may have to. Changing water types will also limit the influx of FI fighting ships, so that's no good.....

Remember ... we added the port in Ontario to account for the canal which connects the Erie Canal to Lake Ontario, and to let monitors out of Rochester. The Welland Canal is in Canada, and would be locked (bad pun, eh?), so we didn't consider it for addition.

Changing the water to coastal would allow all types of ships ... but the St Lawrence really should be locked to US warships of any type.

[lodilefty]

Remember ... we added the port in Ontario to account for the canal which connects the Erie Canal to Lake Ontario, and to let monitors out of Rochester. The Welland Canal is in Canada, and would be locked (bad pun, eh?), so we didn't consider it for addition.

Changing the water to coastal would allow all types of ships ... but the St Lawrence really should be locked to US warships of any type.

I remember [sounds like Spock, eh?]. But it looks like we dug the Erie Canal too deep! We focused on the Hudson blocking deep draft, and fergot the St. Lawrence....

With Gray's computer DOA, I'll go look at this mess now. Stay tuned.....

[lodilefty]

OK, I've examined the links [as of the last RR mod] and it looks our choices are to:

[INDENT]

1. Remove the Erie Canal, which is connected to Lake Ontario {via Oswego Canal}
2. Remove the part [jumplink] of the Erie Canal that connects to Lake Ontario
3. Block Northern Lake Ontario and/or St. Lawrence [1494 and 1495] until FI
4. Lock the USS Michigan until FI [I'd lock the Scouting Squadron with her]

[/INDENT]

We gotta do something, because the Michigan physically couldn't get out of Lake Erie.... Of these choices, only #1 really fix that...

OBTW, the Welland Canal [Lake Erie to Lake Ontario] is not there either!!!

Is there a way to 'regionally restrict' a unit so it can only move withing a region or set of regions???? Sort of like the more rigid 'Westerner' ability which used to prohibit movement in early BoA versions?

Or, we could create a new jumplink called 'Canal' which limits the ship types...

I favor the new jumplink type...

[Jabberwock]

OK, I've examined the links [as of the last RR mod] and it looks our choices are to:

[INDENT]

1. Remove the Erie Canal, which is connected to Lake Ontario {via Oswego Canal}
2. Remove the part [jumplink] of the Erie Canal that connects to Lake Ontario
3. Block Northern Lake Ontario and/or St. Lawrence [1494 and 1495] until FI
4. Lock the USS Michigan until FI [I'd lock the Scouting Squadron with her]

[/INDENT]

We gotta do something, because the Michigan physically couldn't get out of Lake Erie.... Of these choices, only #1 really fix that...

OBTW, the Welland Canal [Lake Erie to Lake Ontario] is not there either!!!

Is there a way to 'regionally restrict' a unit so it can only move withing a region or set of regions???? Sort of like the more rigid 'Westerner' ability which used to prohibit movement in early BoA versions?

Or, we could create a new jumplink called 'Canal' which limits the ship types...

I favor the new jumplink type...

1. Nah. I feel parental about that canal.
2. Preferably not, but that may be what has to be done. Do it in conjunction with the coastal (and possibly locked) St. Lawrence, and it is not so bad.
3. Doesn't absolutely prevent the Michigan from escaping after FI, and she shouldn't be in Lake Ontario anyway, but my preferred solution at the moment.
4. #3 accomplishes the same thing.

Creating a new jumplink restricted to brigs, monitors, river gunboats, and river transports (not ironclads, they generally were deeper draft) would be an ideal solution, but it sounds like more work for Pocus.

About the Welland Canal - don't wan't the BEF landing in Detroit or Chicago. If we had the new jumplink, I'd say no problem. Then we could consider the Albemarle & Chesapeake as well. Ironclads couldn't use it, but the main reason it didn't see use during the war was that the Roanoke invasion let the USN block the south end. Wasn't there some canal across Delaware, as well?

[lodilefty]

1. Nah. I feel parental about that canal.
2. Preferably not, but that may be what has to be done. Do it in conjunction with the coastal (and possibly locked) St. Lawrence, and it is not so bad.
3. Doesn't absolutely prevent the Michigan from escaping after FI, and she shouldn't be in Lake Ontario anyway, but my preferred solution at the moment.
4. #3 accomplishes the same thing.

Creating a new jumplink restricted to brigs, monitors, river gunboats, and river transports (not ironclads, they generally are deeper draft) would be an ideal solution, but it sounds like more work for Pocus.

About the Welland Canal - don't wan't the BEF landing in Detroit or Chicago. If we had the new jumplink, I'd say no problem. Then we could consider the Albemarle & Chesapeake as well. Ironclads couldn't use it, but the main reason it didn't see use during the war was that the Roanoke invasion let the USN block the south end. Wasn't there some canal across Delaware, as well?

I agree, #3 or 4 for now...

I can create the structure of a new jumplink [as a mod] and even get it into the game [as a mod], but I think that it would have to be coded into ExMap to be really official.... and that ain't me....

As soon as I resolve my little 'commerce mod', I'll try to mod the jumplink type.... as a mod!

[lodilefty]

I agree, #3 or 4 for now...

I can create the structure of a new jumplink [as a mod] and even get it into the game [as a mod], but I think that it would have to be coded into ExMap to be really official.... and that ain't me....

As soon as I resolve my little 'commerce mod', I'll try to mod the jumplink type.... as a mod!

Priority change: It works!

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=71058#post71058

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Jabberwock]

Just found another map resource for you, while looking for something else. I don't know how it was compiled or how accurate it is in the details.

Map - Railroads of the Confederacy, 1861

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[jfsiegel]

Hi Gray Lensman,I'm not sure but I don't think the railway between Gettysburg and Chambersburg was completed till after the war.

Ian is correct, hence the fighting in the RR cut along the Chambersburg Pike Just west of town.
(current Route 30)

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[bigus]

I'll be back in 3 days... Going to Perryville, KY Battlefield (5-16-08 to 5-18-08). I'll try to get some pics and post them in a thread.

Regards

Gray_Lensman

Nice!
Looking foward to seeing the Pics.

bigus

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Jabberwock]

Still too far east. That would be Pennington Gap. Much less important historically. The Wilderness Road on modern maps is Highways 58 & 25E.

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Jabberwock]

I still favor Scott <-> Claiborne <-> Laurel. I can see your point, though. The Wilderness Road ran along the border between the Claiborne and Lee regions, then forded the river before continuing west (to Barbourville, where it turned northwest again, towards London). You can also see from your map that its difficult to travel northeast from Cumberland Ford. Travel down the Cumberland Valley was the natural route from that point. IMO, the road is drawn too far east and north in the game, but that is probably necessary to keep it visually distinct from the regional border and the river.

Anyway, you could rename Mt Pleasant to Cumberland Ford (or Pineville, or "the Narrows"), if that is easier than moving it.