I am still wading through this excellent game, and I don't feel I have Riverine Naval Strategy figured out, particularly in the area of supply. I am curious how US players generally approach overall strategy on the Western Rivers.
I have questions around a few areas:
1. SUPPLY: If you switch to supply mode, I notice that some rivers are lighter shades, and some darker. The lighter ones are on your supply, correct? And darker ones are NOT? It also seems River supply is critical to advancing deep into CSA territory. Please verify, but if you control the Cumberland R, you don't need the line from Louisville to Nashville (the L&N). You need a depot, and probably a pretty strong garrison, at Nashville, and THEN a clear line from Nashville due south. Is this thinking correct?
Also, you can manually transport supplies via fleets, correct? When is this useful, when you want to make sure it gets through, or in an emergency when you have to run some forts to deliver supplies?
2. MOVEMENT: The manual states that you can't move units accross a river with the other guy's naval units in it. Is this correct in practice? If so, isn't a KEY US strategy to produce lots of gunboats to park in river hexes? That would theoretically contain raiders.
3. CONTROL: You can safely get supply down rivers, except where the other guy controls the river. I get that Island 10, for example, blocks supply ships. The manual states that Forts on the river stop supply ships, so if the CSA builds one in Memphis, that's the end of the line. But what else stops supply lines? An occupied city? An occupied port? A force on the riverbank with artillery?
In late 1862, Grant took his army way down past St. Louis, and set up shop in the swamps on the opposite bank of Vicksburg, and stayed there with his army for 6 months. Is this possible within the context of this game? What would you need, theoretically, to sustain an army that deep? A depot in the hex? No Rebs at all on the river all the way down?
Many thanks for all these questions, and really, I would think the answers bear the seeds of CSA Naval Strategy as well. Those questions are:
1. Is it worth it to build forts? Where? I would think Vicksburg is again a good choice for one, another being New Orleans.
2. Is it worth it to build ships? It seems to me building river ships is a waste, since you are guaranteed to lose a naval arms race. Correct?
SORRY, ALOT OF QUESTIONS
-
KillCalvalry
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:10 pm
KillCalvalry wrote:2. MOVEMENT: The manual states that you can't move units accross a river with the other guy's naval units in it. Is this correct in practice? If so, isn't a KEY US strategy to produce lots of gunboats to park in river hexes? That would theoretically contain raiders.
I am not sure if the blockade of a river by a ship will stop movement across a river 100%. I think it does. Blocking the ability to cross a river is a very valid Union strategy. It makes it very risky for the CSA to hold Nashville or Bowling Green unless the CSA maintains a river fleet that can break a blockade.
3. CONTROL: You can safely get supply down rivers, except where the other guy controls the river. I get that Island 10, for example, blocks supply ships. The manual states that Forts on the river stop supply ships, so if the CSA builds one in Memphis, that's the end of the line. But what else stops supply lines? An occupied city? An occupied port? A force on the riverbank with artillery?
I think a dug-in force with artillery can block supply movement along a river.
In late 1862, Grant took his army way down past St. Louis, and set up shop in the swamps on the opposite bank of Vicksburg, and stayed there with his army for 6 months. Is this possible within the context of this game? What would you need, theoretically, to sustain an army that deep? A depot in the hex? No Rebs at all on the river all the way down?
You can create a supply depot anywhere. As long as supply can reach that location, you will receive supplies.
Many thanks for all these questions, and really, I would think the answers bear the seeds of CSA Naval Strategy as well. Those questions are:
1. Is it worth it to build forts? Where? I would think Vicksburg is again a good choice for one, another being New Orleans.
2. Is it worth it to build ships? It seems to me building river ships is a waste, since you are guaranteed to lose a naval arms race. Correct?
SORRY, ALOT OF QUESTIONS
I am not strong on CSA strategy but I could see it useful to have river fleets in certain locations if the CSA can afford them. Especially if defending Nashville or Bowling Green, I would want some river boats to ensure I can retreat over a river if the US moves behind me.
I could definitely see the advantage of using infantry with artillery to block supply along a river as well as making it costly for the US to move along rivers. Again with little CSA experience, I think the infantry force with dug-in artillery might be a better option than a fort for obstructing a river.
If anyone has better answers, I am curious about the best use and defense against the US river strategy as well.
River boats provide a variety of capabilities for both sides.
One capability of ships is their ability to prevent enemy ground forces from crossing rivers. Even a single gunboat can blockade river crossings. This is a very valuable capability. However a blockade can be negated by just one enemy ship entering the blockaded river region. A small blockade of one, two or three gunboats may not prevent a single enemy gunboat from remaining in a river region and ending a blockade. But 5 or 10 gunboats is very likely to immediately drive off or sink a single gunboat and maintain the river crossing blockade. Sometimes you need a large number of ships to guarantee blockade of a river region. The bottom line is if both sides have ships in the same river region, the river is not blockaded and both sides can cross the river.
A second major capability of ships is to land amphibious forces behind enemy lines. The Tennessee, Mississippi and other rivers offer excellent opportunities for attack behind reb lines. However once landed behind enemy lines, those forces must receive supply either along a river or by a land route. Forts or entrenched land forces with artillery can block river supply. At the moment, I don't remember the exact level but land forces with artillery need a certain level of entrenchment before they will block supply. I think entrenchment level 5. So river invasions are very shortlived if the invasion force cannot receive supply. One temporary solution is to use fully supplied river transports as a supply source. River transports can also be converted into supply depots but they still need an unblocked supply line either by river or land to resupply once depleted. And river transports are substantially cheaper for creating supply depots than using wagon supply trains.
Finally river ships are very good for dropping off cavalry for quick raids by either the US or the CSA. However if evacuation is necessary, getting troops out can be very tricky for raids or failed regular water invasions. I am not absolutely certain but I believe if even one enemy ship is in or enters the same river region as troops loading onto ships, that enemy ship will halt the entire loading process. If enemy troops are in close pursuit of a raid or your evacuation is under attack and your troops cannot load onto ships if your opponent is able to get ships into the loading region, your force can be lost. It takes five days to load onto ships. Just beating off the one enemy ship, regardless of the size of your navy, halts the loading process. Not good if you are in a hurry to escape. An alternative escape is to use the non-ship river transport. River transport only takes one day to load. So you are on the river much quicker instead of being pounded by ground forces.
Personally, I think the Union needs as strong a river force as they can create. Every ship can be put to good use-especially ironclads. Ironclads are the fighting ships that can survive bypassing forts and can defeat enemy navies. Gunboats are better used as blockade, escort or scouting ships. The Union should be aggressive in use of their river capabilities.
I believe the Rebs need a reasonable river force as well to disrupt river invasions/evacuations and also allow movement across rivers. In particular, the rebs need ships if they intend to use land forces around Nashville or Bowling Green. The rebs should always bear in mind the use of entrenched artillery to block river supply as circumstances dictate.
Hopefully some of those points will help with your river strategies.
One capability of ships is their ability to prevent enemy ground forces from crossing rivers. Even a single gunboat can blockade river crossings. This is a very valuable capability. However a blockade can be negated by just one enemy ship entering the blockaded river region. A small blockade of one, two or three gunboats may not prevent a single enemy gunboat from remaining in a river region and ending a blockade. But 5 or 10 gunboats is very likely to immediately drive off or sink a single gunboat and maintain the river crossing blockade. Sometimes you need a large number of ships to guarantee blockade of a river region. The bottom line is if both sides have ships in the same river region, the river is not blockaded and both sides can cross the river.
A second major capability of ships is to land amphibious forces behind enemy lines. The Tennessee, Mississippi and other rivers offer excellent opportunities for attack behind reb lines. However once landed behind enemy lines, those forces must receive supply either along a river or by a land route. Forts or entrenched land forces with artillery can block river supply. At the moment, I don't remember the exact level but land forces with artillery need a certain level of entrenchment before they will block supply. I think entrenchment level 5. So river invasions are very shortlived if the invasion force cannot receive supply. One temporary solution is to use fully supplied river transports as a supply source. River transports can also be converted into supply depots but they still need an unblocked supply line either by river or land to resupply once depleted. And river transports are substantially cheaper for creating supply depots than using wagon supply trains.
Finally river ships are very good for dropping off cavalry for quick raids by either the US or the CSA. However if evacuation is necessary, getting troops out can be very tricky for raids or failed regular water invasions. I am not absolutely certain but I believe if even one enemy ship is in or enters the same river region as troops loading onto ships, that enemy ship will halt the entire loading process. If enemy troops are in close pursuit of a raid or your evacuation is under attack and your troops cannot load onto ships if your opponent is able to get ships into the loading region, your force can be lost. It takes five days to load onto ships. Just beating off the one enemy ship, regardless of the size of your navy, halts the loading process. Not good if you are in a hurry to escape. An alternative escape is to use the non-ship river transport. River transport only takes one day to load. So you are on the river much quicker instead of being pounded by ground forces.
Personally, I think the Union needs as strong a river force as they can create. Every ship can be put to good use-especially ironclads. Ironclads are the fighting ships that can survive bypassing forts and can defeat enemy navies. Gunboats are better used as blockade, escort or scouting ships. The Union should be aggressive in use of their river capabilities.
I believe the Rebs need a reasonable river force as well to disrupt river invasions/evacuations and also allow movement across rivers. In particular, the rebs need ships if they intend to use land forces around Nashville or Bowling Green. The rebs should always bear in mind the use of entrenched artillery to block river supply as circumstances dictate.
Hopefully some of those points will help with your river strategies.
Sure it can! 
It is linked from http://ageod.nsen.ch/aacwwiki/Reference_and_overview, which in turn is linked from the main page. Also, it'll be the first article in a new category ("Strategies"?) I'll add later today, which will provide another avenue of approach.
But you are right; this is probably one of the least developed parts of the wiki. In time, I hope there will be fairly comprehensive strategy guides, both for the various factions and for the various aspects of gameplay.
It is linked from http://ageod.nsen.ch/aacwwiki/Reference_and_overview, which in turn is linked from the main page. Also, it'll be the first article in a new category ("Strategies"?) I'll add later today, which will provide another avenue of approach.
But you are right; this is probably one of the least developed parts of the wiki. In time, I hope there will be fairly comprehensive strategy guides, both for the various factions and for the various aspects of gameplay.
Another good strategy for Union concerning rivers is cutting off the rebs. River that goes from Cairo to Louisville is first example and river that goes from Cairo to Nashville is second good example.
1861. Rebs did cross river leading from Cairo to Louisville with one stronger corps. As soon they did it I have sent gunboats and ironclads from Cairo to St. Louis and from Cairo to Louisville. One ship per river region.
I did cut them off. They tried few sieges and then started going north to try and find a river crossing that is unguarded.
By that time Grant's division was formed at Cairo. I ordered him agressive stance and to track for that rebel division which was very low on supplies and probably on cohesion too. When they finally met result was of course Grants victory and all rebel elements and division destroyed. Next turn grant was promoted.
You can do the same with second river too.
IMHO, good tactic for playing AI and human opponents.
Just my two cents
1861. Rebs did cross river leading from Cairo to Louisville with one stronger corps. As soon they did it I have sent gunboats and ironclads from Cairo to St. Louis and from Cairo to Louisville. One ship per river region.
I did cut them off. They tried few sieges and then started going north to try and find a river crossing that is unguarded.
By that time Grant's division was formed at Cairo. I ordered him agressive stance and to track for that rebel division which was very low on supplies and probably on cohesion too. When they finally met result was of course Grants victory and all rebel elements and division destroyed. Next turn grant was promoted.
You can do the same with second river too.
IMHO, good tactic for playing AI and human opponents.
Just my two cents
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
Return to “AACW Strategy discussions”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests