Supplying Butler in 1862 West Scenario

[Meagher]

I believe there is a problem with supply in the 1862 West scenario. Because there is no naval supply box, there is no way for the Union to get supplies to New Orleans, or any other Gulf port. Are these forces expected to live off the land?

I think that the Union player should have the ability to move supplies to Gulf ports. Otherwise I think they should be given a new supply ship every so often. Union logistics were not really that bad I'm sure.

[enf91]

Maybe you're supposed to supply them via river?

[Brochgale]

Build your own depot - assuming that you have already captured NO. If you arrived in NO without the necessary tools to do the job - perhaps you need to rethink?

My nephew made a similar mistake in the PvP games against me! Arrived without any supply!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

I've added limited (read LIMITED) supplies to Ft Pickens each turn for this scenario.

This scenario has been updated to 1.14 and is available for download in the "Scenario Depot" thread in the Mods section. The older 1.13b version is also there. Other than limited supplies the VP cities were also changed.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

Bigus: (a suggestion)

You could "unblock" the Shipping Box (#1506) and add the necessary amounts of Ocean going transports to your mod version of the scenario to support the naval supply requirements. There is already a line in the scenario setup tab (at least there is in the "official" version) that will use supply from the shipping box if it were unblocked. This is my "future" solution whenever I get a chance to work with that scenario.

Thanks.
I'll look into it.

I believe my old version is still the "official" version unless you've changed it recently.

I believe there is a problem with supply in the 1862 West scenario. Because there is no naval supply box, there is no way for the Union to get supplies to New Orleans, or any other Gulf port. Are these forces expected to live off the land?

I think that the Union player should have the ability to move supplies to Gulf ports. Otherwise I think they should be given a new supply ship every so often. Union logistics were not really that bad I'm sure.

I'll check into it but I think I had Ft Pickens as the sole base/harbor for this scenario.
New Orleans should still generate supplies for the Union if it is captured by them.

[enf91]

Does Ft. Pickens have a depot? Or do forts push supply? Either way, you're going to have to capture Fts. Jackson and St. Philip to get supply through

[bigus]

Does Ft. Pickens have a depot? Or do forts push supply? Either way, you're going to have to capture Fts. Jackson and St. Philip to get supply through

It has a depot and is a port. I have it so added supplies are generated in the region each turn. These are limited supplies for now. I did this to try to keep the scenario localized to just the west.

Bear in mind that I'm talking about my modded scenario and not the "official" one included in the 1.14 patch. Although the official scenario was improved upon by me some time ago, it is not my latest updated version.

[Meagher]

Thanks for the responds. I understand if this is not a priority to fix. I will play the 2 campaign version next time.

I have another question. In the Eastern 1862 scenario is it considered easy for the Union to win by taking coastal cities and just defending in northern VA. It seems like the CSA will take big morale penalties pretty early if the USA goes for FL, GA, SC. It would be hard for the CSA to rail in enough men to keep up with union shipping; if they did, it would be even harder to get those forces back to defend Richmond quickly. I am just curious if other people agree with my impression.

[bigus]

Thanks for the responds. I understand if this is not a priority to fix. I will play the 2 campaign version next time.

I have another question. In the Eastern 1862 scenario is it considered easy for the Union to win by taking coastal cities and just defending in northern VA. It seems like the CSA will take big morale penalties pretty early if the USA goes for FL, GA, SC. It would be hard for the CSA to rail in enough men to keep up with union shipping; if they did, it would be even harder to get those forces back to defend Richmond quickly. I am just curious if other people agree with my impression.

In a way yes... and in a way no......

[MrT]

I would say that problem also effects the grand campaign.. but thats partly the way it is.. he has more men and can be in more places at once with a stronger force.

[Meagher]

The difference in the East scenario is that taking just Jacksonville and Savannah will give the USA 20 NM and cost CSA 20 NM. In the main game CSA does not suffer large penalties for losing minor ports.

[bigus]

The difference in the East scenario is that taking just Jacksonville and Savannah will give the USA 20 NM and cost CSA 20 NM. In the main game CSA does not suffer large penalties for losing minor ports.

Yes.
Your right Meagher. I did this because historically, resources were actually spent by the North in taking these objectives. I was hoping for an "anaconda" scenario.
I did'nt think it would be so easy for the North to take these regions at will.

After the PBEM tourney I actually changed the starting VP total for cities/regions to offset this a bit. I also added supplies for the South which was another topic on how to improve the scenario.

After all this all I can say is "man the coast".