Erie Canal mod

[lodilefty]

As discussed in the RR mod thread, we've encountered a 'bugette' by allowing the USS Michigan to pass through and get to the ocean. Unless the ship's carpenter shortened her by 15', narrowed her a bit and offloaded her enough to reduce draft, she wouldn't fit the locks!

Attached is Erie Canal Mod:

• Creates a new terrain '35Canal' that is used as the jumplink for the Erie Canal.
• Allows 'Shallow, Coastal, and Allwater' types to transit. This will prevent Frigates, Steam Frigates, Armoured Frigates, Warships from entering the canal.
• The only problematic ship type is 'Blockade Ship' which will still pass if not in a squadron with ocean ships.
• Riverine Assets [the 'built in' river movement] will also be able to enter the canal, as they are 'AllWater' type.

Files can be copied directly over existing region and alias files. Folder structure exists so you can 'fast install' by copying into your AGEod's American Civil War folder, or better yet, use JSGME [structure is setup for that].

[color="Red"]Warning: Install this AFTER Gray_Lensman RR mod, as the RR mod will overwrite the 'regions fix', putting you back where you were![/color]

Gray_Lensman: I directly edited the rgn and ter files, as I have no clue how to get a new jumplink into ExMap.

[Jabberwock]

I think blockade ships are meant to model little gunboats that can handle the ocean (sometimes). USS Underwriter, USS Ceres, etc.

No further comment on the ironclad non-restriction other than to notice it.

It's great that you could put this together so quickly. I will have to copy your work when I put together a real mod. (graphics don't tweak rules)

[lodilefty]

I think blockade ships are meant to model little gunboats that can handle the ocean (sometimes). USS Underwriter, USS Ceres, etc.

No further comment on the ironclad non-restriction other than to notice it.

It's great that you could put this together so quickly. I will have to copy your work when I put together a real mod. (graphics don't tweak rules)

I got lucky. Only 'bug' on my first pass was blocking 'AllWater' from the canal. Then I looked up what was in the category.

I think of Blockade Ships as the 'grab bag' fleet assembled to enact the blockade: sloops, yachts, anything 'seaworthy' that could mount a gun...

Ironclads have to be allowed out of the lakes if built there [due to political influence, no doubt].

Copy away! Forum is public domain in my mind!

Mod note: the 35Canal does not allow any land unit movement, thus hopefully avoiding any 'jumplink conflict' to occur between 2 regions... might work as the 'region-by-region' link we postulated at the start of the 'Canal episode'....

[Jabberwock]

I think of Blockade Ships as the 'grab bag' fleet assembled to enact the blockade: sloops, yachts, anything 'seaworthy' that could mount a gun...

Yup. No problems with canals there.

Ironclads have to be allowed out of the lakes if built there [due to political influence, no doubt].

Doh!

Are they built there due to political influence, or is it political influence in the ballast that floats them out?

Mod note: the 35Canal does not allow any land unit movement, thus hopefully avoiding any 'jumplink conflict' to occur between 2 regions... might work as the 'region-by-region' link we postulated at the start of the 'Canal episode'....

Indeed.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

The monitors and ironclads built in Rochester could not escape Lake Ontario through the St Lawrence. Anybody who considered it, probably assumed that was a no-entry or no link issue. As it turns out, the Saint Lawrence is ocean terrain (no entry to monitors and ironclads, but smooth sailing for USS Michigan).

The Michigan can take the Erie Canal as far as Ontario, NY. Then it takes the Oswego Canal to Eastern Lake Ontario. From there it is Northern Lake Ontario, Saint Lawrence, Massachusetts Bay.

Possible solutions:

A) Close the Erie Canal.
B) Close the Oswego Canal.
C) Make the Saint Lawrence non-enterable until FI.
D) Make the Michigan fixed until FI.
E) Create a new Canal link that deep-draft ships can't enter at all.

My preference is C, with the addition of making the St Lawrence coastal terrain. The easiest solution is probably B.

They all have drawbacks. The canal link has the fewest drawbacks in terms of the game and history, but apparently it is the most work.

[lodilefty]

<snip>
Possible solutions:

A) Close the Erie Canal.
B) Close the Oswego Canal.
C) Make the Saint Lawrence non-enterable until FI.
D) Make the Michigan fixed until FI.
E) Create a new Canal link that deep-draft ships can't enter at all.

My preference is C, with the addition of making the St Lawrence coastal terrain. The easiest solution is probably B.

They all have drawbacks. The canal link has the fewest drawbacks in terms of the game and history, but apparently it is the most work.

To clarify, the canal goes through Oswego[24], not Ontario[26]. Local knowledge!

Since E is a lot of work per Pocus, I favor B.
The Oswego Canal locks were only 110 x 18 ft., and the best I can tell, draft was ~7' at most, so it's even more limiting than the Erie canal. Built for barges, etc. Maybe saying 'though Ontario' was prophetic!


C or D will allow USS Michigan out after FI, but potentially worse, capital ships could soon blockade Chicago! Not good, especially with the 'FI' what if scenaros that are [or were] being discussed. However, if E was put on the 'next patch or two' list, I could live with C, but with no change to the terrain type:

Making the St. Lawrence Coastal means it won't freeze, which is ahistorical. [I did some climate research: BoA era was in part of the 'Little Ice Age', ACW not long after that. Things froze in them days that don't freeze now, and stayed frozen longer. ] Again, I'd like to protect the itegrety of the historical basis.

Let's take the time to get this right.... We can use the mod until we get there, whereve 'there' is...

[Jabberwock]

Making the St. Lawrence Coastal means it won't freeze, which is ahistorical. [I did some climate research: BoA era was in part of the 'Little Ice Age', ACW not long after that. Things froze in them days that don't freeze now, and stayed frozen longer. ] Again, I'd like to protect the itegrety of the historical basis.

So shouldn't we change it to shallow? Right now it is ocean. Will that freeze? Changing it to shallow would at least restrict the Michigan to Lake Ontario (ahistorical) as well as the other Great Lakes. It would let monitors & ironclads built in Rochester out without using the canal. This was certainly possible, but I don't think the Canadians would like seeing US warships there.

I thought it had been deliberately designed as ocean to allow the BEF into Lake Ontario.

[lodilefty]

So shouldn't we change it to shallow? Right now it is ocean. Will that freeze? Changing it to shallow would at least restrict the Michigan to Lake Ontario (ahistorical) as well as the other Great Lakes. It would let monitors & ironclads built in Rochester out without using the canal. This was certainly possible, but I don't think the Canadians would like seeing US warships there.

I thought it had been deliberately designed as ocean to allow the BEF into Lake Ontario.

Shallow would keep BEF out of Quebec, too, unless the transports went unescorted.......
[I'm at work, so I'm working from memory here...]

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

So, which is more work: canal jumplink or new region?

...and who does each? [thinking of constrained resources: once an Engineer, always an Engineer]

...and which will have lower chance to disrupt the existing game elements [scenarios, events, etc.] ?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

<deleted>

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

lodilefty:

My congratulations on the Canal jumplink idea. I mistakenly thought that your Canal terrain was just that, a new terrain, to be assigned to a water region and it wasn't until I examined it more closely, that I realized you had in effect created an actual new type of JumpLink itself. Very Cool.

I'm wondering if you could take it further by making it a 1 day travel time and then use it for region to region Canal movement. If so, I would like your solution better than mine.

Since it's your idea, I'll let you run with it and if/when you get it to work, I'll work it into the actual AACW_DB...xls files.

Thanks! I'll work on it.
Pocus did reply that there is code work needed to get it to be recognized for weather, ExMap, etc......

Feedback on yours may change our approach:
First, you used LongTransition [28] from Auburn to Hudsn river. I changed to to transit[22].

Worse, it doesn't seem to work. When I try to run from Eastern Lake Erie to Hudson [with the Erie scouting sq], it goes 'the long way' via the Mississippi! The link from Rochester to Hudson works OK.

I'm highly suspicious that the 'intermediate' land region we use mst be a port or water.
If so, the only way this works is to go through a port, or make it all one link.

I think, pending someone disproving this theory, that our best shot is a sinkle link from Lake Erie to Hudson, transit time of ~6-7 days in clear weather. This also would put the 35Canal transit link on hold, as 1 day point to point wouldn't work....

Unless: I'm going to see what happens if I make 23Auburn a 'landlocked port'. Will the game crash?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

Auburn as a port works, and no crash [obviously].

Point to point using 35Canal will require overhaul of all scenarios [or at least the campaigns], ptting in the ports along the way.

Erie canal will then be able to go through Rochester, as the new jumplink will not allow ocean types through! It'll be neat to see harbors all across the state, just where the port towns actually occur from the canal days!

FYI: Pocus comments on the new type.
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=71273#post71273

Implies that our canal may not freeze [although if the inland port regions freeze, I expect the canal would freeze]

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

Preliminary testing confirms that a Land-locked port will function, with the added observation that once the 23 Auburn becomes frozen, it may actually block movement as a frozen port. I didn't advance far enough to test this out just yet, as I want to regenerate the scenarios first. I don't favor region to region Canal JumpLinks if it clutters the map with ports in every region along the way. It definitely works as a dead-end for the Michigan. (The Michigan can get to 23 Auburn but no further).

Agree. We can get the job done with translink and ports every 5-6 regions...

Case closed?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

Some further testing revealed that the Erie Scouting Squadron (a Brig or Light Warship) is able to completely transit the new canal system. This seems okay to me considering the ship type, but I would like confirmation that this is historically correct in effect from one of you more canal knowledgeable guys.

Also, even if the 23 Auburn NY region is frozen, the harbor is still usable to or from it. I guess we eventually will have to create a new water region adjacent to it. and make the move to/from that new water region instead of 23 Auburn NY itself. I have put it on my back burner list. For now, the only impediment to movement is the actual condition of 1124 Upper Hudson River.

Brigs, Transports and Blockade Ships are 'allwater', so it's all or none through our canal.

If we do get the new 'canal' link, we should consider the speed of 'powered' vs 'sail' though these links.....

Oneida Lake would be the likely new water region you discuss. It was/is part of the canal, and it's big enough on the map to work with.

[Jabberwock]

It would be a task to get any of these ships through any of the canals. They were designed for barges. The O & E ... the original canal that we've been using since at least 1.03 ... was only 4' deep in some places ... Napoleon could have waded it. Finding that fact is what started me on Canal Quest. When I was researching them, I looked for canals that were significantly deeper than that.

More info on depths here.

The USS Michigan had an unloaded draught of 9'

The original monitor drew 10.5' (there was a deep keel beneath that raft). Some models were built lighter draught, especially the paddle-wheel variety.

Eads city-class ironclads drew 5' unloaded. Other ironclads tended to be much deeper-draught:
CSS Virginia - specs: 22', fully loaded: 24+', fully unloaded with some plating removed: 19-20'
IIRC CSS Virginia II and CSS Richmond (James River designs) were about 14'.

River gunboats and brigs were built to many different specs. Some woodenclads could be a light as 4' draught. I would guess tinclad loaded draught averaged about 8', which means that to use any canal safely (safety = about 2' difference between draught & depth), the vessel would have to be unloaded (cannons, ammunition, most of the fuel, maybe even some armor).

Brigs would generally be lighter draught than gunboats in my estimation (no engines, no fuel).

River and sea transports generally tended to be deeper draught than gunboats, fewer of them were originally designed for military use. However, the river transports that went through the Yazoo Swamp and up the Red River wouldn't have had issues negotiating canals.

[Jabberwock]

If we do get the new 'canal' link, we should consider the speed of 'powered' vs 'sail' though these links.....

Depends on the ship & the canal. Ships were generally drawn by mules through them, just like barges, a light draught sailing ship would make better time than a deeper draught steamship. They wouldn't have had to spend as much time throwing the lead line.

[lodilefty]

It would be a task to get any of these ships through any of the canals. They were designed for barges. The O & E ... the original canal that we've been using since at least 1.03 ... was only 4' deep in some places ... Napoleon could have waded it. Finding that fact is what started me on Canal Quest. When I was researching them, I looked for canals that were significantly deeper than that.

More info on depths here.

The USS Michigan had an unloaded draught of 9'

The original monitor drew 10.5' (there was a deep keel beneath that raft). Some models were built lighter draught, especially the paddle-wheel variety.

Eads city-class ironclads drew 5' unloaded. Other ironclads tended to be much deeper-draught:
CSS Virginia - specs: 22', fully loaded: 24+', fully unloaded with some plating removed: 19-20'
IIRC CSS Virginia II and CSS Richmond (James River designs) were about 14'.

River gunboats and brigs were built to many different specs. Some woodenclads could be a light as 4' draught. I would guess tinclad loaded draught averaged about 8', which means that to use any canal safely (safety = about 2' difference between draught & depth), the vessel would have to be unloaded (cannons, ammunition, most of the fuel, maybe even some armor).

Brigs would generally be lighter draught than gunboats in my estimation (no engines, no fuel).

River and sea transports generally tended to be deeper draught than gunboats, fewer of them were originally designed for military use. However, the river transports that went through the Yazoo Swamp and up the Red River wouldn't have had issues negotiating canals.

Erie canal in 1825 was 4' deep. Locks were 70' long x 15' wide.
Upgrades completed 1862:
Plans were drawn up in 1834 to increase the canal and lock dimensions from 40ft. by 28ft. up to 70 ft. by 56 ft. by 7 ft. Locks were to be rebuilt from 70 ft. in length to 110 ft.
I've seen some of the old locks. The're pretty small....
I think "our" canal is too wide/long!

Do we live with it? Or is there some other way to get Monitors out of Rochester? ...or prevent them getting built there?

I have no problem keeping the Erie Scouting Sq. [brigs] in the Lakes where they belong.....

[Jabberwock]

Erie canal in 1825 was 4' deep. Locks were 70' long x 15' wide.
Upgrades completed 1862:
Plans were drawn up in 1834 to increase the canal and lock dimensions from 40ft. by 28ft. up to 70 ft. by 56 ft. by 7 ft. Locks were to be rebuilt from 70 ft. in length to 110 ft.
I've seen some of the old locks. The're pretty small....
I think "our" canal is too wide/long!

Is this online? Where can I find it?

Do we live with it? Or is there some other way to get Monitors out of Rochester? ...or prevent them getting built there?

I have no problem keeping the Erie Scouting Sq. [brigs] in the Lakes where they belong.....

I assumed the O& E was put in the game to provide an outlet. If that assumption is correct, then I believe it is the wrong outlet to use. I would prefer taking brigs through a 6 or 7 or 9.5' (depending on which numbers are correct) canal over one 4' deep.

The St Lawrence was not an option for warships due to diplomatic issues. IIRC, there was some unfinished Independence-class ship (originally planned for the War of 1812) that sat out the war on the shore of Lake Ontario for that reason. I didn't want to add the 2nd Welland Canal for the same reason.

I would consult with AGEod about their preference before removing all the canals.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

Is this online? Where can I find it?

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal
http://www.elockport.com/lockport_history.html
http://www.eriecanal.org/locks.html
http://www.history.rochester.edu/canal/chron.htm

Slight discrepancy over lock length, but majority say 90'

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted