Naval Operations

[Jagger]

Quite a few issues have developed over time concerning naval operations in my Union PBEM game. Currently we are to Spring 63. I have not blockaded any harbors during this timeframe. I have launched amphibious invasions in Texas and Louisiana. I have used river ironclads from Cairo to enable my invasions in Louisiana to survive vs Rebel ironclads.

First the reason I haven't blockaded any harbors is because of the number of ships required to effectively blockade harbors. To blockade the primary East coast harbors of Richmond, Petersburg, Norfolk, Wilmington, Charleston, Savanah and Jacksonville would require a navy of 138 ships. It would take another 107 ships to blockade the Gulf Coast cities of Pensacola, Mobile, New Orleans, Galveston and Mategorda. Cost to build 245 of the cheapest brigs would be about 1225 war supplies and 1,470,000 dollars.

Currently it takes 60 ships to blockade the James River with the three ports of Petersburg, Richmond and Norfolk. I just can't imagine 60 ships required to blockade the James River.

I have read how Charleston was blockaded by 11 ships in the summer of 62. Basically, Union ships simply anchored offshore. Without a navy, the blockade was complete except for ships trying to sneak out in bad weather conditions. My guess is 2 ships could blockade just as well as 11 except at night or bad weather.

Due to the cost and number of ships required to blockade, I simply don't blockade. I focus on my army and enough ships to support land operations. Looking at the current situation in Feb 63, there is no way I could have spent the amount of money required to blockade the Gulf Coast and Atlantic harbors. Yet the Union had a fairly good blockade in place by summer of 62. The South Atlantic Blockade Squadron was able to blockade all significant coastal harbors from the border of North Carolina to Florida with 48 ships in summer of 62. 11 of which blockaded Charleston.

Should we reduce the number of ships required to blockade cities or reduce the cost of ships or remain the same?

Second, a small fleet of ironclads will completely dominate any fleet without ironclads. If the CSA builds a couple of ironclads along the East Coast, they can break any blockade. Which is realistic. In Charleston, the rebs build a couple of ironclads. However the Union commander was aware of the reb ironclads and simply requested a couple of Union ironclads. Those ironclads were towed by other ships from the East coast to Charleston. Now the reb ironclads had to beat the Union ironclads to break the blockade. But in the game, the Union really doesn't have a way to get ironclads to Charleston without running the gauntlet of forts along the coast as ironclads are coastal water ships.

Yet ironclads did not have to run a gauntlet of forts to reach Charleston or another location. They were towed to distant destinations.

Should Ironclads be designated all water ships instead of coastal water ships as they were towed to their destinations? I see the drawbacks as they could be sent to operate in deep water blockade boxes. Although I doubt a human would waste expensive resources on blockade boxes when they are needed to counter coastal Reb ironclads.

Or alternatively, should ironclads be given a weight just as troops and move as cargo by transports through deep water to a coastal location?

Third should the western branch of the Atchafalaya River be coastal water or shallow water? Currently it is coastal water. Which means deep draft ships can bypass the New Orleans forts to attack Baton Rouge, Port Hudson or New Orleans. Was the western branch of the Atchafalaya River capable of deep draft ship traffic? I can see shallow draft ships moving along that river. I just have serious doubts about deep draft ships.

Fourth, I am noticing that the cohesion of my troops drop quickly while in transport for amphibious landings. By the time they reach Texas or Louisiana from the East Coast, they are in pretty bad shape. I am guessing the cohesion loss caused by ship movement is applying to both ships and troops. Is this realistic? Should troops be significantly reduced in combat capability after a one month journey by sea?

Any thoughts, ideas, comments???

[Jabberwock]

Quite a few issues have developed over time concerning naval operations in my Union PBEM game. Currently we are to Spring 63. I have not blockaded any harbors during this timeframe. I have launched amphibious invasions in Texas and Louisiana. I have used river ironclads from Cairo to enable my invasions in Louisiana to survive vs Rebel ironclads.

First the reason I haven't blockaded any harbors is because of the number of ships required to effectively blockade harbors. To blockade the primary East coast harbors of Richmond, Petersburg, Norfolk, Wilmington, Charleston, Savanah and Jacksonville would require a navy of 138 ships. It would take another 107 ships to blockade the Gulf Coast cities of Pensacola, Mobile, New Orleans, Galveston and Mategorda. Cost to build 245 of the cheapest brigs would be about 1225 war supplies and 1,470,000 dollars.

Currently it takes 60 ships to blockade the James River with the three ports of Petersburg, Richmond and Norfolk. I just can't imagine 60 ships required to blockade the James River.

Three or four capital ships and several brigs plus Ft Monroe and a monitor or two.

I have read how Charleston was blockaded by 11 ships in the summer of 62. Basically, Union ships simply anchored offshore. Without a navy, the blockade was complete except for ships trying to sneak out in bad weather conditions. My guess is 2 ships could blockade just as well as 11 except at night or bad weather.

You could also point out that in order to blockade Charleston or Savannah at all, you have to get up close and personal with the local forts. At Mobile, they blockaded by running past the forts, far enough into Mobile Bay that the coastal artillery couldn't touch them. Then, the amphibs landed to take the cut off forts and keep the blockaders in supply.

For Charleston I would say three capital ships, again with brigs and monitors in support. Throw in a few extra for security, and you've got eleven.

Due to the cost and number of ships required to blockade, I simply don't blockade. I focus on my army and enough ships to support land operations. Looking at the current situation in Feb 63, there is no way I could have spent the amount of money required to blockade the Gulf Coast and Atlantic harbors. Yet the Union had a fairly good blockade in place by summer of 62. The South Atlantic Blockade Squadron was able to blockade all significant coastal harbors from the border of North Carolina to Florida with 48 ships in summer of 62. 11 of which blockaded Charleston

Should we reduce the number of ships required to blockade cities or reduce the cost of ships or remain the same?

Yes, reduce the number slightly for each region. When you add up the ships required for many regions a slight reduction makes a big difference. Also other threads bring up the idea of extending blockades to upstream cities. Not sure how well that would work for the Mississippi, though.

Second, a small fleet of ironclads will completely dominate any fleet without ironclads. If the CSA builds a couple of ironclads along the East Coast, they can break any blockade. Which is realistic. In Charleston, the rebs build a couple of ironclads. However the Union commander was aware of the reb ironclads and simply requested a couple of Union ironclads. Those ironclads were towed by other ships from the East coast to Charleston. Now the reb ironclads had to beat the Union ironclads to break the blockade.

Pretty close to what actually happened.

But in the game, the Union really doesn't have a way to get ironclads to Charleston without running the gauntlet of forts along the coast as ironclads are coastal water ships.

Yet ironclads did not have to run a gauntlet of forts to reach Charleston or another location. They were towed to distant destinations.

Should Ironclads be designated all water ships instead of coastal water ships as they were towed to their destinations? I see the drawbacks as they could be sent to operate in deep water blockade boxes. Although I doubt a human would waste expensive resources on blockade boxes when they are needed to counter coastal Reb ironclads.

Or alternatively, should ironclads be given a weight just as troops and move as cargo by transports through deep water to a coastal location?

My CSA opponents can tell you I move down the coast very slowly one fort at a time, starting after I have secured Norfolk and Albemarle Sound. My aim may be Charleston, but I can't just get there from here. Not that I should be able to secure Albemarle Sound without taking at least one particular fort, but that is another subject for another thread.

I like the alternative idea, but I'm not Pocus, I'm not sure how much work it would create for him.

Third should the western branch of the Atchafalaya River be coastal water or shallow water? Currently it is coastal water. Which means deep draft ships can bypass the New Orleans forts to attack Baton Rouge, Port Hudson or New Orleans. Was the western branch of the Atchafalaya River capable of deep draft ship traffic? I can see shallow draft ships moving along that river. I just have serious doubts about deep draft ships.

Now that is a difficult question. I think the correct answer is sometimes. The Atchafalaya could vary between a trickle, and two broad miles of water. It was dependent on conditions in the Red and Missippi rivers. Also, with the fix to the adjacency between Duras and Iberville, a cavalry, marine, and/or sharpshooter force can unload and take NO the same turn, without ever being exposed to the forts.

Fourth, I am noticing that the cohesion of my troops drop quickly while in transport for amphibious landings. By the time they reach Texas or Louisiana from the East Coast, they are in pretty bad shape. I am guessing the cohesion loss caused by ship movement is applying to both ships and troops. Is this realistic? Should troops be significantly reduced in combat capability after a one month journey by sea?

Any thoughts, ideas, comments???

Farragut and Butler tried to take Vicksburg right after NO, but the troops got sick from being on the transports for a month . . .

[GShock]

Should we reduce the number of ships required to blockade cities or reduce the cost of ships or remain the same?

Yes, i think it takes too many ships to blockade a port currently.

% of blockaders = % of block achieved. Even 1 should do something...instead i see i need X ships to blockade... X-1 = no blockade. Too extreme imo.

Always wondered why river ports do not work as blockade box where #ships = %of blockade achieved...

[KillCalvalry]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the only really sure way of blockading a port 100% IRL is to take the fortress guarding the entrance. IRL, that pretty much shut down most Southern ports, at least as far as blockade running was concerned. Absent that, the blockade was always at least somewhat leaky.

Of course, in game turns taking the fort at the harbor mouth doesn't do anything.

Brown-water blockades should be easier, and taking the fort should shut 'er down. The effects might have to be tweaked, reducing Richmond's production 50% is a bit extreme, I don't think it was that dependent on seaborne trade. That would have more effect in a place like Wilmington.

[Hobbes]

I'm hoping the harbour mod will be incorporated into the game at some point
which will reduce the number of harbour exit points reducing the number of ships needed to blockade. (The exit points will also be more realistic).

The fort parameters can then also be tweaked so that a coastal fort will prevent 50% supply reaching adjacent coastal ports.

I'm doing some more testing this weekend.
Cheers, Chris

[AndrewKurtz]

I'm hoping the harbour mod will be incorporated into the game at some point
which will reduce the number of harbour exit points reducing the number of ships needed to blockade. (The exit points will also be more realistic).

The fort parameters can then also be tweaked so that a coastal fort will prevent 50% supply reaching adjacent coastal ports.

I'm doing some more testing this weekend.
Cheers, Chris

Those changes are much needed, IMHO. I hope they are integrated as well.

[Spharv2]

I think sometimes we all take these things a bit too literally. You might not need a full dozen ships to blockade just one harbor, but you will need that many when you factor in the ships that would be patrolling the coastal regions outside of that harbor. Quite a few blockade runners never actually went into a CSA harbor, instead transferring much of their cargo ashore at other points on the coast using smaller ships. Even at the Union Navy's height with many hundreds of ships available, runners got through.... significantly fewer and smaller boats, but some. But, since the game abstracts an entire section of coastline into a single port city, you also have to abstract the blockade to an extent. It's certainly better than going down and having a ton of 1-2 ship groups patrolling all the areas of the coast that don't have cities. If you try and blockade any major port with one or two ships, you're engaged in an exercise in futility. What happens when one slips through? Do you give chase? Then you just opened up the floodgates for every other ship in the harbor to make a run for it. You have to have the ships available to both chase and patrol.

As for the ironclads, I agree, but again, you have to forgive some abstraction I think. Monitors should most definitely not be deep sea ships as they would founder in even relatively mild seas. I could see letting them go into deep water so long as they had deep sea ships in their stack (To represent the tow ships), but then I would insist on them adding about a 50% risk of your ship disappearing without a trace. With such a low freeboard, you're asking for trouble putting these things in anything but coastal waters.

As for your last point, just picture a lot of midwestern farmboys, most of whom have never even seen the ocean, much less been in seas of any kind, spending weeks crowded on board a rocking, pitching boat. I don't imagine it's going to be a pleasant vacation cruise. Their morale will definitely be good when they get ashore, just to get off that damnable boat, but I doubt they'll be in very good shape to fight. When you're moving troops that far by sea, you need to use those US controlled ports to give them a break if you expect them to arrive in any kind of condition to fight. That one is pretty much spot on from my point of view.

[Jagger]

I think sometimes we all take these things a bit too literally. You might not need a full dozen ships to blockade just one harbor, but you will need that many when you factor in the ships that would be patrolling the coastal regions outside of that harbor. Quite a few blockade runners never actually went into a CSA harbor, instead transferring much of their cargo ashore at other points on the coast using smaller ships. Even at the Union Navy's height with many hundreds of ships available, runners got through.... significantly fewer and smaller boats, but some. But, since the game abstracts an entire section of coastline into a single port city, you also have to abstract the blockade to an extent. It's certainly better than going down and having a ton of 1-2 ship groups patrolling all the areas of the coast that don't have cities. If you try and blockade any major port with one or two ships, you're engaged in an exercise in futility. What happens when one slips through? Do you give chase? Then you just opened up the floodgates for every other ship in the harbor to make a run for it. You have to have the ships available to both chase and patrol.

I agree that blockade runners used other locations to unload beyond the primary harbors. But the reality is that primary harbors handled the majority of cargo and are the most efficient manner of handling large quantities of cargo. Other locations are a very poor substitute.

And as a blockade doesn't reduce the production of a harbor to 0%, then the blockade already reflects some seepage through the blockade to the harbor or other locations. However the blockade doesn't take effect until the minimum number of ships are in place. So 100% harbor operation until you have the 18 ships required to blockade Charleston. Yet even a very small number of ships anchored offshore would halt 100% harbor operations at least during daylight-a significant impact.

As for the ironclads, I agree, but again, you have to forgive some abstraction I think. Monitors should most definitely not be deep sea ships as they would founder in even relatively mild seas. I could see letting them go into deep water so long as they had deep sea ships in their stack (To represent the tow ships), but then I would insist on them adding about a 50% risk of your ship disappearing without a trace. With such a low freeboard, you're asking for trouble putting these things in anything but coastal waters.

The problem is getting a monitor to Charleston or New Orleans or Mobile without them being sunk as they pass all those coastal forts between the NE coast and their final destination. In real life, this was not a problem. You don't have to be far offshore to avoid forts. Although definitely a risk as a few towed monitors did sink at sea during storms.

As for your last point, just picture a lot of midwestern farmboys, most of whom have never even seen the ocean, much less been in seas of any kind, spending weeks crowded on board a rocking, pitching boat. I don't imagine it's going to be a pleasant vacation cruise. Their morale will definitely be good when they get ashore, just to get off that damnable boat, but I doubt they'll be in very good shape to fight. When you're moving troops that far by sea, you need to use those US controlled ports to give them a break if you expect them to arrive in any kind of condition to fight. That one is pretty much spot on from my point of view.

This one is not a big deal. It just seemed cohesion loss was excessive making invasion forces excessively vulnerable once they finally landed. In PBEM's, I no longer do any sort of seaborne invasion except with very large forces and land in undefended locations. Even then, it is touch and go.

[Spharv2]

I agree that blockade runners used other locations to unload beyond the primary harbors. But the reality is that primary harbors handled the majority of cargo and are the most efficient manner of handling large quantities of cargo. Other locations are a very poor substitute.

And as a blockade doesn't reduce the production of a harbor to 0%, then the blockade already reflects some seepage through the blockade to the harbor or other locations. However the blockade doesn't take effect until the minimum number of ships are in place. So 100% harbor operation until you have the 18 ships required to blockade Charleston. Yet even a very small number of ships anchored offshore would halt 100% harbor operations at least during daylight-a significant impact.

I wouldn't have a problem with the partial blockade. Naturally, even "showing the colors" so to speak, will have an impact. Just not much of one. Just as until you have a significant force you probably won't do a great deal to stop the ships making their run. The ships being forced to leave at night should not have a huge impact on the actual use of the harbor. You're still going to be doing any actual harbor operations at night since the blockaders in most cases cannot shell the actual harbor due to artillery cover. Leaving at night restricts the hours of operation some, but I don't see that as really being a huge problem since the captains would have been experienced and would know their locations, probably far better than the blockading ships.

As for the Monitors, I don't think I've ever lost one to the fire of forts, so I really can't say much about it. But I still think that a random loss to weather now and then would be a nice thing.

[Jabberwock]

The problem is getting a monitor to Charleston or New Orleans or Mobile without them being sunk as they pass all those coastal forts between the NE coast and their final destination. In real life, this was not a problem. You don't have to be far offshore to avoid forts. Although definitely a risk as a few towed monitors did sink at sea during storms.

The solution to that specific problem could be something as simple as a rule that says 'ships in coastal waters with evade or avoid combat until destination orders cannot be bombarded.'

[Jabberwock]

But I still think that a random loss to weather now and then would be a nice thing.

Agreed, but should apply to all naval units (monitors should just be more vulnerable to it). There was no national weather service . . .

[Jagger]

The solution to that specific problem could be something as simple as a rule that says 'ships in coastal waters with evade or avoid combat until destination orders cannot be bombarded.'

Yes, unless they are bypassing forts to enter a harbor...unfortunately.

[Jabberwock]

Yes, unless they are bypassing forts to enter a harbor...unfortunately.

1. It should definitely wait for the harbor fix.
2. It shouldn't include fleets that are transporting troops.
3. It still wouldn't get the NC Sounds vis-a-vis Ft Hatteras(Clark) correct.

And now it is not simple. It seemed so simple, after a long day dealing with RL.

[Jagger]

1. It should definitely wait for the harbor fix.
2. It shouldn't include fleets that are transporting troops.
3. It still wouldn't get the NC Sounds vis-a-vis Ft Hatteras(Clark) correct.

And now it is not simple. It seemed so simple, after a long day dealing with RL.

Hehe...yes, this is a tricky little problem. I kind of like the transport idea but don't know if the engine would recognize a monitor as cargo even if a weight were assigned. And I haven't tried testing it.

[runyan99]

I'm finding the river blockade even tougher in 1.07 than it was previously. In previous versions, you could blockade with 4 units. But now that the game is counting elements, most of the Mississippi river regions require a whopping 12 elements to blocade. At 2 riverboat elements per riverboat unit, that means I now need 6 units to blockade these zones, not 4, so blockading has gotten harder.

I'd like to see the required elements to blockade go down. I don't think it should be so hard to blockade a river or a port. It seems like any enemy riverboats would make building pontoon bridges impossible, or prevent any traffic of unarmed boats, thus blockading the river.

On a side note, I'm still having a difficult time blocking enemy units moving across rivers. Is one river unit sufficient to block movement by land units, or does the river have to be officially blockaded with 12 elements?

[Jagger]

On a side note, I'm still having a difficult time blocking enemy units moving across rivers. Is one river unit sufficient to block movement by land units, or does the river have to be officially blockaded with 12 elements?

One ship was enough to block enemy elements from crossing a river section and I assume is still true. However if both sides have ships in the same river section, both sides can cross the river.

I "suspect" the opposite is true of loading onto to ships. If both sides have ships in the same region, you cannot load onto ships or loading is halted.