Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:18 pm
They are not very efficient if to be used to land à la DDay on a province with a strong defense, but the point of river transport in this game is to use it to land behind your ennemy's forces to force him to disperse. you don't land on Nashville, you land at Decaturville of Savannah or Henry, etc...
The problem I have is that generic river transport transforms the rivers in a two way highway for both factions : Wherever you are, both of them can use it, the only problems arising are when you meet cops (Eh I mean boats or forts).. This in turns makes control of rivers less vital because you can use them without controlling them... You don't have to control their banks, you don't have to control the ports around, etc..
River transports actually using boats is supposed to emulate in my mind offenive use of river transports, or I should rather say "war zone" river transport.
With control rules for rivers, and taking as a starting point the April 61 scenario, the CSA could only hope to use river transport on the Mississipi up to island 10 to begin with, which would mean actually landing forces at Memphis so that they can catch the railway from there. The Cumberland could be used up to Donelson and not further.. The Union would only be able to use the Mississipi down to Saint-Louis and the Ohio down to Louisville to begin with. Their primary objective would be to secure control of the rivers down to Cairo/Paducah to be able to use generic transport on all the area, this would mean ensuring control of Paducah, Charleston, the harbours in Missouri and Kentucky, and preventing Southern raids from cutting the generic river transport lines... (control rule should work so that land forces on an adjacent province need to have significant artillery to cut the generic river transport)...
Anyway let's just say I think it would add a considerable flavour to the game and, which is the most important to me - SLOW- the game down by forcing the opposing factions to better control their river network, which would slow down the build up of forces, specially union in the west, and in turn avoid the acceleration of the game which sees 1861 unfold like 1862 IRL and 1862 having an already distinguished 1863/4 flavour... At least in PBEM..
It would be interesting to test that in a PBEM as a house rule to begin with, which would be obviously very imperfect but give us a better idea of the potential..