AGEOD Forums

Hi,

I love the game and play it regularly. I would just like to point what seems to me to be a significant problem regarding generic river transport : It works way to well on combat situations or in hostile waters.

The existence of fleets and the ability to use rivers for supply transports adds flavor to the game but the generic river transport misses a few points. I have found myself using generic river transport to go from memphis to Louisville as the CSA while not controling much of the banks in Kentucky nor Illinois and I have even brought back the Sioux uprising up north back to Memphis just by using that transport through the whole Union !!

1/ their should be control percentages for "river provinces" and generic transport should only be possible when you control at least 75% of the river. control of the river would be determined by the control of neighbouring land provinces, the presence or passage of actual boats and of course the control of the nearby ports and river forts.

2/ this would mean that players wouldn't be able to use river transport as an easy way of teleportation in areas they don't control !! generic river transports represents unescorted unmilitarised transport and should only be usable in areas firmly under your control...

3/ This would make actual transport boats a lot more usefull with actual interceptions possible. To be able to invade a land province near a part of the river you don't fully control you would have to go with boats, escort them with gunboats and ironclads, etc... To evacuate after a failed invasion or to retreat, you would have to have the actual boats on the neighbouring river to board..

4/ The Union player mainly, but the CSA player as well would have to focus a lot of energy and time on securing rivers to be able to use the generic river transport or otherwise have to rely on physical boats.. that way an efficient harassing campaign by the Union up and down the rivers could shut down generic river transport for the rebs..

Anyway, just an idea, probably too complicated at this stage to implement, but I feel it would give its full flavor to the West/Mississipi campaign..

veji1 wrote:I would just like to point what seems to me to be a significant problem regarding generic river transport : It works way to well on combat situations or in hostile waters...

I agree with that. A bit of oversimplification in the design on this point IMHO.

Although they can be sunk by a long gunboat, so I guess you pulled that because the whole river was void of enemy presence?

And you lose a big chunk of your cohesion if you do an opposed landing with them, so they are not to be used offensively.

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..

I'm not sure I follow you entirely. You can only reliably use transports from point A to B if there is no entrenched batteries, forts or gunboats on the path. If there is opposition, you risk to be sunk.

But it hardly ever happens ! Or the chances not to be sunk are too high, the AI sends hords of leaders on boats pas my forts or garrisons and nothing happens, I have intercepted a few invasion forces indeed, but I think they were actually on real boats.

Then the problem is perhaps on the interception chances on a river, I guess having a gunboat flotilla operating on a river should prevent most of the time running the gauntlet, especially with only unarmed transports.

That would be nice. I don't mind having to "garrison" a river section with a single gunboat, if that gunboat can stop the movement of generally transported river units (units on actual transport units would have a chance). Would be a decent fix, and hopefully easier to do than recoding how the rivers work. Gunboats are cheap and wouldn't need them in the areas far behind the lines, as the transport would be stopped at the "gunboated" areas. Could this work?

I've had my river forces (Foote's squadron most commonly) attack CSA forces trying to slip past.
They don't get sunk, but they do take a pounding as they run the gauntlet, then usually hide behind a river fort, such as Island 10.

true, but the problem is vaster to me : What is the use of actual river transport boats when generic river transport is so efficient ?

For me generic river transport represents non militarised transports, which could very easily be intercepted, disrupted, by a few artillery batteries, sharpshooters or else. On the other end the actual physical transports you can put in a fleet with escorts represent, if not assault shipping, we are not in WITP After all, transport that has been adapted for a military use, with some protection, etc...

I don't know, maybe I am fantasizing or creating a problem out of hot air, but I think generic river transport is a very efficient and simple tool to help the players bring their forces from deep within the country to near the front line, but nothing more.

Actual front line moves, invasions or evacuations should be handled by real ships, which would add flavor to the game..

Pocus wrote:Then the problem is perhaps on the interception chances on a river, I guess having a gunboat flotilla operating on a river should prevent most of the time running the gauntlet, especially with only unarmed transports.

Yes, upping the interception chances would probably fix the problem.

It is probably the best thing to do, generic river transport should be intercepted almost all the time and in that case an interception should be painfull, even by a lone gunboat. This would force players to use actual transport boats when in a combat area.

veji1 wrote:It is probably the best thing to do, generic river transport should be intercepted almost all the time and in that case an interception should be painfull, even by a lone gunboat. This would force players to use actual transport boats when in a combat area.

I agree. This would be an easy way of making rivering transport only useful on your controlled zone, without much programing work.
At least to the human player.
But it will also be necessary to teach the Ai the much increased danger of using riverine transport on "enemy waters".
It will be a pity to see Athena waste her armies on the bottom of the rivers...

Cheers!

deleted

Pocus wrote:Then the problem is perhaps on the interception chances on a river, I guess having a gunboat flotilla operating on a river should prevent most of the time running the gauntlet, especially with only unarmed transports.

I agree. Odds should be VERY highy for an interception in a river.

AndrewKurtz wrote:I agree. Odds should be VERY highy for an interception in a river.

Very much agree, generic transports when used should not be able to bypass forts/fleets this easily. There seems to be no interdiction of those naval transports actually occuring, at least not seen by myself.
A possible consequence of being interdicted by forts or fleets using generic transports could be a percentage of transports points being 'lost' and the transported troops being dropped off at nearest safe harbour/region with a percentage loss in hits/cohesion similar to weather attrition.
This should not be too hard to implement.


John

Just a few comments and observations.

All of my experiences are as the Union against the CSA AI.

As stated in the manual, you need to have artillery units entrenched to level 5 in order to ensure complete interdiction of enemy naval units by land units. This is extremely effective and either destroys the enemy force or forces it to retreat back where it came from.

If you garrison the river with Naval units, there is a chance to engage the enemy forces in each river region that they travel where you have naval units, based on the search value of your naval force - the more units you have, the greater the chance of engagement. If your naval units engage the enemy, the enemy units will either retreat before the battle or engage in battle, resulting in heavy damage to the land units being transported if your naval unit has ammunition. Generic transport does not fire back and the battle will result in a victory for your side even if you do not have any ammo left. The enemy force will retreat, if it survives the battle, and you will receive victory points and possible NM increase. If the enemy succeeds in evading your force in the first place he will proceed to the next region and possibly be attacked by any forces you have there - continuing on until it's movement is finished or it is destroyed. I have experienced the total destruction of a Confederate Division as it attempted to travel towards Saint Louis due to interdiction from my naval units garrisoning the Missouri - garrison units of one gunboat (2 elements) unit per river region.

The advantages of using generic transport in enemy are as have been stated in the first post. The disadvantages are as I pointed out from my experience - you can't get by a fort or level 5 entrenched unit without suffering heavy losses and if the enemy uses a naval unit to garrison the river you run the risk of engaging in battle, suffering heavy losses, and surrendering victory points and possibly National Morale.

The advantages of using built transports are:
1) They can be escorted by armed units and can defend themselves in battle even if they are without escorts.
2) They can utilize evasion abilities of Naval Leaders to avoid combat with enemy naval units forts and entrenched artillery. Admiral Farragut is a good admiral to use for that.
3) Built transports can be converted to supply depots - and are much cheaper for this purpose than converting wagons. I use this feature extensively to support my advances down the Mississippi and related rivers.

For my own part I believe that the use of generic transport in enemy controlled regions is far too easy and should be restricted in some fashion, at least for units that are not partisans or raiders. Perhaps a size limit can be implemented.

Pocus/Phil: What reasonably can be done to ameliorate this problem? T

Checking what can be done on the interceptions chances seems a good start.

Pocus wrote: I guess having a gunboat flotilla operating on a river should prevent most of the time running the gauntlet, especially with only unarmed transports.

Not doing statistics, but my impression is that most of the time it is not true.

veji1 wrote:What is the use of actual river transport boats when generic river transport is so efficient ?

I only use actual river transport boats for building depot

I agree. I posted this a few months ago :-

I just sailed a river transport past Union ships with evade set. I got past and was told I had a 92% chance of success. This seems very high to me on a river. Maybe there is a small chance of sneaking past at night - but 92%?

It seems that interceptions on rivers are treated the same as Oceans?
I would have thought it should be very difficult to evade on a river.

Cheers, Chris

exactly, the reason river forts where so strategic is that you can't run past them if they are well built.. And avoiding gunboats and ironclads in river that is 800 metres wide, well it's not that easy...

We need generic rive transport to be made suicidal in hostile waters and boat transport made very very very risky if not properly escorted, the whole point of using actual boats being that you can escort your transports with Farragut, Foote or Buchanan's boats..

With that Taking forts would really become a major strategic objective...

Hobbes wrote:I agree. I posted this a few months ago :-

I just sailed a river transport past Union ships with evade set. I got past and was told I had a 92% chance of success. This seems very high to me on a river. Maybe there is a small chance of sneaking past at night - but 92%?

It seems that interceptions on rivers are treated the same as Oceans?
I would have thought it should be very difficult to evade on a river.

Cheers, Chris

Yes, let me add my vote in favor of tightening this up. I put gunboats on patrol on the Tennessee river and Union ships seem to sail right past. I have yet to see a river battle between opposing gunboats.

Evasion Value of units moving with the riverine pool will be reduced in the next patch.

Thank you,

I really think that evasion value for generic river transport should be near to nil, and for regular river boats should be very low to account for the very small frontage... That doesn't mean that transport ships shouldn't be able to pass by a lone gunboat with little damage, but a battle should be almost automatic...

Pocus wrote:Evasion Value of units moving with the riverine pool will be reduced in the next patch.

Pocus,

Just the generic or all riverine transport? I personally think that, on a river, the odds of "evading" patroling ships would be close to ZERO.

there is already a penalty for rivers, for all ships. You take the hide bonus, which is a malus of -2 if I recall it well, and then x5, giving a 10 penalty to evasion for transports. So it impacts everything navigating on it.