How can river crossings and the blocking of them best be portrayed in AACW?

[willgamer]

I think we need to be careful with the argument: If it didn't happen in The Real Game, then it shouldn't be allowable in this game, AACW. That if historical commanders never attempted something, that something should be off-limits to us game players.

In the face of overwhelming 2-1/2 to 1 odds, divide your forces, then divide your forces again--then go on the attack and win!

Order your center to stand pat, then watch in awed stupefaction as your soldiers spontaneously charge uphill in the face of certain destruction--but against all odds, take the position!

Despite the grave misgivings of your commander and president, cut yourself off completely from your sources of supply, march into the enemy's heartland--then six weeks later miraculously reappear to take a major enemy coastal city from the rear!

Ill-advised, foolhardy, impossible even? Yes, yes, and yes.

Yet Lee (Chancellorsville), Grant, (Missionary Ridge), and Sherman (March to the Sea) oversaw these highly improbable events just the same.

If Forrest had never been, would we now dismiss as "impossible" some of the exploits he magically achieved time and time again? (Fact is, after improbably capturing two Union gunboats, Forrest was in a position to cross the Tennessee at Johnsonville, just at that moment he chose not to.)

Allow for the occasional stroke of genius or just plain dumb luck.

IMO, it would be best not to absolutely prohibit forced river crossings in the face of enemy gunboats, no matter their disposition or number. It should be risky, maybe in the extreme, but still permissible.

I think it would be so cool to find myself in Kirby Smith's situation and, overcoming my fears and all good reason, attempt a Mississippi River crossing in mid to late 1864. What if, what if...

If for some reason the nuances can't be programmed, I suppose I would agree: if it didn't happen in history, don't allow it to happen in game.

If it can't be programmed. But I suspect it can. Simplifying abstractions have their place, but maybe this is not one of those places. Easy for me to say, but I don't face Pocus & co.'s hectic work load and time constraints.

I pretty much concur with your comments although I prefer "thoughtful" to careful since these are core design decisions.

A counter example to your cases would be the North's ability to purchase repeating rifles. The Union Army refused. Some Union commanders, notably John Wilder, actually loaned his brigade the money to do so. As a result his "Lightning Brigade" achieved near ledgedary status.

"Stated one of General William T. Sherman's soldiers: "I think the Johnnys are getting rattled; they are afraid of our repeating rifles. They say we are not fair, that we have guns that we load up on Sunday and shoot all the rest of the week."

The ill-supplied Southern trooper could not hope to match the firepower of these repeating weapons, for they utilized special copper rim-fire cartridges that were beyond the production capability of Confederate ordnance." http://www.civilwar.com/content/view/2035/46/

But how many people think a Union Army adopts repeating rifles option sounds like fun? I venture not many as it would make for an even stronger Union armies (or just try to mod the Union data to double all infantry/cavalry firepower). About the only use I could see would be giving a tyro an advantage vs a grognard in head to head.

But with perfect hindsight, it's a no brainer to take the option if offered.

One issue is level of abstraction. It's fair to say, at present, it's very uneven for land vis-a-vis naval with several experts wanting a more detailed naval system.

With the current abstraction of river crossing/blocking, what is the best rule for number of elements to block? Some, including myself, think the original 1 element is better than 10.x.

Given the diverse views on what history might allow/disallow, I believe startup options are needed.

[berto]

I love optional rules, and giving as much control as possible to the player(s). The more optional rules the better.

[Jagger]

I love optional rules, and giving as much control as possible to the player(s). The more optional rules the better.

And Pocus read your mind!

You can mod the number of elements required to blockade river sections in the Bombard&Blockade File located in the Settings Folder of 1.10a.

Here is the pertinant line from the file:

bloMinSUForLinkCut = 4 // Min nb of elements in offensive posture in a water region to cut the transition link between 2 adjacents land regions

You can set the number of elements to 1, 2, 4 or 125 if you wish.

[Big Muddy]

And Pocus read your mind!

You can mod the number of elements required to blockade river sections in the Bombard&Blockade File located in the Settings Folder of 1.10a.

Here is the pertinant line from the file:

bloMinSUForLinkCut = 4 // Min nb of elements in offensive posture in a water region to cut the transition link between 2 adjacents land regions

You can set the number of elements to 1, 2, 4 or 125 if you wish.

Since blocking is not working, why would I want to change the number of elements. Has anybody tried this with success. If I changed it back to 1 would it work?

[Big Muddy]

I love optional rules, and giving as much control as possible to the player(s). The more optional rules the better.

I would rather fix the current problems and worry about more optional rules later. Right now I just feel that this would lead to more problems, JMO.

[Rafiki]

Since blocking is not working, why would I want to change the number of elements.

Blocking was fixed in 1.10a

[Jagger]

Blocking was fixed in 1.10a

I changed the elements required for blockade to 1 in the blockades&bombardment file. When I tested, it didn't work. I am short on time but will try to test again tomorrow.

I am using 1.10a.

Has anyone else tested the ship interdiction of troops with 1.10a?

[Pocus]

the variable can be modded but won't be an option see in the main interface, this is reserved for major rules.

[Pocus]

I changed the elements required for blockade to 1 in the blockades&bombardment file. When I tested, it didn't work. I am short on time but will try to test again tomorrow.

I am using 1.10a.

Has anyone else tested the ship interdiction of troops with 1.10a?

I used the save provided where a reb force could cross while several USA monitors were there. Fixed the code, retried, they could not cross anymore. Seems fixed to me. Now, leprechauns and gremlins can always screw something...

[Fern]

My Brother could cross the Tennessee into Chatanooga despite my gunboats blocking the river crossing. However he had plotted the movement of his unit under 1.10, while river ships did not block crossing, then 1.10a patch was applied, but the previous movement order had not been cancelled. If he had cancelled it then reordered the move order again under 1.10a, his movement had been blocked by the gunboats, I guess.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[willgamer]

the variable can be modded but won't be an option see in the main interface, this is reserved for major rules.

Then how about setting it back to the original 1 element;

or at least poll the community to see what number the greatest number of people want?

[berto]

Once the next patch is out, Naval units will not be able to traverse the Muscle Shoals part of the Tennessee River (Middle Tennessee River).

If the South has a guaranteed crossable point in mid-Tennessee, that will go a long way towards rendering moot much of the discussion about the best way to handle contested river crossings. For the Tennessee River (maybe the most crucial case), at least. Thanks for attending to this crucial geographical detail!

[Big Muddy]

Then how about setting it back to the original 1 element;

or at least poll the community to see what number the greatest number of people want?

My vote would be for one.

[berto]

or at least poll the community to see what number the greatest number of people want?

Given that Forrest was able to overpower and capture two Union gunboats at Johnsonville, I would vote for at least two, preferably more (the current 4?)--if we are talking about total, automatic blockage.

[Jagger]

Given that Forrest was able to overpower and capture two Union gunboats at Johnsonville, I would vote for at least two, preferably more (the current 4?)--if we are talking about total, automatic blockage.

I assume Forrest's artillery disabled the gunboats. We already have artillery vs ship combat to account for this situation. If you can sink the ships, you can cross the river.

I personally prefer 1 ship and have modded my game back to 1 ship.

[Jabberwock]

I assume Forrest's artillery disabled the gunboats. We already have artillery vs ship combat to account for this situation. If you can sink the ships, you can cross the river.

Forrest didn't sit by the river and wait three months to build entrenchments for his batteries, and then some additional time for the gunboats to run out of supplies or lose cohesion, so that they would have to move; in order that he could sink them.

You can mod this effect to one boat or eight or one hundred twenty five ... and stop a cavalry regiment, a division, or an army. You can do it on the Upper Tennessee or the Lower Mississippi. (Or not, if you forget to put that particular boat or group of boats in offensive posture. BTW - Exactly what condition is offensive posture supposed to model for a gunboat over a fifteen day timespan?)

So what we have is that up to a certain point in time, the time it takes to entrench, the balance is ridiculously in favor of the boats; and after that point, ridiculously in favor of the land forces (no matter how many - as long as they have some artillery). That is, if all the checks for the different conditions that need to be fulfilled are WAD.

[pepe4158]

I still think some type of interaction between the land units and naval is prefered and at some time in the future wish this can be possibly addressed?

As I said, the lack of historical referances can be easily explained by the fact the southern navy was, 'sunk' early by a combined efforts of the union admirals Foote and Faragaut.

However the game allows for a myriad of what ifs?...as the southern player does NOT have to rush out and engage the superior northern navy as historically did happen.....so the question does remain what if the southern navy did hide away, as most southern game players do follow this course of action as a game strategy.

So the what if; is if Grant or Sherman were contested by a large southern naval force (which never happened because the southern navy was sunk early.) Nobody here has yet to offer any counter to my assertion (as I have watched this post carefully) that northern arnmies were never engaged in crossing by southern gunboats because the southern navy was sunk, which doesnt have to follow history.

I still say Grant or Sherman would certainly not cower in fear of southern gunboats and would unlimber their artillary and have at the gunboats similar to what Forrest did.

Forrest ...from the historical refrence I gave was not exactly attempting a crossing...he was trying a much more daring feat, to destroy the gunboats guarding a cache of weapons and supplies, he was thwarted only when the union when seeing Forrest land artillary, was winning the battle, destroyed their own depot and transports, thus thwarting his raid and attempt to cross.

The town was of little use I imagine to Forrest....he wanted the true prize of what was in the depot on the other side of the river, and wasnt going to let a few gunboats stop him. I imagine if he had been successfull this would have been much needed supplies to the southern army of the Tennessee

[Coregonas]

I believe the interdiction question should allow for some "random" chance of passing thorough the river whatever number of ships in the river.

Dont know how to model it, but perhaps even with all those ships in the river, perhaps giving a 5% chance to cross could avoid those 100% sure blockings.