The Real Civil War

[Jabberwock]

Another thought on large fleets. If I was not so intimidated by forts, I wouldn't concentrate my fleet so much.

[Henry D.]

That has not been my experience. I have experimented sending transports past Mobile and Savannah, the one at Mobile got through, but was damaged enough that it could not return. The transports at Savannah got sunk. I think we are talking about two different things, you are talking about pushing supllies past Vicksburg, Porter sent transports past Vicksburg to establish a depot downriver.

I got what You meant, I just couldn't resist to mention my supply pet peeve once again, sorry.

I agree some frontage would be nice, but over the course a day long bombardment, a large fleet could cycle units back and forth between the front line and reserve, much more easily than land units. Fleets are too large, but I have all that extra $ and WS to spend.

Yes, given open waters with enough space to manoeuvre (I believe Dupont first did it sucessfully against a coastal fort whose name I can't recall, Roanoke Island?), but within the confines of a river, even a major one? Not that easy to turn tail there, let alone cycling back and forth on a larger scale methinks, but then again, I have never seen the Mississippi myself, my measure of a broad river is the Middle-Rhine...

What is frustrating to me is that the division sized force, with one or two elements of artillery, consistently survives just fine for several turns, while the fleet is rapidly depleted. No smoldering crater - no hint of a smoldering crater. I have tried this all at once, I have tried this in relays. I usually do this on the James Estuary, I am skeered of trying to bombard any force entrenched in the Richmond area. All I would accomplish would be to activate Lee early. If I was seeing those kinds of results againts a built fort at Drewry's Bluff (in Prince George or Henrico region) , it would not be such a problem, but the Confederate does not have to invest in a fort to have this happen. (I agree with you post from another thread - the James River region should be shallow, not coastal, anyhow.)

Now that does not reflect my experiences at all. In 1.06d at least, it was very easy to ship a fleet and corps-sized command within one turn from FRt. Monroe to Richmond past any awed on-lookers along both shores, bombard the city in the next turn, disembark the troops and assault it successfully with only minor losses. I did that to wyrmm and had him nearly drop the game, rightfully so. The "well, he should have been prepared for something like that"-reply someone gave to that earlier doesn't fly with me either. How could he have been prepared for something like that? I did it in early 62 with three divisions only, buzt that was by for not the limit of strength I could have commited to it. We played with a "no draft until late 62" houserule, but even so I could have comitted 2-3 divisions more from the Forces in Northern Virginia without imperilling my well entrenched positions up there. Without this restriction I might have build a whole additional army in the east by that time and shipped it down to Richmond. It's not like the Union is short of transports in the east early on.

Thank You for agreeing with me on the river zone issue though, I felt somewhat alone in that thread.

I know this is counter-intuitive, but with steam power the advantage is in attacking upstream. If you are attacking downstream and get temporarily disabled, you float under the enemies guns, and have to surrender, as opposed to pulling back and doing some repairs.

You might be right there, too, I confess, my notion stems mostly from the fact that one of my favourite ACW tabletops (Clash of Arms' "War between the States") had a -1 malus on the battle resolution dieroll when the attacking ships moved upstreams... (They also had the river zone directly south of Richmond marked as shallow and unaccessable to high sea ships. )

Regards, Henry

[Jabberwock]

I got what You meant, I just couldn't resist to mention my supply pet peeve once again, sorry.

Yes, given open waters with enough space to manoeuvre (I believe Dupont first did it sucessfully against a coastal fort whose name I can't recall, Roanoke Island?), but within the confines of a river, even a major one? Not that easy to turn tail there, let alone cycling back and forth on a larger scale methinks, but then again, I have never seen the Mississippi myself, my measure of a broad river is the Middle-Rhine...

Fts Walker & Beauregard, Port Royal Sound, SC. He wasn't exactly moving ships back and forth between his lines of battle, but he did use his maneuverability to bring all the guns of his "Operation Neptune" to bear.

There are large differences between maneuver room in coastal waters, estuaries, major rivers, and minor rivers. There are also issues of tides (or flood stages) and weather that can make a difference. The latter can be abstracted, because a fleet would generally have the initiative and pick optimal conditions for combat (as long as they're not stuck in the mud of the Red River). That's why I think frontage for fleets is, in general, a good idea. I am just afraid that a correction will "go overboard".

I crossed the Rhine on a train once, but it was late at night, and I had been drinking in Copenhagen all day. I can't really make the comparison.

Now that does not reflect my experiences at all. In 1.06d at least, it was very easy to ship a fleet and corps-sized command within one turn from FRt. Monroe to Richmond past any awed on-lookers along both shores, bombard the city in the next turn, disembark the troops and assault it successfully with only minor losses. I did that to wyrmm and had him nearly drop the game, rightfully so. The "well, he should have been prepared for something like that"-reply someone gave to that earlier doesn't fly with me either. How could he have been prepared for something like that? I did it in early 62 with three divisions only, buzt that was by for not the limit of strength I could have commited to it. We played with a "no draft until late 62" houserule, but even so I could have comitted 2-3 divisions more from the Forces in Northern Virginia without imperilling my well entrenched positions up there. Without this restriction I might have build a whole additional army in the east by that time and shipped it down to Richmond. It's not like the Union is short of transports in the east early on.

***Paranoia sets in Is there some sort of Jabberwock rule for shore bombardment?***

Seriously, do you remember, how much damage was done by and to the fleet, and how much was done by the amphibious assault? It is certainly a valid tactic, its just that the terrain is inaccurate.

It still looks like your issues are with terrain, control, and movement, rather than with the bombardment system.

Thank You for agreeing with me on the river zone issue though, I felt somewhat alone in that thread.

I might have provided you with some support then and there, but I believe that was during my "I am not discussing naval issues with anyone anymore" pout.

[wyrmm]

I wish I had your expierience, Henry has sailed past Jacksons corps at over 1000 strength with 4 batterries of Columbiads purpose built with no effect on the fleet. I resigned on that one, great game move by Henry. leure:

[Henry D.]

... a train once, but it was late at night, and I had been drinking in Copenhagen all day. I can't really make the comparison...

***Paranoia sets in Is there some sort of Jabberwock rule for shore bombardment?***

Seriously, do you remember, how much damage was done by and to the fleet, and how much was done by the amphibious assault? It is certainly a valid tactic, its just that the terrain is inaccurate.

It still looks like your issues are with terrain, control, and movement, rather than with the bombardment system...

I live near the outskirts of Mainz, the river is ~500m from shore to shore in that area.

Unfortunately I still have the e-mails to wyrmm about the incident, but not the attached game files. leure: However, in retrospect it was earlier that I remembered (early November 1861), and, come to think of it, the fleet might most likely have been on "evade" orders while moving up the James. Losses of the assault on the city were high, more than 2:1 in favor of the CSA, but the fleet did not lose a single element, neither on route nor while bombarding the town.

So, yeah, maybe the problem there was not bombardment per se, but that "evading" river batteries while moving is too easy?

Regards, Henry

[Jabberwock]

Near Cairo I think the Mississippi would be ~750m. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) The width has narrowed since the Civil War, due to channel improvement projects. The usable channel was probably 100-200m wide. So I'm guessing you could sail a fleet by at about 450-500m (1/4-1/3 mile to Americans), plus whatever distance between the fort and the bank, on a dark night. It would very likely still be detected and fired on, but not interdicted.

That said, that is just one specific instance, based on guesswork, and what is true for the Mississippi is not true everywhere.

Wyrmm should have been able to inderdict your fleet on the James, and the deep draft ships would have had to stop at City Point. They could have provided fire support into but not past White Oak Swamp. That has been historically documented to my satisfaction.

My peeve is not with ships being lost during the first turn of bombardment, that rarely happens unless the fleet is small, and it is appropriately handled relative to the amount of damage inflicted. My problem is with the amount of damage inflicted both by and against fleets. I've said before that I wasn't a fan of the 'Iwo Jima' system, but neither am I a fan of the newer one. Fortunately Pocus has exported the variables for shore bombardment, so someday I will be able to address this in my own mod, without inflicting my opinion on the seemingly vast majority who prefer only doing large amphibious landings near fortifications.

Rgds,
JWK

[wyrmm]

So Henry, sufficiently recovered to get rolling?

[Jagger]

I will admit I did not spend anywhere near as much on builds as Henry did, thus magnifying the existing troop disparity in the games I was a confederate.

From either side, the game can be lost on turn one if one person maxs out recruiting and money and the other does not.

For a balanced game, it is very, very important that both players are recruiting approximately the same number of troops at the start of the game.

[Henry D.]

So Henry, sufficiently recovered to get rolling?

Yeah, but still lazy as as a basketful of sleeping cats, so You post Your definite suggestions for the rules, please.

Regards, Henry

[wyrmm]

1) Units are required to maintain an x area suppy trace to the nearest depot. (x=?)

2) Volunteers may be called from the start of game, through the end of 1863 (or 4). All levels of bounty may be used, but once used that bounty is as low as you can go. (i.e. once you offer $x for volunteers, $x is the minimum bounty allowed)

3)No Drafts til 186x (early or late 62 IMHO), No Full drafts ti a year later.

4)Only 5% bonds in 1862, increasing 1 level per year.

5)Only 0% inflation options in 61-2 in regards to taxes, increasing in 63-4-5.

6)Limit to number of elements in naval stack. (how many?)

7)Limit to amphibious beachhead expansion. (How much? Where?)

8) limit on size of raiding forces, til 63?

9) Any others I have forgot.


As lazy as I, cutting and pating from the previous page?

[Henry D.]

1) Units are required to maintain an x area suppy trace to the nearest depot. (x=?)

2) Volunteers may be called from the start of game, through the end of 1863 (or 4). All levels of bounty may be used, but once used that bounty is as low as you can go. (i.e. once you offer $x for volunteers, $x is the minimum bounty allowed)

3)No Drafts til 186x (early or late 62 IMHO), No Full drafts ti a year later.

4)Only 5% bonds in 1862, increasing 1 level per year.

5)Only 0% inflation options in 61-2 in regards to taxes, increasing in 63-4-5.

6)Limit to number of elements in naval stack. (how many?)

7)Limit to amphibious beachhead expansion. (How much? Where?)

8) limit on size of raiding forces, til 63?

9) Any others I have forgot.


As lazy as I, cutting and pating from the previous page?

OK...

1) x = 3? However, I'd like to lift that restriction on early january 63, at least for any force commanded directly or indirectly (subordinate corps) by Grant and from early 64 on for any commanded by Sherman or Sheridan, too.

2) Agreed, but I would say until late Dec 1863 for the CSA und late Dec 64 for The Union, but those dates are prertty arbitrary. Also see 3) below

3) I'm a bit undecided on that one, I would be inclined to say no draft for the CSA until Late April 62 and no draft for the Union until Early July 63, full drafts only available one year later respectively.

4) Notr bonds in 61? OK.

5) Agreed.

6) Hm, maximum of 10 fighting units + 10 transports per stack on rivers/estuaries? Only one stack per Riverzone on Bombardment orders. NO RESTRICTIONS on ocean/coastal zones?

7) I'd say same as land, no more than three hexes from a controlled harbor THAT can trace a supply line home unimpeded by enemy Forts/batteries) along the way, without establishing a depot. If the supply line should become impeded, the invading force has to fall back on a position ehere it can be supplied under the above rule immediately. (To avoid disputes about that, It would be rather nice if the "Impeding side" would announce having done so in their turn mail.)

8) Hm, You do realize that rule 1), strictly applied, will prohibit any deep raiding for the CSA as well? I feel there is need for further discussion...

9) We should somehow regulate the use of the new Starfleet matter Transporter, You may also want to prohibit me from putting someone half competent in command in the east before McClellans time is up historically. Also, no Limitations for using the printing press from the start?

Regards, Henry

[wyrmm]

1) x = 3? However, I'd like to lift that restriction on early january 63, at least for any force commanded directly or indirectly (subordinate corps) by Grant and from early 64 on for any commanded by Sherman or Sheridan, too.

[color="Red"]Sounds good[/color]

2) Agreed, but I would say until late Dec 1863 for the CSA und late Dec 64 for The Union, but those dates are prertty arbitrary. Also see 3) below

[color="Red"]Agreed[/color]

3) I'm a bit undecided on that one, I would be inclined to say no draft for the CSA until Late April 62 and no draft for the Union until Early July 63, full drafts only available one year later respectively.

[color="Red"]Agreed[/color]

4) Notr bonds in 61? OK.

5) Agreed.

6) Hm, maximum of 10 fighting units + 10 transports per stack on rivers/estuaries? Only one stack per Riverzone on Bombardment orders. NO RESTRICTIONS on ocean/coastal zones?

[color="Red"]Agreed[/color]

7) I'd say same as land, no more than three hexes from a controlled harbor THAT can trace a supply line home unimpeded by enemy Forts/batteries) along the way, without establishing a depot. If the supply line should become impeded, the invading force has to fall back on a position ehere it can be supplied under the above rule immediately. (To avoid disputes about that, It would be rather nice if the "Impeding side" would announce having done so in their turn mail.)

[color="Red"]Sure. This will be one of our 'civil' rules. it will take us both to make it work[/color]

8) Hm, You do realize that rule 1), strictly applied, will prohibit any deep raiding for the CSA as well? I feel there is need for further discussion...

[color="Red"]All units except for single rgt cavalry raiders, and irregular forces for rule 1, 8 applying to raiders only Raiders may include leaders. After some date (63?) raiding restrictions are eliminated for cavalry and irregulars. My ideal would be single rgt cav or irr in 61, up to 3 element raids in 62(cav and horse arty combos) and divisional size in 63 and beyond.[/color]

9) We should somehow regulate the use of the new Starfleet matter Transporter, You may also want to prohibit me from putting someone half competent in command in the east before McClellans time is up historically. Also, no Limitations for using the printing press from the start?

[color="Red"]Lets stick with Historical McClellan, Grant stays west til Mississippi is controled and I'll actually use my couple of idiots(Price)[/color]

Regards, Henry [/QUOTE]

[Henry D.]

My ideal would be single rgt cav or irr in 61, up to 3 element raids in 62(cav and horse arty combos) and divisional size in 63 and beyond.

Let's make it so. However, I would like "any raiding force large than one single element must be accompanied by a leader".

@1) Should we say that rule will generally apply only until 1863, for both sides? I seem to recall that Lee voluntarily cut himself off from his own supply base in the Gettysburg campaign, too (as well as Hood when he went north to take a beating by Thomas at Nashville, right?).

Regards, Henry

[wyrmm]

Sounds good. Now I need a court jester to sit by my computer and whisper 'you too shall have stacks w/in 3 hexes of a supply depot...'

[Henry D.]

Sounds good. Now I need a court jester to sit by my computer and whisper 'you too shall have stacks w/in 3 hexes of a supply depot...'

Yes, I have a feeling we might have to replay a turn or two in the game...

Anyways, since we seem to agree on everything, shall we begin tomorrow? (no AAR on my part, though, I can't even keep up with my AAR for the kyle game. ).

Who's gonna host?

Regards, Henry

[wyrmm]

How about I host, that way I will get some naval intel during the replay. I intend to throw screens and ask/make comments in this thread, but will stay behind our actual turn, so we can both just use this existing thread..

[Henry D.]

How about I host, that way I will get some naval intel during the replay. I intend to throw screens and ask/make comments in this thread, but will stay behind our actual turn, so we can both just use this existing thread..

Fine with me, but the "invisible fleet issue" should be solved since 1.07. In my game with DirkX, which he is hosting, I think I can at least see every naval stack adjacent to any of my units, though not their composition.

For the record, I'm on 1.07b.

Looking forward to the first turn-file...

Regards, Henry

[wyrmm]

On it's way.

[Henry D.]

On it's way.

Still, I'm afraid I won't get around to it until tomorrow morning. Although I'm online (and reading and posting way to much ) I'm actually supposed to do a bit of work at my desk at the moment. And soon the wife will descend on me and demand my attention, too...

Sorry.

Regards, Henry

[wyrmm]

Ditch the desk and sell the wife... or something like that.

[runyan99]

Sounds good. Now I need a court jester to sit by my computer and whisper 'you too shall have stacks w/in 3 hexes of a supply depot...'

I think you should both agree to cut off a finger each time you violate a house rule.

[Rafiki]

... and post it to the other, as a trophy?

[Henry D.]

I think you should both agree to cut off a finger each time you violate a house rule.

I would prefer a system that punishes violations of houserules by applying high voltage electrical shocks, and will duely ask Pocus to include it in the next patch...

Come to think of it, he may even want to include it in the board software as to fry me everytime I'm posting...

Good night, Henry

[wyrmm]

Well, we're off, nothing to report as of yet, No bonds this year, so a non bounty call for volunteers went out, and we raised graduated taxes(0%). Harpers held for the Union, Sumter and Norfolk fell. I have bought replacements with most of the available confed funds. In a few turns I will go over industrialization choices, after Henry finds out the hard way.

[wyrmm]

We are on hold as Henry needs to figure out his new computer.

[Henry D.]

We are on hold as Henry needs to figure out his new computer.

I HATE VISTA!

But I'm somewhat confident that we may restart tomorrow. I shall send You an E-mail (new adress) ASAP...

Regards, henry (who is sincerely wondering why nobody beat Bill gates to death with a wet towel, yet )

[Jabberwock]

I HATE VISTA!

But I'm somewhat confident that we may restart tomorrow. I shall send You an E-mail (new adress) ASAP...

Regards, henry (who is sincerely wondering why nobody beat Bill gates to death with a wet towel, yet )

At my current job, I'm using the 'intern computer' which is loaded with Vista. I think putting a bagful of squirrels over Bill's head and giving him a good shake would be more appropriate.

[wyrmm]

Which is funny, in a way, as I am loving my 64 bit Vista Ultimate. WitP turn processing is under 5 minutes!

[Henry D.]

Which is funny, in a way, as I am loving my 64 bit Vista Ultimate. WitP turn processing is under 5 minutes!

Yeah, the machine itself is a blast, but the flashy giant bug they pre-installed to run it drives me crazy. Nothing is there were it used to be. Why the heck are they trying to re-invent the wheel with every new version of Windows?

However, I sent You a new first turn late last night. Did You receive it? If not, please check Your spam folder, maybe Nanny Vista thought it was too dangerous for You to open it, coming from an unknown e-mail-addy and all...

Regards, Henry

[wyrmm]

Resent last file I sent.