CSA Naval Strategy Questions

[ahall0007]

Hi all. I'm fairly new at the game and have played and won twice as the Union purely on army operations. My naval expertise is very novice as I would average about 1 or 2 naval battles that were very small in both games.

I am going to start playing using the good guys, the CSA side. What do I want to establish using the CSA navy? Do I want to take block runners and get to foreign ports such as London and the West Indies or do I want to take on the Union navy with frigates and the such? Or a mixture of both? I believe I read a thread previously about how someone got foreign intervention with a multitude of blockade runners. Thanks for any advice as I can't do squat with the naval side of things.

[TheDoctorKing]

The Confederates rarely get enough WS to build a really powerful navy - only if you are winning anyway. My experience is that the best bet is to build ironclads and gunboats on the rivers and brigs for blockade runners. Blockade runners go to the blockade boxes, not the foreign ports, by the way. Transports can be sent to the blockade boxes but against a competent USA opponent they will get sunk before they have brought in much supply. Brigs seem to be much better at fighting back or evading. The number of WS it costs to build frigates could equip land forces with artillery or build transport capacity (rail and river) so your forces can move around.

[Ethy]

in my opinion the CSA wether playing AI or a human opponent can never win naval superiority over the USA due to the fact that there WS supply is so stretched throughout the war you shouldnt really invest in much more than replacing the blockade runners you are given.

as for your ironclads there useful enough to control the mississipi river and end off any dareing landing by the enemy on the coast.

ultimatly to win with the CSA it is purely a land battle and naval opperations should be put on the back-burner. besides if the enemy does control the sea and does force a landing its always good to know you have an army to repel themthat isnt already engaged on the frontline.

[Dixicrat]

Here are a few tips that are worth keeping in mind:

River Transports can be used in lieu of Wagons, when building depots along rivers and estuaries. If you compare the cost of each under "Replacements", you'll notice that River Transports are much cheaper than wagons.

Secondly, you can prevent enemy units from crossing a river (at a given section) if you occupy that section of the river with four naval elements.

Generally speaking, the damage that Confederate Raiders do to Union shipping is minimal, at best. I recommend focusing upon building Brigs to be placed in the blockade boxes (i.e., Gulf and Atlantic), because they generally pay for themselves within a matter of a few months.

If you compare the naval detection value of gunboats vs. Brigs and Frigates, you'll see that gunboats are pretty weak at detection. I think its good practice to place a Brig at the mouth of the Mississippi very early, to better detect sneaky Union vessels trying to sneak up river. Once they get past your forts, well... gunboats aren't quite as capable of sinking 'em, you know? Of course, Frigates have much better detection that Brigs do, but they're more expensive. Thus, very early in the game I establish a small "coast guard" of Brigs, and then "relieve" them of their patrol duties with Frigates, when I'm better able to afford such "luxuries" later... plus, I get a "new" brig to put in a blockade box!

Finally... don't forget that those vessels in the blockade boxes are using up supply, just like your ground forces. With a small "coast guard" of brigs, you can rotate the CG in and out of ports to replenish supplies and ammo, and send "the freshest" ones out to the blockades. Similarly, you can be bringing the nearly depleted naval units to do a swift patrol of likely (and not so likely) avenues of approach by sea, before they ship into to port for refurbishment.

Oh. One more thing that I almost forgot. Naval Engineers greatly speed up the process of ship building, and so you should do your "heavy" builds (brigs, frigates, ironclads) at departments which have a Naval Engineer. You can order more of them... but its generally best to wait until you have a basic naval infrastructure going before investing in such a luxury. Even so, recruit more when you can afford to.

Regards.

[soundoff]

.

Secondly, you can prevent enemy units from crossing a river (at a given section) if you occupy that section of the river with even a single naval element.



Regards.

Not strictly true nowadays Dixicrat. If you have patched to 1.10 or beyond as I understand it you need a minimum of 4 elements in 'offensive' posture in order to prevent the enemy crossing a river. If I've got it wrong, which often happens, I'm sure someone will offer a further correction

[Jabberwock]

Vanilla = 4-elements, any non-passive stance. Offensive was tried for one patch, and found to be too draining on the gunboats. Jagger's mod = 1 element, don't know about stance requirement.

[Dixicrat]

Thanks, y'all. Now I know better... and can put it into my "Not in the Manual" thread!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Daxil]

River Transports can be used in lieu of Wagons, when building forts along rivers and estuaries. If you compare the cost of each under "Replacements", you'll notice that River Transports are much cheaper than wagons.

I tried building a fort with them once and it didn't seem to work. Maybe someone can confirm? They do work to build depots though.

Also, with CSA naval strategy, if you can try and get some ships in the rivers Tennessee and Cumberland. Four elements block river crossings and combined with solid control of Forts Henry and Donelson, well.. you'll have the Union player swearing.

[Coffee Sergeant]

I tried building a fort with them once and it didn't seem to work. Maybe someone can confirm? They do work to build depots though.

No, it doesn't work the last time i tried. You can use Transports to build depots, but not forts.

[vonRocko]

This is basically, correct, but at some point in the future when Pocus has time, there will no longer be a 100% certaintly of preventing a crossing. This allows for some unpredictability. Instead the max chance might be 80% or 90%... I'm leaning towards 80% because of coding issues.

Each ship element would add 20% up to 80% max, beyond that more ships won't add to it. Rather clean numbers to understand. If by chance gamers feel that 80% is not enough, then we would have to change the individual elements to be 22% or 23% in order to achieve results close to 90% max.

This will really mess with my favorite tactics of destoying enemy armies by manuevering to get their backs against rivers, and blocking their retreat! If they have a whole 20% chance of escaping,then a lot of planning and manuevering is for naught. If you want to give them a chance,then 5% should allow for the occasional escape. With enough boats,I should be able to block an army crossing. Maybe a few stragglers would be able to swim across before being shot at,but they wouldn't have equipment or supplies when they reach the other side. Maybe raising the number of naval elements required to block might work,but I think their should be a point where even a duck can't make it across without getting shot. This is just my opinion,but I don't think this change should be made.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[vonRocko]

After some recent discussion with Pocus, this will be 10% not 20%. However, it shouldn't affect your combat situation described above, it is only for movement processing not combat resolution. Also, for the benefit of anyone else reading this it will be on a stack by stack basis, not unit by unit or all units for a whole turn. Strictly during turn movement processing each stack will have a 10% chance of crossing a fully interdicted river. Right now it is 0% chance. If this 10% is too much, after testing we may lower it even more, but we're going to try 10% first. Regardless, there is going to be a small minimum small chance of crossing from 4 up to provide some element of chance into the game since the regions are so huge.

I see! OK let's give it a try. thanks for the answer.

[Daxil]

After some recent discussion with Pocus, this will be 10% not 20%. However, it shouldn't affect your combat situation described above, it is only for movement processing not combat resolution. Also, for the benefit of anyone else reading this it will be on a stack by stack basis, not unit by unit or all units for a whole turn. Strictly during turn movement processing each stack will have a 10% chance of crossing a fully interdicted river. Right now it is 0% chance. If this 10% is too much, after testing we may lower it even more, but we're going to try 10% first. Regardless, there is going to be a small minimum small chance of crossing from 4 up to provide some element of chance into the game since the regions are so huge.

I like the 10% number, but basing it on a stack by stack check seems a little exploitable. Couldn't someone just combine all their corps?

[Pocus]

After some recent discussion with Pocus, this will be 10% not 20%. However, it shouldn't affect your combat situation described above, it is only for movement processing not combat resolution. Also, for the benefit of anyone else reading this it will be on a stack by stack basis, not unit by unit or all units for a whole turn. Strictly during turn movement processing each stack will have a 10% chance of crossing a fully interdicted river. Right now it is 0% chance. If this 10% is too much, after testing we may lower it even more, but we're going to try 10% first. Regardless, there is going to be a small minimum small chance of crossing from 4 up to provide some element of chance into the game since the regions are so huge.

Blocking movement is also blocking retreat!

[Rafiki]

I like the 10% number, but basing it on a stack by stack check seems a little exploitable. Couldn't someone just combine all their corps?

I imagine you'd get humongous command penalties. Also the percentage chance is the same, so you'd still have a 90% chance that your übercorps won't make it across

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted