USA Naval Supply Capacity & A Bottleneck Somewhere

[tagwyn]

GL: Make it so!! t

[tagwyn]

Thanks GL!!! t

[bigus]

What a great topic!
I've tried to test as much as I can in the last few days on this and have come up with only a few points.
I have seen that Gray has posted a hot fix already for this in the beta forum but the tests I have done and the test scenario I am posting can be checked with 1.15.

1) The maximum amount of supplies generated or received/stored seems to be based on the harbor level and/or whether it is adjacent to a sea or river.
2) Navel units moving into ft Pike are bombarded by Iberville and the fort in New Orleans. (This should be fixed if it hasn't already by Gray)
3) New Orleans generates enough supplies without having to be supplied by sea (a well-known fact by most)
4) Both ft Jackson and St Phillip were in fact 20-30 miles up the Mississippi and were both at the very least less than level 1 harbors (in game terms).
You can keep units supplied by using transports on the river similar to normal river supply. This involves a bit of micromanagement but seems historical.
5) If you move and build a depot in the region (ID #349) adjacent to Ft Gadsden, the depot will not forward supplies to the fort. (This one puzzles me a bit)

That’s about all I've had time for. I hope to test this some more in the next few days.
I will include a small test scenario here with some notes.
-I have included a depot in ft Gadsden and two transports in Biloxi bay.
-I have also included a fort in New Orleans and a river fleet for the South to check to see if supplies are being blocked on the river.
-I have made Ft St Phillip a level 2 harbor


The scenario should go into the folder
C:\Program Files\AGEod's American Civil War\ACW\Scens

[ATTACH]12436[/ATTACH]

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

bigus:

Unfortunately, your test scenario under v1.15 will not be able to test against the new changes done under the QuickFix for v1.16. The scenario database has unavoidably been reworked requiring scenario regeneration to fix the supply bug issues in and around New Orleans, Ft. Gadsden and even Charleston, S.C. Once we have the kinks worked out, and v1.16 is actually declared to be "official", we'll make the database available as normal.

Interesting about region #349 (next to Ft. Gadsden), the adjacency(s) are there and there is no accidental Land Interdiction JumpLink, so I wouldn't know why supply could not be forwarded into an Ft. Gadsden, the adjacent region, unless you have no end use unit in the Fort to draw the supply to.

I guess the test scenario can be used for additional input for the upcoming official patch. It was more for those not willing to update or test the beta just yet.
Regarding the supply for ft Gadsden, I will test 1.15 a bit more and maybe break down and check out the latest beta as well.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

Hold on... I'm working up replacement Iberville and Ft.Pike .rgn files. I'll post them in a few and if you have a game going with Naval units to move into New Orleans we'll see if the dual bombardment issue is solved with the Naval Interdiction Jumplink mentioned above...

edit> Here we go... Below (zipped up) are a couple of test .rgn files for the Iberville (716) and Ft. Pike (1121) regions. They belong in the ...ACW/GameData/Regions/... folder replacing files with the same name
.

I guess this would be a Campaign scenario request then.
If Ft Pike is considered part of New Orleans then at least split harbor values?
(1/3 Harbor value for Ft Pike?)

edit: It's tough to say what to do in these regions. Historically Ft Pike fell after New Orleans fell. On the other hand Ft Pike was useless at the time because the sea route was easily blockaded.
I feel the two forts (Jackson and St Phillip) were and should be hard to supply. Same with Ft Gadsden.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

Game wise... Ft. Pike is a separate region and not within the boundaries of the Iberville region geographically in real life, why should it share harbor values with New Orleans?

Sorry man! I did'nt see any change with your quick patch....I moved the transports into Ft Pike in this pic.
[ATTACH]12439[/ATTACH]

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Yee Haa]

All I know is that if I am in doubt about Supply somewhere, I address the issue. I said "WAD" largely from a modeling viewpoint.

It is December in the Pennsylvania mountains and you will die without a Wagon, 'cuz you're not near a supply source (no Level 3 City or not in a smaller Town with Supply; nor a Fort; nor a Depot). WAD. Bring your food with you, ninny.

You are General Burnside in April of 1862 and the beachhead is going to be wiped out 'cuz the War Dept. hasn't sent you a rasher of bacon or any ammo for six weeks. WAD. Give landings plenty of support.

I land 100,000 men, horses, artillery and auxiliaries in Mobile and eventually have problems keeping a quarter million supplied in the Deep South. Build lotsa TPs and Wagons for a war winning invasion, General - you're gonna need 'em. WAD, IMHO. 1863 is not 1943; the best you can do is moor large vessels and unload at a proper dock or take forever with lighters and skiffs.

Thus an amphibious operation must first seize a major City on the littoral to support operations. Same for riverine attacks. Same for any "Marches to the Sea" or similar plan. Major thrusts need to be supported.

Please what does WAD stand for, I am guessing from context that it in some way refers to factors designed for purely historical aesthetics ie; background. Explanation pls?

[Yee Haa]

Probably something in the game engine NOT making an exception to the movement of a naval unit moving from one adjacent region to another when one of the regions is a land region. Pocus will have to check into it since I can't find a data problem or a data solution to prevent it. I was hoping that placing a naval interdiction jumplink would override it. No such luck.

edit> thinking about the Naval Interdiction JumpLink NOT stopping naval bombardment of passing fleets... This is WAD with further thought... If Naval Interdiction JumpLinks were to be made to stop Naval Bombardment, it would invalidate most of the bombardment capability of the existing in-game forts

Eliminating the shared border adjacency(s) between those regions would most likely work, BUT then no land movement could take place between Iberville and Ft. Pike. (not desirable)

edit> more reflection... I actually think reworking the border points to eliminate the adjacency between Iberville and Ft. Pike would work since there's already a pre-existing minor river ferry JumpLink for land units to use even if the regions are not adjacent... This will take some minute adjustment of the Iberville (#716) border point to remove the common adjacency but leave the graphics matched up (an overlap effect of the graphics but invisible to the gamer).

Gray I think I have sussed the way the engine determines if artillery is able to bombard passing enemy naval assets on rivers. (The artillery or fortification nneeds to be located in a region thyat contains two seperate stretches of the river and then when an enemy naval unit moves from one stretch of the river to the other, the artillery that is in a region that borders both the stretch of river the enemy unit begins in and the stretch it enters will bombard?) but what about forts in harbour mouths (Sumter) or the forts on islands on the Carolina coasts or in the Gulf?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

I was able to check the land movement using the pre-placed USA units in the 1863 Campaign scenario. The land movement was unaffected as I thought it would be since the Minor River JumpLink provided the movement link. All that remains is for you to check the bombardment behavior in your scenario once more. Crossing fingers and listening to "Jeopardy" tune in the background.
.

Second set of region files was the same. I still had a message similar to the one posted above. (Transports succeded in bypassing the fort). I even regenerated the scenario thinking this might be the problem but was not the case. I agree though that there should still be a land movement link between the two regions.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rafiki]

Please what does WAD stand for, I am guessing from context that it in some way refers to factors designed for purely historical aesthetics ie; background. Explanation pls?

If you come across abbreviations and acronyms you find puzzling, you may find this thread to be of help: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=9217

[bigus]

I moved the blockade fleet into Ft Pike.

[ATTACH]12453[/ATTACH]

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Blede]

I downloaded this quickfix long ago from this very thread, but I can't find it anymore ! Where it is ?

[Jim-NC]

Hello and welcome to the forums.

If the file you are referring to was posted by Gray_Lensman, then it is gone. He deleted his posts a little while ago. So, sorry, no quick fix (unless someone can find it and re-post it).

[tagwyn]

Jim: What happened to GL? He was great. t

[Blede]

Hello and welcome to the forums.

If the file you are referring to was posted by Gray_Lensman, then it is gone. He deleted his posts a little while ago. So, sorry, no quick fix (unless someone can find it and re-post it).

Someone like me: I just needed to give it to my future PBEM opponent, and since Gmail doens't allow me to send .exe files (even in zip archives)...