I got what You meant, I just couldn't resist to mention my supply pet peeve once again, sorry.Jabberwock wrote: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.
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...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.
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.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.)
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. )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.
Henry D. wrote:I got what You meant, I just couldn't resist to mention my supply pet peeve once again, sorry.
Henry D. wrote: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...
Henry D. wrote: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.
Henry D. wrote:Thank You for agreeing with me on the river zone issue though, I felt somewhat alone in that thread.
Jabberwock wrote:... 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...
wyrmm wrote: 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.
Yeah, but still lazy as as a basketful of sleeping cats, so You post Your definite suggestions for the rules, please.wyrmm wrote:So Henry, sufficiently recovered to get rolling?
wyrmm wrote: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?
Let's make it so. However, I would like "any raiding force large than one single element must be accompanied by a leader".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.
wyrmm wrote: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...'
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.wyrmm wrote: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..
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...wyrmm wrote:On it's way.
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...runyan99 wrote:I think you should both agree to cut off a finger each time you violate a house rule.
I HATE VISTA!wyrmm wrote:We are on hold as Henry needs to figure out his new computer.
Henry D. wrote: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 )
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?wyrmm wrote:Which is funny, in a way, as I am loving my 64 bit Vista Ultimate. WitP turn processing is under 5 minutes!
Return to “American Civil War AARs”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests