questions and advice

[wolflars]

Couple of quick comments and some questions

First, my compliments to Ageod for another fine product. I own BoA and thought it was highly innovative and entertaining. AACW is such an excellent follow up that I am almost ashamed that I have waited this long to purchase it—and now that NCP is available I am in the same predicament (but no full campaign?) Before this purchase I bought FoF and thought that it also is a decent game.

However, after playing both titles I think that AACW has a slight edge for me because of its scale and operational feel. Terrain and maneuver are far more critical here. Controlling areas like Cairo or Vicksburg or Ft Monroe have a real impact here, unlike FoF where it is largely irrelevant unless the enemy is there (although I have to admit I enjoy assigning rifles and placating governors). I especially like AACW’s chain of command method and the limitations placed on promoting generals, nothing is more infuriating to me than when playing FoF against the AI and facing a four star Grant on Turn 3 or 4.

Now for questions/advice (v1.08). I apologize for a such a long post. I am reading the wiki advice but either missed these items or do not fully comprehend them. Thank you for taking the time to read/respond.

Supply seems easier than BoA. What am I missing here? Am I just doing a better job of it since learning my lesson in BoA? Sure there are plenty of at start depots, but I don’t seem to be using up many wagons. How many am I going to need before conducting serious operations? Here is the source of my bewilderment. Played up to mid 1862 as Union and had serious supply issues in central Kentucky and IT, east Missouri. Playing currently as Confederate (mid 1862) and having NO supply problem anywhere…this seems to me quite odd and backwards.

Industrialization. Where should I be placing this effort? States with high or low potential? How much is too much or not enough? (my first time out playing as Rebs I pretty much bankrupted my economy).

Blockades. Quite simply I just haven’t looked into this stratagem enough but at first glance it seems expensive for the Union (and expensive for the Rebs to build Runners). Any general advice on this is appreciated.

Battle. Large armies seem to annihilate one or the other. In other words, there seems to be a huge casualty disparity (FoF has same problem). While many Civil War battles saw casualty rates upwards of 20 percent or higher I cannot think of many that exceeded 50 percent. Which settings allow for an army to effectively disengage from a losing battle without being destroyed?

On observing/detecting nearby enemy forces, sometimes it will list enemy strength. Is there a way to see this strength displayed as number of troops, similar to how the control key displays my forces as number of troops?

Stand Watie and his warriors. The Indian units have a unique ability to forage for supplies for the entire stack? If so, is it wise to disperse these Indian units amongst nearby regular confederate forces to gain benefit?

I read that 3 star generals cannot be killed in battle? AS Johnston? McPherson (although a Maj Gen was in command of an Army at the time of his death)?

Naval battles are not reported?

“Super stacks” are clearly penalized for ground forces, but is this true for river units as well? I have combined the bulk of my Rebel river boats and see no noticeable negative effect…

Can naval leaders be given land commands? Semmes, for example, has some nice values…

Lastly, are the leaders’ stats listed in the manual still correct with all the new versions? I know leaders’ stats are a touchy topic because much of it is conjecture. On a similar note: I am surprised to see some generals are not penalized for fighting in various regions much like in BoA. I can send Lee to Indian Territory without repercussion. In fact, I know the map can be viewed by region, but I have yet to see what impact the regions make.

Thanks. I probably will have more questions as I continue to play.

Oh, one more. The max number of Rebel divisions is 24? Why is this? Since it is possible to build armies that would exceed the historical reality, why not be able to create a number of divisions that also exceed reality? I am just going into early ’62 and can see that I am going to be in trouble very soon. My opponent has landed sizable Union forces in Texas (a little too easily I might add) and pushing hard in Missouri, Kentucky, and taken a defensive posture in Virginia.

I have checked these advances momentarily in Kentucky with AS Johnston, Missouri is lost, checked in Texas with a hastily formed group around Bragg, Beauregard is holding well in Virginia and I attempted (very bad idea) to send J. Johnston west in an effort to push into Illinois with the possibility of advance on St Louis. He crossed the Ohio well enough after taking Paducah and sent out some nice cavalry raiders, but then ran into Mr Grant. End of offensive. Took his battered force back across the Ohio. Luckily for me, I had the advantage in river boats. But as you can see I am stretched. I know this is intentional for the Confederate player to be hampered in such a way, but since the “division” is so critical I wonder about this limitation. Comments?

PS: let’s see ageod do a 30 Years War or a 7 Years War with this system!!!!!!

[Le Ricain]

Welcome to the forum. I will try to answer your questions. I have only played as the Union and therefore the Confederate specific questions are best left to someone else.

Couple of quick comments and some questions

Now for questions/advice (v1.08). I apologize for a such a long post. I am reading the wiki advice but either missed these items or do not fully comprehend them. Thank you for taking the time to read/respond.

Supply seems easier than BoA. What am I missing here? Am I just doing a better job of it since learning my lesson in BoA? Sure there are plenty of at start depots, but I don’t seem to be using up many wagons. How many am I going to need before conducting serious operations? Here is the source of my bewilderment. Played up to mid 1862 as Union and had serious supply issues in central Kentucky and IT, east Missouri. Playing currently as Confederate (mid 1862) and having NO supply problem anywhere…this seems to me quite odd and backwards.

The basic requirement for supply is to have at least one supply wagon with each of your stacks. Next, you need to have a network of depots and/or supply wagons located in provinces no more than 5 controlled provinces apart leading back to your home territory. The exception to this is that you can use rivers that have no enemy war ships or emplaced artillery to trace your path back to home. Controlling RR's allows more supplies to be shipped. Depots can be built using two supply wagons or two tranports (recommended as these are cheaper).

Industrialization. Where should I be placing this effort? States with high or low potential? How much is too much or not enough? (my first time out playing as Rebs I pretty much bankrupted my economy).

Playing as the Union, there does not seem to be much need for industrialisation as you receive plenty of what you need.

Blockades. Quite simply I just haven’t looked into this stratagem enough but at first glance it seems expensive for the Union (and expensive for the Rebs to build Runners). Any general advice on this is appreciated.

In the April 1861 GC, the Union receives enough ships to be able to blockade Norfolk and Suffolk and to set up a blockade off Ft Pickens. This and the blue water blockades are enough to begin with. As the game progresses, and you build up some money, you should buy pairs of blockade fleets to send one each to the blockade boxes. Remember that these fleets need to be supplied. Later, when you are awash in cash, you can build fleets of brigs in order to start your brown water blockade.

Battle. Large armies seem to annihilate one or the other. In other words, there seems to be a huge casualty disparity (FoF has same problem). While many Civil War battles saw casualty rates upwards of 20 percent or higher I cannot think of many that exceeded 50 percent. Which settings allow for an army to effectively disengage from a losing battle without being destroyed?

With the latest patch (1.08d) you can set your ROE (Rules of Engagement) to allow you to disengage from a battle if it is not going well for you. Basically, attacking an entrenched enemy or across a river is going to be expensive. Use maneuver to outflank the enemy and force him to attack you.

On observing/detecting nearby enemy forces, sometimes it will list enemy strength. Is there a way to see this strength displayed as number of troops, similar to how the control key displays my forces as number of troops?

Depending upon how close you are (and probably other factors as well) you can see the enemy's basic units (number of divisions or brigades), the former plus the number of units (elements) or the former plus the actual strengths.

Stand Watie and his warriors. The Indian units have a unique ability to forage for supplies for the entire stack? If so, is it wise to disperse these Indian units amongst nearby regular confederate forces to gain benefit?

I do not know the answer.

I read that 3 star generals cannot be killed in battle? AS Johnston? McPherson (although a Maj Gen was in command of an Army at the time of his death)?

In fact, 3 star generals can be killed if the stack they are with is totally destroyed.

Naval battles are not reported?

In the latest patch, naval battles are reported.

“Super stacks” are clearly penalized for ground forces, but is this true for river units as well? I have combined the bulk of my Rebel river boats and see no noticeable negative effect…

I am not quite sure what you mean by 'super stacks', but I have never seen a penalty for stacks which are in supply.

Can naval leaders be given land commands? Semmes, for example, has some nice values…

Yes.

Lastly, are the leaders’ stats listed in the manual still correct with all the new versions? I know leaders’ stats are a touchy topic because much of it is conjecture. On a similar note: I am surprised to see some generals are not penalized for fighting in various regions much like in BoA. I can send Lee to Indian Territory without repercussion. In fact, I know the map can be viewed by region, but I have yet to see what impact the regions make.

I believe that leaders' stats in the manual are still in agreement with the latest patches.

Oh, one more. The max number of Rebel divisions is 24? Why is this? Since it is possible to build armies that would exceed the historical reality, why not be able to create a number of divisions that also exceed reality? I am just going into early ’62 and can see that I am going to be in trouble very soon. My opponent has landed sizable Union forces in Texas (a little too easily I might add) and pushing hard in Missouri, Kentucky, and taken a defensive posture in Virginia.

I have checked these advances momentarily in Kentucky with AS Johnston, Missouri is lost, checked in Texas with a hastily formed group around Bragg, Beauregard is holding well in Virginia and I attempted (very bad idea) to send J. Johnston west in an effort to push into Illinois with the possibility of advance on St Louis. He crossed the Ohio well enough after taking Paducah and sent out some nice cavalry raiders, but then ran into Mr Grant. End of offensive. Took his battered force back across the Ohio. Luckily for me, I had the advantage in river boats. But as you can see I am stretched. I know this is intentional for the Confederate player to be hampered in such a way, but since the “division” is so critical I wonder about this limitation. Comments?

The limitations on number of divisions for both sides has been discussed numerous times in this forum. I personally believe that the number of divisions permitted should be increased.

Hopefully, I have been able to be of help.

[Eoghammer]

Couple of quick comments and some questions
Now for questions/advice (v1.08). I apologize for a such a long post. I am reading the wiki advice but either missed these items or do not fully comprehend them. Thank you for taking the time to read/respond.

Supply seems easier than BoA. What am I missing here? Am I just doing a better job of it since learning my lesson in BoA? Sure there are plenty of at start depots, but I don’t seem to be using up many wagons. How many am I going to need before conducting serious operations? Here is the source of my bewilderment. Played up to mid 1862 as Union and had serious supply issues in central Kentucky and IT, east Missouri. Playing currently as Confederate (mid 1862) and having NO supply problem anywhere…this seems to me quite odd and backwards.

Each troops carry a part of his food and ammo (but only for 2 turn for the food, and 2 battle for the ammo
for the supply wagons you only need them when you are either a huge army as only a few aera are able to produce enough supplies for the largest armies either a little force in an hostile region as the loyalty is reduce the production or outside of cities

Industrialization. Where should I be placing this effort? States with high or low potential? How much is too much or not enough? (my first time out playing as Rebs I pretty much bankrupted my economy).

There is many way to see it...
If you are looking to increase your input of War Supply on a long term trend the best solution is to invest in the beginning and try to continue this investment during the main part of the war.
The location affect the investments as low potential get something like one or 2 chance of upgrade per turn and higher potential get more but this has a cost and many player recommends to choose low potential states as the cost less and they actually produce less ammo and general supply... as if your product in every region you will need less transportation.

Blockades. Quite simply I just haven’t looked into this stratagem enough but at first glance it seems expensive for the Union (and expensive for the Rebs to build Runners). Any general advice on this is appreciated.

for the rebs a few brigs must be build every time you can as it will provide you the money or the WS you lack.
for the union the effect is not so important as you have a better industry... but the blockade has an effect on the production of the Rebs so you must at least let it continue and repair the boat on a regular basis.

Battle. Large armies seem to annihilate one or the other. In other words, there seems to be a huge casualty disparity (FoF has same problem). While many Civil War battles saw casualty rates upwards of 20 percent or higher I cannot think of many that exceeded 50 percent. Which settings allow for an army to effectively disengage from a losing battle without being destroyed?

you can look to the mods as some peoples have done the same observation and had modified some parameters to make the retreat a best option.

I read that 3 star generals cannot be killed in battle? AS Johnston? McPherson (although a Maj Gen was in command of an Army at the time of his death)?

Normally the army general are not in the first lines so they have less chances to be killed.
the gameplay problem is that you have nearly always less 3 star general than the number of army that you can have (if you have produced all the army HQ...)
If they can be killed it will make the army "dissapear" as no one can replace them at this moment .

“Super stacks” are clearly penalized for ground forces, but is this true for river units as well? I have combined the bulk of my Rebel river boats and see no noticeable negative effect…

no there is no problem to have a huge naval force (actually one of my blockade runner force count 30 units

Can naval leaders be given land commands? Semmes, for example, has some nice values…

Yes

Lastly, are the leaders’ stats listed in the manual still correct with all the new versions? I know leaders’ stats are a touchy topic because much of it is conjecture. On a similar note: I am surprised to see some generals are not penalized for fighting in various regions much like in BoA. I can send Lee to Indian Territory without repercussion. In fact, I know the map can be viewed by region, but I have yet to see what impact the regions make.

very few modification of the stats have been made on the official patches if you want to look for such modification looks for mods

Thanks. I probably will have more questions as I continue to play.

Oh, one more. The max number of Rebel divisions is 24? Why is this? Since it is possible to build armies that would exceed the historical reality, why not be able to create a number of divisions that also exceed reality? I am just going into early ’62 and can see that I am going to be in trouble very soon. My opponent has landed sizable Union forces in Texas (a little too easily I might add) and pushing hard in Missouri, Kentucky, and taken a defensive posture in Virginia.

I have checked these advances momentarily in Kentucky with AS Johnston, Missouri is lost, checked in Texas with a hastily formed group around Bragg, Beauregard is holding well in Virginia and I attempted (very bad idea) to send J. Johnston west in an effort to push into Illinois with the possibility of advance on St Louis. He crossed the Ohio well enough after taking Paducah and sent out some nice cavalry raiders, but then ran into Mr Grant. End of offensive. Took his battered force back across the Ohio. Luckily for me, I had the advantage in river boats. But as you can see I am stretched. I know this is intentional for the Confederate player to be hampered in such a way, but since the “division” is so critical I wonder about this limitation. Comments?

PS: let’s see ageod do a 30 Years War or a 7 Years War with this system!!!!!!

it is clear that the rebs must score early victories as if they let the union have the initiative they will have to run from atlantic coast to mexican boundary to try to catch the union army...

[wolflars]

Depots can be built using two supply wagons or two tranports (recommended as these are cheaper). .

ah, transports, excellent, thanks for the tip. I was not aware of this

In the April 1861 GC, the Union receives enough ships to be able to blockade Norfolk and Suffolk and to set up a blockade off Ft Pickens. This and the blue water blockades are enough to begin with. As the game progresses, and you build up some money, you should buy pairs of blockade fleets to send one each to the blockade boxes. Remember that these fleets need to be supplied. Later, when you are awash in cash, you can build fleets of brigs in order to start your brown water blockade.

are brown water blockades highly vulnerable to fire from coastal forts? Furthermore, which ports should the Union block?

Thanks for response Le Ricain

[wolflars]

for the rebs a few brigs must be build every time you can as it will provide you the money or the WS you lack....

How many is a reasonable number of brigs by the end of 1862 for example? I am so short of WS.....

for the union the effect is not so important as you have a better industry.......

But should Union still invest?

the gameplay problem is that you have nearly always less 3 star general than the number of army that you can have (if you have produced all the army HQ...)
If they can be killed it will make the army "dissapear" as no one can replace them at this moment ....

I think this is a problem. For example in my game many of my Confederates are 3 stars...I have Lee, Polk, AS Johnston, J Johnston, Kirby Smith, and Stonewall Jackson. I was a little promotion happy when I had the opportunity before I fully understood the seniortiy feature. But now Jackson and Johnston cannot die unless entire Army is lost? Hmmmm.....

Also, is there a limit to the final number of Army HQs that can be built. I notice on occassion I can build more but does this increase ever stop?

Eh bien, merci Eoghammer pour la reponse

[wolflars]

it is clear that the rebs must score early victories as if they let the union have the initiative they will have to run from atlantic coast to mexican boundary to try to catch the union army...

Indeed. So far I think I am holding my own. If I am making mistakes it is definately in the production decisions. I seem to win most if not all the battles, but I am already feeling the pressure of being outnumbered and outgunned (artillery is pricey, what is best to buy? 12 lb guns?) In fact if my opponent continues to concentrate in the west at the expense of the east I see a Maryland Campaign as a distinct 1862 possibility but I don't think I have enough WS to get sufficient artillery. He can have Texas so long as New Orleans is safe.

I am fortunate to know enough about the American Civil War that I won't make too many dumb mistakes (other than mistakes made based on lack of knowledge regarding the game engine). When I am done with this game I shall move on to Napoleon. I won't be so lucky then since I know very little about the Emporer and his wars. Napoleon = good. Wellington = better. As for everything else I won't have a clue as to what is important and who is capable of what.

[jeff b]

Small observation on Union ranks during the Civil War. At the beginnng of the War there was 1 Lt Gen - Winfield Scott. Grant was promoted to Lt. Gen when appointed as top general.

So most Army Commanders, their Corp Commanders and their Division Commanders were all Major Generals. During the 1864 campaign, the campaign started with Burnside in command of the 9th Corp reporting directly to Grant because he ranked Meade who commanded the Army of the Potomac.

The Confederate Army appointed Generals like we are familiar with today. Brigadier, Major, Lt, General.

This game is like many games with an artificial 3-star ranks even though the rank was only held by Grant and Scott.

[wolflars]

This game is like many games with an artificial 3-star ranks even though the rank was only held by Grant and Scott.

To facilitate gameplay no doubt. With so many generals of equal rank, seniority must have been a nightmare as jeff b points out.

On an off topic, my wife was looking over my shoulder and saw the game portrait of Sherman. She remarked "what an ugly man, the artist did a terrible job on that one." I laughed, then retrieved one of my books that has a photo of Sherman. "I stand corrected," she said, "the artist did a perfect job"

What's more is that she is a journalist so I felt compelled to inform her what Sherman thought of journalists.....

[Eoghammer]

How many is a reasonable number of brigs by the end of 1862 for example? I am so short of WS.....

I don't know what is the reasonable number of brigs as it depends totally on the events that leads you in this situation... but i think that at least a pair of brigs must be build each 6 month when you get your tax and conscription...
it's a better investment than industrializing a couple of states as if you have plenty of WS it will provide you money.

But should Union still invest?

it may be interresting at least to keep the starting potential by sending the fleet to the harbour regulary to resupply and repair and if the rebs start to invest in naval unit you must sink their boats.

I think this is a problem. For example in my game many of my Confederates are 3 stars...I have Lee, Polk, AS Johnston, J Johnston, Kirby Smith, and Stonewall Jackson. I was a little promotion happy when I had the opportunity before I fully understood the seniortiy feature. But now Jackson and Johnston cannot die unless entire Army is lost? Hmmmm.....

by the army "disappearing" i mean that from the state of a few heavy stack used as corps well commanded, the death of the 3* general will became a few penality-stuck heavy stacks...
with the new redeployement option that allow to "teleport" a general or a army HQ, it will be less problematic but before the 1.08 in such a case your previously great army may be back to a bunch of disorganized stacks for a few months (time to move a 3* general to the army location)

Also, is there a limit to the final number of Army HQs that can be built. I notice on occassion I can build more but does this increase ever stop?

Eh bien, merci Eoghammer pour la reponse

it is event scripted. it increase on a annual (or bi annual) basis... i don't remember if it stops in 1865

Merci pour le petit mot en francais

[Le Ricain]

ah, transports, excellent, thanks for the tip. I was not aware of this


are brown water blockades highly vulnerable to fire from coastal forts? Furthermore, which ports should the Union block?

Thanks for response Le Ricain

Brown water blockades are vulnerable to coastal fort artillery. You need to make sure that when you move the fleet into position that you use the 'evade combat' button. This will allow you to get into blockading position without too much (if any) damage. Also, it is extremely important to remember to include a transport unit with the fleet to keep it supplied.

Within the first couple of turns, you should have enough ships to blockade Suffolk and Norfolk which are located in the region of Ft Monroe. Also you can blockade the two regions adjacent to Ft Pickens.

After a year or so, you should have enough spare cash to allow you to build two blockade flotillas. Send one to each of the blockade boxes.

The next brown water blockade to consider is offshore North Carolina (Albamarle??). You can blockade the two northerly ports (I believe one port is named Columbus) with one blockade fleet and there are no coastal forts to worry about.

After this, the next steps depend upon your strategy...blue water or brown water.

[wolflars]

Okay, I have been playing now for a couple of weeks and thoroughly enjoying the game but still need more clarification on some items.

I believe the restriction to the number of divisions that both the CSA and USA can build is unreasonable. The 1864 campaign at start forces for both USA and CSA show a number of divisions that clearly exceed the 48/28 restriction placed in the 1861 full campaign. This is absurd. It means that if I play the 1861 campaign, by 1864 I cannot build a number of divisions equal to that of the 1864 campaign. Bizarre! Or has there been a change I am not aware of?

I have read the MOD section and understand the instructions for changing the restriction. My concern is how this affects PBEM play. I assume my opponenet must have made likewise changes, correct? Also, if anyone else has done this, what might be a more reasonable restriction to the numbers of allowable divisions. I was thinking perhaps a 50% increase, so 72 for USA and 36 for CSA.

[wolflars]

I have followed much of Le Ricain's advice and have another question.

I can block Hampton Roads and the North Carolina ports easily enough and I even managed to block Beufort S.C. (although I was trying to blockade Savannah). How can I determine which sea areas will block certain ports? Are the larger harbors more advantageous to block than level one harbors? I cannot seem to blockade certain harbors no matter how many ships I send....

Furthermore, for the CSA I read somewhere on this forum where a player advised someone to build a CSA ship every turn possible for the purpose of running blockade. This seems excessive to the expense of the land war. But does this work and is it worth the cost?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[wolflars]

Thanks for the reply Gray and keep up the good work!

I risk sounding like a gushing fanboy when I say this but AACW is one of the best computer wargames ever. I grew up on paper and dice wargames and am almost always frustrated by terrible computer wargames because they either are not fun or fall way short of being playable and accurate. AACW does not suffer these problems. It is a great game, truly. I knew ageod was on to something after BoA. One of AACW greatest strengths is putting the player into Lincoln's shoes for example. The command structure of this game makes the frustration of finding suitable commanders come alive. That damn Mac and Freemont! Most Civil War games will make the Union player hate them too, but only AACW makes the Union player hate and need them at the same time. Very realistic.

I do hope this division issue gets sorted out. Presently, I find myself with a corps under Polk (20,000 men) with no divisions and an highly dubious number of independent brigades. My overall CSA situation would realistically require additional division commands. About the only thing I can wait for is one of my divisions in the east to get mauled so I can justify downsizing it to a brigade in order to free up a division slot. Can you imagine Pickett being told after Gettysburg, "Sorry George, not only did you take heavy casualties through no fault of your own, but we are removing your title as division commander in order to make way for giving a division title to Cleburne out west."

It does seem silly. But I do suppose there should be a cap at some point given how critical divisions are. I think the way cavalry is handled is part of the problem. Cav brigades are hard to come by and regiments cannot be combined. Thus cavalry commanders are prematurely made division commanders in order to group cavalry more effectively (I have noticed many of these so called cavalry divisions are really brigade size). I wonder if there should be a seperate category for cavalry divisions. I imagine that would be hard to code.

Also weren't Union divisions smaller than their CSA counterparts? Although I am not clear as to why this was, should this be reflected in the game somehow?

[Le Ricain]

I have followed much of Le Ricain's advice and have another question.

I can block Hampton Roads and the North Carolina ports easily enough and I even managed to block Beufort S.C. (although I was trying to blockade Savannah). How can I determine which sea areas will block certain ports? Are the larger harbors more advantageous to block than level one harbors? I cannot seem to blockade certain harbors no matter how many ships I send....

Furthermore, for the CSA I read somewhere on this forum where a player advised someone to build a CSA ship every turn possible for the purpose of running blockade. This seems excessive to the expense of the land war. But does this work and is it worth the cost?

On the lower right hand corner of a port city icon you will see a small blue rectangle. Placing your tooltip on this will tell you which sea areas are needed to blockade the port. Tooltip on the sea area will tell you how much is neeeded to blockade.

[Hobbes]

I'm hoping Pocus will find time to fix a problem with the number of ships needed for blockade tooltip in areas near coastal forts, the numbers don't seem to add up or the forts influence isn't calculated properly. Are you finding problems near forts?

Cheers, Chris

[Ian Coote]

Hi wolflars,I would highly recommend runyan99's leader mod,makes the game much more historical.Check it out in the mods section.

[Le Ricain]

I'm hoping Pocus will find time to fix a problem with the number of ships needed for blockade tooltip in areas near coastal forts, the numbers don't seem to add up or the forts influence isn't calculated properly. Are you finding problems near forts?

Cheers, Chris

Chris,

In my game, I have only blockaded the ports near Forts Monroe and Pickens. They initially needed 4 ships and later 8 ships as the CSA entrenched artillery. So the problem you are speaking about does not involve USA forts, but CSA forts.

What problems are you seeing?

[Hobbes]

Chris,

In my game, I have only blockaded the ports near Forts Monroe and Pickens. They initially needed 4 ships and later 8 ships as the CSA entrenched artillery. So the problem you are speaking about does not involve USA forts, but CSA forts.

What problems are you seeing?

Ric, I've been trying for a few months to get coastal forts working as they should for PBEM play. Philippe has put in a few fixes but it seems there is still one hurdle to jump.

If I set the following parameters :-

bloAdjFriendlyFort = 0 // brown water blockade, bonus given by adjacent fort
bloAdjEnemyFort = 8 // same, for an enemy fort (malus)
bloMinSUToBlockade = 8 // Nb of SoL elements needed or pts given by a fort to blockade a zone

This should allow enemy coastal forts to blockade adjacent zones for instance Fort Monroe blockading Norfolk or Fort Fisher blockading Wilmington
in the absence of any friendly Ship of the Line elements.

In order to lift such blockades at least 1 SoL should be present however at the moment if I introduce 1 CSA SoL to such a situation the blockade will still be in effect.

Philippe says that he still has this on his to look at list.
Cheers, Chris