Raiding enemy mechant fleets?

[Inside686]

Do raids of enemy ships bring you money/supplies or those resources are only lost by the enemy?

[W.Barksdale]

Resources are only lost by the enemy. Don't even bother with this in 1.09. Apparently the new beta doubles the efficiency of the raiders, howver, I am yet to verify if this now makes it a worthwhile tactic for the rebels.

Has anyone checked this out on the new beta yet?

[Inside686]

Yes I've just read that about the new version. Anyway I asked this because historically the resources were captured by the rebs and not sunk.

[arsan]

Yes I've just read that about the new version. Anyway I asked this because historically the resources were captured by the rebs and not sunk.

I think it general they were sunk or destroyed.
The rebel raiders were small/fast ships which cannot carry the cargo of the transport ships they captured. Also they cannot get the transport ship to a CSA ports with safety because of the blockade.
So, with the exception of very small and valuable things (gold, money and the like), the ships and cargo were destroyed and the personnel unloaded on neutral ports.
Its was something more similar to the Germany U-boats of the 2WW (except for the crew treatment) than the traditional pirates
Regards!

[Inside686]

I don't know, I've just read the contrary in a book (they took control of the merchant ships and convoyed it to the nearest confederate port) and that they actually had problem with blockade especially after 1961, in fact merchant ships raids were abandoned very soon.
Now that's what I read...

[arsan]

Hi!
I'm far form being an authority on the ACW
So we will have to wait until one of the ACW buffs of the forum come here and enlighten us both
What i explained is based on what i remember of what Shelby Foote accounts on on his narrative about Semmes exploits so... maybe he was not the typical raider??

Regards!

EDIT: Checking the wiki i have found some info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Alabama
In here he confirms that Semmes first ship, the CSS Alabama..."

"... spent the next two months capturing and burning ships in the North Atlantic and intercepting grain ships bound for Europe. Continuing her path of destruction through the West Indies, Alabama sank USS Hatteras along the Texas coast and captured her crew. After a visit to Cape Town, South Africa, Alabama sailed for the East Indies where the ship spent six months cruising, destroying seven more ships before redoubling the Cape en route to Europe. Many ships attempted a capture, but the Alabama always seemed to vanish into the horizon. All told, the Alabama sunk 62 vessels, mostly merchant ships."

[Inside686]

Ah ok, seems I read too quickly then this chapter about marine was rather confused anyway.
Well, then the current system suits perfectly to history.

[GShock]

The chapter on blockade in Battle Cry of Freedom tells us of CSA runner captains dumping everything into the sea to avoid the capture, including the cargo, as well as literally tearing down the whole wooden structure of the ships to toss in the fire and thus increase the speed. Union captains would do the same.

CSA raiders (basically pirates) would do the best to put the ship out of commission, get the cargo and then take it somewhere sell it. ... but surely not back to CSA. Blockade was pretty tough. Too tough to be done without Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom...

The story of the Alabama is true. As you can see from Arsan's report, it counts the kills AND the captures.
Obviously the captures were possession of the raider. No $ or WSU back to CSA so, according to me, the game models the shipping box correctly by only giving a loss to Union and not a gain to CSA when a Union ship is sunk.