johnnycai wrote:What are the factors in determining amphib landings interdiction?
I had Grant's Army with 4 divisions in the river zone south of Island10 for 3 turns with a big fleet and was unable to land them on Island 10 where Rosecrans/Pope were sitting (not seiging as they were recovering cohesion) with about 50%MC of Island10/Lake TN region.
Yes, the rebs were in the fort having been forced inside by Rosecrans/Pope who had no problem landing. Grant showed estimates of 5 days to land from the fleet for 2 turns and 1day on the 3rd turn during my orders phase.
I did encounter small or even single ironclad sailing in the river zone, which US fought off, and always showed >200-0 in the zone of control for the river region. Only in turn2 was there any reb ships in that zone when beginning the turn.
Anyways for 3 turns I tried to get Grant to land and finish off the fort but was unable. My fleet was interdicted by single or smallish reb forces but US won the naval battles but werent landing as expected. Weather conditions were fair over the 3 turns (Lake/Island10 is swamp terrain).
Any insight on these 2 unusual river/amphib issues?
Le Ricain wrote:In my experience, if the South is able to attack my fleet with some ships (even at unfavourable odds), the action is enough to cancel the invasion regardless of the result.
Coregonas wrote:Yes...
Just start wiping out all those pesky rebel wooden ships...![]()
johnnycai wrote:So in essence, an amphib force and fleet, no matter how large and with overwhelming zone of control of the riverzone can always be interdicted in this manner...? Doesnt seem right, almost gamey.![]()
So the rebs can just throw any small naval force to disrupt a landing, even if after the anticipated landing day. eg. in 2 of the 3 days, my landing force was expected (ordered) to land in day5 or day1 and the naval interdiction, with the rebs ships losing the encounter, occured in later days of the turn.![]()
![]()
Pocus wrote:All is in the details, gents!
Set the disembarking fleet passive and then the rest in offensive or even defensive, and the former should be screened.
Jabberwock wrote:It should also be possible to screen this particular location by sending part of your fleet to Obion Confluent. If you defeat the rebel naval forces there, they aren't likely to retreat in the direction of additional forces.
Also, a shore battery in Haywood, Osceola, or Reel would do nicely to eliminate this threat to your future operations.
Jabberwock wrote:It should also be possible to screen this particular location by sending part of your fleet to Obion Confluent. If you defeat the rebel naval forces there, they aren't likely to retreat in the direction of additional forces.
Also, a shore battery in Haywood, Osceola, or Reel would do nicely to eliminate this threat to your future operations. I do, however, understand that Reel and Osceola can be difficult to reach with artillery.
Coregonas wrote:Navy issues are hard to master against another humans:
Southern commanders disregard navy too much (why?)
.
johnnycai wrote:That wont happen if the CSA uses early-retreat engagement stances. CSA can just send an ironclad on defensive/retreat stance against a huge US fleet, take some minor losses, retreat and yet still foil the landing. In my example, 2 of the 3 reb interventions by single ironclad were days after the anticipated landing time of 5 days and 1 day. In the defensive/early-retreat stances, ship losses and sinking are very rare in my experience.
Its still gamey, and should be considered for augmenting in the future.
soundoff wrote:I'd have thought that was fairly obvious Coregonas. Given the war supplies cost of a single Iron Clad its easy to see why the vast majority of CSA players ignore navies....particularly if they are playing PBEM
pepe4158 wrote:I have to think this is a good-case of the arquement for the 7 day turn instead of 15.....your landing is interfered with say on day 3, you win the naval, but the troops just sit idile for 12 more days? Inconcievable!
Brochgale wrote:I am now one of those falling on the side of 7 day turns. Even for land movements. To send whole divisions on 15 day trips that might end up to be pointless exercises can be irritating - also I happen to think that in the real world on the War - commanders might have to change plans faster than on a 15 day time scale?
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 145 guests