Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Naval Question.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Naval Question. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Naval Question. - 12/9/2006 2:14:20 PM   
Ironclad

 

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline 		The South never had a chance alone of overturning the North's massive superiority in naval force and power projection. There was the brief moment with the Virginia but even if it had been the only operational ironclad in northern waters for more than one day it was in no condition to break the blockade (lack of sea worthiness and poorly powered) and its large draft even limited its scope in coastal waters.

In practice of course that opportunity never arose. Just like Britain in its naval competition with France, but to a massively greater extent, the Union could outbuild, more rapidly and to a higher quality anything that the Confederacy could come up with. Furthermore it could do this without having to turn down the tap on its other weapons production. Again in marked contrast to the South, where for example the Tredegar Works rolling mills were monopolised for almost 5 months in producing the iron plate for the Virginia's protection.

The only way in which the Confederacy could have matched the US Navy throughout the war was through British and to a lesser extent French actual participation in the fighting war.





< Message edited by Ironclad -- 12/9/2006 2:27:27 PM >

(in reply to Ironclad)
Post #: 31
RE: Naval Question. - 12/9/2006 3:33:05 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline 		Wikipedia has a list of ships of the Confederate Navy, with details on each: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Confederate_States_Navy

Clearly, the Confederacy had a navy, in the sense that it had vessels that could travel on water, carry some armament and some naval personnel, and attack other unarmed or lightly-armed vessels.

What it didn't have were warships capable of fighting the US Navy.


< Message edited by Jonathan Palfrey -- 12/9/2006 4:21:21 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 32
RE: Naval Question. - 12/9/2006 4:33:00 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Wikipedia has a list of ships of the Confederate Navy, with details on each: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Confederate_States_Navy

Clearly, the Confederacy had a navy, in the sense that it had vessels that could travel on water, carry some armament and some naval personnel, and attack other unarmed or lightly-armed vessels.

What it didn't have were warships capable of fighting the US Navy.




THANK YOU, JONATHAN! Some folks are finally understanding what I've been saying. The only real naval warships the South ever had were those few built overseas for her..., and used as commerce raiders, not warships. We all know what happened when ALABAMA decided to try her luck in a stand-up fight with the KEARSAGE. Virtually all her home-built efforts were really "coast defense" adjuncts. Giving the South a real Fleet is turning the game into something that feels totally wrong for the American Civil War. Please, Matrix, remove these things from the Starting OB's of the scenarios...

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 33
RE: Naval Question. - 12/9/2006 5:23:45 PM   
Warfare1


Posts: 658
Joined: 10/20/2004
Status: offline 		Here are many articles detailing the Naval War in the Civil War:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/navalwar.htm

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 34
RE: Naval Question. - 12/9/2006 6:55:29 PM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1170
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

And as I mentioned elsewhere, you can modify the start file so that each CSA ship unit has a strength of 1, which will take nine turns sitting in a shipyard to get up to full strength. It's a way of hamstringing the CSA navy initially.



Can you point me to where this is mentioned elsewhere? Been looking but haven't found it.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 35
RE: Naval Question. - 12/9/2006 7:41:59 PM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		Well, anyone can mod the oob to delete the CSA navy, you know...it's not difficult.  You don't really need to beg Matrix to do it!

The only point I've been making is, if you consider the bulk of the CSA ships represented to not be ship-worthy for inclusion in the game...the same judgment has to be given to the 50 obsolete ships of the Union sail navy.  Which in game terms would slash the Union navy from 9 starting ships to 4.

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to MorningDew)
Post #: 36
RE: Naval Question. - 12/9/2006 10:14:02 PM   
tc237

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 7/1/2005
Status: offline 		You should of quit while you were ahead.
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
...the same judgment has to be given to the 50 obsolete ships of the Union sail navy.  Which in game terms would slash the Union navy from 9 starting ships to 4.

Exactly,
And make the CSA Navy zero. Why couldn't that have been done in the first place?

quote:

...it's not to difficult. You don't really need to beg Matrix to do it!

your just diging yourself a bigger hole buddy.
I suggest you just post: "This is an abstract beer and pretzels game of the ACW, it is not historicaly accurate. Enjoy it for what it is and don't stress out on the small stuff"
That would be alot better than continuing to post nonsense.
quote:

Well, anyone can mod the oob...
Glad I paid $50 for an ACW SDK.

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 37
RE: Naval Question. - 12/9/2006 10:29:55 PM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		" your just diging yourself a bigger hole buddy.
I suggest you just post: "This is an abstract beer and pretzels game of the ACW, it is not historicaly accurate. Enjoy it for what it is and don't stress out on the small stuff"
That would be alot better than continuing to post nonsense. "

I said pretty much that much earlier in this thread, actually.  If you had been paying better attention you would have noticed that.

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to tc237)
Post #: 38
RE: Naval Question. - 12/9/2006 10:33:53 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		I don't understand posts like this

not to knock Jim, I think he is a good guy, but who is Jim ?, he is not the designer and he is not Matrixs, he is a gamer like the rest of you

and along the same lines, who am I ?, I am also just a gamer too

Jim just points out, that the game can be modded if you disagree with what the designer put in, Matrix does not have to do the modding (for me, I would rather have a standard mod or fix, then to do it myself, as then it feels like I am cheating the design)

Mike has stated his point and Jim has countered with what he thinks

I think we getting better info, and will be able to talk about what should be done or not done (but you got to give them a chance to do something)


_____________________________


(in reply to tc237)
Post #: 39
RE: Naval Question. - 12/9/2006 11:51:56 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

" your just diging yourself a bigger hole buddy.
I suggest you just post: "This is an abstract beer and pretzels game of the ACW, it is not historicaly accurate. Enjoy it for what it is and don't stress out on the small stuff"
That would be alot better than continuing to post nonsense. "

I said pretty much that much earlier in this thread, actually.  If you had been paying better attention you would have noticed that.



Jim. This wasn't my point. I said "Well, some suggestion of compromise is welcome. But I still think we're talking "apples and oranges". Like I said, if you include in the Union Fleet all the various miscellaneous support vessels you want to count for the South, the North is going to have 900 ships. What we need to establish is some base line as to what constitutes a "ship" in game terms? Are we talking armed, sea-going, warships or just everything that floats? Obviously the modern screw frigates count as one..., but where do we draw the line? Is a Revenue Cutter 1/10th of a "ship"? How much is a "coal barge"? 1/1000th? Or do we just establish a cut-off point, and everything below that doesn't count? Does sail power automatically halve the value?

And I think if you look at it from the perspective deleating the small "Coastal" and "Support" vessels of both sides and only counting the "Sea-going Warships" it will be something on the order of "nothing" for the South and 7-8 "Ships" and the 2-3 "Fleets" for the North. And it will "feel" more like the Civil War (during which the only significant High Seas Naval Engagement was the Alabama and the Kearsage, two single vessels).

The most significant quote that's come up was "... Mallory proved equal to the task of creating a navy from scratch. He bought tugboats, revenue cutters, and river steamboats to be converted into gunboats for harbor patrol. Recognizing that he could never challenge the Union navy on its own terms, Mallory decided to concentrate on a few specialized tasks that would utilize the South's limited assets to maximum advantage. He authorized the development of "torpedoes" (mines) to be planted at the mouths of harbors and rivers; by the end of the war such "infernal devices" had sunk or damaged forty-three Union warships. He encouraged the construction of "torpedo boats", small half-submerged cigar-shaped vessels carrying a contact mine on a bow-spar for attacking blockade ships ... Which basically places the South's naval effort in the category of "harbor defense" (which in game terms is more accurately represented by the "coastal forts" having better armament than by giving the South an "offensive fleet" and capability it never had). I respect your views, but as I said I think we're getting the apples mixed with the oranges....

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 40
RE: Naval Question. - 12/10/2006 3:01:30 AM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		Well, thats the thing, when you ask "what is a ship" in this game I can't really answer definitively because I'm not the designer.  I can make some good speculations, however; when you ask how the CSA gets 50 ships, I show you 50 ships; when you say they were generally pretty crummy ships, I say true, but there are 50 pretty crummy Union ships in their too...why are are we counting Union crummy ships, but not CSA crummy ships?  That does not sound consistent.

Like I said, if the consensus here is for all crummy ships to be dropped, sure that can be done.  If that means the CSA gets no navy, well fine, I wouldn't have a problem with that.  As long as we are being consistent.

Just keep in mind, however, that an alternative does exist, you know...ships in the game can be graded according to Quality (ie, Morale), and if you give crummy ships (on both sides) crummy ratings, then we can include them all...it's just that the crummy ones will perform...um, crummily.  Which is what we are aiming for.  If you've fought enough Quick Combats (in both CoG and FoF) you'll know exactly what I mean...morale 1 units are rather useless and cowardly, and will flee to the Routed Area pretty quickly, meaning the side with them loses the battle (and quite possibly a LOT of ships in pursuit).

I would think a CSA player saddled with a navy of crummy ships would do precisely as Mallory did, and that is pursue a "fleet in being" strategy of keeping his ships in a harbor defense posture, rather than sending them to certain doom on the high seas.  I'm pretty certain that would be my play.


_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 41
RE: Naval Question. - 12/10/2006 3:46:05 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

Well, thats the thing, when you ask "what is a ship" in this game I can't really answer definitively because I'm not the designer.  I can make some good speculations, however; when you ask how the CSA gets 50 ships, I show you 50 ships; when you say they were generally pretty crummy ships, I say true, but there are 50 pretty crummy Union ships in their too...why are are we counting Union crummy ships, but not CSA crummy ships?  That does not sound consistent. My problem with this approach is that if you get down to counting "Revenue Cutters" and "Coal Tenders" and "Harbor Tugs" that the Union would wind up with a LOT more than 80-90 "ships", (I said 900, but I pulled that number from the sky. But if you count all the support vessels and tenders and other "ash and trash" that you had in your list, it's going to be considerable number.)

Like I said, if the consensus here is for all crummy ships to be dropped, sure that can be done.  If that means the CSA gets no navy, well fine, I wouldn't have a problem with that.  As long as we are being consistent.

Just keep in mind, however, that an alternative does exist, you know...ships in the game can be graded according to Quality (ie, Morale), and if you give crummy ships (on both sides) crummy ratings, then we can include them all...it's just that the crummy ones will perform...um, crummily.  Which is what we are aiming for.  If you've fought enough Quick Combats (in both CoG and FoF) you'll know exactly what I mean...morale 1 units are rather useless and cowardly, and will flee to the Routed Area pretty quickly, meaning the side with them loses the battle (and quite possibly a LOT of ships in pursuit). This is something to consider, but it really doesn't address the issue that the South simply didn't have the kind of Ocean-Going Navy that the "Ship" and "Fleet" units in the game represent. What "naval actions" they fought were in sheltered coastal waters like Mobile Bay or Hampton Roads..., and with the exception of the Virginia's one brief day of Glory, they were fought in support of the Harbor defenses. High seas encounters were limited to single-ship events like the Alabama vs. the Kearsage, which was hardly a "fleet action".

I would think a CSA player saddled with a navy of crummy ships would do precisely as Mallory did, and that is pursue a "fleet in being" strategy of keeping his ships in a harbor defense posture, rather than sending them to certain doom on the high seas.  I'm pretty certain that would be my play. To which I would say that they had no choice but to be Harbor Defense because they weren't "Blue Water" capable. Which is why I think they are better reflected in the game as "fort upgrades" rather than Ships and Fleets. What ships the South could find that were "blue Water" capable were "blockade running", not fighting "Fleet Actions". For the South to have a "High Seas Fleet" just gives the game a "wrong" feel.



I think we are having an impass because you are maintaining that the the South had 50 "pretty crumby ships", and that the north had 50 "pretty crumby ships" as well..., and I am maintaining that while the North may well have had 50 "less-than-terrific WARships" among their 90, they also had hundreds of additional "pretty crumby ships" like the one's you want to count for the South. Whereas the South only had 50 "pretty crumby ships".. We are back to those "apples and oranges"...., and hopefully can reach some agreement soon.

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 42
RE: Naval Question. - 12/10/2006 4:13:09 AM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		Well yeah, I mean when you have an author comparing the Union sail navy to Themistoclean galleys, and saying it would have been better they had not even existed...then yeah, I feel you are being a tad over generous with the phrase "less than terrific."

And I'm not sure the Union had any "armed" support vessels that were similar to the CSA ships in question (9, 90, 900, whatever).  If they did I have to think they'd have been listed as part of their 90 warships.

And I have to point out...there is really no "blue water" in FoF. All sea areas in the game are coastal.  So while you are correct in saying the CSA did not have a High Seas Fleet, well true but not exactly relavant in this context as we do not have any High Seas to go a-sailing to.  Everything is "brown water" in FoF.

Everything else we pretty much agree on, I think.

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 43
RE: Naval Question. - 12/10/2006 4:42:14 AM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		BTW a really good site for looking at exactly what ships each navy had throughout the war, when, what they did, and what their armaments were, is this link to the Official Naval Records:

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/sgml/moa-idx?notisid=ANU4547-2001

You have to page thru scanned pages (which can be a pain), but it is the best original source I've managed to find online

It is much more complete than the Wikipedia page cited earlier.

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 44
RE: Naval Question. - 12/10/2006 6:00:31 AM   
Director


Posts: 10
Joined: 12/8/2006
From: Mobile, AL
Status: offline 		Given how rapidly the Union increased its navy I think you have two choices:

1) give the Union the ability to quickly build new fleets and start the game with 20-30 points worth of ships, and make construction of new ships cheap and quick
2) give the Union at least 3 fleets at the start of the game and 75-80 ships, with new fleet and new ship construction price and time equivalent to the Confederates

Please bear in mind the Union did not have to build major warships, just equip gunboats that could stop a blockade runner.

Unless the Union can, within a year, field four to six fleets and two hundred ships you have a problem in game mechanics. The Union Navy eventually topped six hundred ships counting the river fleets.

The Confederate iron and mechanical shops that were capable of building steam engines (New Orleans, Richmond, Norfolk, Mobile) were swamped with other war work. Navy work was low priority for Confederate industry and railroads - witness the slow construction of the 'Louisiana' at New Orleans, whose armor plate was still arriving and whose main propeller shaft arrived after Farragut ran the forts and took the city. So it is fair to say the South had to scavenge for engines - their best and fastest ironclad 'Atlanta' used British engines. The biggest constraint on Confederate ship construction was not engines but labor, especially skilled labor.

The Union was no great shakes in the engineering department either, rarely producing a ship that could steam as fast as its European counterparts. (The fast commerce raiders built toward the end of the war were an exception to this).


From Still's 'Confederate Shipbuilding': "In addition to the Fulton my note: (old, seized at Pensacola) the Confederacy aquired by purchase or capture, four revenue cutters, three slavers, and two privately-owned coastal steamers. These ten vessels, carrying a total of fifteen guns, formed the nucleus of the Confederate States navy when it was organized in February 1861. The incorporation of various state navies added additional vessels. Georgia and South Carolina each supplied two small gunboats, and after secession both Virginia and North Carolina transferred five ships to Confederate service."


The first purpose-built warship from the keel up was the 'Morgan', built in Mobile and launched in February of 1862, implying a build-time of at least six months. The Union was already building comparable gunboats in half the time. About 5 of these gunboats were completed before the South turned fully to ironclads.

Following the firing on Fort Sumter the CSA purchased the 'Habana' and the 'Marquis de la Habana' ('Sumter' and 'McRae') at New Orleans. By July of 1861 three converted tugboats were added ('Jackson' at New Orleans, 'Sampson' and 'Resolute' in Savannah).

In November of 1861 the North Carolina sounds were invaded and Port Royal, South Carolina was taken. Secretary Mallory then turned his attentions to armored ships. Five were authorized ('Virginia' at Norfolk, 'Arkansas' and 'Tennessee' at Memphis, 'Mississippi' and 'Louisiana' at New Orleans). Three of these were partially or fully completed.


One interesting note: the South was offered the chance to purchase up to a dozen (I think) East Indiamen for use as raiders or as a war fleet. The Southern purchasing agents were concentrating on trying to buy ironclads and declined the offer.

< Message edited by Director -- 12/10/2006 6:11:19 AM >

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 45
RE: Naval Question. - 12/10/2006 7:07:40 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

Well yeah, I mean when you have an author comparing the Union sail navy to Themistoclean galleys, and saying it would have been better they had not even existed...then yeah, I feel you are being a tad over generous with the phrase "less than terrific." I meant it in the sense that pre-Dreadnaught Battleships were "obsolete" the day Dreadnaught was commissioned. They were "obsolete" against a Dreadnaught. But if you didn't have a Dreadnaught, they were still more than you could handle. Basically "less than the Best is still better than all the rest."

And I'm not sure the Union had any "armed" support vessels that were similar to the CSA ships in question (9, 90, 900, whatever).  If they did I have to think they'd have been listed as part of their 90 warships. Where do you think the Confederacy obtained all that miscillaneous "ash and trash"? Most were the small support vessels of the the United States Navy that had been in Southern ports. Don't you think the United States had kept "Revenue Cutters" in ports like Baltimore, Philidelphia, New York, Providence, Boston, and all the other places that were still in Northern hands? And that the Philidelphia, Brooklyn, New York, and other Navy Yards had the same type of "support ships" and "coal lighters" and "harbor tugs" that were mentioned in your list of Southern "ships". And armed (or more truthfully not armed) exactly like their Southern cousins?

And I have to point out...there is really no "blue water" in FoF. All sea areas in the game are coastal.  So while you are correct in saying the CSA did not have a High Seas Fleet, well true but not exactly relavant in this context as we do not have any High Seas to go a-sailing to.  Everything is "brown water" in FoF.
Have to totally dissagree with this statement. The Atlantic and the Gulf are not "brown water"..., ask anyone who's sailed them. The Monitor foundered in an Atlantic Storm in waters depicted on the map. "Brown Water" is river water, and sheltered coastal inlets like Mobile Bay. Anything past the barrier islands of the Carolina Capes is "high seas" (And the Graveyard of the Atlantic). Ask a sailor if you happen to know one.

Everything else we pretty much agree on, I think. I certainly hope we can come to one anyway. I think we'd get along if we weren't in the midst of this dissagreement.


(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 46
RE: Naval Question. - 12/11/2006 11:43:05 AM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		And I have to point out...there is really no "blue water" in FoF. All sea areas in the game are coastal. So while you are correct in saying the CSA did not have a High Seas Fleet, well true but not exactly relavant in this context as we do not have any High Seas to go a-sailing to. Everything is "brown water" in FoF.
Have to totally dissagree with this statement. The Atlantic and the Gulf are not "brown water"..., ask anyone who's sailed them. The Monitor foundered in an Atlantic Storm in waters depicted on the map. "Brown Water" is river water, and sheltered coastal inlets like Mobile Bay. Anything past the barrier islands of the Carolina Capes is "high seas" (And the Graveyard of the Atlantic). Ask a sailor if you happen to know one.

Well, yeah thats kinda true in real terms....but I'm talking in game terms, not real terms. And in FoF, all naval combat abstractly occurs in these coastal sea zones. Even those combats occuring very close to shore, outside of ports...and even IN ports.

For example, lets say a blockaded "harbor defense" force tries to fight a blockading squadron. The Quick Combat for this battle will take place in one of these sea zones...even though we all know this battle is really going on just barely outside the port. The blockaded ships flee back into the port if they lose. It's a game mechanics abstraction. It's not like they are going way out on the High Seas to fight.

Even more extreme...try a Port Attack. The way the game mechanics for this are set up, the defending ships in port actually TELEPORT OUT into the adjacent sea area whence the Port Attacking fleet sits...and the battle is resolved in that sea area. Again, this is a game mechanics abstraction. They are of course fighting in the port, and not really being teleported far out to sea to fight...although it kinda looks like that.

Why is it done this way? I'm guessing it's a programmers thing; it's easier to code the game so all naval combat occurs in sea zones.

So, you see what I'm saying? All these sea zones, in GAME terms, are really supposed to represent brown water littoral areas, not open seas.

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 47
RE: Naval Question. - 12/11/2006 12:26:24 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

And I have to point out...there is really no "blue water" in FoF. All sea areas in the game are coastal. So while you are correct in saying the CSA did not have a High Seas Fleet, well true but not exactly relavant in this context as we do not have any High Seas to go a-sailing to. Everything is "brown water" in FoF.
Have to totally dissagree with this statement. The Atlantic and the Gulf are not "brown water"..., ask anyone who's sailed them. The Monitor foundered in an Atlantic Storm in waters depicted on the map. "Brown Water" is river water, and sheltered coastal inlets like Mobile Bay. Anything past the barrier islands of the Carolina Capes is "high seas" (And the Graveyard of the Atlantic). Ask a sailor if you happen to know one.

Well, yeah thats kinda true in real terms....but I'm talking in game terms, not real terms. And in FoF, all naval combat abstractly occurs in these coastal sea zones. Even those combats occuring very close to shore, outside of ports...and even IN ports.

For example, lets say a blockaded "harbor defense" force tries to fight a blockading squadron. The Quick Combat for this battle will take place in one of these sea zones...even though we all know this battle is really going on just barely outside the port. The blockaded ships flee back into the port if they lose. It's a game mechanics abstraction. It's not like they are going way out on the High Seas to fight.

Even more extreme...try a Port Attack. The way the game mechanics for this are set up, the defending ships in port actually TELEPORT OUT into the adjacent sea area whence the Port Attacking fleet sits...and the battle is resolved in that sea area. Again, this is a game mechanics abstraction. They are of course fighting in the port, and not really being teleported far out to sea to fight...although it kinda looks like that.
Hadn't tried this as yet, (too busy dealing with the AI sending Fleets out to attack my forces on the open Ocean), but I do agree that sounds really silly looking. And Wrong! How can a fleet attack a Port without attacking it's Forts as well? Farragut engaged Buchannan's "squadron" (Tennessee and some "ash and trash") right under the guns (and torpedoes) of the Fort at the entrance to Mobile Bay. Buchannan would have had to be crazy to fight anywhere else given the "one-sidedness" of the contest.

Why is it done this way? I'm guessing it's a programmers thing; it's easier to code the game so all naval combat occurs in sea zones. I'd call it all the more reason to do it my way..., as their way sounds totally a-historic and silly-looking. But I do understand your "brown water" comment in those lights.
So, you see what I'm saying? All these sea zones, in GAME terms, are really supposed to represent brown water littoral areas, not open seas.


Have you looked at my "suggestions" in the "Wish List" section? I'm not proposing the South get nothing in return..., just that what they get function something more like what they actually had. And I'd like your opinion on my notion of re-doing the "frigates" into something that resembled the kind of "commerce war" the South actually did wage. What's currently happening in the game is both a-historic and dumb-looking---on that we seem to have found agreement at least. Maybe we can find some more...

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 48
RE: Naval Question. - 12/11/2006 4:05:05 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Jim. Took a chance to try out a few "Port Attacks". and you are right. That's a really silly looking exercise, with the "port" coming out to "do battle" on the "high seas". And they bring their "submarines", but not any of the Forts or guns that made a real attack on a port so difficult. I still think my ideas here would be a far better representation of the ACW's realities.

Noticed something else really silly while I was at it. Norfolk and Richmond/James River are shown as two seperate "ports" which must be blockaded individually. Somebody totally "spaced" the geography, as the Union blockaded BOTH of them with a single fleet at Hampton Roads (at least until they re-took Norfolk). And Richmond really wasn't much of a "port". The South had to burn the Virginia because she couldn't make it upriver even as far as Drewry's Bluff, let alone Richmond. Norfolk was Richmond's port..., what came upriver were barges and smaller vessels. And I wonder what happened to "Fortress Monroe" at the tip of the Penninsula guarding Hampton Roads? That's what enabled McClellan to even plan his 1862 campaign there. The game has the North holding some Fort out in the middle of the Virginia countryside and pretty much cut off.... Union player got "hosed" all around in this area.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 49
RE: Naval Question. - 12/11/2006 6:30:53 PM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		Actually the port guns do shoot at you in these battles; increase the Delay in QC and you should be able to see 'em blast you at start.  So the system does work, but yeah just looks kinda odd.

Good point about Richmond.  It can be reclassified as a non-port city pretty easily.  The Union coastal forts (including Pickens and the 2 Keys as well) are a trickier problem, however, as forts and ports are not alike in this game.  I guess one could make them Port cities (with no production value), but then the Union would not be able to upgrade the generic guns "port cities" get.

Like I said before, the naval aspects of FoF are not really it's strong suit.  The same point can be made for it's predecessor CoG as well, IMO.  Now, CoG is supposed to be getting a major naval war expansion game (which'll include detailed Napoleonic sea battles!) so hopefully FoF will get the same sort of naval game face lift down the road as well.

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 50
RE: Naval Question. - 12/11/2006 6:36:21 PM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		And I like your Wish List suggestions a lot, and I'd probably even take them a step farther...it's given me some additional ideas I'm thinking over right now...

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 51
RE: Naval Question. - 12/11/2006 7:00:02 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

And I like your Wish List suggestions a lot, and I'd probably even take them a step farther...it's given me some additional ideas I'm thinking over right now...



I make no claims to perfection. Your input would be welcome. I'm assuming from your comment you now grasp the point I've been trying to make (you don't have to agree, but for a while I think we were talking at cross-purposes. Hope we're now past that).

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 52
RE: Naval Question. - 12/12/2006 7:04:50 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

And I like your Wish List suggestions a lot, and I'd probably even take them a step farther...it's given me some additional ideas I'm thinking over right now...



Boy. Jim's giving this a really good "think".


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 53
RE: Naval Question. - 12/12/2006 10:53:29 PM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		Yeah it's involved. 

In a nutshell, what I'm thinkin' is whether it might be best to just jettison ALL ships in the game, not just the CSA navy.  US Navy, all Runners, gone.

Replace with an abstract system to handle all naval matter...using the "tech tree."

Union would be given a Sealift capacity, similar to Rail capacity, for sea movement.  Also a Blockade level (from 1 to 10), each level blocks 10% of foreign aid to the CSA.

Naval Acadamies (and now Shipyards) would still generate research points for buying advancements...but the advancements themselves would be retooled to either 1) affect Union Sealift value; 2) affect Blockade level; or 3) affect Union income (ie, a "CSA Raider" advancement).

My current thinking is what with the game mostly focused on land warfare, trying to kludge a system where 1 unit = 10 ships to try to approximate ACW naval warfare is kinda counterproductive.  Best to go with a more abstract treatment, and using the advancements system might do the trick perhaps.

Of course this could not be done by simple modding, it would require an official patch.

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 54
RE: Naval Question. - 12/12/2006 11:06:17 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		That's not a bad line of thinking at all... I don't know if they'll go for a total "re-tooling", but I could support this idea. Maybe Southern "naval upgrades" could be a seperate path entirely. Seems as silly for the Union to be building submarines and torpedoes as it does for the South to be building Fleets. What are your thoughts on that?

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 55
RE: Naval Question. - 12/12/2006 11:10:40 PM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		Oh yeah, if you check the AcwUpgrades file you'll see that advancements can be made country-specific (1=yes, 0=no), so each side could have their own unique path.

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 56
RE: Naval Question. - 12/12/2006 11:17:00 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Wonderfull. That could clear up a lot of foolishness, and improve the "flavor" of the game as well. One of these days I've got to get involved with modding. I've always concentraited on getting the "real game" fixed because it's difficult to find opponants to play "your mod". They all want to stay with the familiar and official version. So let's hope we can get them to fix it...

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 57
RE: Naval Question. - 12/12/2006 11:57:19 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline 		Sounds good to me too.

I'm disposed to favour any idea that simplifies the game while at the same time making it a better simulation.

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 58
RE: Naval Question. - 12/13/2006 12:02:01 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Now if we can just get the "Design Team" to tell us if it's possible (or more likely, something they would be willing to "take on"). How about it, Gentlemen? Any chance?

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 59
RE: Naval Question. - 12/13/2006 12:22:22 AM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

Yeah it's involved.

In a nutshell, what I'm thinkin' is whether it might be best to just jettison ALL ships in the game, not just the CSA navy. US Navy, all Runners, gone.

Replace with an abstract system to handle all naval matter...using the "tech tree."

Union would be given a Sealift capacity, similar to Rail capacity, for sea movement. Also a Blockade level (from 1 to 10), each level blocks 10% of foreign aid to the CSA.

Naval Acadamies (and now Shipyards) would still generate research points for buying advancements...but the advancements themselves would be retooled to either 1) affect Union Sealift value; 2) affect Blockade level; or 3) affect Union income (ie, a "CSA Raider" advancement).

My current thinking is what with the game mostly focused on land warfare, trying to kludge a system where 1 unit = 10 ships to try to approximate ACW naval warfare is kinda counterproductive. Best to go with a more abstract treatment, and using the advancements system might do the trick perhaps.

Of course this could not be done by simple modding, it would require an official patch.

The daftest aspect of the game I have found to date is the amphib landing capability of the CSA.... so what you are suggesting is I feel a good way to sort out the naval game.... its really mostly a 'given' if we are looking at history.

Get rid of the actual fleet engagements - they are silly.

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Naval Question. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.031