Mississippi House Rule

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Mississippi House Rule

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] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> Mississippi House Rule

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Mississippi House Rule - 9/21/2008 6:34:13 AM

Doc o War

Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline

I had posted this earlier - you can follow it back to my original Mississippi Mudd post of a while back. I thought I would restate it just because it has - or can have- such dramatic effects in the early war. I have by gentlemens agreement been playing with this as an opening rule in the most resent games and all have said the rule had good effect.. It is really aimed at the early war- and shapes the direction of the future camapign.

The startset up allows the 2 Union Cruisers in the gulf( the Gulf Squadron at the start of the war) and the two leaders a first turn window- as the Union starts the game- to just sail upriver- blast first Ft Jackson- and then Ft St Phils guns completely away- in 70% of the tests we did the Union won and blocked the river- and also blocked any troops from getting to the forts- so on the next turn the union can easily amphib in and the Mississippi is cut for supply from the opening moment of the game. There is absolutely nothing the south can do about it.

It has been admitted that was not the intention of the game designers.

So the first half of the Rule is no Union movement up the River first turn- no bombardment. The 3rd Patch that is coming has a new rule that the River Forts can only be hit from the River, not from the adjasent Sea zone - or at least Ft Jackson.
This gives the Confeds the chance in their turn to man the fort- and makes the Mississippi tough- as it should be.

In th enew 3rd Patch Amphib landings at Ft JAckson can only be supported by ships in the River- undergoing defensive fire from the forts- a costly endevor, as the new ship building rules in the new Patch also limit where damaged ships are repaired- there were actual naval yards then on the coast- some ports and states had them- some didnt. - they are mostly still there to this day- Like Boston Shipyard- or Charleston.

The Second part of the Mississippi agreement has to do with the Gulf Squadron. If you look at the Timeline that comes with the Game Manual you notice : Jan 62 Farragutt takes over the Gulf Squadron; and in April 62 he runs the guns on the river and takes New Orleans in a coup de maine. Why did those actions mean so much as to be part of the Civ War timeline? It is because the Gulf Squadron was useless before that time. -

Prior to Farragutts arrival in Jan 62 the Gulf Squadron did little- it was riddled with southern officers- who stayed with the union navy- though many had jumped ship- the loyal ones stayed> But they had lost their two home ports- New Orleans and Mobile-and all their NAval Stores they couldnt sail off with. Naval vessels take maintenance. They were without a home port or supply base from the start of the war- not in very good shape.
They were poorly commanded, and the southern leaning officer corps was rather slow to do things. Plus there was the fear of the Hurricane Season< June to SEptember most years> - that was happening as the game opens- they had no home base to run too if caught in bad weather.
There were also some Gulf Squadron Officers who may have worked against the efficiency of the force - they were also not fully trusted by the northern officers- especially at HQ> There were rumors- and sometimes outright hostile voices were heard in the Navy department calling for all southern officers to be cashiered. It was a confusing time. Tempers were short.

Many officers of southern birth stayed loyal to the Union- but in the period before October 1861 they were not organized or supplied in the Gulf region to do any sort of Amphib ops- other than taking their islands and building supply bases- and setting up their own infrastructure. They did have some Marines and were actually trying to set things right- but it was not well organized at the start.

So the second part of the Mississippi/Gulf Squadron house rule is that there is no Union Amphibs allowed until Oct 61 in the Gulf- this by the way, matches the fact that if the Union starts a new transport on the first turn, July 61, it becomes available on Oct 61- also on the Time line in the game manual notice the First Union landing is on an Island on the Atlantic Coast- in Oct 61, and the Historic time they landed on the Atlantic coastal islands- November 61- The Gulf Squadron was unable to do anything except Blockade and take the Islands and set up their Depots. Once Oct 61 hits it is a wide open Coastline. And the rule is over.

Prior to Oct 61 the only Amphib allowed should be on the Atlantic Coast- though I would argue not until the Islands are taken and depots created for the NAvy.

< Message edited by Doc o War -- 9/21/2008 7:19:23 AM >

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

Post #: 1

RE: Mississippi House Rule - 9/22/2008 12:48:00 AM

Texican

Posts: 248
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline

I appreciate the info and the "gentleman's" house rule, but would not a true "gentleman" be playing the South anyway?

(in reply to Doc o War)

Post #: 2

RE: Mississippi House Rule - 9/22/2008 6:13:14 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

I would play you!

No point to the game without a bad guy :) Well, that's relative. Germany may or may not have been the bad guy in WW1, but we still need that for a good historical wargame.

There is always a good guy and a bad guy. The Victors write the history book anyway. That's why the Roman Conquests of the Barbarians were so Righteous ;)

< Message edited by wargamer123 -- 9/22/2008 6:53:13 AM >

(in reply to Texican)

Post #: 3