Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Early Union Naval builds 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 >> Early Union Naval builds House rule Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Early Union Naval builds House rule - 3/18/2009 9:39:37 PM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline
As you guys know I have been focused on the naval aspect a bit in the past- some players and I have been tossing this idea around and I have to share it here. A house rule to consider to keep the game more in historic perspective.

If the Union starts all naval builds on the East coast( nothing but transports-) no iron clads in New York - no cruisers in New England- he will have +24 transports arrive by Sept 61- Then another +24 in December and another +24 by March and another +24 by July - that is 92 transports built in less than a year- With the 27 already on the ocean at the start of the game by March 62 the Union could have a lift capacity of nearly 120 Transports enough to move +100,000 men - +50 points by amphib assault- that is 40% more than the Union was able to launch in spring 62- and while the Union Navy would be at a bad disadvantage against raiders and any Confed ironclads if done- as we adjusted the confed ironclads down they may not build many anyway- And ok the Union could build two ironclads and 8 crusiers and have a few less transports and still have some navy- It is still too much Amphib power potential for the early war. It is a huge invasion capabilty - and a bit too rich for what the Union could have done by 1862.

Historically the Union was able to put together a pretty aggresive(for its time) naval build program once the war started, that by spring of '62 could put about 60,000 men in boats a month- while supporting the blockade effort fully. That was with a pretty agressive build program for the era. Remember this is not the Industrial pushes of the 20th century World Wars- this was 19th century early Industrial age - and the private enterprise boat builders were not really interested in making ships for the military- the Civilian trade across the oceans was very lucrative- very very much so. Loaning your ship to the government was risky in time of war- a ship sunk by act of God or WAR was not indemnable for insurance. You simply lost it. By 1862 and later the Union had nationalized some of the ship building industry- and was producing transports specifically for naval use for the war. But not in the first year.

That is the point here- not in the first year.

WE have been talking about a house rule- In the First year only- July 61 to July 62: only warships may be built by the Union- In New York and New England- that way the US Navy has fighting ships- and by taking out those ships only a max of 9 transports built in the other Coast ports would hit the water each three months or 36 in a year- added to the 27 leaves it at about a 60000 man lift capacity in the year- just bang on about historically in the zone. Repairs of any damaged transports popping up in the regions would be allowed. You could by argeement allow 2 transports to be built in those regions per phase- at a cost to the naval combat ship program- any more than that would unhinge the real shipyard ability they had. That would be up to the players.

I know you guys say the commanders should be able to decide- but this pushed my buttons regarding the real ability of the Union Yards to produce transports in these numbers early on- also the US Navy would have never allowed warships NOT to be made- in time of war.

Remember also the US Navy doctorine at the start of the war was that the Blockade was the main mission of the Navy- Invasions were considered crazy and a waste of time- and the Navy and the Army distrusted and disliked each other- The roots of the Army-Navy Football game go way back.

Thus I think this needs to be considered- After July 62 the transport build option would open in New York and New England again- but for now I think it would make an excellent house rule- just to torque this in a more historic lift capability direction.

Part of the problem we have as modern gamers is we are beyond WW2 so it is hard for us to see things as the men of that time did- We are used to thinking of fast movements and battles of annihilation. We think nothing of harnessing the power and resources of a nation and directing it toward the main war effort- We learned that since the Civil war- it is hard not to look at things like we do now. But the men of their time- and these were men of talent and intelligence and will- yet they could only move the nation as far and as fast as they did. Anything more is moving the model of what was possible into imaginary areas. The whole idea that you were fighting for the USA and one nation united in the war effort just was not part of the real process in 1861 and the first half of 62- America got there- but much slower than the artifical game abilities this unfettered Naval build issue has risen.

You may rip this if you desire- but I'm making this as a suggested house rule. Wanted to know if anyone had strong issues with it first. See anything I might have missed in the logic of it- based on the historic real war inability to build that much lift capacity early on.

Joel and others on the developer board have said we can make these house rules If we wish to do so- they are not going to code this in the future, so it would be up to the players.
- And Eric is of the opinion that the US Navy could have followed a policy of heavy investment early on in sea transports and invasions. But frankly nothing I have ever read about the naval leaders- Gideon Wells or any of the Admirals- or Lincoln- certainly not the Army Generals, who basically felt the Navy useless anyway- has lead me to conclude they would have remotely done an Invasion first policy over the Blockade and Fighting Navy that in fact they did persue.

In any case its an Easy House rule to envoke- the Union Player makes only warships in New York and New England when doing Naval builds until July 62( or limit the transport build in the regions to 1 or 2) - We did make note that damaged Transports often go to New York- so repair of Damaged transports is allowed. After July 62 the Union can build what it wants.



_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.
Post #: 1
RE: Early Union Naval builds House rule - 3/18/2009 10:19:33 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
Doc,

I understand your argument for what capacity the Union should have at best, don't you think that is mitigated by basically conceding the ocean to the CSA?  You will never be able to contain their raiders, nor will you be able to stop them breaking out of the mississippi once they get some ironclads out.

I am not saying it won't work, I just haven't even considered it.  By doing this your not stopping raiders nor are you appreciably blockading ports.  You may VERY well end up just plain taking them though.  Everytime your AC in DC gets init you will take a southern port.

Thinking about it from the CSA perspective, it would be interersting, could I establish naval superiority (and kill a gaggle of those transports) before you could take most ot the places that produce naval units?!

I have long wondered if naval builds should be something shown to your opponent.  I am not sure how it was historically, but I vaguely remember something about each side having pretty decent intel about the other sides naval programs.  So perhaps we should consider making Naval Builds available to the other side.  That could help alot with these Naval issues.  I think if the Union went on a transport spree the CSA would learn of it in short order, and if the CSA went to build a dozen ironclads the Union would learn of that quickly also.


(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 2
RE: Early Union Naval builds House rule - 3/19/2009 3:23:14 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline
Really only concerned about the first year - after that the war will take its own course.
Knowing whatthe enemy builds would be interesting- certainly it would help somewhat- but we do have rough estimates of whatthe enemy has in the way of armies and navies- its the builds we dont know enough about-
In any case this house rule only is aimed at Union transport builds- first year

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mike Parker)
Post #: 3
RE: Early Union Naval builds House rule - 3/19/2009 1:22:28 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
I'll have to scare up my brother and get him into a game and try this out on him.  He usually goes for a heavy naval strategy for the CSA so this could be interesting.  The new patch will prevent him from overloading ironclads.. but with me not building any for a year *ponders*

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 4
RE: Early Union Naval builds House rule - 3/19/2009 7:11:34 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline
I am in a PBEM game and have limited the south to 3 ironclads being built or in the production queue and it seems to work out ok. I have had a couple successes around New Orleans and Willmington but have been driven back by the Union Navy.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to Mike Parker)
Post #: 5
RE: Early Union Naval builds House rule - 3/19/2009 11:24:37 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
Capt. Cliff,

Is this a game using the new patch that can slow down CSA ironclad production if they have more than one going at a time?

Errr I guess it isn't new though, I haven't gone to it as I am playing a game I want to finish at the moment!

(in reply to Capt Cliff)
Post #: 6
RE: Early Union Naval builds House rule - 3/20/2009 12:59:21 AM   
Treefrog


Posts: 702
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline
Doc,

Interesting thinking. As I recall your houserule on Kentucky invasion was ultimately adopted into a patch.

A few points to ponder:

Regardless of what the admirals thought about building transports in lieu of warships, the federal government of 1861 was relatively weak (FBI Clue #1 is that some states thought they could just walk away and nobody could stop them). The Civil War changed the face of federal government and led to the all powerful central government we take for granted now; not so then.

The Yankee profit incentive and the budding Industrial Revolution were the driving forces in the economy, witness blankets that dissolve in the rain and shoes with cardboard soles. If the industrial class that owned the shipyards wanted to build transports instead of warships I think (well, actually my unresearched prejudice might be a better way to say it) that's what they would have done. The Federal government was so weak that it could not even get an income tax past the Supreme Court in that era; I don't think they seized any shipyards by eminent domain and for political reasons probably would have.

Ship owners don't have to worry about Acts of God/war if they sell their leaky, old ships and/or if they have a contract that provides for payment in full if not returned (I wonder if they had collision damage waivers in 1861).

Keep up the original thinking!



_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 7
RE: Early Union Naval builds House rule - 3/20/2009 6:56:16 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline
Treefrog- actually the issue was money- When the war started the Bank of England and France both basicly refused to loan the US government money to fund the war- Well, they cynically said they would loan at like 34%!- but that was not going to happen, Lincoln said no thanks. - The South was already in The Euro Banks pockets- - and here we are talking 1861 mid at the start of this game.
from the work- 'The Money Changers" from 2006-->>

>>This is when the money changers saw the opportunity to divide and conquer America by plunging it deeper into Civil War.  This is confirmed by Otto Von Bismarck when he was Chancellor of Germany (1871 - 1890), who stated,

"The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe, these bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained as one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence which would upset their financial domination over the world."

Only months after these first shots in South Carolina, the Central bankers loaned, Napoleon III of France (the Napoleon of the battle of Waterloo's nephew), 210 million francs to seize Mexico and then station troops along the Southern border of the United States, by taking advantage of the American Civil War to return Mexico to colonial rule.
This was in violation of the, "Monroe Doctrine," which was issued by President James Monroe during his seventh annual State of the Union address to Congress, in 1823.  This doctrine proclaimed the United States' opinion that European powers should no longer colonize the Americas or interfere with the affairs of sovereign nations located in the Americas, such as the United States, Mexico, and others.
In return, the United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and in wars between a European power and its colonies. However, if these latter type of wars were to occur in the Americas, the U.S. would view such action as hostile toward itself.<<


Without the type of money needed to fund the war- Lincoln had a terrible time at first getting things done.  Lincoln saved himself by printing Greenbacks, and getting organized.

The early attempts at Naval transport in the fall of 61 were a disaster, and what was worse is Congress afterwards refused to pay the rental fees for the ships- the ones that werent lost in the great Hurricane that November off the Carolinas--Ship Rental fees that were - admittedly- overcharged.
The private ship owners were simply businessmen after all- the troops just another cargo. Plus they had lost a lot of ships. With no insurance. They wanted their money back.  This infuriated fiscal conservatives in congress- and they just refused to pay. The shipping industry tried a bit of a boycott in late 61- but it didnt last the winter. But it effected the war effort- and caused change.

After Jan 62 the idea that the USA had used since the earliest times of hiring private ships "per voyage" was scrapped.  Lincoln and Gideon Wells began to have the Government take out long term contracts with established firms to supply the ships needed from one, two and even three year leases. The old scows were lost after the bad fall of 61. Quality ships were offered instead. And government backed war coverage insurance was guaranteed through the war department. Fixed rates were established- and the Navy began to contract specialty ships - to haul ammo and livestock and water and all sorts of things- and they began to build their own.
   
Lincoln had hit on the idea that If the Euros wouldn't loan him the money- he would make his own. He would just print the money needed- and it worked. It is considered a brilliant idea finacially at the time. People just accepted the Greenback on faith- It's just a piece of paper with numbers printed on it after all- worth what ever number was printed on it- in gold.  But all gold and silver belonged to the Federal Central Treasury for the duration of the war as an emergency situation - after the war all the cash money would be traded back for silver or gold-supposedly- only that didnt really happen- gold and silver coins returned after the war- but paper pretty much ruled - the mighty Greenback Dollar.
 - It replaced gold and silver basically as our major monetary instrument- Lincoln controled the printing presses through Solomon Chase his Sectry of Treasury. They printed whatever money was needed. With some basic controls passed over to the Banking system- watched over by the Treasury department. There was also an Income tax- called the War Tax on income- from 1862 to 1866- which also raised cash.
  
Since Lincoln could by the spring of 62 afford to pay the boat yards owners cash with his new Greenbacks- when things had been so tight the year prior, things improved materially for the Union. - and with even Congress suddenly happy because no matter what Lincoln actually ordered- the Government paid their debts with Greenback's-Things just began to look more prosperous.

The South also printed its own paper money- but the Gold and Silver confication on th escale Lincoln enacted never really happened to back it- plus the French and Brits got cold feet by 63 and stopped secretly loaning gold to the South.  Up until 63 the Confederate Dollar was only 2 or 3:to 1 greenback- or perhaps 5 to 1 in th ewest- But after Mid 63 it was eventually 100 to 1 and the economic system caved in.
     
"and the paper money poured across the country- from sea to shinning sea."

and thus by 1862 and later- the Union government was financially solvent and the paying for the war- while still controled by the Congressional watchdogs- Money was never really a problem again.  While no one liked loosing government property or supplies- Short of a few minor moments here and there- The Majority of the Union War machine never really had to worry about Rations- or equipment-or shoes or uniforms or arms or cavalry horses- or saddles etc.- all they needed to do was issue them from the seeming endless bounty that poured forth.  The South actually often relied on captured Union supplies- and many a later battle would be disrupted as the Confederates stopped their attacks to loot captured Union Camps.

So to round this out- my idea for a House Rule: this Early War Union Naval build agreement: - is: That in the First year> July 61 to July 62 < the Union can only build Warships in New York or New England-::( though on agreement you could allow 1 transport extra build per Zone- ( 2 extra transports)  instead of one warship each.) :: In a year that 2 extra every three emonths will produce 8 more transports- but only two less warships. ::  All damaged transports can be fixed if so desired- Often damaged transports return to New York or New England. :: After July 62 the Union - now richer with greenbacks flowing- can build what ever they want naval build wise in New York or New England. and the House rule lifts.

< Message edited by Doc o War -- 3/20/2009 9:52:45 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 8
RE: Early Union Naval builds House rule - 3/23/2009 7:04:40 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

Capt. Cliff,

Is this a game using the new patch that can slow down CSA ironclad production if they have more than one going at a time?

Errr I guess it isn't new though, I haven't gone to it as I am playing a game I want to finish at the moment!


This is not the current Beta test edition. It's the current patch level one.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to Mike Parker)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> Early Union Naval builds House rule Page: [1]
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

0.984