Western Confederate Supply

Western Confederate Supply (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States

Message

Doc o War -> Western Confederate Supply (8/24/2008 6:00:45 AM)
I am pondering why, when the Mississippi River was cut- <see post Mississippi Mud> All Trade from the west ends? I was reading that in the 62/63 Vicksburg Campaign trade/supply was still coming in from the Trans Mississippi east into the Confederacy, "including supply from Mexico." Ahh- First of all Brownsville in South Texas was a Blockage runner Station- <Corpus Christi on our map> and a lively Trade happened as European Merchant ships simply sailed into the Mexican ports of Tampico and Matamoras and offloaded supplies into caravans and convoys, and smaller blockade runners that brought the goods north into Texas and the confederacy- This trade grew in Importance as the war progressed and the blockade strangled the South- Galvaston was a trade port also. Though blockaded. Why does cutting off the Mississippi cut this trade value? Surely even with the Union Parked in New Orleaqns and the Mouth of the River blocked- - trade goods came up out of Mexico and entered the confederacy. This was especially true of the French Military aide. France was busy all during the period 1858 to 1866 in Trying to conquer Mexico. We were too busy fighting the War in our own land to enforce the Monroe Doctorine- though we did after the war, finally forcing the French out. The French had a real political, economic and strategic reason for supporting the Confed war effort- especially at first. That trade came up out of Texas. I think you should consider- you gods on high who deside all that is realin the WBTS universe, consider some modified Western Trade even if the Mississippi is blockaded. This would end if the Union Took out the two regions in Texas- Dallas and Corpus Christi. Or had complete control of the entire Mississippi River- ala Historical..

Erik Rutins -> RE: Western Confederate Supply (8/24/2008 12:03:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Doc o War Why does cutting off the Mississippi cut this trade value? Surely even with the Union Parked in New Orleaqns and the Mouth of the River blocked- - trade goods came up out of Mexico and entered the confederacy. This was especially true of the French Military aide. France was busy all during the period 1858 to 1866 in Trying to conquer Mexico. We were too busy fighting the War in our own land to enforce the Monroe Doctorine- though we did after the war, finally forcing the French out. The French had a real political, economic and strategic reason for supporting the Confed war effort- especially at first. That trade came up out of Texas. Blocking the Mississippi does not block trade coming into Texas. To do that, you have to take Galveston. Trade coming into Texas can certainly move up into other parts of the CSA as well. quote: I think you should consider- you gods on high who deside all that is realin the WBTS universe, consider some modified Western Trade even if the Mississippi is blockaded. This would end if the Union Took out the two regions in Texas- Dallas and Corpus Christi. Or had complete control of the entire Mississippi River- ala Historical.. I think the existing economic stats of Texas represent some of this trade and resources. However, the idea about making the Mississippi a bit "leaky" in general is a good one, though any change there would require new balance testing to make sure the CSA would not end up with ahistorically high levels of supply. The current game balance, given a roughly historical progression, models things pretty well as far as later CSA supply difficulties. Regards, - Erik

paullus99 -> RE: Western Confederate Supply (8/24/2008 2:22:29 PM)
Once the Union captured the length of the Mississippi, after the fall of Vicksburg & Port Hudson in July 1863, it became impossible for any large scale or meaningful transfer of supplies, troops or misc. from West to East for the Confederacy. General Richard Taylor, when recalled from his position in the Trans-Mississippi (after the abortive Missouri Expedition) was forced to swim across the river beside his horse, at night, to avoid patrolling Union gunbats. There were ironclads stationed every few miles along the length of the river, with gunboats patrolling inbetween. Although there were plentiful supplies and even troops that could have made a difference, by late 1863, it was no longer possible to make any transfers. I think the game more than adequately portrays the issues - and is the whole reason the Union wanted to control the Mississippi anyway.

Erik Rutins -> RE: Western Confederate Supply (8/24/2008 2:28:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paullus99 Once the Union captured the length of the Mississippi, after the fall of Vicksburg & Port Hudson in July 1863, it became impossible for any large scale or meaningful transfer of supplies, troops or misc. from West to East for the Confederacy. Right - but blocking it at the mouth didn't prevent the supplies from Texas moving across it in the middle, which is what I was pointing out. Once you have every Mississippi region blocked in the game, it does also cut the CSA into two separate supply grids. Regards, - Erik

paullus99 -> RE: Western Confederate Supply (8/24/2008 3:48:18 PM)
Absolutely - I assumed that you would have to control the length of the river before cutting off the supply completely. Of course, closing the river at the end (at New Orleans) would have the same effect as taking any other port, preventing it from being used for overseas supplies.

Doc o War -> RE: Western Confederate Supply (8/24/2008 10:10:32 PM)
Except the historic Union Navy was not able to do that until early 1862- this game set up allows the Union at a very low ciost- to cut the Mississippi trade entirely for the duration of the war from Turn 1- that seems too dramatic an effect-

Erik Rutins -> RE: Western Confederate Supply (8/25/2008 12:17:38 AM)
I'm not sure how much of a guarantee it really is for the Union and it's a pretty big risk. This may work well aganst the AI, but I think a human CSA opponent could overcome it and punish the Union for this early gamble.

Doc o War -> RE: Western Confederate Supply (8/27/2008 7:32:03 AM)
IN other games about the Civ War the Mississippi Delta is the 8 regions of swamp around New Orleans- just Taking the River Forts or blocking the main channel really didnt cut the delta- it was so porous and so big. Real big. If you look at the 1863 start set up for the UNion you will see that the Union did in fact garrision and hold the regions- even though putting men into those swamps was so deadly because of disease- there the garrisons are. That was because only boots in the mud could cut the delta off- I would hope when the redesign of some of the rules happens later this fall- that some small amount of Delta trade is allowed to flow through as long as the South holds the River Line. I think there are 8 regions of swamp that make up the delta- and I suggest giving them 5% trade value for a full value of 40% if all were confederate, even with the river cut. - so that even if the River is cut there would still be some hard won blockade running coming out of the Delta. AS each Region is garrisioned by the Union it would cut a further 5% off- New Orleans is its self a delta swamp worth 5%- and a city of value also. Each river Fort is 5%, and the surrounding regions. If you felt that was too much then just the 5 coastal swamp regions of the Delta. for 25% - this would make the Union have to consider garrisioning the regions- just like they did historically, to stop the trade. Also to stop Partisans. If later we also saw a new Swamp attrition rule- which is being discussed? Then it would make the swamp questions even more weighty- just as they really were for the Union. And put a real cost in doing so. Let us reflect on the real history of this matter and perhaps there will be a new situation to deal with that will more show the real Mississippi Delta problem.

PhilipB -> RE: Western Confederate Supply (8/27/2008 3:53:08 PM)
Folks, It does'nt seems that there was that much trade / supplies comming through to justify much of a change in in the current rules. Even at 100% blockage most of the areas still recieve 1-4 points a turn anyway. This would seem to represent the illegal supply running talked about here. Nova538

Doc o War -> RE: Western Confederate Supply (8/28/2008 7:49:27 AM)
100% blockade of ports on the coast seem to have some Trade trickle- but when the River is cut there is zero trade through the river ports. Also see my recent Mississippi Mud thread posts about the amount of times the UNion is able to cut the river first turn in July 61- I was bored and my broadband server was down all weekend- so I just ran and reran the first turn attack on Ft Jackson and Ft St Phillippe- and was running about a 70% success rate for the Union, pulling this off with little cost- so much so that we are talking about a House Rule banning first turn Union entry into the Miss River outright - I also posted a thread about the poor Union Gulf Squadron in July 61- they just were not really capable of doing anything like this- nor was much to happen in the Gulf until Farragutt arrived in Jan 62.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.671875