RE: Naval Question.

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]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Naval Question. - 12/13/2006 3:59:35 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

Just some figures on the respective sizes of the two navies near the end of 1861:

The CSA navy started out with 10 vessels mounting a total of 15 guns, only one of which (a 68-lber on the Lewis Cass) was comparable in size to the VIII (8") guns carried on US Sloops (12-20 each) or Frigates (40+) each. By November, the CSA had about 30 wooden vessels, all of them small, and most of them armed with a single gun.
By contrast, by December 1861, the Union had brought into commission 76 of the "Old Navy" vessels, mounting 1,783 guns, and had built or purchased other vessels to bring the total to 264 vessels, carrying 2,557 guns.

Simply comparing the number of guns afloat gives the Union about a 50:1 advantage; adjusted to reflect the heavier caliber of the Union guns, the edge would probably be more than 200:1. It is unlikely that the entire assembled Confederate fleet of 1861 could have defeated a single US (steam) screw sloop, or a steam or sail Frigate. On the two occasions when CSA "mosquito fleets" of wooden gunboats tried to engage the US Navy in the Atlantic -- at Port Royal and Roanoke Island -- the CSA vessels were sunk or scattered without seriously damaging a single US ship.

Figures for the respective sizes of the Union and Confederate Navies are taken from J.Thomas Sharf's "History of the Confederate Navy." (pgs 24, 41, 47)

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 61

RE: Naval Question. - 12/13/2006 5:51:00 AM

Mike Scholl

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

This is pretty much the point I was making earlier..., but the tabulation of armament makes it much clearer. There is a BIG difference between having some craft that float and having a Navy. The South's "navy" was a "harbor defense adjunct", not a "blue water" fleet, and the game needs to treat it that way. Thanks for putting it in such crystal terms.

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 62

RE: Naval Question. - 12/13/2006 5:27:15 PM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

I'm convinced, why doesn't someone with more history and talent than me create a mod reflecting the correct naval situation. :)

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 63

RE: Naval Question. - 12/13/2006 8:06:48 PM

Mike Scholl

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

Might be the only answer..., but right now we have hopes of getting a "fix" into the actual and real GAME so that everyone can have a bit more reality in the mix. Then you won't have to worry about getting someone to play a "mod" just so you can play a naval game that isn't total BS.

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 64

RE: Naval Question. - 12/14/2006 1:44:34 PM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Might be the only answer..., but right now we have hopes of getting a "fix" into the actual and real GAME so that everyone can have a bit more reality in the mix. Then you won't have to worry about getting someone to play a "mod" just so you can play a naval game that isn't total BS.

More than 24 hours without a single "rebuttal" or "comment". Is everyone finally convinced that the "at start" Naval OB given to the South in the "Official Scenarios" is total nonsense? Thank You BLACKHORSE. Now if only the folks doing the patches will pay attention....

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 65

RE: Naval Question. - 12/14/2006 2:38:47 PM

steveuk

Posts: 66
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Essex, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Might be the only answer..., but right now we have hopes of getting a "fix" into the actual and real GAME so that everyone can have a bit more reality in the mix. Then you won't have to worry about getting someone to play a "mod" just so you can play a naval game that isn't total BS.

More than 24 hours without a single "rebuttal" or "comment". Is everyone finally convinced that the "at start" Naval OB given to the South in the "Official Scenarios" is total nonsense? Thank You BLACKHORSE. Now if only the folks doing the patches will pay attention....

I agree.....I never use the available CSA navy anyway apart from the 2 gunrunners. Also I only use CSA weapons and never buy Spencers etc as these were unusable by the CSA....O'h for a realistic patch

_____________________________

It is well that war is so terrible; else we would grow too fond of it.
Robert E. Lee (1807-1870)

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 66

RE: Naval Question. - 12/14/2006 2:53:50 PM

quikstrike

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/22/2005
Status: offline

You know, at least insofar as my own campaign goes, this whole question of the size of the CS Navy just doesn't matter. The first turn of my first game, I attempted a grand sorty of the CSN off of Charleston, hoping to challenge the still-small USN. A royal thrashing of the CSN ensued. I've had to restart the game since then, but all the CSN has done in this game is sit around rotting in port. Its primary mission seems to be to remain as a "fleet-in-being", but the Kaiser's High Seas Fleet had more utility in that role, than the CSN I have sitting in port in Charleston. I'm half-tempted to scrap the lot, save the blockade runners, since all they do is serve to eat up resources in support, but I'm afraid that if I did destroy the entire fleet, the USN would be emboldened to expand the blockade faster than it already is.

(in reply to steveuk)

Post #: 67

RE: Naval Question. - 12/14/2006 4:15:28 PM

Mike Scholl

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

Well, the AI can and does "exploit" them considerably. Have you played as the Union? But in your current situation, wouldn't you be "better off" with some improvements in weaponry to your coastal forts/cities (to represent the gunboats the South did have) rather than "Fleet Counters" and "Ships" representing what it never had?

(in reply to quikstrike)

Post #: 68

RE: Naval Question. - 12/14/2006 5:53:58 PM

jimwinsor

Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Might be the only answer..., but right now we have hopes of getting a "fix" into the actual and real GAME so that everyone can have a bit more reality in the mix. Then you won't have to worry about getting someone to play a "mod" just so you can play a naval game that isn't total BS.

More than 24 hours without a single "rebuttal" or "comment". Is everyone finally convinced that the "at start" Naval OB given to the South in the "Official Scenarios" is total nonsense? Thank You BLACKHORSE. Now if only the folks doing the patches will pay attention....

Not to worry, Mike, the topic is being actively discussed in the private beta forum. And the ideas and thoughts here are being put on the table down there. So yeah, keep 'em coming!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 69

RE: Naval Question. - 12/14/2006 7:39:52 PM

Mike Scholl

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

Thanks Jim..., good to know. Is there any possibility they will go for a total re-write such as you proposed? Really liked your idea, but wondered if that much reprogramming was actually "in the cards". Figured my "just get rid of them, and give them some guns instead" approach was probably more likely to see implementation because no code changes would be involved. How goes the discussion?

(in reply to jimwinsor)

Post #: 70

RE: Naval Question. - 12/14/2006 9:06:11 PM

jimwinsor

Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline

Anything is possible, I suppose. Gotta keep in mind though Eric's priorities, tho...squash the few remaining known bugs first, implement game improvements second.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 71

RE: Naval Question. - 12/14/2006 9:18:21 PM

Mike Scholl

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

Well, those priorities are straight. Hopefully when he finishes his "exterminator" duties he'll take the opportunity to toss some "OB fixes" and such into the patch as well.

(in reply to jimwinsor)

Post #: 72