SC ACW Re-taking Ports

Please post any bugs or technical issues found here for official support.
Post Reply
Jatticus
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 12:52 am

SC ACW Re-taking Ports

Post by Jatticus »

How can the ports taken by the Yankees in the lower Mississippi, Charleston, and Cape Hatteras be taken back? I've moved infantry down the Mississippi - which couldn't attack the ports and reduced ports with Naval attack, but they remain in Union hands.

How can these ports be re-captured?
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems

Re: SC ACW Re-taking Ports

Post by Platoonist »

Jatticus wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 11:56 am How can the ports taken by the Yankees in the lower Mississippi, Charleston, and Cape Hatteras be taken back? I've moved infantry down the Mississippi - which couldn't attack the ports and reduced ports with Naval attack, but they remain in Union hands.

How can these ports be re-captured?
I think it was a game design decision that the small Union ports in the tip of the Mississippi Delta and at Cape Hatteras will always remain in Union hands. There is really no way to take them as they are not attached to any towns or cities and Cape Hatteras is well out to sea. As for the Charleston ports, you'd have to retake Charleston for a start if you haven't already.
Image
Jatticus
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 12:52 am

Re: SC ACW Re-taking Ports

Post by Jatticus »

Thank you. Is there anyway to confirm that it is a design decision to keep those ports permanently in Union control?
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems

Re: SC ACW Re-taking Ports

Post by Platoonist »

Jatticus wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 12:30 pm Thank you. Is there anyway to confirm that it is a design decision to keep those ports permanently in Union control?
It's just a guess on my part. However, I have been informed on this forum by BiteNibbleChomp that the inability of the Confederacy to re-take Fort Pulaski near Savannah or boost it's supply was a deliberate design decision.
BiteNibbleChomp wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:46 am Fort Pulaski is deliberate. It has to be an island or the Confederates would just recapture it easily after the Union landed there. Historically they made no effort to do so (probably because they couldn't/Union defences were too strong?).
If he or one of the developers chimes in on this thread, they might be able to tell us if it is the same for these ports.
Image
User avatar
BiteNibbleChomp
Posts: 590
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:52 am
Location: Australia

Re: SC ACW Re-taking Ports

Post by BiteNibbleChomp »

Yes, this is a deliberate design choice :D

Hatteras and the Mississippi ports weren't really "ports" in the way that say Baltimore or Mobile are, rather they were inlets that Union ships sheltered in during rough weather and eventually stored supplies at. It doesn't make sense to "capture" them - if the Southwest Pass specifically was assigned a permanent Confederate garrison, the Union would just start sheltering their ships in a different cove a little further away, and there was no shortage of such locations due to the geography of the area. The only real way the Confederates could keep the Union ships out of the area would be with a fleet of their own, once you've done that capturing the ports isn't really an issue because there won't be any Union ships left around to use them.

- BNC
Ryan O'Shea - Strategic Command Designer
User avatar
Bo Rearguard
Posts: 606
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Basement of the Alamo

Re: SC ACW Re-taking Ports

Post by Bo Rearguard »

The Confederates never attempted an overland expedition against the Union-held Head of Passes in the Mississippi delta because you really can't. It's isolated by miles of muck and marsh no land force could cross and stay combat-coherent. The green in the picture below isn't dry land. It's mostly tall grass sticking out of stagnant water.

head of passes.jpg
head of passes.jpg (295.2 KiB) Viewed 578 times
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems

Re: SC ACW Re-taking Ports

Post by Platoonist »

Bo Rearguard wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 1:13 pm The Confederates never attempted an overland expedition against the Union-held Head of Passes in the Mississippi delta because you really can't. It's isolated by miles of muck and marsh no land force could cross and stay combat-coherent. The green in the picture below isn't dry land. It's mostly tall grass sticking out of stagnant water.
Yeah, I just tried it in hot-seat mode. My intrepid Confederate brigade is mired in the mud one hex away from the Union delta ports at supply level one and can't move anymore. They're sick of the mosquitoes and wanna go home. :mrgreen:
Image
User avatar
BiteNibbleChomp
Posts: 590
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:52 am
Location: Australia

Re: SC ACW Re-taking Ports

Post by BiteNibbleChomp »

Platoonist wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 1:59 pm Yeah, I just tried it in hot-seat mode. My intrepid Confederate brigade is mired in the mud one hex away from the Union delta ports at supply level one and can't move anymore. They're sick of the mosquitoes and wanna go home. :mrgreen:
Please, let them go home. And mail them a medal for bravery once they're back. They've earned it!

- BNC
Ryan O'Shea - Strategic Command Designer
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems

Re: SC ACW Re-taking Ports

Post by Platoonist »

BiteNibbleChomp wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 2:02 pm
Please, let them go home. And mail them a medal for bravery once they're back. They've earned it!
Minted and mailed out. :) Given the lousy Confederate postal system they should arrive sometime the early 20th Century.

Dismal Delta Expedition.jpg
Dismal Delta Expedition.jpg (264.92 KiB) Viewed 543 times
User avatar
BiteNibbleChomp
Posts: 590
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:52 am
Location: Australia

Re: SC ACW Re-taking Ports

Post by BiteNibbleChomp »

Platoonist wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 2:48 pm Minted and mailed out. :) Given the lousy Confederate postal system they should arrive sometime the early 20th Century.
:lol: Very nice!

- BNC
Ryan O'Shea - Strategic Command Designer
Molloch
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:23 pm

Re: SC ACW Re-taking Ports

Post by Molloch »

BiteNibbleChomp wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 1:11 pm Yes, this is a deliberate design choice :D

Hatteras and the Mississippi ports weren't really "ports" in the way that say Baltimore or Mobile are, rather they were inlets that Union ships sheltered in during rough weather and eventually stored supplies at. It doesn't make sense to "capture" them - if the Southwest Pass specifically was assigned a permanent Confederate garrison, the Union would just start sheltering their ships in a different cove a little further away, and there was no shortage of such locations due to the geography of the area. The only real way the Confederates could keep the Union ships out of the area would be with a fleet of their own, once you've done that capturing the ports isn't really an issue because there won't be any Union ships left around to use them.

- BNC



Is the blockade runner line that go's through Hatteras working again if u besiege the "harbour" with csa ships down tro 0?

I can see why this design decision was made but in a case where a CSA player overwhelms the Union Navy it feels a bit odd that u cant get back controll over those strategic points. Such as Port Pulaski or Port Royal sound.
User avatar
BiteNibbleChomp
Posts: 590
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:52 am
Location: Australia

Re: SC ACW Re-taking Ports

Post by BiteNibbleChomp »

Molloch wrote: Sun Apr 13, 2025 1:50 pm Is the blockade runner line that go's through Hatteras working again if u besiege the "harbour" with csa ships down tro 0?

I can see why this design decision was made but in a case where a CSA player overwhelms the Union Navy it feels a bit odd that u cant get back controll over those strategic points. Such as Port Pulaski or Port Royal sound.
Sieging the port down won't restart the convoy.

- BNC
Ryan O'Shea - Strategic Command Designer
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”