Naval Question.

[jimwinsor]

Well, thats the thing, when you ask "what is a ship" in this game I can't really answer definitively because I'm not the designer.  I can make some good speculations, however; when you ask how the CSA gets 50 ships, I show you 50 ships; when you say they were generally pretty crummy ships, I say true, but there are 50 pretty crummy Union ships in their too...why are are we counting Union crummy ships, but not CSA crummy ships?  That does not sound consistent.
 
Like I said, if the consensus here is for all crummy ships to be dropped, sure that can be done.  If that means the CSA gets no navy, well fine, I wouldn't have a problem with that.  As long as we are being consistent.
 
Just keep in mind, however, that an alternative does exist, you know...ships in the game can be graded according to Quality (ie, Morale), and if you give crummy ships (on both sides) crummy ratings, then we can include them all...it's just that the crummy ones will perform...um, crummily.  Which is what we are aiming for.  If you've fought enough Quick Combats (in both CoG and FoF) you'll know exactly what I mean...morale 1 units are rather useless and cowardly, and will flee to the Routed Area pretty quickly, meaning the side with them loses the battle (and quite possibly a LOT of ships in pursuit).
 
I would think a CSA player saddled with a navy of crummy ships would do precisely as Mallory did, and that is pursue a "fleet in being" strategy of keeping his ships in a harbor defense posture, rather than sending them to certain doom on the high seas.  I'm pretty certain that would be my play.
 

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

Well, thats the thing, when you ask "what is a ship" in this game I can't really answer definitively because I'm not the designer.  I can make some good speculations, however; when you ask how the CSA gets 50 ships, I show you 50 ships; when you say they were generally pretty crummy ships, I say true, but there are 50 pretty crummy Union ships in their too...why are are we counting Union crummy ships, but not CSA crummy ships?  That does not sound consistent. My problem with this approach is that if you get down to counting "Revenue Cutters" and "Coal Tenders" and "Harbor Tugs" that the Union would wind up with a LOT more than 80-90 "ships", (I said 900, but I pulled that number from the sky. But if you count all the support vessels and tenders and other "ash and trash" that you had in your list, it's going to be considerable number.)

Like I said, if the consensus here is for all crummy ships to be dropped, sure that can be done.  If that means the CSA gets no navy, well fine, I wouldn't have a problem with that.  As long as we are being consistent.

Just keep in mind, however, that an alternative does exist, you know...ships in the game can be graded according to Quality (ie, Morale), and if you give crummy ships (on both sides) crummy ratings, then we can include them all...it's just that the crummy ones will perform...um, crummily.  Which is what we are aiming for.  If you've fought enough Quick Combats (in both CoG and FoF) you'll know exactly what I mean...morale 1 units are rather useless and cowardly, and will flee to the Routed Area pretty quickly, meaning the side with them loses the battle (and quite possibly a LOT of ships in pursuit). This is something to consider, but it really doesn't address the issue that the South simply didn't have the kind of Ocean-Going Navy that the "Ship" and "Fleet" units in the game represent. What "naval actions" they fought were in sheltered coastal waters like Mobile Bay or Hampton Roads..., and with the exception of the Virginia's one brief day of Glory, they were fought in support of the Harbor defenses. High seas encounters were limited to single-ship events like the Alabama vs. the Kearsage, which was hardly a "fleet action".

I would think a CSA player saddled with a navy of crummy ships would do precisely as Mallory did, and that is pursue a "fleet in being" strategy of keeping his ships in a harbor defense posture, rather than sending them to certain doom on the high seas.  I'm pretty certain that would be my play. To which I would say that they had no choice but to be Harbor Defense because they weren't "Blue Water" capable. Which is why I think they are better reflected in the game as "fort upgrades" rather than Ships and Fleets. What ships the South could find that were "blue Water" capable were "blockade running", not fighting "Fleet Actions". For the South to have a "High Seas Fleet" just gives the game a "wrong" feel.

I think we are having an impass because you are maintaining that the the South had 50 "pretty crumby ships", and that the north had 50 "pretty crumby ships" as well..., and I am maintaining that while the North may well have had 50 "less-than-terrific WARships" among their 90, they also had hundreds of additional "pretty crumby ships" like the one's you want to count for the South. Whereas the South only had 50 "pretty crumby ships".. We are back to those "apples and oranges"...., and hopefully can reach some agreement soon.

[jimwinsor]

Well yeah, I mean when you have an author comparing the Union sail navy to Themistoclean galleys, and saying it would have been better they had not even existed...then yeah, I feel you are being a tad over generous with the phrase "less than terrific."
 
And I'm not sure the Union had any "armed" support vessels that were similar to the CSA ships in question (9, 90, 900, whatever).  If they did I have to think they'd have been listed as part of their 90 warships.
 
And I have to point out...there is really no "blue water" in FoF. All sea areas in the game are coastal.  So while you are correct in saying the CSA did not have a High Seas Fleet, well true but not exactly relavant in this context as we do not have any High Seas to go a-sailing to.  Everything is "brown water" in FoF.
 
Everything else we pretty much agree on, I think.

[jimwinsor]

BTW a really good site for looking at exactly what ships each navy had throughout the war, when, what they did, and what their armaments were, is this link to the Official Naval Records:
 
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/sgml/moa-idx?notisid=ANU4547-2001
 
You have to page thru scanned pages (which can be a pain), but it is the best original source I've managed to find online
 
It is much more complete than the Wikipedia page cited earlier.

[Director]

Given how rapidly the Union increased its navy I think you have two choices:

1) give the Union the ability to quickly build new fleets and start the game with 20-30 points worth of ships, and make construction of new ships cheap and quick
2) give the Union at least 3 fleets at the start of the game and 75-80 ships, with new fleet and new ship construction price and time equivalent to the Confederates

Please bear in mind the Union did not have to build major warships, just equip gunboats that could stop a blockade runner.

Unless the Union can, within a year, field four to six fleets and two hundred ships you have a problem in game mechanics. The Union Navy eventually topped six hundred ships counting the river fleets.

The Confederate iron and mechanical shops that were capable of building steam engines (New Orleans, Richmond, Norfolk, Mobile) were swamped with other war work. Navy work was low priority for Confederate industry and railroads - witness the slow construction of the 'Louisiana' at New Orleans, whose armor plate was still arriving and whose main propeller shaft arrived after Farragut ran the forts and took the city. So it is fair to say the South had to scavenge for engines - their best and fastest ironclad 'Atlanta' used British engines. The biggest constraint on Confederate ship construction was not engines but labor, especially skilled labor.

The Union was no great shakes in the engineering department either, rarely producing a ship that could steam as fast as its European counterparts. (The fast commerce raiders built toward the end of the war were an exception to this).


From Still's 'Confederate Shipbuilding': "In addition to the Fulton my note: (old, seized at Pensacola) the Confederacy aquired by purchase or capture, four revenue cutters, three slavers, and two privately-owned coastal steamers. These ten vessels, carrying a total of fifteen guns, formed the nucleus of the Confederate States navy when it was organized in February 1861. The incorporation of various state navies added additional vessels. Georgia and South Carolina each supplied two small gunboats, and after secession both Virginia and North Carolina transferred five ships to Confederate service."


The first purpose-built warship from the keel up was the 'Morgan', built in Mobile and launched in February of 1862, implying a build-time of at least six months. The Union was already building comparable gunboats in half the time. About 5 of these gunboats were completed before the South turned fully to ironclads.

Following the firing on Fort Sumter the CSA purchased the 'Habana' and the 'Marquis de la Habana' ('Sumter' and 'McRae') at New Orleans. By July of 1861 three converted tugboats were added ('Jackson' at New Orleans, 'Sampson' and 'Resolute' in Savannah).

In November of 1861 the North Carolina sounds were invaded and Port Royal, South Carolina was taken. Secretary Mallory then turned his attentions to armored ships. Five were authorized ('Virginia' at Norfolk, 'Arkansas' and 'Tennessee' at Memphis, 'Mississippi' and 'Louisiana' at New Orleans). Three of these were partially or fully completed.


One interesting note: the South was offered the chance to purchase up to a dozen (I think) East Indiamen for use as raiders or as a war fleet. The Southern purchasing agents were concentrating on trying to buy ironclads and declined the offer.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

Well yeah, I mean when you have an author comparing the Union sail navy to Themistoclean galleys, and saying it would have been better they had not even existed...then yeah, I feel you are being a tad over generous with the phrase "less than terrific." I meant it in the sense that pre-Dreadnaught Battleships were "obsolete" the day Dreadnaught was commissioned. They were "obsolete" against a Dreadnaught. But if you didn't have a Dreadnaught, they were still more than you could handle. Basically "less than the Best is still better than all the rest."

And I'm not sure the Union had any "armed" support vessels that were similar to the CSA ships in question (9, 90, 900, whatever).  If they did I have to think they'd have been listed as part of their 90 warships. Where do you think the Confederacy obtained all that miscillaneous "ash and trash"? Most were the small support vessels of the the United States Navy that had been in Southern ports. Don't you think the United States had kept "Revenue Cutters" in ports like Baltimore, Philidelphia, New York, Providence, Boston, and all the other places that were still in Northern hands? And that the Philidelphia, Brooklyn, New York, and other Navy Yards had the same type of "support ships" and "coal lighters" and "harbor tugs" that were mentioned in your list of Southern "ships". And armed (or more truthfully not armed) exactly like their Southern cousins?

And I have to point out...there is really no "blue water" in FoF. All sea areas in the game are coastal.  So while you are correct in saying the CSA did not have a High Seas Fleet, well true but not exactly relavant in this context as we do not have any High Seas to go a-sailing to.  Everything is "brown water" in FoF.
Have to totally dissagree with this statement. The Atlantic and the Gulf are not "brown water"..., ask anyone who's sailed them. The Monitor foundered in an Atlantic Storm in waters depicted on the map. "Brown Water" is river water, and sheltered coastal inlets like Mobile Bay. Anything past the barrier islands of the Carolina Capes is "high seas" (And the Graveyard of the Atlantic). Ask a sailor if you happen to know one.

Everything else we pretty much agree on, I think. I certainly hope we can come to one anyway. I think we'd get along if we weren't in the midst of this dissagreement.

[jimwinsor]

And I have to point out...there is really no "blue water" in FoF. All sea areas in the game are coastal. So while you are correct in saying the CSA did not have a High Seas Fleet, well true but not exactly relavant in this context as we do not have any High Seas to go a-sailing to. Everything is "brown water" in FoF.
Have to totally dissagree with this statement. The Atlantic and the Gulf are not "brown water"..., ask anyone who's sailed them. The Monitor foundered in an Atlantic Storm in waters depicted on the map. "Brown Water" is river water, and sheltered coastal inlets like Mobile Bay. Anything past the barrier islands of the Carolina Capes is "high seas" (And the Graveyard of the Atlantic). Ask a sailor if you happen to know one.

Well, yeah thats kinda true in real terms....but I'm talking in game terms, not real terms. And in FoF, all naval combat abstractly occurs in these coastal sea zones. Even those combats occuring very close to shore, outside of ports...and even IN ports.

For example, lets say a blockaded "harbor defense" force tries to fight a blockading squadron. The Quick Combat for this battle will take place in one of these sea zones...even though we all know this battle is really going on just barely outside the port. The blockaded ships flee back into the port if they lose. It's a game mechanics abstraction. It's not like they are going way out on the High Seas to fight.

Even more extreme...try a Port Attack. The way the game mechanics for this are set up, the defending ships in port actually TELEPORT OUT into the adjacent sea area whence the Port Attacking fleet sits...and the battle is resolved in that sea area. Again, this is a game mechanics abstraction. They are of course fighting in the port, and not really being teleported far out to sea to fight...although it kinda looks like that.

Why is it done this way? I'm guessing it's a programmers thing; it's easier to code the game so all naval combat occurs in sea zones.

So, you see what I'm saying? All these sea zones, in GAME terms, are really supposed to represent brown water littoral areas, not open seas.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

And I have to point out...there is really no "blue water" in FoF. All sea areas in the game are coastal. So while you are correct in saying the CSA did not have a High Seas Fleet, well true but not exactly relavant in this context as we do not have any High Seas to go a-sailing to. Everything is "brown water" in FoF.
Have to totally dissagree with this statement. The Atlantic and the Gulf are not "brown water"..., ask anyone who's sailed them. The Monitor foundered in an Atlantic Storm in waters depicted on the map. "Brown Water" is river water, and sheltered coastal inlets like Mobile Bay. Anything past the barrier islands of the Carolina Capes is "high seas" (And the Graveyard of the Atlantic). Ask a sailor if you happen to know one.

Well, yeah thats kinda true in real terms....but I'm talking in game terms, not real terms. And in FoF, all naval combat abstractly occurs in these coastal sea zones. Even those combats occuring very close to shore, outside of ports...and even IN ports.

For example, lets say a blockaded "harbor defense" force tries to fight a blockading squadron. The Quick Combat for this battle will take place in one of these sea zones...even though we all know this battle is really going on just barely outside the port. The blockaded ships flee back into the port if they lose. It's a game mechanics abstraction. It's not like they are going way out on the High Seas to fight.

Even more extreme...try a Port Attack. The way the game mechanics for this are set up, the defending ships in port actually TELEPORT OUT into the adjacent sea area whence the Port Attacking fleet sits...and the battle is resolved in that sea area. Again, this is a game mechanics abstraction. They are of course fighting in the port, and not really being teleported far out to sea to fight...although it kinda looks like that.
Hadn't tried this as yet, (too busy dealing with the AI sending Fleets out to attack my forces on the open Ocean), but I do agree that sounds really silly looking. And Wrong! How can a fleet attack a Port without attacking it's Forts as well? Farragut engaged Buchannan's "squadron" (Tennessee and some "ash and trash") right under the guns (and torpedoes) of the Fort at the entrance to Mobile Bay. Buchannan would have had to be crazy to fight anywhere else given the "one-sidedness" of the contest.

Why is it done this way? I'm guessing it's a programmers thing; it's easier to code the game so all naval combat occurs in sea zones. I'd call it all the more reason to do it my way..., as their way sounds totally a-historic and silly-looking. But I do understand your "brown water" comment in those lights.
So, you see what I'm saying? All these sea zones, in GAME terms, are really supposed to represent brown water littoral areas, not open seas.

Have you looked at my "suggestions" in the "Wish List" section? I'm not proposing the South get nothing in return..., just that what they get function something more like what they actually had. And I'd like your opinion on my notion of re-doing the "frigates" into something that resembled the kind of "commerce war" the South actually did wage. What's currently happening in the game is both a-historic and dumb-looking---on that we seem to have found agreement at least. Maybe we can find some more...

[Mike Scholl]

Jim. Took a chance to try out a few "Port Attacks". and you are right. That's a really silly looking exercise, with the "port" coming out to "do battle" on the "high seas". And they bring their "submarines", but not any of the Forts or guns that made a real attack on a port so difficult. I still think my ideas here would be a far better representation of the ACW's realities.

Noticed something else really silly while I was at it. Norfolk and Richmond/James River are shown as two seperate "ports" which must be blockaded individually. Somebody totally "spaced" the geography, as the Union blockaded BOTH of them with a single fleet at Hampton Roads (at least until they re-took Norfolk). And Richmond really wasn't much of a "port". The South had to burn the Virginia because she couldn't make it upriver even as far as Drewry's Bluff, let alone Richmond. Norfolk was Richmond's port..., what came upriver were barges and smaller vessels. And I wonder what happened to "Fortress Monroe" at the tip of the Penninsula guarding Hampton Roads? That's what enabled McClellan to even plan his 1862 campaign there. The game has the North holding some Fort out in the middle of the Virginia countryside and pretty much cut off.... Union player got "hosed" all around in this area.

[jimwinsor]

Actually the port guns do shoot at you in these battles; increase the Delay in QC and you should be able to see 'em blast you at start.  So the system does work, but yeah just looks kinda odd.
 
Good point about Richmond.  It can be reclassified as a non-port city pretty easily.  The Union coastal forts (including Pickens and the 2 Keys as well) are a trickier problem, however, as forts and ports are not alike in this game.  I guess one could make them Port cities (with no production value), but then the Union would not be able to upgrade the generic guns "port cities" get.
 
Like I said before, the naval aspects of FoF are not really it's strong suit.  The same point can be made for it's predecessor CoG as well, IMO.  Now, CoG is supposed to be getting a major naval war expansion game (which'll include detailed Napoleonic sea battles!) so hopefully FoF will get the same sort of naval game face lift down the road as well.

[jimwinsor]

And I like your Wish List suggestions a lot, and I'd probably even take them a step farther...it's given me some additional ideas I'm thinking over right now...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

And I like your Wish List suggestions a lot, and I'd probably even take them a step farther...it's given me some additional ideas I'm thinking over right now...

I make no claims to perfection. Your input would be welcome. I'm assuming from your comment you now grasp the point I've been trying to make (you don't have to agree, but for a while I think we were talking at cross-purposes. Hope we're now past that).

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

And I like your Wish List suggestions a lot, and I'd probably even take them a step farther...it's given me some additional ideas I'm thinking over right now...

Boy. Jim's giving this a really good "think".

[jimwinsor]

Yeah it's involved.  [:'(]
 
In a nutshell, what I'm thinkin' is whether it might be best to just jettison ALL ships in the game, not just the CSA navy.  US Navy, all Runners, gone.
 
Replace with an abstract system to handle all naval matter...using the "tech tree."
 
Union would be given a Sealift capacity, similar to Rail capacity, for sea movement.  Also a Blockade level (from 1 to 10), each level blocks 10% of foreign aid to the CSA.
 
Naval Acadamies (and now Shipyards) would still generate research points for buying advancements...but the advancements themselves would be retooled to either 1) affect Union Sealift value; 2) affect Blockade level; or 3) affect Union income (ie, a "CSA Raider" advancement).
 
My current thinking is what with the game mostly focused on land warfare, trying to kludge a system where 1 unit = 10 ships to try to approximate ACW naval warfare is kinda counterproductive.  Best to go with a more abstract treatment, and using the advancements system might do the trick perhaps.
 
Of course this could not be done by simple modding, it would require an official patch.

[Mike Scholl]

That's not a bad line of thinking at all... I don't know if they'll go for a total "re-tooling", but I could support this idea. Maybe Southern "naval upgrades" could be a seperate path entirely. Seems as silly for the Union to be building submarines and torpedoes as it does for the South to be building Fleets. What are your thoughts on that?

[jimwinsor]

Oh yeah, if you check the AcwUpgrades file you'll see that advancements can be made country-specific (1=yes, 0=no), so each side could have their own unique path.

[Mike Scholl]

Wonderfull. That could clear up a lot of foolishness, and improve the "flavor" of the game as well. One of these days I've got to get involved with modding. I've always concentraited on getting the "real game" fixed because it's difficult to find opponants to play "your mod". They all want to stay with the familiar and official version. So let's hope we can get them to fix it...

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Sounds good to me too.

I'm disposed to favour any idea that simplifies the game while at the same time making it a better simulation.

[Mike Scholl]

Now if we can just get the "Design Team" to tell us if it's possible (or more likely, something they would be willing to "take on"). How about it, Gentlemen? Any chance?

[Roger Neilson II]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

Yeah it's involved. [:'(]

In a nutshell, what I'm thinkin' is whether it might be best to just jettison ALL ships in the game, not just the CSA navy. US Navy, all Runners, gone.

Replace with an abstract system to handle all naval matter...using the "tech tree."

Union would be given a Sealift capacity, similar to Rail capacity, for sea movement. Also a Blockade level (from 1 to 10), each level blocks 10% of foreign aid to the CSA.

Naval Acadamies (and now Shipyards) would still generate research points for buying advancements...but the advancements themselves would be retooled to either 1) affect Union Sealift value; 2) affect Blockade level; or 3) affect Union income (ie, a "CSA Raider" advancement).

My current thinking is what with the game mostly focused on land warfare, trying to kludge a system where 1 unit = 10 ships to try to approximate ACW naval warfare is kinda counterproductive. Best to go with a more abstract treatment, and using the advancements system might do the trick perhaps.

Of course this could not be done by simple modding, it would require an official patch.

The daftest aspect of the game I have found to date is the amphib landing capability of the CSA.... so what you are suggesting is I feel a good way to sort out the naval game.... its really mostly a 'given' if we are looking at history.

Get rid of the actual fleet engagements - they are silly.

Roger