Naval invasions

[Jim D Burns]

An interesting discussion started in Q-Ball’s AAR about naval landings, so instead of hijacking his thread I thought I’d bring the topic out here.

My initial gut reaction to landing at Charleston while the surrounding forts were still intact was to advocate for banning naval landings if emplaced guns overlooked the region the forces were landing from. Upon further thought, I think that would be unworkable as players have to be able to get ashore to take the forts and other defended positions, so I’m now advocating for an active shore battery system.

In other words if a fleet is sitting in a region trying to unload troops, there should be a chance for any defending artillery force that borders the region the fleet is in to shoot at the fleet while it is in the process of attempting to unload.

Now I know the way combat works that isn’t possible without initiating combat via force stances and whatnot with stacks that share space in the same region, so how about using the code that spawns defenders in towns and forts automatically to spawn some kind of navy unit in the region with the fleet. The size and number of units spawned would be determined by artillery units that border the region the fleet is in.

I know ships spawning makes no sense from a logical standpoint, so maybe a special unit can be created called defensive shore battery fire or something with an image of shore batteries firing on ships for the unit card graphic.

Thoughts?

Jim

[Q-Ball]

Not sure about a special card or game change, but there should be a reasonable HR against dropping an amphib force right on a major city after running fortifications.

Amphib landings, in general, are too powerful in the game. The Marine ability is one that should probably be taken out; as it is, you can use a single Marine unit to convey this ability to an entire stack, which isn't right. The Union Navy is far more capable of sailing up rivers and around fortifications than historical.

"New Orleans" you may say, and fair point; Farragut ran the forts, and took New Orleans simply by threatening to bombard it. But it's also true the Rebs failed to provide adequate defenses, a mistake they corrected by the time Gillmore beseiged Charleston. The Charleston defenses were formidable, and in the end even with alot of effort the Union wasn't able to crack them.

I think a reasonable HR is that the Union cannot run a fort, leave it in the rear, and land an invasion force. You have to clear the forts first. Once you do that, though, I think it's kosher, as Union would have freedom to land somewhere in the region the city is in. That forces the Union player to work on the fortifications first, just like RL.

[veji1]

Something like this. The question is how would you emulate that with a ingame mechanism. You should be able to do it somehow : One can run pas the forts of Louisiana and land on New Orleans, as the water province of New Orleans is not bordered by any fort, but one should not be allowed to land on a province borded by ennemy forts except for a fort itself. It would mean that a fleet in the charleston inlet brown water province can only land on one of the 3 forts. only once the forts are cleared can it land on the city itself. Same for Savannah, and I have to check how it would work for Mobile... such a ingame check should be enforceable no ?

[Ol Choctaw]

Not that it matters so much but New Orleans didn’t surrender to Farragut. He went in with 250 Marines to raise the flag and beat a quick retreat back to the ships. The city didn’t surrender until Butler showed up. During that time they were moving war supplies and machinery to other places.

He didn’t exactly run the forts the way you think either. After several days of shelling and with a fleet of Mortar Barges under Porter giving him cover he ran by in the night.

When he tried to run past Port Hudson he got his fleet so badly shot up it was no long a factor in the campaign.

Running forts was not so straight forward and direct as it is in the game. It took a lot of support and preparation.