Why is this supply level being penalized (-2) ?

[DarkHorse2]

Why is the Fort shown in the attached screen-shot suffering a -2 to supply level?

---

NewOrleansFort.jpg (96.55 KiB) Viewed 686 times

[Platoonist]

Is this the first turn of a new game? Hit the "S" key a second time and it should change to just plain six.

[DarkHorse2]

It changes to 6 on the supply map... but I think that is bugged as the Fort never changes to supply 6.

And if I hit 'S' again on the next turn, Supply Level stays the same as 6(4).

This is 100% reproducible. Just check the supply levels around New Orleans.

[Platoonist]

I think I see the reason now. You get different numbers depending on whether the major river hex is occupied by land or naval units. Red in parentheses is the figure for land units and the light green number for riverine units. Both types of units can occupy the hex. Just not at the same time due to the one unit-stacking limit. Land units take a bigger hit from being further from a supply source. Naval units not as much. Realistically, a major river should be a good conduit for supplying land units as well, but the system is what it is.

Mississippi Delta.jpg (61.6 KiB) Viewed 657 times

[DarkHorse2]

hmmm....

How strange, as it is still considered a "clear" hex and the supply line does not actually cross the river, but runs parallel to it.

Oh well...

[DarkHorse2]

Is interesting is that there were actually a pair of Forts, each on different sides of the river.

I suspect that configuration would not have the same Supply Level problems.

Fort Jackson.jpg (350.68 KiB) Viewed 603 times

[DarkHorse2]

Even better map of the forts from Library of Congress.

Fort Jackson_LoC.jpg (241.98 KiB) Viewed 597 times

[Platoonist]

I'm fairly certain given the map scale that BNC probably decided as a design decision it was probably best to combine Forts Jackson and St. Philip as one. He did something similar with the two forts guarding the entrance to Mobile Bay.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 8&t=398037

[DarkHorse2]

I can understand that, given the scale.

However, placing the Fort directly in the Mississippi River really confuses the Supply Level.

As previously illustrated, it results in a permanent -2 SL.

Forts already have it bad enough, but further reducing their SL AND requiring a HQ in proximity just to upgrade to the latest Fort Tech?

It was more of, thinking out loud, regarding a possible work around to the whole -2 SL thing.

But after playing with it via the editor, it would require changing a lot of map hexes - which already rules it out.

[Platoonist]

I can understand that, given the scale.

However, placing the Fort directly in the Mississippi River really confuses the Supply Level.

As previously illustrated, it results in a permanent -2 SL.

Forts already have it bad enough, but further reducing their SL AND requiring a HQ in proximity just to upgrade to the latest Fort Tech?

It was more of, thinking out loud, regarding a possible work around to the whole -2 SL thing.

Obviously that -2 supply level hit has an adverse effect on fort morale. But the argument could be made that since many of these Louisiana forts were located in miasmic, isolated marshland brimming with mosquitos that bred all manner of diseases it probably wasn't a place where troops were particularly thrilled to be posted, hence poor morale.

Ft. Jackson swamp.jpg (199.91 KiB) Viewed 569 times

[DarkHorse2]

It was actually much worse for the Union troops who were not used to the climate or had built up any immunity to the local diseases.

Yellow fever, after all, was known as the strangers' disease. Ever since the earliest city epidemics in the late 1700s, everyone had known foreigners and travellers from other parts of America were much more susceptible than those born in New Orleans

[DarkHorse2]

Here is a link that goes into more detail about Fort Jackson than anybody would want to know.

Funny how there is no discussion of any supply level issues....

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/fort-j ... na.181855/

[Platoonist]

Funny how there is no discussion of any supply level issues....

Many in the past have had their particular bone to pick with this game. For many it's been the one unit-stacking limit which stifles any war of maneuver in Virginia. For some the incapacity to build up or breakdown corps. There was one poster who threw a fit over gunboats being too powerful vs. LCUs and then deleted all his posts in a huff. I've always been puzzled by the inability of ocean-going ships to travel on major river hexes and run past forts considering Admiral Farragut took his frigates as far north up the Mississippi as Vicksburg. That would probably make the Union Navy too powerful is likely the reason.

But the game's been out for two years, and I suppose most have just accepted the game for what it is or moved on. A highly playable title adapted from SC system, quick and easy to learn, but not a down-to-the-soldier's-buttons sim like Ageod's Civil War. Just about every game system is a trade-off between ease of play and super-detailed realism which involves digesting a massive tome of rules and charts. Outside of creative use of the editor there's probably not a lot that is gonna change at this point.

[DarkHorse2]

The -2 supply level of Forts built on rivers is an artificial limitation imposed by the game system itself - not founded on fact or reality.

The -2 supply level imposed on units is understandable; however, it would not impose such of an obstacle on permanent structures such as Forts, which would have already accounted for it in their construction.

In the case of Fort Jackson, La, it was not really built in the middle of the Mississippi River, but adjacent to it.
- originally built as a "Third System" Fort between 1822-1832
- originally designed to have 93 gun emplacements, but only had 69 at the time of the 1862.
- in April 1862, Farragut failed to destroy the Fort (or the adjacent Fort of St. Phillip) and was forced to attempt to bypass them. 13 ships made it past the 2 Forts, which forced the surrender of New Orleans (April 28th).
- Fort Jackson surrendered the following day. (evening of April 29th) Fort St. Phillip, the counterpart to Fort Jackson, surrendered the day after that. (April 30th).
- Fort was upgraded in the "Endicott Period" 1890-1910 with additional modern guns
- Fort Jackson was used as a training base during WW1

If supply level issues truly existed, the site would have been abandoned instead of receiving upgraded guns or even serving as a training base during WW1.

It is also fair to point out that, leading up to the battle of 1862, local defenses of New Orleans were stripped of armament, materials and men for other theatres.

From the beginning, plans of the Confederate War Department (Secretary of War Judah P. Benjamin at first, later George W. Randolph) in Richmond for defense of New Orleans were distorted by the belief that the primary threat to the city came from the north. Reflecting that belief, much of the material intended to protect the city was sent to strongpoints on the Mississippi, such as Island Number 10, Fort Pillow, and Memphis. The immediate vicinity of the city was actually weakened as guns were withdrawn for use in distant campaigns, as for example that leading to the Battle of Shiloh. The region was also stripped of men of military age.

[Platoonist]

The -2 supply level of Forts built on rivers is an artificial limitation imposed by the game system itself - not founded on fact or reality.

The -2 supply level imposed on units is understandable; however, it would not impose such of an obstacle on permanent structures such as Forts, which would have already accounted for it in their construction.

Then I guess mod the game to your content to make forts into ports or secondary supply sources. In most Civil War games I've played you have to build depots or a chain of depots (which are vulnerable to cavalry raids) to properly supply your armies and forts but I don't think the SC system allows for it. The HQ units can boost supply locally but that's about the closest thing and the leader in that HQ is often needed elsewhere.

Who knows? Maybe the game needed a very limited number of immobile HQ units with zero talent leaders which could be purchased and placed most anywhere to act as a supply bumping depot in map areas where you can't spare a general. Could act as garrison units too. But probably water under the bridge now.

[DarkHorse2]

Figured out a way to address it.

Just added a road from New Orleans to Fort Jackson, the same as previously done for Fort Proctor.

---

RoadToFortJackson.jpg (82.08 KiB) Viewed 375 times

[DarkHorse2]

After doing a bit more research, there did exist a road to Fort Jackson/Fort St Phillips, which was paid for by appropriations approved in 1824.

---

FortJackson_Road.jpg (187.18 KiB) Viewed 341 times

[DarkHorse2]

FYI - National Geographic also included the road from New Orleans to Fort Jackson in their map - just about the same location and route I placed it.

(see - https://collections.lib.uwm.edu/digital ... /id/32916/ )

I had no prior knowledge of the exact path, just placed it where it made logical sense.

---

NatGeo_Road_FtJackson.jpg (427.05 KiB) Viewed 303 times