no USA blockades anymore?

[Gray_Lensman]

I'm not arguing the point anymore, since it would possibly evolve into a flaming war. My only request to the developers of the game is that if they make "blue water naval units" capable of moving up the Mississippi, that they at least include the option to turn it off for those of us that wish to enjoy the game in the more historically accurate way that they are used now.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: firwepoerjohan
I also agree that runners have a easy life especially in 1861-1862. Maybe the ships 10% chance of sinking runner should also have a 10% of damaging it 1-10 damage like the danger factor has for trade.

so ships
10% sink
10% damage (1-10)
80% miss

It would be too much if you have bad luck early on and get both runners sunk so therefore a damage would be better slowing them down and force them to repair.

That's a good idea.

[christof139]

I'm not arguing the point anymore, since it would possibly evolve into a flaming war. My only request to the developers of the game is that if they make "blue water naval units" capable of moving up the Mississippi, that they at least include the option to turn it off for those of us that wish to enjoy the game in the more historically accurate way that they are used now.

You're not going to argue?? Good, because you can't argue because you are wrong.

As for historical accuracy, the game would be historically accurate if deep water ships were allowed to cruise up to Memphis, at least Vicksburg, that IS histroically accurate.

Chris

[christof139]

I also agree that runners have a easy life especially in 1861-1862. Maybe the ships 10% chance of sinking runner should also have a 10% of damaging it 1-10 damage like the danger factor has for trade.

so ships
10% sink
10% damage (1-10)
80% miss

It would be too much if you have bad luck early on and get both runners sunk so therefore a damage would be better slowing them down and force them to repair.

I think that the overall average of Blockaders making it through the Blockade is maybe 75% or more throughout the whole course of the war. Many small ships and many of those being small sil only schooners and brigs and bigantines etc. were used to run the Blockade.

This info. is very available, but it is and can be only an educated guesstimate.

Chris

[Gray_Lensman]

I happened to stumble on a couple of links, one regarding the Civil War Navies and the second regarding Mississippi River Navigation, neither of which directly proves anything totally conclusive in game terms. The question in FOF game terms is what do the "Frigates and Ships" of the Blue Water blockading ships represent? It seems to me they still represent primarily ocean going sailing vessels. The operative word here is "primarily". The riverine and in some cases ocean "coastal" craft were primarily steam powered craft, which of course were quite capable of sailing up some of the deeper river channels. Concerning the game itself, if we are to allow the blue water navy to sail up these rivers, then we need to consider a specific new class of vessel, to be built in the shipyards, with different costs than the "ships" and "frigates" of the blue water navy, possibly with restrictions that they only can be used along the ocean coast and into some of the deeper river channels, including the Mississippi up to Vicksburg. But to allow any and all of the blue water navy vessels, "ships" and "frigates" to be used in the Mississippi would be a gross exaggeration of their actual usage in the ACW.
 
FWIW, This is only "my" opinion, and suggestions.
 
see the following links:
http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/PAO/history/MISSRNAV/federal.asp
http://www.civilwarhome.com/unionconfednavies.htm
 
 

[firepowerjohan]

i do not like that runners cost 100 money now instead of earlier 150. The problem currently is that runners are too easy and profitable. I guess if we make them easier to sink then they can cost 100-125 but with current rules they should cost like 200