Matrix Games Forums

I don't recall ever reading about a FLEET of Oceangoing Southern Ironclads in the Fall of 1861. In a number of starts trying out different things I've had this unit of Confederate Dreadnaughts attack the Union Second Fleet on turn one. And even when I reinforced the Second Fleet with the (non-existant) Union Ironclads, the Southern "Yamato's" still triumphed. Had to add additional ships from the Union's 1st Fleet before actually beating this "figment of the imagination".

The Southern "Navy" was basically a harbor defense force and a few commerce raiders during the whole War. It's ironclads were single units built at enormous effort. Even the Union could basically only afford one "squadron" of ocean-going monitors. What were the designer's smoking when they put this monstrosity into the game? And can I buy some of it?

Still hoping for some sort of response to this question....   What is the justification or rational for giving the South (or for that matter, the North) a Squadron of Ironclads on the map in the Fall of 1861?

I feel you Mike,
We really need a "Historical Mod"

I can sympathize with some "inflation" of Southern Strength to make the game more playable..., but giving the South a real NAVY is a bit more than I can accept... And giving both sides 10 Ironclads when neither had any at all I just don't get the reasoning for. Which is why I was joking about the designer's drug use. It sounds like one of those "3AM and I'm really wasted" neat ideas....

They did have the CSS Manassas I think came into service around the end of 1861, but I believe it only saw service in the Louisana area, and it certainly would'nt qualify as a fleet.  I can't think of an Ironclad out East until 1862. 

The South actually had plans to build numberous Ironclads but the poor facilities and invasions by Nothern Troops prevented them from reaching completion.

I guess the game gives the option to allow the building of them.

Info here

http://www.wideopenwest.com/~jenkins/ir ... /qanda.htm

1. How many ironclads were there?

The Union laid down fifty-two coastal ironclads (of which all but four were monitors), and commissioned twenty of these before 1 May 1865; on the Western rivers, twenty-four ironclads were begun and twenty-two were commissioned. On the Southern side, some fifty-nine ironclads were begun, and twenty-four were completed.

9. Were Southern ironclads failures because of poor construction?

If the "poor-construction" myth were true, then the Union would never have mounted such efforts to capture the Southern ships whenever they could. Two ironclads in particular, the Atlanta and the Tennessee, served actively in the Union Navy for quite some time after their capture. The Eastport was captured before her completion, and the materials collected for her were used to complete her as a Union riverine ironclad. The Columbia might have been used by the Union if captured earlier, but she only fell into Union hands when the Confederates evacuated Charleston in 1865, when the war was clearly in its final stages. Even Cushing's raid that destroyed the Albemarle had as one objective the capture, if possible, of the Southern ironclad. Many Southern ironclads were destroyed to prevent their capture by the Union for good reason; the Union happily took into service as many rebel ironclads as fell into their hands. The image of "poor construction" derives largely from the poor engines of many Southern ironclads, and their generally rough finish inside; most were actually quite well-built structurally.

16. What colors were the ironclads?

This varied widely. Southern ironclads had no overall consistent color scheme. The Charleston ironclads (Palmetto State, Chicora, Charleston, Columbia) were painted a pale blue, whereas the Savannah ironclads (Georgia, Atlanta, Savannah, and probably Milledgeville) were painted black. The James River Squadron ironclads seem to have been a sort of butternut or brown. All of these color schemes were quite likely the result of using whatever paint was available, rather than being planned. The unpainted Arkansas was a deep rusty red, due to its armor having been immersed in the Yazoo River for some time before mounting. (This was actually an asset, as it nearly matched the ruddy color of the Mississppi's banks, giving her some accidental camouflage.)

Union vessels frequently bore painted markings of various colors to identify individual ships of a given class. The "City" class ironclads bore painted rings on their chimneys, and the Passaic class monitors had their stacks and turrets painted different colors; in both cases, this was necessary, as the ships were identical and some method of distinguishing among them was needed. Though much different in appearance from any other ironclad, the Essex had her own rather flamboyant markings: a large S painted on one stack and an X on the other.

Contemporary accounts often mention Union ironclads as black in color. This is somewhat puzzling, as a look at photos seems to show them as being somewhat lighter in color than simple black. My own conjecture is that they were painted in a variety of shades of deep grey, and that the "black" in contemporary reports might have been an exaggeration. The standard "battleship grey" of the U.S. Navy was not introduced until years later.

None of the Ironclads built by the confederates were capable of operating outside of coastal waters. The Manassas went into service in sept 1861 and was sunk by the Union Fleet after they ran past the Forts at the mouth of the Mississippi. It was a very small ship with only one gun. It was mainly designed to ram enemy vessels. The Manassas was supposed to be on a trial run testing how it handled when the commander decided to attack the union fleet at Hampton Roads on march 8th, 1862. It was a much larger ship nearly twice as long as the Manassas and carried 12 guns.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I don't recall ever reading about a FLEET of Oceangoing Southern Ironclads in the Fall of 1861. In a number of starts trying out different things I've had this unit of Confederate Dreadnaughts attack the Union Second Fleet on turn one. And even when I reinforced the Second Fleet with the (non-existant) Union Ironclads, the Southern "Yamato's" still triumphed. Had to add additional ships from the Union's 1st Fleet before actually beating this "figment of the imagination".

The Southern "Navy" was basically a harbor defense force and a few commerce raiders during the whole War. It's ironclads were single units built at enormous effort. Even the Union could basically only afford one "squadron" of ocean-going monitors. What were the designer's smoking when they put this monstrosity into the game? And can I buy some of it?

[:D][:D][:D]

These kinds of issues are the ones that always give me pause before I purchase a historical wargame. I really can't ignore fantasy situations that really skew the outcome. Plausable changes from history are actually welcome, but when historicly impossible/implausable situations creep in, I always get a sinking feeling. This at least sounds like it would be easily correctable.

I've been avoiding comment since I didn't work on this area of the game, but I'll say that the game can be modified so that those ironclads are gone. If you guys twist my arm I'll tell you how...

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I've been avoiding comment since I didn't work on this area of the game, but I'll say that the game can be modified so that those ironclads are gone. If you guys twist my arm I'll tell you how...

Just tell me how to make MORE!

Seriously, Mike was right, they need to go. How do we do that?

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I've been avoiding comment since I didn't work on this area of the game, but I'll say that the game can be modified so that those ironclads are gone. If you guys twist my arm I'll tell you how...

You are avoiding my question. HOW DID SUCH SILLYNESS GET IN TO THE GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I know it can (and should be) fixed...., but why is such a "fix" necessary? Is one of the designers a Star Trek fan who just couldn't resist a bit of "Sci-Fi"? Did it grow out of a long weekend and an empty keg? What's the story?

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I've been avoiding comment since I didn't work on this area of the game, but I'll say that the game can be modified so that those ironclads are gone. If you guys twist my arm I'll tell you how...

You are avoiding my question. HOW DID SUCH SILLYNESS GET IN TO THE GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I know it can (and should be) fixed...., but why is such a "fix" necessary? Is one of the designers a Star Trek fan who just couldn't resist a bit of "Sci-Fi"? Did it grow out of a long weekend and an empty keg? What's the story?

We all get you don't like it,I have a problem with it as well however just from your sarcastic tone if I was one of the dev's i'd tell you to piss up a rope.

"I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition."

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

"I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition."

[:D]

I would have LOVED to have seen your post before you edited it! [X(]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

"I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition."

"Spanish Inquisition", eh? Not bad. So you at least reccognize the difference between a tongue-in-cheek jibe and "sarcasm". Come on, Gil. Something this odd makes it into the game there just has to be a good story to go along with it. How about letting everyone in on it?

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

"I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition."

"Spanish Inquisition", eh? Not bad. So you at least reccognize the difference between a tongue-in-cheek jibe and "sarcasm". Come on, Gil. Something this odd makes it into the game there just has to be a good story to go along with it. How about letting everyone in on it?

Mike,
You remind me a little of me. I tend to get fixated on the "why" myself. In this case - a brand new game has a bizarre "unit" in it. In the end, who really cares who did it, or why as long as we can rectify it. Frankly, I am MUCH more concerned about the CTD's going on than the magical Confederate ironclads. Let's let them fix the problem, or tell us how to mod the fleet out, and move on. I have enjoyed my little break from studying "Kinematics of Machinery", but now I have to get back to it.....

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

"I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition."

[:D]

I would have LOVED to have seen your post before you edited it! [X(]

My post lacked quotation marks before I edited it. I thought people should be aware it was a quote...

Here's how to modify this. Go to ACWStart.txt in the data folder and open it up (preferably in Excel). Then scroll down to about the 284th line, which has the label "ironclads" and delete the SECOND row, the one with a 2 in the second column. Throughout the game, USA is country 1, CSA is country 2. If you just expunge that row completely, those ironclads should disappear.

Sorry, no good story about why they're there. I asked Eric, and he says some of the beta-testers wanted them. Since the beta-testers represent all of you, that means you guys wanted them too.

Thanks Gil [;)]