Matrix Games Forums

Is there a reason why commanders aren't provided for ships and fleets? No Farragut? No Porter?No Semmes?

This is something under consideration, though not for the upcoming patch.

We considered it when developing the game, but decided that since FOF doesn't have detailed naval battles there wasn't as much need for naval commanders as for generals. But if it makes enough people happy we might be able to add the major admirals and have them give fleets or ships bonuses. This is not at the top of our to-do list, though.

I think this would be a good step towards Detailed Naval Combat.

ORIGINAL: Drex

Is there a reason why commanders aren't provided for ships and fleets? No Farragut? No Porter? No Semmes?

Semmes doesn't compare with Farragut, Foote, or Porter. They each commanded squadrons or fleets, while Semmes was a ship Captain. Buchanan would probably be the only Southern candidate for this role, and even he functioned more as the commander of the Tennessee at Mobile than as a Squadron C.O. Truthfully the South never had a command that called for or needed a "naval leader", so even Buchanan would be more for "what if" situations.

I really couldn't think of a southern admiral but I didn't want to leave  the rebs out. they can get mighty vocal if they feel left out.

I always rename on of my upgraded ironclads the CSS STONEWALL. Especially with 20" Dahlgrens.

ORIGINAL: Drex

I really couldn't think of a southern admiral but I didn't want to leave  the rebs out. they can get mighty vocal if they feel left out.

I'm sure some of the members of this forum will insist that the confederates get Halsey and Spruance to balance things.

The CSN had numerous gallant and heroic mariners. IMO. the rank of Admiral was relatively new to both the USN and CSN. Semmes and Buchanan are the only two who attain that rank during the conflict. It is important to realize that admirals were equivilent to corps commanders and would thus command a fleet. Without the number of vessels necessary to comprise such fleets, the title became more honorary than operational for the CSN. However, with FOF, CSN fleets become a reality! I would greatly enjoy a Detailed Naval Combat upgrade. I am engaged with some fellow wargame simulation software developers regarding naval mods for this excellent wargame.

For further CSN info, I suggest:

http://www.mariner.org/

http://www.csnavy.org/

BTW, the two CSN admirals were not from the South, they were from Maryland.

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: Drex

I really couldn't think of a southern admiral but I didn't want to leave  the rebs out. they can get mighty vocal if they feel left out.

I'm sure some of the members of this forum will insist that the confederates get Halsey and Spruance to balance things.

Halsey and Spruance -- what's wrong with that. [;)]

Those guys? Give me Nelson, Decatur, Jones, or even Lucky Jack!

Lucky jack? Is he related to Jim Beam?

Wasnt Jack the name of the Pirate in the latest Caribean pirate movies? )

Yeah, then the rank of Rear Admiral was developed, and they were equivalent to Poop deck Paws on Poop Decks, not Fo'castles. There mayhaps would be found Forward or Front Admirals methinks. Maybe methinks or not thinks on this a bit too much or little, one way or the other methinks perhaps.

Commodores sounds better anyway IMHO.

Stolat, Chris

ORIGINAL: decaturkev

Those guys? Give me Nelson, Decatur, Jones, or even Lucky Jack!

The reference to "lucky Jack" is obviously to "Lucky" Jack Aubry of the Patrick O'Brien novels.
But the fact remains that "leaders" as potrayed in the Game are superior commanders for larger units, so someone like Semmes (who commanded only one ship) wouldn't qualify. And considering that the only time he came up against a foe of equal force he got his head handed to him, it's doubtfull he would deserve the designation anyway.

"Naval Leaders" would be pretty much a Union monopoly in the Game, as the Union was the only side IRL that fielded a large enough naval force to mass "squadrons" and "fleets" for Leaders to command.

You're correct of course. Infact it would be difficult to find enough historical Southern naval leaders to fill new southern fleets. Still the North could have them but it would just be decoration.

ORIGINAL: Drex

You're correct of course. Infact it would be difficult to find enough historical Southern naval leaders to fill new southern fleets. Still the North could have them but it would just be decoration.

Not necessarily..., they could provide the benefits they did historically in dealing with fortifications and landings. Such as Faragut at New Orleans and Mobile, or Foote at Ft. Henry.

They would need perhaps a new set of attributes? the existing ones pertain to land combat.Once a force leaves the ship, the land commander would take over. Naval Commander would need attributes for bombardment, naval combat, riverine navigation, amphibious landings, etc.

Remeber that FOF gives you "what if" capability. Therefore, I see no reason why academies could not train CSN commodores or captains. There are plenty of historic Confederate nautical names to employ. You have to read the appropriate history references. Frankly, the Federal leaders are nothing to get excited about. As long as a Naval Leader characteristic improvement capability exists based on naval performance, I think it would be an entertaining improvement to the game.

ORIGINAL: decaturkev

Remeber that FOF gives you "what if" capability. Therefore, I see no reason why academies could not train CSN commodores or captains. There are plenty of historic Confederate nautical names to employ. You have to read the appropriate history references. Frankly, the Federal leaders are nothing to get excited about. As long as a Naval Leader characteristic improvement capability exists based on naval performance, I think it would be an entertaining improvement to the game.

Which is why I suggested allowing the South to have Buchanan.