Port Blockade

[Michael T]

I am trying to blockade Charleston. The rules state this:

Procedure: Station enough warships in the sea zone(s) or river stretch (if an

inland port) connecting a harbor to the open sea and you will see a “blockade”

icon on the map.

But as you can see from my screenie no such "Icon" is visible. But the tooltip says says enough ships are present for the blockade.

Is this port blockaded or not?

[JR5555]

Pay close attention to the wording, you have enough to blockade that zone and that zone only. Check to see if there is another approach to the harbor, try the river.

[Twotribes]

Doesnt that mean that the harbor can not receive anything from the ocean?

[The Red Baron]

Michael T: to blockade Charleston, you need to blockade the Charles River, not Charleston Bay. Hover your cursor over the anchor symbol next to Charleston; the tooltip will show you the harbor exit points. The procedure is the same for any harbor you wish to blockade. You must blockade each exit point to completely blockade the port; only the will you see a blockade icon.

[Michael T]

Ok. Thanks heaps. [:)]

[Michael T]

Forgive my potential ignorance but why is the tooltip saying Charles River but the actual map graphic labled Cooper River?

[The Red Baron]

There are actually 3 rivers feeding into Charleston Bay of which the Cooper River is probably the most prominent. The river region should say Cooper River, not Charles River; good catch. The developers will have to fix this for an upcoming patch.

[Toro12]

Hattrick is right. Charleston requires the Cooper River to be blockaded, not the Bay. Hover over the anchor icon of Charleston.

[greycat]

Unfortunately, in order to get to the Charles River, you have to sail past Forts Moultrie, Johnson and Sumter - all of which will blast holes in your ships! In reality this was not necessary - the blockading squadron was able to patrol out in the bay. As all of the major Confederate ports are inland, I suspect it will be very difficult for the Union to maintain an effective blockade. Hopefully this can be addressed in a future update.

[bboyer66_slith]

So what is the effect of blockading the seazone surrounding Charleston Bay. It has to be doing something as far as strangling off Charleston.

[Toro12]

In the game, this simply triggers an attempt to intercept naval units passing through the zone. It does nothing (again, in-game) to reduce production.

[Lecivius]

I see this as a bug. I understand the reasoning, but blockading all the way to the river mouth was never, ever done going back through the Napoleonic wars.

[Michael T]

Yes I agree, hence my initial blockade of the adjacent coastal zone first up. It should not be necessary sail right in to the harbour almost. The naval aspects of the game need some work.

[Q-Ball]

Ideally, it should be possible to enforce a brown-water blockade, but only with quite a few ships to cover all the approaches. Historically, some ports were harder to brown-water blockade than others due to local conditions. Wilmington was particularly leaky.

[Lecivius]

I can understand the issues in a brown water blockade. But that would be coastal lighters & such. Even fishing boats were allowed passage once inspected for cotraband. But this allows for major ships to pass unmolested. This is so non-historical as to be a design flaw in the game.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
It should not be necessary sail right in to the harbour almost.

The blockade boxes represent the attempted interception of commerce vessels coming and going from the big ports. Stuff it with ships and you will severely hurt the South’s economy. If you want to intercept his big combat vessels then place fleets in the sea regions around the ports and hope for a good intercept roll.

To shut down a port and conduct a brown water blockade you need to take its protective forts down first. After all the forts were built historically to protect the harbor from just such an attempt. Being able to totally shut down the shipping to and from a port by sitting out at sea far enough out to avoid land based guns is all but impossible.

As soon as the sun goes down, ships would slip past your line with ease. Thus we have the blockade box to handle this situation. The union can stop a ton of stuff this way and get a good percentage reduction on the South's economy if they build a lot of blockade fleets, but some stuff will always get through you can never totally cripple the South's economy with just ships.

Jim

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

To shut down a port and conduct a brown water blockade you need to take its protective forts down first. After all the forts were built historically to protect the harbor from just such an attempt. Being able to totally shut down the shipping to and from a port by sitting out at sea far enough out to avoid land based guns is all but impossible.

That is historically untrue. Britain did just this in their blockade of Europe, They had powerfull squadrons off of major ports to defend against an attempt to 'break' the blockade by French, Dutch, and Spanish naval units. They had inshore squadrons & patrols to interdict merchant traffic. Sailing into range of land based batteries was, with a few exceptions, foolhardy. While small craft & lighters could move about (albeit still at some risk) nothing large could move without being at serious peril. Fortifications protected shipping in harbor, not those on approach.

In this game, this is not an option. The Union navy was, and should be, to weak to effectivly blockade the south in the first years of the war. The south had no powerfull units to drive them off, and this was the prime consideration of the ironclads they built. In fact, both Britain and France were very public about it as there were international laws regarding the enforcement of an official blockade, and the impact to neutral shipping. Eventually, and by draconian measures, the north managed to get an effective blockade in place.

I have not played this game to conclusion yet to see if such an effort is needed here, and what the cost would be. But the fact that you "have enough" ships to blockade as described by the report, but can't blockade because of estuary access, is an oxymoron. Either you have enough, be it 5 or 50 ships. Or you do not.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius
But the fact that you "have enough" ships to blockade as described by the report, but can't blockade because of estuary access, is an oxymoron.

You have enough to blockade that region and any ports on that region. If the ports land region borders two, three or more naval regions then you need to blockade all naval regions I ‘think’ to get the lock symbol to appear thus showing the port is blockaded. I think it’s a game engine limitation that it can’t differentiate between rivers and sea zones, but don’t forget commerce didn’t just go out to sea, it travelled along rivers a lot in this period.

Perhaps a partial blockade symbol could be created and cut down the income of a land region by 1/3rd or something for a partial. Then any naval region that bordered a land region would give you a partial blockade if you had enough ships present.

Jim

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

That is historically untrue. Britain did just this in their blockade of Europe, They had powerfull squadrons off of major ports to defend against an attempt to 'break' the blockade by French, Dutch, and Spanish naval units. They had inshore squadrons & patrols to interdict merchant traffic. Sailing into range of land based batteries was, with a few exceptions, foolhardy. While small craft & lighters could move about (albeit still at some risk) nothing large could move without being at serious peril. Fortifications protected shipping in harbor, not those on approach.

Good points, but maybe the difference is that blockading was easier in the age of sail than the age of steam. Confederate blockade runners could, and did, evade large Federal fleets right outside the harbor mouth. Blockade running was a risky business and many were lost as the noose tightened, but it wasn't ever stopped until all the coastal forts were taken, the last being Fort Fisher.

I think the model works well the more I think about it; but just like history, the only sure-fire way to shut a port down is the take the forts and end access

This is why fort busting should be a priority for the Union side

[Lecivius]

Pondering this while getting my afternoon coffee, I thought on this. If they were to remove the "You have enough units to blockade this zone" message, and/or change the zone so that it does not highlight the entire estuary, that would clear all of this up, and keep all the points made in this thread in mind?

Thoughts? Or do I need to go get another cuppa? [;)]