New Madrid and Island No. 10

Please post any bugs or technical issues found here for official support.
Post Reply
DarkHorse2
Posts: 1070
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2022 12:08 pm

New Madrid and Island No. 10

Post by DarkHorse2 »

New Madrid was a "river-port town" with a population of over 5,000 in 1860.

The default American Civil War scenario appears to have hexes that are approximately 10 miles across.

Given the distance from New Madrid to Island No. 10 was less than 8 miles, that would put them adjacent to each other (in game terms).

The current game map appears to have New Madrid 1 hex too far north and fails to include any harbor or port.
According to Louis Houck, New Madrid was commercially the most important station on the upper Mississippi in 1799. It was the port of entry for all vessels going up or down the river, to and from New Orleans, and these boats had to land there for inspection.
Also see - http://www.semopress.com/books/new-madr ... nd-legend/

This creates logistical weirdness in this area and fails to include the historic infrastructure that existed in 1861.

For example, it should be possible, in the game, to move troops via river to New Madrid, without having to declare war on Kentucky.

SG_NewMadrid_IslandNo10.jpg
SG_NewMadrid_IslandNo10.jpg (62 KiB) Viewed 657 times
Island_No_ten_and_New_Madrid.jpg
Island_No_ten_and_New_Madrid.jpg (661.09 KiB) Viewed 657 times
IslandNo10_and_NewMadrid.jpg
IslandNo10_and_NewMadrid.jpg (539.57 KiB) Viewed 657 times
NewMadrid_and_IslandNo10_1862.gif
NewMadrid_and_IslandNo10_1862.gif (172.21 KiB) Viewed 657 times
DarkHorse2
Posts: 1070
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2022 12:08 pm

Re: New Madrid and Island No. 10

Post by DarkHorse2 »

I believe the following would be a closer representation of New Madrid and the Island No 10 Fort.

SG_NewMadrid_Modified.jpg
SG_NewMadrid_Modified.jpg (66.13 KiB) Viewed 642 times

Which also addresses the logistics in the area as follows.

Note - the Confederate forces in this area were amptly supplied, historically, as documented by the vast stores of military loot acquired by the Union forces after taking and seizing New Madrid & Island No 10.
SG_NewMadrid_SL.jpg
SG_NewMadrid_SL.jpg (65.9 KiB) Viewed 642 times
DarkHorse2
Posts: 1070
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2022 12:08 pm

Re: New Madrid and Island No. 10

Post by DarkHorse2 »

On occupation of New Madrid:
After a day of shelling, McCown summoned his commanders and gunboat captains for a war council aboard the McRae. At the meeting the navy insisted their vessels must withdraw downriver and that the infantry and stores must be loaded immediately, or nothing might be salvaged. In a decision that would later be heavily criticized, the officers concluded to remove the entire garrison that same evening, but poor execution and bad weather quickly wrecked an orderly withdrawal. At 11 p.m. a strong thunderstorm commenced just as the retreat began resulting in troops becoming confused and sullen in the darkness, several transport commanders refused to obey orders, and efforts to remove the heavy ordnance utterly failed. Near dawn, the last steamer towed the hospital wharf-boat filled with sick men to the Tennessee shore and the gunboats dropped down river below Tiptonville. Confederate naval participation in the campaign was now effectively ended as Hollins believed his entire squadron would face annihilation if forced to confront even a lone Union ironclad.

Pope marched into New Madrid on the morning of March 14 and telegraphed St. Louis "to my utter amazement the enemy hurriedly evacuated the place last night leaving everything." Besides occupying an important strategic position, Pope also counted spoils including 33 cannon, thousands of small arms, tents and entrenching tools, as well as horses, mules, wagons, and plentiful ammunition.
On occupation of Island No. 10:
Captured along with the island were 17 officers, 368 men, 100 sick and 100 men from the transports, the Confederate Navy's signal books, and telegraphic dictionary, as well as the enemy’s floating battery.
The loss of these vessels, all heavy guns, plus accoutrements and equipment led to a Southern outcry as to why so many public stores were allowed to be captured intact. While Pope’s official report claimed capture of three generals, seven colonels, seven regiments, 100 heavy guns, 24 field guns, thousands of small arms, and large quantities of ammunition and provisions, these figures were soon disputed and remain imprecise to this day. Confederate sources maintained that no more than 3,500 men surrendered.
metapth192857_m_0075200725.med_res.jpg
metapth192857_m_0075200725.med_res.jpg (244.96 KiB) Viewed 632 times
User avatar
OldCrowBalthazor
Posts: 2794
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:42 am
Location: Republic of Cascadia

Re: New Madrid and Island No. 10

Post by OldCrowBalthazor »

A change like this would certainly help the CSA early in the conflict....
My YouTube Channel: Balthazor's Strategic Arcana
https://www.youtube.com/c/BalthazorsStrategicArcana
SC-War in the Pacific Beta Tester
SC-ACW Beta Tester
1904 Imperial Sunrise Tester
SC-WW1 Empires in Turmoil DLC Tester
Tester of various SC Mods
DarkHorse2
Posts: 1070
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2022 12:08 pm

Re: New Madrid and Island No. 10

Post by DarkHorse2 »

I think it will end up balancing itself out.

It does add some additional play possibilities to both sides.

But yes, it does allow for historic advancement into Missouri for the Confederates. Polk squared off against Grant fairly early in Missouri.

I am testing it out now and it is not really that OP. The Union AI is still very challenging there.
DarkHorse2
Posts: 1070
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2022 12:08 pm

Re: New Madrid and Island No. 10

Post by DarkHorse2 »

The following screenshots are from current play test, beginning turn Dec 2, 1861.

Grant has made himself visible the previous turn, but withdrew after suffering about 50% damage.

I envision this area being held for a bit longer by the Confederates, more of a delaying tactic to help preserve control over the upper Mississippi for as long as possible.

Eventually, the Union reinforcements will overwhelm the Confederate defenders and force their withdrawal.

The local change to New Madrid does make it easier to get Confederate units into and out of the area. Additionally it establishes a somewhat mutual dependency of New Madrid and the Island No. 10 Fort on each other. New Madrid further blocks Union gunboats proceeding down the Mississippi until it is taken.

One thing that needs further research is the "Lake" hex directly to the northwest of New Madrid. That makes the hex impassable, which may pose too great of an obstacle on any Union assault of New Madrid.

I need to verify the exact terrain northwest of New Madrid to see if this is supported, historically.
The natural barriers provided by the spring floods forced the Federals to march overland 50 miles to attack New Madrid from the west. On muddy roads in the midst of winter, this march was difficult but not impossible. On 28 February, Pope and his soldiers departed Commerce, Missouri. Upon his departure, he made a request to Halleck for gun and mortar boats to move to Columbus in preparation for his attack on New Madrid. After four days of trudging through the mud, Pope settled into camp on the outskirts of New Madrid. Out of range of the enemy guns, he assessed the Confederate fortifications. The strength of their fortifications and the four gunboats on the river behind them gave him pause. Pope made the decision to send for heavy artillery and more troops rather than risk open assault.
Yeah... thinking that hex needs to be changed to "Marsh" or "Swamp" to allow an attack from that direction.

NewMadrid_Dec1861.jpg
NewMadrid_Dec1861.jpg (87.84 KiB) Viewed 585 times
NewMadrid_Dec1861_SLs.jpg
NewMadrid_Dec1861_SLs.jpg (87.56 KiB) Viewed 585 times
DarkHorse2
Posts: 1070
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2022 12:08 pm

Re: New Madrid and Island No. 10

Post by DarkHorse2 »

Another map rendering of the New Madrid vicinity that seems to support changing that hex to the NW of New Madrid to swamp/marsh. Otherwise, I am afraid it will leave New Madrid excessively defendable if that hex remains as a lake.

I do not want to turn New Madrid into the "Gibraltar of the Mississippi". :D
BattleOfNewMadrid.jpg
BattleOfNewMadrid.jpg (119.82 KiB) Viewed 580 times
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”