Houserule around Amphib Invasions

[Q-Ball]

I think the Union ability to amphib invade in-game, without any HR, is overpowered. Houserules are needed to prevent abuse by the Union player, IMO.

I had an idea, but wanted to solicit feedback.

I would propose a HR that prevents the Union from making amphibious landings on any region into which it would not normally be able to trace ocean or river supply.

This would prohibit sailing past any active batteries on a body of water which interdict normal supply flow over river/ocean. You can land ON the region with the batteries, but not PAST it. This forces you to clear forts in places like Head of the Passes, or Charleston Harbor, before landing on the city. This prevents the Union from sailing past Island No.10 and dropping an invasion force on, say, Little Rock.

In order to enforce without having to re-do turns in a PBEM, the only way to define that is for the CSA player to have to disclose the presence of active batteries on the water, and where they are (aside from the fixed forts of course). I think that's OK, since Union intel would know where the forts are anyway in almost every case.

This is an important concession for the Union player, and if you feel the Union is now a bit strong, would go a long way to balance it out

For the CSA player, you will need to defend your coastline, but you won't wake up one morning and find an army sitting in New Orleans, Little Rock, or Charleston. You'll have advance warning, as the Union reduces your forts.

Anyway, open to thoughts or modifications, but that's my idea.

1. Union cannot amphib land in any region that cannot trace normal river or ocean supply
2. CSA must disclose the presence of any active batteries that can interdict such supply (no need to disclose fixed forts, only those places in addition to); this is to avoid replays.

This also passes the reality test, as the Union would not drop invasion forces in places where they had to "run batteries" to get supplies through, and IRL they never did

[TulliusDetritus]

A sound idea [:)]

The only problem is capturing New Orleans is problematic. The moment you are attacking the two forts at the mouth of the Mississippi, you are instantly telegraphing your opponent "yoohoo... anyone at homeee?... New Orleans, here we comeeeeee!". And of course a big army should be there when you arrive. In other words, hard to replicate history.

If wikipedia is correct, first New Orleans was captured then the two forts left behind.

In fact that was MY plan (I had PMed Lokki like one month ago asking for some tips). Attacking first the city and then investing the forts. And it looks like the Union did exactly that.

[bbbwl]

I like it. I have been amassed at the unions ability to stage lands deep behind my lines and past my well defended forts. Whats the point of having a large number a Canons over looking the river if the invasion can just sail right by. Look at how hard the Union had to work to get past the batteries of Vicksburg. No invading force made it past there until the city and its forts had been taken by a long land campaign.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

A sound idea [:)]

The only problem is capturing New Orleans is problematic. The moment you are attacking the two forts at the mouth of the Mississippi, you are instantly telegraphing your opponent "yoohoo... anyone at homeee?... New Orleans, here we comeeeeee!". And of course a big army should be there when you arrive. In other words, hard to replicate history.

If wikipedia is correct, first New Orleans was captured then the two forts left behind.

In fact that was MY plan (I had PMed Lokki like one month ago asking for some tips). Attacking first the city and then investing the forts. And it looks like the Union did exactly that.

Good question, it is a bit tricky with New Orleans, which is a unique case. IRL, Farragut beseiged the forts, but eventually sailed past, and forced the bloodless evacuation of New Orleans. But Butler's men didn't actually take possession until the forts surrendered, so maybe the RL still fits. By this HR, Farragut can still sail his warships past the forts, you just can't LAND there.

In-game, you are correct in that your move will be telegraphed. It's not optimal, but I still think it works. Because:
1. Once those forts fall, the CSA will be forced to keep a force sitting there, whether you are coming tomorrow or NOT. So, that serves a purpose.
2. IRL, Rebs had 15 days warning anyway; that's how long Farrgut was hung-up at the forts

An effective counter, however, is that the CSA player could lose the forts, but set-up a new battery on the river in that region just to the East of New Orleans, that has a rail-line there. By this rule, that would force the Union player to take that battery first. Is that OK?

I think it's an OK limitation; Union player could land on that Battery, and trace a supply line back to Ft. St. Phillip as well. If it's NOT ok, a reasonable limitation is that CSA can only set-up batteries in regions that have a town. (EDIT: Though the Rebs did have a weak battery in that hex, at Chalmette; it was abandoned after exchanging ineffective fire with Farragut's ships)

[veji1]

I agree, this is a very good houserule. It is simple yet quite clear. Leaves the Union the very historically feeling choice of either taking out the forts before landing on the city or landing beside the city and walking on it.

Let the Ironclads run all the forts they want, if they are enough of them they will withstand the fire, but make tall wooden ships pay the price.

Last thing, I would still look at having the Marine ability only apply to the element itself for amphibious assault. When amphibiously assaulting a position (well the term is wrong in that time period, but basically it means landing very near the target and attacking it directly) the Union should have to pick a sailor/marine division or suffer the consequences in terms of losse

[mmarquo]

"In order to enforce without having to re-do turns in a PBEM, the only way to define that is for the CSA player to have to disclose the presence of active batteries on the water, and where they are (aside from the fixed forts of course). I think that's OK, since Union intel would know where the forts are anyway in almost every case."

I like the concept but the execution in a game would be problematic. With this HR a CSA player could build a fort or place batteries in every region along major rivers like the Mississippi and cause the USA way to long to move south. In fact I would place batteries on both banks and cackle at the USA player's frustration.


"Farragut beseiged the forts, but eventually sailed past, and forced the bloodless evacuation of New Orleans. But Butler's men didn't actually take possession until the forts surrendered, so maybe the RL still fits. By this HR, Farragut can still sail his warships past the forts, you just can't LAND there."

I propose an alternative: the USA cannot amphibiously assault or land in any city/fort or region anywhere past a blocking fixed fort/bank-side city until the region containing the fort/cities contain USA forces with at least one artillery element. This rule allows a surprise assault on Charleston, but only if all the forts are simultaneously engaged/distracted. It would require more USA forces and would be a major undertaking.

I do not like applying this to fort/batteries the player may place for the reason I mentioned above.

[Ace1_slith]

C'mon guys, keep it simple, do not use marines, and everything will work fine. Modding maximum damage to ships by fort fire is also an option. It is currently capped at 40 hits.

Notyfing your opponent where you have put your batteries is not the way to go, IMO.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

C'mon guys, keep it simple, do not use marines, and everything will work fine. Modding maximum damage to ships by fort fire is also an option. It is currently capped at 40 hits.

Notyfing your opponent where you have put your batteries is not the way to go, IMO.

This. (I never use marines anyway. Or build them.)

I'm more concerned with the "Put everything in the east and steamroll north/south" play style.

[Ace1_slith]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Ace1

C'mon guys, keep it simple, do not use marines, and everything will work fine. Modding maximum damage to ships by fort fire is also an option. It is currently capped at 40 hits.

Notyfing your opponent where you have put your batteries is not the way to go, IMO.

This. (I never use marines anyway. Or build them.)

I'm more concerned with the "Put everything in the east and steamroll north/south" play style.

You have a point there. If both sides had more men, such strategy would not be good anymore. Flodding one Theater would not reap rewards due to frontage.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Ace1

C'mon guys, keep it simple, do not use marines, and everything will work fine. Modding maximum damage to ships by fort fire is also an option. It is currently capped at 40 hits.

Notyfing your opponent where you have put your batteries is not the way to go, IMO.

This. (I never use marines anyway. Or build them.)

I'm more concerned with the "Put everything in the east and steamroll north/south" play style.

Agreed [:)] Political constraints are there and cannot be neglected. Missouri, a push along the Mississippi River axis, amphibious landings to cripple the Confederacy economy, etc., you name it.

Everyone in the east and let's charge like a wild crazy rhinoceros is humm...

[bbbwl]

Let Combat ships sail freely past forts, taking their chances on being sunk by the forts guns, but no troop carrying ships may pass the fort unless it is besieged or captured. The siege of the fort must be started the turn before the troop ships may go by, so the commander of the forces knows the fort is occupied. If doing an amphibious assault on the first fort they come to, then no limits would apply to that landing. Works for me.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: 1962bbbwl228

Let Combat ships sail freely past forts, taking their chances on being sunk by the forts guns, but no troop carrying ships may pass the fort unless it is besieged or captured. The siege of the fort must be started the turn before the troop ships may go by, so the commander of the forces knows the fort is occupied. If doing an amphibious assault on the first fort they come to, then no limits would apply to that landing. Works for me.

Hmmmm, no.

And how do you define a siege? No fort on a river is truly under siege by land. (Siege of Sevastopol for example, Not on a river, but still.)

And if you say that "well, then combat ships have to sit next to the fort"? Then I'll say that the fort is so busy firing at those ships that the transports can just run right past. Between the cannon smoke and the engine smoke, the fort can't see what is behind those ships.

Wooden steamships could and did run past forts and batteries. They're not sticking around for a duel. And they could also run by at night if necessary

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Ace1

C'mon guys, keep it simple, do not use marines, and everything will work fine. Modding maximum damage to ships by fort fire is also an option. It is currently capped at 40 hits.

Notyfing your opponent where you have put your batteries is not the way to go, IMO.

This. (I never use marines anyway. Or build them.)

I'm more concerned with the "Put everything in the east and steamroll north/south" play style.

Agreed [:)] Political constraints are there and cannot be neglected. Missouri, a push along the Mississippi River axis, amphibious landings to cripple the Confederacy economy, etc., you name it.

Everyone in the east and let's charge like a wild crazy rhinoceros is humm...

I dislike it so much that if I determine it's going on in any PBEM I'm playing I'll just stop playing.

It isn't even remotely plausible. Or realistic given the politics of the time.

[mmarquo]

Aurelian,

As the CSA, MT eviscerated me with this strategy, yet somehow I feel there must be a counter to it; he drove right up to NYC and beyond. One issue permitting this is that when a large city falls, all of the supplies/ammo converts to the captor. He has no use to protect his supply lines because capturing let's say Philadelphia is a bounty. I wish there was the possibility to burn/scorch cities....

Marquo

[Q-Ball]

It seems like everyone agrees on the Spirit of limiting amphib invasions, it's the application that is problematic. No easy solution. I proposed CSA alerting to batteries, but I acknowledge that is not perfect by any means.

Aurelian and Marquo have a point as well on the "ALL EAST" strategy. In my game vs. Gunnulf, we had a HR, that I proposed, keeping McClellan in charge in the east in 1862. I also decided that I was going to put enough men in the East to force him to commit a large army, but that I was ultimately not going to force a decision at Richmond until 1864 at the earliest. I did that, because "winning" is not as important as the journey.

The problem with having a HR is that you can't put a HR in place that "Union will not take Richmond before 1864". At that point, the AnV will be down to 20,000 men. But on the other hand, sending 250,000 men to Richmond and forgetting all other theaters is perhaps a "winning" strategy, but also pretty boring. It's a fine line. I think good Union opponents are going to put pressure on, and force a response, but try to simultaneously win the war elsewhere.

[Ace1_slith]

You can burn depots, or use scorch earth rgds

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Aurelian,

As the CSA, MT eviscerated me with this strategy, yet somehow I feel there must be a counter to it; he drove right up to NYC and beyond. One issue permitting this is that when a large city falls, all of the supplies/ammo converts to the captor. He has no use to protect his supply lines because capturing let's say Philadelphia is a bounty. I wish there was the possibility to burn/scorch cities....

Marquo

The best way to stop it is simply refuse to play. Either don't play against someone who does it, or don't continue a game that it happens in.

As it stands now, either side will *have* to put everything east, if only to counter the other guy. It kills the game. It's a waste of time.

[mmarquo]

Yes, but this takes a turn, and with fast movers like Jackson who can move through multiple regions simultaneously, it is a problem.

[mmarquo]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

The best way to stop it is simply refuse to play. Either don't play against someone who does it, or don't continue a game that it happens in.

As it stands now, either side will *have* to put everything east, if only to counter the other guy. It kills the game. It's a waste of time.

It may be that CW2 is really only good for solitaire play. Here are the reasons why:

1. No way of really knowing what settings your opponent is using.
2. No way of preventing changes in the settings once the game is underway.
3. No way of preventing endless reloads - sorry, but it has to be said.
4. No way of preventing one's opponent from using the slider to allow unlimited recruitment of new units as opposed to the historical setting.
5. No way of preventing an all East approach; and no house rule can really stop this because players can always haggle over what is too much and what is too little. When I commented on what MT was doing on the ACWG forum, some responded that he was falling into a trap by capturing Annapolis and Baltimore; this is frankly very debatable since one can drag along 5 supply wagons and capture immense stocks of supplies so the concept of going out of supply and walking into a trap in highly debatable. Yet I still think there must be a way to counter this. One thing for sure is to launch distracting amphibious assaults like at Norfolk or even further South. This takes all of balls though - sail 2 divisions South while Philadelphia is threatened? You have to play with Easy Supply off, and also with historical attrition for both sides - and this to start.


It occurs to me that the lesion allowing this approach is the unfettered recruitment of new units in various states without consideration of time. Just because Virginia fielded let's say 100 regiments during the war, and the game allows 1000 to be raised, there needs to be a limit on how many can be raised per month or year. Surely this data is known from historical sources. This would prevent fielding Virginia's entire contribution to the war in the first year, instead of spread over 4 years - and this would make a huge difference and maybe solve the problem.


I never fault a player like MT for using the rules and game engine to his advantage; hopefully the developers will take heed, study and react to these observations.


Finally:

1. The manual is in desperate need of updating or the WIKI needs work; either will do. I am amazed at the pearls that experienced players like Ace always seem to know which are otherwise not documented.
2. This is a diamond in the rough which I really want to work - not ready to give up quite yet.

[Ace1_slith]

About 1-4 of your posts:

I am afraid the only sollution I can think off is neutral host. I was thinking about suggesting a tournament in the near future where the third participant would host the game of other two participants. About, no. 5. I was thinking about raising recruitable units for both sides. Right now, it is easy to field 200.000 troops to the East, and little elsewhere. But, if both sides had the recources to field large armies boh East and West, and on the Coast, I think it would be less of a problem.

Last remark:

With all the changes being made as we speak, manual will always be out of date. At some point the devs called for volunteers to fill out Wiki. I think the call is still valid.