Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

no USA blockades anymore?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Public Beta Feedback >> no USA blockades anymore? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
no USA blockades anymore? - 4/12/2007 6:43:06 PM   
firepowerjohan


Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline
Prior to beta patch the US navy often tried to blockade some of my ports especially on the east coast. Also it often tried landing in New Orleans but very early.

With the new beta patch the US navy no longer tried to blockade my ports and it make my trade economy very easy. I can get alot of reources from Europe. Also, it seems to wanna invade the east coast alot more but never New Orleand (have not tried enough times to really know that. Maybe it is because I send units to new Orelans right away that they get second thought?). The blockade used to be the biggest problem for me playing CSA and now it seems gone, pls come back again...

IMO the top priority should be blockading since it is the most effective way early on. As time goes on and if CSA navy grows it gets more benficial to spread out abit more (especially if USA has strong navy) because chances are much higher you gonna bump into a runner. Also, since spreading out means more vulnerable to CSA counter (merrimac for instance) it should only be doing it when it has a strong navy.



< Message edited by firwepoerjohan -- 4/12/2007 6:44:55 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/12/2007 6:54:57 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10043
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
Thank you for the report. Who else is noticing this?

Firwepoerjohan, does it get better as the war continues, and the USA can afford to build more fleets and ships?

(in reply to firepowerjohan)
Post #: 2
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/12/2007 7:42:58 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 10682
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline
The naval AI code hasn't changed all that much since before the patch, though the CSA navy is smaller now and the AI is more likely to blockade in order to trap enemy naval units.

_____________________________


(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 3
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/12/2007 8:57:33 PM   
firepowerjohan


Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline
I had one game where USA AI in 1862 had stacked up like 20 ships outside south carolina and it was not blockading any.

< Message edited by firwepoerjohan -- 4/12/2007 8:58:37 PM >

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 4
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/12/2007 9:44:01 PM   
christof139


Posts: 979
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
Same has happened to me; that is the US Navy doesn't do that much in the 1.94 Patch it seems. Can't remember if they did attack Norfolk and NO, but they may have, so I'll have to try another game.

Chris


_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to firepowerjohan)
Post #: 5
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/12/2007 10:05:32 PM   
firepowerjohan


Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline
Does ships add any bonus to sieges?
In real ACW, many forts fell because being bombarded by US navy? I think USA had naval support on most places they landed, do they also in FoF?

In FoF from what I have seen USA , if south just place 10k men in a fort (for instace to protect New Orleans) then no way USA is going to succeed in any siege. Maybe I am missing something, is there any naval unit USA can use for its naval invasions and what did they use in real war for support of naval invasions?



< Message edited by firwepoerjohan -- 4/12/2007 10:07:18 PM >

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 6
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/12/2007 10:18:23 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 403
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline
1. What is blockading ? Do the USA fleets blockade ? Does this impact runners. I always play CSA.

2. AS CSA - during my 2 games I lost one blockade runner fleet - I had sometimes my runners damaged. But not that often. Perhaps a little too easy for the CSA - but I was playing at +1 power. So this might be the explanation.

3. I had the AI invade Texas once, and then the Union army went for Baton Rouge (which wasn't garrisoned). The other time the AI invaded South Carolina.

(in reply to firepowerjohan)
Post #: 7
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/14/2007 7:00:23 AM   
LeBlaque

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 4/2/2007
Status: offline
I've noted the same kind of behavior in my "Snow in July and Scared Ships" thread. The Union is NOT blockading and wasting resources building fleets that seem to sit around. Although the code may have not "changed that much," I believe based on the various feedback something is not quite right with the Union Fleet/Ship AI.

Secondly, I too believe that Blockade Runners get away a little to easily. I've only lost one unit in 3 game years, but this may be due to the fact there aren't a lot of Union fleets in the ocean "provinces" to interdict with the 10% damage chance per ship....

< Message edited by LeBlaque -- 4/14/2007 7:04:20 AM >

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 8
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/14/2007 7:22:56 AM   
christof139


Posts: 979
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Does ships add any bonus to sieges?
In real ACW, many forts fell because being bombarded by US navy? I think USA had naval support on most places they landed, do they also in FoF?

In FoF from what I have seen USA , if south just place 10k men in a fort (for instace to protect New Orleans) then no way USA is going to succeed in any siege. Maybe I am missing something, is there any naval unit USA can use for its naval invasions and what did they use in real war for support of naval invasions?


Blue water Ships and River Gunboats have to be able to take part in bombarments of Forts, and I do believe only Gunboats can do this now if you put the siege setting on Bombard, but I don't think Ships can do this since they can't enter rivers, and perhaps they should be allowed to sail on the Mississippi up to Memphis or Cairo since they actually did and could during the ACW. The Miss. River is usually about 60-foot and even more deep in its main channel at normal water level.

Chris


_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to firepowerjohan)
Post #: 9
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/14/2007 10:09:07 AM   
Gray_Lensman


Posts: 640
Joined: 4/10/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139

quote:

Does ships add any bonus to sieges?
In real ACW, many forts fell because being bombarded by US navy? I think USA had naval support on most places they landed, do they also in FoF?

In FoF from what I have seen USA , if south just place 10k men in a fort (for instace to protect New Orleans) then no way USA is going to succeed in any siege. Maybe I am missing something, is there any naval unit USA can use for its naval invasions and what did they use in real war for support of naval invasions?


Blue water Ships and River Gunboats have to be able to take part in bombarments of Forts, and I do believe only Gunboats can do this now if you put the siege setting on Bombard, but I don't think Ships can do this since they can't enter rivers, and perhaps they should be allowed to sail on the Mississippi up to Memphis or Cairo since they actually did and could during the ACW. The Miss. River is usually about 60-foot and even more deep in its main channel at normal water level.

Chris



I don't know where you are coming up with a "60 foot depth main channel, but you are way out of the ball park...
The Mississippi River has been dredged since the 1930s to maintain a depth of 9 feet for barge traffic. Before that it was considerably less than 9 feet deep (but tremendously wider). Generally only shallow draft vessels could navigate it in the 1800s.

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River

< Message edited by Gray_Lensman -- 4/14/2007 10:32:11 AM >

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 10
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/14/2007 11:58:46 AM   
firepowerjohan


Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline
But even if a ship cannot enter river, cannot we have say a range so that nearby ships count into the siege even if they cannot enter the territory of the siege? it would be nice because it wouild force CSA to protect their coast better and means it will detract CSA resources if they want to keep Norfolk for instance. I think USA took norfolk with combined naval support and infantry in real ACW?

I also agree that runners have a easy life especially in 1861-1862. Maybe the ships 10% chance of sinking runner should also have a 10% of damaging it 1-10 damage like the danger factor has for trade.

so ships
10% sink
10% damage (1-10)
80% miss

It would be too much if you have bad luck early on and get both runners sunk so therefore a damage would be better slowing them down and force them to repair.


< Message edited by firwepoerjohan -- 4/14/2007 12:06:32 PM >

(in reply to Gray_Lensman)
Post #: 11
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/14/2007 5:39:08 PM   
christof139


Posts: 979
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

don't know where you are coming up with a "60 foot depth main channel, but you are way out of the ball park...
The Mississippi River has been dredged since the 1930s to maintain a depth of 9 feet for barge traffic. Before that it was considerably less than 9 feet deep (but tremendously wider). Generally only shallow draft vessels could navigate it in the 1800s.

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River


Why don't you read the entire article?? Here is the part you are quoting with your 9-foot depth. This is referring to the UPPER Mississippi in Iowa and Wisconsin etc.!!!

"A series of 29 locks and dams on the upper Mississippi, most of which were built in the 1930s, is designed primarily to maintain a 9 foot (2.7 m) deep channel for commercial barge traffic.[4][5] The lakes formed are also used for recreational boating and fishing. The dams make the river deeper and wider but do not stop it. No flood control is intended"

That is referring to the UPPER Mississippi. There are not any locks on the Miss. River from southern Illinois on down to the Gulf. The Miss. river is indeed up to 60-feet deep and porbably more in some spots in the MAIN CHANNEL of the MID AND LOWER stretches of the River. Some of Farragut's ocean going sloops of war drew 14 or so feet of water, and they could travel up to near St. Louis if they wanted to, perhaps cairo, llinois in spring flood.

I have seen Geologic and Topographical cross sections of the Miss. River at Vicksburg, and there the river is a good 40-feet deep in the main chanel. I have also seen data indicating the 60-foot depth in the main channel.

You don't know what you are talking about. The main stretch of the Miss. River from southern Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico is DEEP. That is why modern ocean going vessels can dock in New Orleans!!! It's DEEP!!!

Heck, the short Detroit River, straits actually as the word 'detroit' means in French, is about 60-foot deep in spots, and the Detroit River does not have as fast a current as the Mississippi River.

http://www.answers.com/topic/mississippi-river

Course and Navigation

The Mississippi River rises in small streams that feed Lake Itasca (alt. 1,463 ft/446 m) in N Minnesota and flows generally south to enter the Gulf of Mexico through a huge delta in SE Louisiana. A major economic waterway, the river is navigable from the sediment-free channel maintained through South Pass in the delta to the Falls of St. Anthony in Minneapolis, with canals circumventing the rapids near Rock Island, Ill., and Keokuk, Iowa. For the low-water months of July, August, and September, there is a 45-ft (13.7-m) channel navigable by oceangoing vessels from Head of the Passes to Baton Rouge, La., and a 9-ft (2.7-m) channel from Baton Rouge deep enough for barges and towboats to Minneapolis. The Mississippi connects with the Intracoastal Waterway in the south and with the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence Seaway system in the north by way of the Illinois Waterway.

***Here it states a 45-foot depth at Baton Rouge, and a 9-foot MODERN BARGE channel, MODERN not ACW times. The excerpt from and article listed below explains that the main channel of the river near St. louis was 'Mark four.' or 4-fathoms or 24-feet deep at the time of the ACW, and 'Mark Twain.' meaning 'mark Two' or 2-fathoms or 12-feet was not considered safe for riverboat travel at the tinme of the ACW because of log snags on the river bottom. The RIVER WAS DEEPER DURING ACW TIMES, and is still deep in the MAIN CHANNEL. The current is from 4 to sometimes 6-knots per hour.

http://www.bigeasy.com/features/captain.html

"Besides the danger of fires, pilots always had to be wary of the Mississippi's ever changing currents and mud bars. Born Samuel Clemens, Mark Twain took his pen name from a term used by riverboat crewmen to measure the river's depth. The crewman dropped a chain in the water, gauged how long till it hit bottom and then called out the depth. "Mark Four" meant the river was four fathoms deep. "Mark Twain" meant it was two fathoms, dangerously shallow for a riverboat."

Chris


< Message edited by christof139 -- 4/14/2007 6:03:54 PM >


_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to Gray_Lensman)
Post #: 12
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/14/2007 6:29:22 PM   
christof139


Posts: 979
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
Here Mr. Lensman, read some more about the Mighty Miss before you start telling me I don't know what I am talking about. Here in this excerpt you will see that the Miss. River scours holes a hundred and more feet in depth in its bends near the river banks, and its bed in the MAIN CHANNEL is over 170-feet below sea level at New Orleans. It is a deep and dangerous river as is explained below.

If I can find the geologic/Topological Cross Section of the Miss. River at Vicksburg at the time of the ACW, you will find that I am 110% correct as to its depth in the main channel being near or up to 60-feet deep in spots, then I will post this site address for you to peruse. Forget Wikipedia please.

Read and understand what you glaze over and then erroneoulsy and hastily post before you tell me I don't know what I am talking about please.

Sincerely, Mr. Chris, a defunct Geologist with it of a memory.

http://www.bigeasy.com/features/captain.html

The Mississippi never lies at rest. It roils. It follows no set course. Its waters and currents are not uniform. Rather, it moves south in layers and whorls, like an uncoiling rope made up of a multitude of discreet fibers, each one following an independent and unpredictable path, each one separately and together capable of snapping like a whip. It never has one current, one velocity. Even when the River is not in flood, one can sometimes see the surface in one spot one to two feet higher that the surface close by, while the water swirls about, as if trying to devour itself. Eddies of gigantic dimensions can develop, sometimes accompanied by great spiraling holes in the water. (Eddies have been observed running upstream at seven miles an hour and extending half across the River, whirling and foaming like a whirlpool.)

The River's sinuosity itself generates enormous force. The Mississippi snakes seaward in a continual series of S curves that sometimes approach 180 degrees. The collision of River and earth at these bends creates tremendous turbulence: currents can drive straight down to the bottom of the River, sucking at whatever lies on the surface, scouring out holes often several hundred feet deep. Thus the Mississippi is a series of deep pools and shallow "crossings" and the movement of water from depth to shallows adds still further force and complexity. High water — a flood — makes River dynamics more volatile and enigmatic. IN some parts of the River high water raises the surface 70 feet above low water. By raising the surface in relation to sea level, high water can thus increase the slope of the River by 25% or more. And velocity depends upon the slope. The River's main current can reach 9 miles an hour, while some of the River's other currents can move much faster. During floods, measurable effects of an approaching flood crest can roar downriver at almost 18 miles an hour.

And for the last 450 miles of the Mississippi's flow, the riverbed lies below sea level — 15% below sea level at Vicksburg, well over 170 feet below sea level at New Orleans. For this 450 miles the water on the bottom has no reason to flow at all. But the water above it does. This creates a tumbling effect as water spills over itself, like an enormous ever-breaking internal wave. The tumbling effect can attack a riverbank — or a flood control levee — like a buzz saw. But the final complexity of the lower Mississippi is its sediment load, and understanding it is the key not only to understanding how to control the River, but also to understanding how the soil of the Delta became to be so rich, which, without it, the blues could not have been born. Every day the River deposits between several hundred thousand and several million tons of earth in the Gulf of Mexico. At least some geologists put this figure even higher historically, at an average of more than 2 million tons a day.

By geological standards the lower Mississippi is a young, even infant stream, and runs through what is known as the Mississippi Embayment, a declivity covering approximately 35,000 square miles that begins 30 miles north of Cairo to Cape Giradeau, Missouri — geologically the true head of the Mississippi Delta — and extends to the Gulf of Mexico. At one time the Gulf itself reached to Cape Giradeau, then sea level fell. Over thousands of years the River and its tributaries have poured 1,280 cubic miles of sediment — the equivalent of 1,280 separate mountains of earth, each one mile high, one mile wide, and a mile long — into this declivity. Aided by the falling sea level, this sediment filled in the embayment and made land. Throughout the Mississippi's alluvial valley, this sedimentary deposit has an average thickness of 132 feet; in some areas the deposits reach down 350 feet. It's weight is great enough that some geologists believe its downward pressure pushed up surrounding land, thus creating hills.


< Message edited by christof139 -- 4/14/2007 7:21:53 PM >


_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to Gray_Lensman)
Post #: 13
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/14/2007 7:39:12 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2523
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
Never tell Chris he doesn't know what he's talking about.

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 14
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/14/2007 8:47:17 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10043
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
I have to admit, that's a pretty impressive post.

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 15
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/14/2007 9:02:35 PM   
Gray_Lensman


Posts: 640
Joined: 4/10/2003
Status: offline
I am not going to go into a lot of argumentative details here. I posted that link in order to show that they had to dredge the river in order to make it useful... Yes, there were and still are some places that are somewhat deeper, but on the whole it was not able to be navigated by blue water types of naval vessels due to its unpredictable depths, shifting mudbars, and relatively fast current.

As for arguing any further, Chris obviously knows much, much more than anyone else about the subject, even a lowly misinformed person such as me who happens to be an operator that maintains the head level of the Mississipppi above the Des Moines Rapids via the Keokuk power plant generators and Lock 19 (Army Corps of Engineers). A secondary function of that same job is to maintain what is known as the tail level downstream from Keokuk lock 19 in order for a "minimum" level to be maintained for continuing barge traffic. Actually, this is all done remotely now from the operating consoles at the Osage plant in central Missouri. In order to operate the Keokuk plant remotely, some knowledge of the Mississippi River upstream and downstream was required and daily communication with Army Corps of Engineers, for level/flow coordination.


_____________________________

You've GOT to hold them back!

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 16
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/14/2007 11:27:34 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2523
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
Never tell Gray Lensmen he doesn't know what he's talking about either.

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to Gray_Lensman)
Post #: 17
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/14/2007 11:49:40 PM   
Gray_Lensman


Posts: 640
Joined: 4/10/2003
Status: offline
LOL, actually I agree with Chris on most of his posts but the use of the Mississippi River by "blue water naval units" was way over the top. There may be some rare special instances where it was tried, but it was so hazardous for those types of ships, that it was not feasible to be done on any sort of regular basis without a high risk of loss.

That's why the Union built Riverine Gunboats and why the game distinguishes between the two types.

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 18
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/15/2007 12:36:27 AM   
christof139


Posts: 979
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

LOL, actually I agree with Chris on most of his posts but the use of the Mississippi River by "blue water naval units" was way over the top. There may be some rare special instances where it was tried, but it was so hazardous for those types of ships, that it was not feasible to be done on any sort of regular basis without a high risk of loss.

That's why the Union built Riverine Gunboats and why the game distinguishes between the two types.


What do you mean rare?? The entire lower Miss. River up to and past Vicksburg was cruised by many deep water ships such as the USS Hartford, Richmond, Monogehela (sp?), Mississippi, etc. etc. etc. These ships did cruise that long section of the river on a regular basis and without great loss. The USS Mississippi was the only large ocean going Union warship sunk on the river at Port Hudson. Those ocean going ships did not have any great problem navigating the deep miss. River, except for the CSA forts and batteries at Vicksburg and Port Hudson and lower down Fts. Jackson and St. Philip, but the CSA forts do not have anything to do with the depth of the river, and that depth is deep.

So, you all are a bit off on more than one item.

Chris


The river's main channel is deep and the current is very strong. The modern barge channel(s) are off to the side of the main channel.

_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to Gray_Lensman)
Post #: 19
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/15/2007 12:43:51 AM   
christof139


Posts: 979
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I am not going to go into a lot of argumentative details here. I posted that link in order to show that they had to dredge the river in order to make it useful... Yes, there were and still are some places that are somewhat deeper, but on the whole it was not able to be navigated by blue water types of naval vessels due to its unpredictable depths, shifting mudbars, and relatively fast current.

As for arguing any further, Chris obviously knows much, much more than anyone else about the subject, even a lowly misinformed person such as me who happens to be an operator that maintains the head level of the Mississipppi above the Des Moines Rapids via the Keokuk power plant generators and Lock 19 (Army Corps of Engineers). A secondary function of that same job is to maintain what is known as the tail level downstream from Keokuk lock 19 in order for a "minimum" level to be maintained for continuing barge traffic. Actually, this is all done remotely now from the operating consoles at the Osage plant in central Missouri. In order to operate the Keokuk plant remotely, some knowledge of the Mississippi River upstream and downstream was required and daily communication with Army Corps of Engineers, for level/flow coordination.


No you shoudn't argue because you are wrong about the Miss. River from its mouth to Memphis. You are very wrong. The river in Iowa is not the same as the river lower down.

I just gave you info. stating how deep the river can get, and the main channel is always deep. The modern barge channel is off to the side of the main channel usually. If you actually think the main channel of the mid and lower Miss. River is only 9-feet deep when I posted just a bit of the large amount of info. that easily refutes your wrong statements, then I don't know what is wrong with your way of thinking. The river in Iowas is much shallower than southern flowing river below where the Ohio River joins it.

Apparently, you seem to feel that because you work on a lock on the Iowa part of the river that that makes you know everything about the Miss. River. I already proved you wrong and the info. to prove you wrong is common knowledge and easily obtainable.

Chris


_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to Gray_Lensman)
Post #: 20
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/15/2007 12:54:42 AM   
Gray_Lensman


Posts: 640
Joined: 4/10/2003
Status: offline
I'm not arguing the point anymore, since it would possibly evolve into a flaming war. My only request to the developers of the game is that if they make "blue water naval units" capable of moving up the Mississippi, that they at least include the option to turn it off for those of us that wish to enjoy the game in the more historically accurate way that they are used now.

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 21
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/15/2007 1:01:56 AM   
ericbabe


Posts: 10682
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: firwepoerjohan
I also agree that runners have a easy life especially in 1861-1862. Maybe the ships 10% chance of sinking runner should also have a 10% of damaging it 1-10 damage like the danger factor has for trade.

so ships
10% sink
10% damage (1-10)
80% miss

It would be too much if you have bad luck early on and get both runners sunk so therefore a damage would be better slowing them down and force them to repair.



That's a good idea.

_____________________________


(in reply to firepowerjohan)
Post #: 22
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/15/2007 1:14:58 AM   
christof139


Posts: 979
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I'm not arguing the point anymore, since it would possibly evolve into a flaming war. My only request to the developers of the game is that if they make "blue water naval units" capable of moving up the Mississippi, that they at least include the option to turn it off for those of us that wish to enjoy the game in the more historically accurate way that they are used now.


You're not going to argue?? Good, because you can't argue because you are wrong.

As for historical accuracy, the game would be historically accurate if deep water ships were allowed to cruise up to Memphis, at least Vicksburg, that IS histroically accurate.

Chris


_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to Gray_Lensman)
Post #: 23
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/15/2007 1:17:03 AM   
christof139


Posts: 979
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I also agree that runners have a easy life especially in 1861-1862. Maybe the ships 10% chance of sinking runner should also have a 10% of damaging it 1-10 damage like the danger factor has for trade.

so ships
10% sink
10% damage (1-10)
80% miss

It would be too much if you have bad luck early on and get both runners sunk so therefore a damage would be better slowing them down and force them to repair.


I think that the overall average of Blockaders making it through the Blockade is maybe 75% or more throughout the whole course of the war. Many small ships and many of those being small sil only schooners and brigs and bigantines etc. were used to run the Blockade.

This info. is very available, but it is and can be only an educated guesstimate.

Chris



_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 24
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/15/2007 9:18:10 AM   
Gray_Lensman


Posts: 640
Joined: 4/10/2003
Status: offline
I happened to stumble on a couple of links, one regarding the Civil War Navies and the second regarding Mississippi River Navigation, neither of which directly proves anything totally conclusive in game terms. The question in FOF game terms is what do the "Frigates and Ships" of the Blue Water blockading ships represent? It seems to me they still represent primarily ocean going sailing vessels. The operative word here is "primarily". The riverine and in some cases ocean "coastal" craft were primarily steam powered craft, which of course were quite capable of sailing up some of the deeper river channels. Concerning the game itself, if we are to allow the blue water navy to sail up these rivers, then we need to consider a specific new class of vessel, to be built in the shipyards, with different costs than the "ships" and "frigates" of the blue water navy, possibly with restrictions that they only can be used along the ocean coast and into some of the deeper river channels, including the Mississippi up to Vicksburg. But to allow any and all of the blue water navy vessels, "ships" and "frigates" to be used in the Mississippi would be a gross exaggeration of their actual usage in the ACW.

FWIW, This is only "my" opinion, and suggestions.

see the following links:
http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/PAO/history/MISSRNAV/federal.asp
http://www.civilwarhome.com/unionconfednavies.htm


(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 25
RE: no USA blockades anymore? - 4/15/2007 10:11:17 AM   
firepowerjohan


Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline
i do not like that runners cost 100 money now instead of earlier 150. The problem currently is that runners are too easy and profitable. I guess if we make them easier to sink then they can cost 100-125 but with current rules they should cost like 200

(in reply to Gray_Lensman)
Post #: 26
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Public Beta Feedback >> no USA blockades anymore? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.124