A New CM Engine Application--ACW Ironclads!

[John Kettler]

Some time ago, someone started a thread suggesting that CM's engine be used for the American Civil War. To use a Britishism, that idea is "not on," both for coding reasons and especially because of CMs 2-Infinity, which I totally support.

It occurred to me, though, that some enterprising group might be able to build an awesome game of ironclad battles using CM's engine as a springboard. If the game already properly handles limited traverse, recoil forces, rates of fire, armor type, slope and quality, ballistics and terminal ballistics, it would seem to be to be quite capable of handling the far smaller computational demands of ironclads given the vastly lower rates of fire, shorter engagement ranges and far less complex armor.

Granted, water modeling and the choking clouds of blackpowder smoke of the period would be major CPU hits, but I fail to see how modeling a few ironclads on a side (let's skip bombardments at Charleston and Mobile Bay for the moment) could possibly be even remotely as complicated as what CM already does.

In other words, if in CM my StuG has a pivoting, recoiling, limited traverse gun, then in theory I shouldn't have much trouble modeling an ironclad's casemated pivot gun. If in CM I can have a tank commander pop in and out of the hatch, what's to stop me from using much the same code to open and close gunports?

If CM gives me multiple ammo types, then I ought to be able to have shot, shell, grape and maybe incendiary projectiles for my relatively crude muzzleloading cannon.

If we have an MG-42, how difficult would it be to depict a shotgun or the common rifled musket?

I know the MadMatt's, ColcoolJs and Car12s out there can just as easily build ironclads and wooden-hulled vessels as tanks with fully articulated trackwork and revolving turrets.

Some special camera views (sighting through the gunport, view from the pilothouse, etc.) would also be needed, but we could probably afford to lose several from CM's extensive current list. We might also need a narrow field telescope view and a view through field glasses.

Roadblocks would become pilings, land mines torpedoes (naval mines, with contact or command detonation), and target reference points would be prezeroed buoys.

For some scenarios, there could be heavy mortars in forts or on rafts and schooners, with much cruder fire control than CM has.

Naturally, there would need to be a fair amount of research done, flotation modeling would take some real work (computer models routinely used by naval architects) but ironclad technology and warfare are topics which have had many books and studies done on them already, not to mention several wargames.

I bounced this idea off a hardcore wargaming friend of mine, and he thought it was a great idea. He said that he was astonished no one had ever issued a computer game on ironclads, a topic he considers a natural choice for a computer wargame. It's fun, challenging, colorful, militarily interesting and historically significant, the birth of nothing less than a naval revolution. And believe me, there are people who are just as well read and savvy about this topic and period as we are concerning World War II. I know several. One's my brother.

My friend and I think this could be a great wargame. What say the rest of you?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Formerly Babra]

Gets my vote -- In fact, I was thinking of that very same thing about a week ago. I was actually thinkin' of codin' it up myself and wondering just how much of the CM format I could "borrow" without a call from their lawyers, which doubtless they can now afford

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[Echo]

WW2 surface naval battled would be more interesting. Larger variety of ships, weapons and tactics.

[Bullethead]

John-

Excellent idea. My favorite paper wargame of all time is Yaquinto's "Ironclads". I got the Expansion Pack and even the rewrite called "Shot and Shell." These games at the most detailed level are pretty much the same as micro armor, where you track the results of each shot fired, check penetration, etc.

It's always annoyed me that nobody has ever computerized Ironclads. Aide de Campe just can't handle it, either . Having a CM-based version would be most excellent

I really hope BTS sells the CM engine so folks can do stuff like this (and make a PTO/CBI version, too). Otherwise it will never happen

------------------

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[John Kettler]

I'm glad that my idea apparently has merit, especially since I myself am an avid player of Ironclad, have played wonderful battles using those rules and the fabulous Thoroughbred 1:600 miniatures belonging to friends, and just received a Confederate gunboat, several armed tugs, barges, even a couple of shore batteries as gifts from my brother, who also included William Davis's excellent and insightful book, THE DUEL BETWEEN THE FIRST IRONCLADS.

Babra, I'd LOVE to see you take a crack at building even part of a game of ironclads, but let's see if we can do it with the cooperation of Charles and Steve.

I think the possibilities are very exciting.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Madmatt]

YUMMY!

I have wanted a computer simulation of Ironclads ever since I firts played the tabletop game of the same name.

I used to love those dual monitors! Every ship always ended up getting a rudder jammed to starboard though! Still, great game then and a great idea now!

You have my support!

Madmatt

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission

Combat Mission HQ

CMHQ-Annex

Proud members of the Combat Mission WebRing

[Formerly Babra]

So do I. I'm currently helping a friend with some archival research for his 1812 game, but once that's done I think I'll tackle it. One of the advantages is that given the comparatively small size of the fleets engaged, a hell of a lot of 3D can go into it without disrupting performance. I fairly drool at the possibility of running a gunboat up the Yazoo or Mississippi, not quite knowing where the sandbars are, while some Yankee peckerhead with a 10 inch Rodman messes up my giltwork

Other than being 3D, I don't think it needs to be like CM, but credit where it's due: They have shown the way...

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[Epée]

Errr...forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is an ironclad?

Epée

Brazil

[Maximus]

Oh Lord, what is an Ironclad??

Well ol' chap, I'll tell ya.

An Ironclad was a relatively low profile ship/boat made out of iron during the American Civil War. They typically had wooden under hulls topped of by an iron deck. Sometimes this deck was flat with cylindrical rotating turrets such as the Union's Monitor, others' decks had sloped armor built in kind of like one half of a hotdog bun.

Oh well hell, here's a picture.

The ironclads are the two boats in the foreground.

Or here's some models of the two.

------------------

"The greatest risk...is not taking one."

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 06-06-2000).]

[Renaud]

Ironclads were barges and regular sailing ships clad in metal armor plating. They existed throughout the 19th century. The USS Constitution was plated in copper at and below the waterline so I think it qualifies. The US Civil War era Monitor and Merrimack were later ironclads with turrets and iron armor.

With the advent of large steam turbine engines ironclads evolved into dreadnaughts such as the HMS Dreadnaught. The battle of Jutland in WWI was the high tide of the dreadnaughts. The ranges at which dreadnaughts could engage is too much for CM maps...unless you increased the scale x2 or x3 I guess.

Ren

[109 Gustav]

Wow, I'm impressed to see what can be done with the CM engine. Sounds like a wonderful idea. Here's another one. Does anyone know of the Macintosh shareware game Escape Velocity/EV Override? It's a game in which you pilot a spacecraft around the galaxy, trading and fighting. The graphics are a top down view, sort of like a modern Asteroids. You could do 3D models of the different spacecraft in it, and use CM to make them combat each other, again with gun transverse, recoil, and armor penetration.

Also, in your Ironclads modification, would you be able to simulate more firepower to the sides than the front and rear on Virginia-type ironclads? That would sure change combat, presenting your flanks to the enemy, rather than the front, like tanks try to do.

------------------

There is nothing certain about war except that one side won't win.

-Ian Hamilton

[chrisl]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Renaud:

The USS Constitution was plated in copper at and below the waterline so I think it qualifies.

Ren <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The copper was to reduce the growth of barnacles etc. on the bottom of the ship. IIRC The "Old Ironsides" comes from a duel with the Guerriere (sp) in which balls from the Guerriere bounced off the wooden sides of the hull (which were very thick and probably quite springy). Wooden Ships and Iron Men (from AH) was my first wargame, and I played that scenario a bunch of times. I never really got into the ships of the line battles, I think because I was pretty young and didn't see the tactical possibilities. I always preferred the smaller battles with just a few relatively lightly armed but more maneuverable ships.

[Bullethead]

Gustav said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, in your Ironclads modification, would you be able to simulate more firepower to the sides than the front and rear on Virginia-type ironclads? That would sure change combat, presenting your flanks to the enemy, rather than the front, like tanks try to do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I detect the presence of a lubber here . Actually, from the time of the galleon up to the present day, ships have always tried to fight broadside-on to the enemy (except for some ships in the latter 1800s when ramming was thought to be the thing again). It's the tanks that are doing things differently

Seriously, we're talking about modeling each gun of each ship, so ships with broadside guns would be able to use them.

One problem I see, however. Many guns of the Ironclad era had reload times well in excess of 1 minute. Thus if the CM engine was used directly, there could be several turns in a row without a shot fired even though the enemy ships were close together. Which is one reason the ram got popular again in the Ironclad period.

------------------

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[John Kettler]

Wow! Talk about hitting a responsive chord!

This will be quick, since I just spent hours on my other posts.

First, the copper plating on the U.S.S. Constitution was installed specifically to protect the hull from the dreaded teredo or shipworm. Think of it as a gigantic, voracious termite quite capable of turning a hull into wooden Swiss cheese.

Second, the Constitution's hull was made of a very tough, dense wood called live oak, which grows in Southern swamps. The wood was so tough that it wore out tools and caused the deaths, from exhaustion and heat stroke, of some two hundred slaves who had to harvest those mighty trees from which her hull was built.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Formerly Babra]

And one more note on "Old Ironsides": Her ribs were only half as far apart as in other British frigates of her day, or, put another way, she had twice as many as would be expected in a ship of her class. Another reason why enemy cannonballs would literally bounce off her.

Steam powered Rams (ironclad ones too) saw widespread use in the ACW. Just another reason it would take a true 3D game engine to properly simulate them.

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[von Lucke]

Avast ye tars! Good to see I'm not the only one to have Yaquinto's "The Ironclads" hidden away in the closet somewhere. But what's up with all these damn cotton barges? Let's hear it for the blue water commerce raiders like the CSS Alabama or USS Kearsarge! Oooh, and the Laird rams! Or the proposed CSS Jackson!

Damn, now you've got me all hot and bothered --- just have to go and play some CM...

[Guest Madmatt]

For the record (and most probably know this although School texts CONTINUE to screw this up) but the name Merrimack as in USS MERRIMACK was the ORIGINAL Union name for that ship. That ship was later 'aquired' (raised as it had been sunk at Norfolk ship yard by the North when they abandoned the area) by the South, refitted as a casemate ironclad and re-launched and designated as the CSS Virginia.

I cringe when I hear it said and written that the Monitor and Merrimack fought...

Another interesting tidbit was that rumor has it that Lincoln could see the smoke and hear the gun reports from the White House during the first battle (Hampton Roads) between the two ironclads..Although it may have been the earlier battle with the Virginia and the USS Cumberland that he heard, prior to the Monitor's arrival...

Good site for info:

http://www.ironclads.com/

Madmatt

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission

Combat Mission HQ

CMHQ-Annex

Proud members of the Combat Mission WebRing

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 06-07-2000).]

[guachi]

And the USS Constitution is still a commissioned ship, I believe. I remember seeing a 'Great Ships' episode on The History Channel about it and got to see it sail for a bit.

Does anybody know where the ship is harbored?

Jason

------------------

Betas available to everyone are just publicity stunts anyways. -FK

[Formerly Babra]

Consitition Berths in Boston.

EDIT: Whoops. That's Constitution.

[This message has been edited by Formerly Babra (edited 06-07-2000).]

[Richard III]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt:

I cringe when I hear it said and written that the Monitor and Merrimack fought...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most people even in the Confederacy referred to the vessel as MERRIMACK even after it was rebuilt as a ram. Moreover, the ship remained property of the US government despite its capture. To credit the ship with the name "Virginia" would be to legitimize the Confederate government and its activities. If I were to steal your boat and paint some other name on it, would you suddenly insist on using the thieves' new name?

Thus, I for one would argue that the only correct name for the vessel, both before and after conversion, is MERRIMACK.

[Formerly Babra]

Finder's keepers, Loser's weepers

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[Miyamoto Musashi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard III:

To credit the ship with the name "Virginia" would be to legitimize the Confederate government and its activities. If I were to steal your boat and paint some other name on it, would you suddenly insist on using the thieves' new name?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oooh, hoo, hoo... Being a person who went to college and grad school in South Carolina, I cannot wait to hear the return salvos for that little comment... To speak of "not legitimizing" the Confederate government is to argue something entirely different than the name of the ship. The Confederacy believed that it was the Union that became illegitmate when the Union began passing laws which were directly targeted at Southern businesses. I'm sorry, but if anyone out there still believes slavery was the cause of the war, I'm really at a loss.

But the South's contention was that if they weren't getting a fair shake in Washington, they would simply negate their contract (i.e., the Constitution). The federal government, not wanting to show weakness or allow the Southern states to set a precedent, fought to hold the South in the Union. While the South fired the first shots at Sumter, the North was still largely responsible for the outbreak.

[Lorak]

I have a question. Maybe one of you history buffs can help me out. I was under the impression that sucession was allowed by the constitution until the civil war came about.

Lorak

------------------

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring

[Formerly Babra]

Oh, Lorak. Now we're in for it...

Not being American, what I find humourous is that Rebellion against Great Britain was "right and good" and whose practitioners called themselves "Patriots," while Rebellion against Washington was treason.

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt:

I cringe when I hear it said and written that the Monitor and Merrimack fought...

Madmatt

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, I'm not the only one that cringes at innaccuracies.

------------------

"The greatest risk...is not taking one."