Post by hardlec on Nov 14, 2019 23:08:21 GMT
Warlord has a fairly recent game out called "Cruel Seas." It takes place at the interface between land and sea, where iron men used wooden ships and do so to this day. The basic idea of big boats/small ships fighting on inland waterways or where the land meets the sea has much potential in AQMF. I'll leave Warlord's game for WWII. I have all I need for AQMF to go down to the sea in ships.
Since the end of the Civil War and until WWII, Farmers in the Midwest would harvest grain, build simple barges of wood powered mainly with the current, float their grain downstream to New Orleans, sell their grain, sell their boat for the wood, knock back a sazerac, then take the train home. Even post Katrina there are neighborhoods in New Orleans where very simple and cheap homes are made of this wood.
The Missouri Rivers is one of the greatest rivers in the world, ending in St. Louis but traveling all the way to the Rocky Mountains. It is part of a complex network of rivers that supply the Midwest with water. Boats are often the cheapest way of getting bulk products to Market, cheaper, and faster than the trains in many areas. The Eastern part of the US is held together with a complex network of canals. Armed boats have been used for war pretty much since there was war. Only after WWII did there exist a network of paved roads and railroads sufficient to replace the canals. This was done for speed. Track could be laid faster than a canal could be dug.
Marvin can, and will, tear up railroad tracks to use them for raw materials, but even Marvin can't stop the rivers. Build a dam, and the river will just find another way to "just keep rolling along."
By 1910, the paddlewheelers were being replaced with propeller driven craft. Gasolene and diesel were replacing steam, but slowly. Even so, a Swede by the name of Ollie Evinrude was selling new-fangled outboard motors as fast as he could make them. Unpowered barges were plentiful, and tow boats (even though they mostly pushed the barges) were the engines of commerce.
Now enter a US Navy eager to get some skin in the game and more than able to bring the fight to Marvin.
The Navy has a lot of guns that are well designed to bust Tripods. The USN used made-in-America 6-pounders, the gun that GB put in their tanks. Made to penetrate armored hulls and then explode, the 6-pounder would be a good Anti-Tripod gun. In WWII, a different 6 pounder would become a great anti-tank and tank gun. This model had better penetration but very little HE capability.
Bigger and better would be the USN 3-inch gun. The Navy's 3-inch gun was in the Spanish American War and gradually improved on until, well, the Navy's 3-inch gun in 2019 is derived from this gun. I still wonder why the naval 3-inch wasn't used as a tank gun. It had better penetration than the 3-inch gun derived from an anti-aircraft gun, and had more explosive than the 75mm mark 3, making it better than each gun where one was better than the other. The answer I get repeatedly is that the Army didn't want to use the Navy's gun. The navy's 4-inch gun was another great gun, small enough for small craft yet big enough to threaten anything smaller than a battleship. The Navy needed guns to penetrate armored targets, the Army needed guns to heave high explosive rounds down range, as many and as fast as possible. Different missions needed different guns.
Before there were stovepipes, or even the hint of stovepipes, the Navy used rockets for signals, to launch lines to other ships, and for shore bombardment. So the Navy had the tools to do the job.
The Marines were more a part of the Navy prior to WWI. Now adept at shore landings, the Navy was ready to see USMC branded on to bits and pieces of Tripods.
Scott Washburn has given us a good gunboat as well as good "landing craft" made for inland waterways. I have used a couple of open=decked steam launches, about 5" long, to good effect. Main question: How can Abby Normal make money on inland waterway combat?
Since the end of the Civil War and until WWII, Farmers in the Midwest would harvest grain, build simple barges of wood powered mainly with the current, float their grain downstream to New Orleans, sell their grain, sell their boat for the wood, knock back a sazerac, then take the train home. Even post Katrina there are neighborhoods in New Orleans where very simple and cheap homes are made of this wood.
The Missouri Rivers is one of the greatest rivers in the world, ending in St. Louis but traveling all the way to the Rocky Mountains. It is part of a complex network of rivers that supply the Midwest with water. Boats are often the cheapest way of getting bulk products to Market, cheaper, and faster than the trains in many areas. The Eastern part of the US is held together with a complex network of canals. Armed boats have been used for war pretty much since there was war. Only after WWII did there exist a network of paved roads and railroads sufficient to replace the canals. This was done for speed. Track could be laid faster than a canal could be dug.
Marvin can, and will, tear up railroad tracks to use them for raw materials, but even Marvin can't stop the rivers. Build a dam, and the river will just find another way to "just keep rolling along."
By 1910, the paddlewheelers were being replaced with propeller driven craft. Gasolene and diesel were replacing steam, but slowly. Even so, a Swede by the name of Ollie Evinrude was selling new-fangled outboard motors as fast as he could make them. Unpowered barges were plentiful, and tow boats (even though they mostly pushed the barges) were the engines of commerce.
Now enter a US Navy eager to get some skin in the game and more than able to bring the fight to Marvin.
The Navy has a lot of guns that are well designed to bust Tripods. The USN used made-in-America 6-pounders, the gun that GB put in their tanks. Made to penetrate armored hulls and then explode, the 6-pounder would be a good Anti-Tripod gun. In WWII, a different 6 pounder would become a great anti-tank and tank gun. This model had better penetration but very little HE capability.
Bigger and better would be the USN 3-inch gun. The Navy's 3-inch gun was in the Spanish American War and gradually improved on until, well, the Navy's 3-inch gun in 2019 is derived from this gun. I still wonder why the naval 3-inch wasn't used as a tank gun. It had better penetration than the 3-inch gun derived from an anti-aircraft gun, and had more explosive than the 75mm mark 3, making it better than each gun where one was better than the other. The answer I get repeatedly is that the Army didn't want to use the Navy's gun. The navy's 4-inch gun was another great gun, small enough for small craft yet big enough to threaten anything smaller than a battleship. The Navy needed guns to penetrate armored targets, the Army needed guns to heave high explosive rounds down range, as many and as fast as possible. Different missions needed different guns.
Before there were stovepipes, or even the hint of stovepipes, the Navy used rockets for signals, to launch lines to other ships, and for shore bombardment. So the Navy had the tools to do the job.
The Marines were more a part of the Navy prior to WWI. Now adept at shore landings, the Navy was ready to see USMC branded on to bits and pieces of Tripods.
Scott Washburn has given us a good gunboat as well as good "landing craft" made for inland waterways. I have used a couple of open=decked steam launches, about 5" long, to good effect. Main question: How can Abby Normal make money on inland waterway combat?
