Fort Monroe and blockading forts

[runyan99]

Should it be possible to attack forts from land when the sea zone is blockaded? I thought it used to be impossible for the CSA to attack Ft. Monroe from Virginia, but I have found that in 1.13b the rebs can walk right over and take the fort. Did I miss a rule change, or is this a bug? Shouldn't a USA blockade of Hampton Roads prevent CSA units moving into the Ft. Monroe zone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fort_Monroe_Aerial.jpg

This applies to all coastal forts in the game as far as my testing has shown. It is impossible now to use naval power to block movement and protect the forts from attack.

[GraniteStater]

I really started with 1.13b, so I dunno what the previous state of affairs was. Looking at your picture though, I would have to say that it might not be entirely unreasonable for a land force to successfully assault the place. From the parade ground to the water tower looks to be 300 yards at most, and Napoleons could easily throw half a mile, I believe. Also, I would be willing to bet that Monroe was built as a coastal fortress and not meant to control the hinterland.

The water looks to me (I grew up on a coast) like a vessel with any real draft might have some problems there. Yes, I see the power boats, but naval captains aren't real fond of shorelines. Now the bombardment factor from ships is another consideration - something that gets overlooked is that HMS Victory in 1805 carried more firepower than Wellington had at Waterloo. Bombardment from ships of the line or frigates is not to be sneezed at. The advantage that coastal forts had was (a) bigger guns than a ship, generally, and (b) a stable platform.

IOW, I think that the Navy could interfere with (even mightily), but not absolutely prohibit, an assault. Now, I am aware that Monroe was never seriously attacked. I tend to regard Ft. Monroe in the game as a 'region'.

Ft. Pickens could be another story. I think (I'm not sure) that the local geography militated against an attack.

Anyway, yes- reinforce Monroe and Pickens early in 1.13b and later versions, at least for now.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

I am not convinced that a single road would have been sufficient frontage to support a sizable land assault in the face of a naval bombardment of the same road. Ditto for any other coastal fort connected to the mainland by a thin strip of land. I think these forts are already indicated in the game by having a blue (cross water) land link to surrounding regions.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GraniteStater]

Good reasons why Monroe wasn't attacked. Myself, from a game point of view, if the designers wish some minor ahistorical aberrations for playability, that's not a big issue with me.

If something is theoretically possible, IOW, I think the designer should let the possibility exist, although at what price is an open question.

Yes, Gray, that's how I've played it - it seemed to me that Forts were regions, although the GIF seems to occupy quite a bit of the region!

I need to scope out Pickens - that one's been a niggle to me. If it was truly a pipe dream to assail it, maybe the AI shouldn't worry about it so much. Maybe the same goes for Monroe. Is the AI concerned about these places as entrepots for Union ops? Maybe one could limit how many 'people' you can have in a Fort.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GraniteStater]

From the Web (sorry, forgot the site - it's easy to google):

FORT PICKENS

Built between 1829 and 1834, the five sided fort was located at the western point of Santa Rosa Island. Designed so that its guns could sweep the entrance to Pensacola Bay, Fort Pickens was a formidable obstacle to any enemy ship trying to enter Pensacola Bay.


Had Confederate troops been able to occupy the fort at the beginning of the War Between the States, Pensacola might have proved a very tough nut to crack for the Union navy. Unlike many similar works that were reduced by bombardment during the war, Fort Pickens was built right on the beach of the Gulf of Mexico and would have been very difficult to take by siege or naval bombardment.


Confederate troops attacked the outlying camps of the fort during the Battle of Santa Rosa Island on October 9, 1861, but did not attempt to take the main fort itself. Two heavy bombardments followed. The first, in November of 1861, lasted two days and was initiated by the Federals. Artillery fire from Fort Pickens and U.S. Navy ships offshore was directed at Fort McRee, Fort Barrancas, the Pensacola Navy Yard and other Confederate installations around the bay. The second, in January of 1862, was of shorter duration. Neither resulted in any significant damage to Fort Pickens.


After Confederate troops were withdrawn from Pensacola in May of 1862 to reinforce the Army of Tennessee, Union trops continued to occupy Fort Pickens. Prisoners were sometimes held there, but it primarily served as a military post. In the years after the war the fort became a prison for the Apache leader Geronimo and a number of his followers. It remained active as a military post until the end of World War II.

[runyan99]

Notice the short [color="Blue"]BLUE[/color] link?

Sorry you spend the time checking old patches.

The link is blue. In game a blue link denotes a cross water link between two land regions. Usually this indicates crossing a river, but sometimes, as in the case of coastal forts, it can mean crossing a narrow land strip.

However, while rivers can be blockaded, preventing crossing of the blue link, this doesn't work for the coastal forts. My point is that the link should be brown based on the way the game handles it, because the surrounding ocean region, like Hampton Roads, cannot be blockaded.

My suggestion is that I think as an element of design, land passage to these blue link coastal forts SHOULD be blockable via blockade of the surrounding water.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

Speaking in the case of Ft. Monroe, a USA blockade of Hampton Roads would prevent CSA troops from moving on the fort, but not USA troops moving out. My basic question is, why aren't these links treated like a river crossing? My incorrect assumption was that this was already the case.

In the real world, a fort surrounded by water, and accessible only by one road, is massively subject to naval blockade. Not so in game.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[johnnycai]

Speaking in the case of Ft. Monroe, a USA blockade of Hampton Roads would prevent CSA troops from moving on the fort, but not USA troops moving out. My basic question is, why aren't these links treated like a river crossing? My incorrect assumption was that this was already the case.

In the real world, a fort surrounded by water, and accessible only by one road, is massively subject to naval blockade. Not so in game.

Was checking this thread earlier and remembered a PBEM game with my regular CSA opp.
In that PBEM game, I belive it was version 1.07-1.10 somewhere, the link between Ft. Monroe and James City was l.blue as it is now, but the presence of enemy ships would block the passage of enemy troops. My opp remembers this painfully well, as I left Ft. Monroe poorly defended and then trapped a CSA corps at the Ft. where they proceeded to be starved out. My PBEM opponent was the host that game and I havent asked for the game files if they still exist.
Maybe when the river blocking-crossings fixes/enhancements were made this was changed for Ft. Monroe/JamesCity. In any event I wanted to share my experience on this issue with you.

[runyan99]

Yes thanks, that corroborates my recollection.

[Pocus]

I'm not against changing the link to Fort Monroe to a crossing link, np for me really

[runyan99]

That's great. I don't know the exact geographical details of all the coastal forts in reality, but based on the game map, the other forts that appear have the same kind of situation include Forts:

Gaines
Morgan
Pickens
Macon
Pulaski
Sumter
Caswell
Fisher
Clark

[gekkoguy82]

Im no expert and I do see the marina there so it can't be that shallow, but would any more avenues of approach to ft monroe open up at low tide, aside from the main road? Just curious...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[tc237]

I think if you guys really want something changed, you are going to have to do all the leg work and research on it.

I pretty sure Gray has AACW work scheduled out for the next few months.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GraniteStater]

IMHO, I think it's more of a game logic/AI thing. If you start a 61 game as the Union (April or June), then Monroe and Pickens are the only places where the Human could stuff troops in and start a-marchin', without making a landing on the coast or seizing a coastal City.

In my experience, the AI makes much ado about Pickens that has no corresponding historical analog. Monroe, too, really; mein Gott, I've had Beauregard and half his Army come a-knockin'!

The state of affairs is that the Union player must make sure to reinforce both Forts in the early game. That's the way it is until They Who Code write it otherwise.

[runyan99]

Again, I'll reiterate, making it harder for the CSA to take Ft Monroe also makes it harder for a USA player to move across to the mainland. So this change is pretty much ahistorically one-sided. This is best done as a MOD and not for the "official" game files.

If you read some of the Civil War history concerning Fort Monroe, you will find that the USA conducted several LAND operations from the fort up the peninsula as well as providing a staging area for other ampibious operations further south along the coast.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Monroe

It's not a problem. The USA has naval supreamacy, so it's hard to imagine a scenario in which the CSA will successfully blockade the fort.

[runyan99]

For sure unless someone comes up with documentation that says otherwise, I don't believe any Naval vessels were able to be interposed directly between Fort Monroe and the mainland due to the land strip to the north and the causway to the south.

Of course not, but you aren't imagining a real world tactical assault on the fort. A division needs hundreds of meters to deploy. Based on the map you posted, the only ground available to the attacker is the road, and the thin flat piece around the fort. Besides being narrow and restrictive of frontage, all of it is directly exposed to naval fire from gunships in Hampton Roads. No real world Civil War commander would ever dream of attempting such a thing.

The water commands the ground.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

What's the matter with using the Royal Navy to blockade the fort?

[cptcav]

Wouldn't it be hard to blockade a fort such as Fort Monroe or Sumter? I imagine that the fort's guns under real-life situation would have something to say to the blockading ships if they were between it and the mainland.

Regards,
CptCav

[runyan99]

That's true, but currently river traffic is treated the same way vis a vis shore batteries. That is, the guns cannot prevent a blockade.

[runyan99]

On the topic of the forts preventing a blockade, there probably should be some rule change to allow that. A real example was Ft. Fisher, which kept the port of Wilmington free of the USA blockade for a long time.

http://www.nchistoricsites.org/fisher/fisher.htm

Perhaps fort guns should get an automatic bombardment any time enemy ships enter a surrounding water region.

As ever, there is room for improvement in the way the game handles the complicated relationships between land forces and naval firepower.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted