Pocus wrote:No, there is not difference between the various kinds of artilleries, except there is a test on the range, the artillery must have a range 5 or more... which is apparently the case even for the 6", so perhaps this must be changed.
Hobbes wrote:I know little about such things but would siege artillery be any use against
shipping?
Cheers, Chris
satisfaction wrote:Nothing more to report, but must say I'm thrilled with the discussion. It is my understanding that adjacent land units fortified to 5 (can change this I believe) can blockade river hexes (not sure if this is coastal too, but there is only 1 variable for this I believe). Just thought I would throw this into the discussion.
Andrew
I'm very glad somebody else showed an interest in seeing coastal forts represented well in the game. At the moment though I'm now waiting for Philippe (I call him by his real name when I want him to make a change) to release a variable we can play with for coastal artillery.
lodilefty wrote:Probably low chance of a hit, but whoo-wee if it did...
lodilefty wrote:range of 7: 20lb Parrot, Fort bty, Columbiad, Rodman
range of 8: Siege arty
range of 9: Coastal
Seems like 7 or greater is sensible.....
Ok, I finally realized that Rodmans in the game represent the 4 1/2 inch rifled guns McC had on the Peninsula, so 7 is appropriate.
satisfaction wrote:Well back to the grind, and the mod! Something I want to throw out came from walking around Ft Taylor with the historian there. The coastal forts built pre Civil War were all of brick masonry construction, and I emphasize brick. The work is very impressive, but these forts seemed to be much more vulnerable to bombardment than forts of earth. However they would be hell to try and storm with ground troops. Can we model these types differently in AACW? The old coastal forts should deal out punishment (big and well sighted guns) but could be hammered to dust, but would be tough to attack via land. The newer earth forts (like Donelson) should be almost immune to naval gunfire, but somewhat easier to storm (still hard). Finally I feel my initial reason for doing this mod (forts guarded key waterways and hence could blockade) was even more evident standing on the ramparts. However ships would have no problem sailing a little further out and continuing on in the open seas, I need to find a way to blockade only the key waterway while leaving the ability for ships to sail just out of gun range. The guns were huge, but still could not reach out very far. Thoughts?
Clovis wrote:Just dropping here to say I' m looking for your mod effort...
About forts, I'm currently trying to represent earthen fortifications ( Fort Fisher...) by level 2 forts. Other solution, like creation of new structure are possible but too complex to be built by myself shortly and I guess they should have as drawback to be totally unusable by AI...But this can be fixed by events...
GShock wrote:Note to AgeOD: We need a sticky to direct peeps to FTP for officially approved mods.
Gray_Lensman wrote:While again reading thru the Shelby Foote "Civil War Narrative", I found the following information quite interesting...
This rather pointedly demonstates that naval action against forts would in most cases be rather one sided.
At daylight the different divisions of the fleet stood in at low speed. At 11:30 A.M. the signal was made to engage the forts, the Ironsides leading, and the Monadnock, Canonicus, and Mahopac following. The Ironsides took her position in the most beautiful and seamanlike manner, got her spring out, and opened deliberate fire on the fort, which was firing at her with all available guns.
The Minnesota then took her position in handsome style, closely followed by the Mohican, which ranged ahead and anchored; a few shells gave the range, and then they opened rapidly and with precision on the guns in the fort, receiving at the same time their fire. There was a considerable gap in the line, and some fifteen minutes elapsed before the Colorado passed in and ahead, anchored, opened on the fort, and was followed by other vessels of the line. The other lines then got into position with a moderate degree of success, and the works of the enemy were alive with the bursting shells. The fort maintained an indifferent fire from the more distant guns, and but little, if any from the parts of the work within range of the shell-guns of the fleet.
At signal made by the admiral to "fire slowly", the firing from the vessels became veritable target practice at particular guns of the fort, with the officers in the tops to mark the ranges; from the inner line and from the ironclads and gunboats near them the firing was also accurate. The outer lines were somewhat too distant, and many shells from them were observed to fall short.
Two service magazine explosions occured in the forts, and several buildings were set on fire and burned. The Admiral's report says: "Finding that the batteries were silenced completely, I directed the ships to keep up a moderate fire, in the hopes of attracting the attention of the transports and bringing them in. At sunset General Butler came in, in his flag-ship, with a few transports, the rest not having arrived from Beaufort. Being too late to do anything more, I signaled the fleet to retire for the night for a safe anchorage, which they did without being molested by the enemy." With the exception of a boiler explosion on the Mackinaw by a shell, the casualties were entirely from the bursting of 100-pounder Parrot rifled guns, and they were serious. These occured on board of the Ticonderoga, 8 killed, 11 wounded; Yantic, 2 killed, 3 wounded; Juniata, 5 killed, 8 wounded; Mackinaw, 1 killed and 1 wounded, and Quaker City.
Some of the fleet were somewhat damaged by shells. The Osceola received "a shell near her magazine, and at one time was in a sinking condition; but her efficient commander stopped up the leak, while the Mackinaw fought out the battle notwithstanding the damage she received."
On the 14th, all of the small gunboats carrying XI-inch pivot guns were sent into positions commanding the north face of Fisher to dismount the guns bearing along the intended line of assault by the army; line No. 1 at the same time delivering a rapid fire on the fort to keep the enemy in his bomb-proofs. The vessels were fairly in position at 1 P.M., and all of them actively employed until long after dark, and during the whole night this gunboat fire was added to that of the slower fire of the ironclads. The guns far up in the line of works alone replied to this attack, and in doing so hit the gunboats occasionally, cutting off the mainmast of the Huron and doing other damage.
...
At 9 A.M. on the 15th signal was made for the fleet to bombard as per plan. The last of the vessels got into position by 11 A.M., but the heads of some of the lines were in action very promptly. The reader will bear in mind that the ironclads remained where they had first anchored, and were supplied with ammunition brought alongside during the night.
...
"At three o'clock the signal came, the vessels changed their fire to the upper batteries; all the steam-whistles were blown, and the troops and sailors dashed ahead, nobly vying with each other to reach the top of the parapet . . . The sailors took to the assault by the flank along the beach, while the troops rushed in at the left [right?], through the palisades that had been knocked away by the fire of our guns."
...
In fact, the palisades, a shelving sea beach, the rifle pits, some small sand-hills, and the trench before mentioned served partially to protect the survivors of the heads of the columns from the fire of the small arms on the bastion until the heavy guns of the fleet again opened on that part of the fort, and made it necessary for for the Confederates to look to their safety.
In the meantime, the National troops had gained the parapets on their front, had carried seven of the traverses most to the west, without serious loss, attacked the traverses more toward the sea, one after the other, and the vessels farthest in, especially the Ironsides and the monitors, resumed a fire of heavy shells between the traverses in advance of the troops, as they carried traverse after traverse, most obstinately defended as they were by the Confederates. But the odds were against them. They had to face as gallant men pressing onward as the Confederate defenders, who were flanked by a destructive fire of heavy shells; they had, in fact, either to abandon traverse after traverse or be killed where they stood. By nightfall the bastion was carried and some of the traverses on the sea face.
...
But while the battle raged hot in the fort and its defenders looked for relief from Hoke's division along the peninsula, and have upbraided General Bragg because it did not advance, the half dozen gunboats placed close along the beach north of General Terry's lines, defended by General Paine's brigade, about 4 P.M. saw from their mast-heads Hoke's skirmish line advancing, and with shells exerted a restraining influence. Had assaulting columns followed the skirmish line, they certainly would have reached General Terry's intrenchments in bad plight, and admitting that line had been carried, the Confederates would not have been formidable after a march of two miles toward Fort Fisher on an open sandspit under the fire of gunboats.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Your posts are also interesting. It seems that there are indeed one heck of a lot more variables that need to be taken into consideration. I wonder if the game is even capable of modeling this in a reasonable manner. You didn't say what volume/page number, that you found your passage?
I was rereading (last night) that particular part of Shelby Foote's Narrative that I posted above. I will be paying particular attention to more naval vs fort battles as I continue.
beeper wrote:La Ricain, You seem to have some knowlege about the blockade runners in the CW. This subject has been an interest to me for some time. But I haven't read to much about them. They seem to be treated as a minor issue in most history that Ive read. Would you know of any material that would shed some on this for me? I would like to learn more about this. Seems like a facinating part of the war.
Seems logical that the South would have built ,or bought, fleets of them.
I assume that they just didn't have the resourses to do so.
Thanks.... Beeper
satisfaction wrote:Well back to the grind, and the mod! Something I want to throw out came from walking around Ft Taylor with the historian there. The coastal forts built pre Civil War were all of brick masonry construction, and I emphasize brick. The work is very impressive, but these forts seemed to be much more vulnerable to bombardment than forts of earth. However they would be hell to try and storm with ground troops. Can we model these types differently in AACW? The old coastal forts should deal out punishment (big and well sighted guns) but could be hammered to dust, but would be tough to attack via land. The newer earth forts (like Donelson) should be almost immune to naval gunfire, but somewhat easier to storm (still hard). Finally I feel my initial reason for doing this mod (forts guarded key waterways and hence could blockade) was even more evident standing on the ramparts. However ships would have no problem sailing a little further out and continuing on in the open seas, I need to find a way to blockade only the key waterway while leaving the ability for ships to sail just out of gun range. The guns were huge, but still could not reach out very far. Thoughts?
Jabberwock wrote:I concur about the 7 range.
I would also suggest adjusting the ranges of the Columbiads to 8, and Rodmans to 9, since they were actually the biggest coastal guns available.
Then, if fort blockades could be done in the same way as ships (by element), have range 7 guns = 1 element, range 8 = 2 elements, range 9 = 4 elements.
Two questions:
1. Are fort batteries supposed to model old 24 and 32 lb smoothbores? Or are those supposedly included in the coastal guns category? If it is the first, then I'd suggest lowering their range to 6, make the minimum range 6, and changing the effective elements to:
6 -> 1
7 -> 2
8 -> 3
9 -> 4
2. If there is a Columbiad model in the db, as implied by the previous post (I haven't looked yet), then why isn't it buyable?
EDIT: Maybe because I haven't played enough as the rebs recently.
ANOTHER EDIT:
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
