AGEOD Forums

I have a question for veteran players on the Gun choices available to the Rebs for fortifications. You have the opportunity to build some forts in key places, but the next problem is what kind of guns do you put there?

You can build Coastal Artillery, but that is expensive and immobile. So, some follow-on questions.

1. Will Siege Mortars fire on warships? The CSA gets a single unit, and considering that you're probably not going to perform alot of sieges, I wonder if this is a use for that unit.
2. Columbiads: How do they do? The advantage is they are mobile, so can be repurposed if the fort falls

Also, where are some good spots to build forts?

Norfolk seems like a no-brainer; some other interesting spots to me are New Orleands, Hopefield AK, Plaquemine, Bolivar MS, Vicksburg...not sure I would build all of them, but they are candidates

For me (can't speak for everyone). I use the cheapest guns I can get my hands on, and still meet the minimums to fire on ships. A fort is a death trap, in that the artillery must be inside to fire, and thus is vulnerable to capture. That's why I never use expensive stuff. If my protection force is bounced, the other side just got your beautiful Columbiads, and can now use them on you.

As to a great place to build a fort, Padaucah KY controls parts of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. Great for causing the union to think twice about sending ships from Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana or Kentucky into the Mississippi river.

The ol' dead ox in the doorway at Paducah.

First time Pat did that to me, I was chewing railroad spikes.

I also consider the sea detection of the gun, although ones with good detection are not always available. Fort batteries and Coastal artillery have 4, which will be 3 Detect in the adjacent river hex, where the other types of artillery usually have 3 detect for a 2 in the adjacent hex. Not sure exactly how the bombardment roll is made, but forts with 4 detect artillery SEEM to bombard with more regularity than a fort with just 3-detect artillery.

I think there is a max to bombard damage, and I think this is 40 based on this snippet from the Bombarding section of the GameLogic file:

bmbMaxHitsDoneByLand = 40 // How many hit points can be done by Land units against a fleet

This implies an upper limit to the benefits from stacking artillery in the fort. If you are not bombarding near this damage more guns could profitably be added.

I would very much like to know about how siege mortars work in bombardment. I have used them in Norfolk (sufficiently entrenched to bombard, but not in a "fort"), and it seemed to help increase damage, but there were other artillery present, so I cannot verify this empirically.

I do not think sea detection is important. Any gun will do. The bigger, the more damage it can do. Just do not buy coastal artillery - too expensive and imobile. I personally try to fortify the place with field fortification and press the bombard ships order, but forts have their benefits as well.

Interesting how we all have different takes on fort artillery. When it comes to rivers and coast I tend not to increase artillery at all. I rarely find an opponent who has not quickly realised that with a maximum bombardment limit of 40 (spread between the fleet) that all they have to do is to put a large enough fleet together and OK one or two might get hit but sinkings are as rare as hens teeth.

I do not if this is gamey or not, but limit of 40 hits applies to the firing stack. There is no rule to put several stacks composed of 3-6 cannons (if you have bigger guns 3 batteries are enough, if you have 6lbs and 12lbs several more are needed), and each stack will inflict 40 hits on the enemy. After they unleashed their fire from Norfolk, my PBEM opponent refused to continue his game after he lost Atlantic fleet in the James River.

So, they can be potent if used correctly.

Ace wrote:I do not if this is gamey or not, but limit of 40 hits applies to the firing stack. There is no rule to put several stacks composed of 3-6 cannons (if you have bigger guns 3 batteries are enough, if you have 6lbs and 12lbs several more are needed), and each stack will inflict 40 hits on the enemy. After they unleashed their fire from Norfolk, my PBEM opponent refused to continue his game after he lost Atlantic fleet in the James River.

So, they can be potent if used correctly.

Cannot say either Ace whether its gamey or not. Suspect opinions would be divided. Its not a tactic I'm happy to use. Mind you its not an area I spend a lot of time agonising about. When I play the South I'm much more concerned over limiting the power of those darned Marines but that's another story.

I would very much like to know about how siege mortars work in bombardment.

Siege mortars?

Siege mortars.

Historically, I would bet my house this never happened, but, I truly don't know for a fact.

The image in my mind...hurts, it just hurts. I need an aspirin. This is why I doubt the RL connection so strongly.

We are talking about trying to hit a ship with siege mortars, right?

Before howitzers, all cannons were direct fire - except mortars. High angle, indirect fire. In the ACW, almost immobile pieces with 15" calibers. Trunnion city. Teams of mules, twenty of 'em, probably.

And you're going to emplace this in a coastal fort? And try to hit a ship with a gun that can swivel fifteen degrees laterally in, oh, say, fifteen minutes?

They're heavy. Reaaall heavy. As nimble as a dead ox, except the ox can drive on Michael Jordan.

If the game allows this...I'm moving back to Louisville, where they have some really excellent bourbon and one of the greatest bars I've ever been in.

I'm sorry, this would be, uh, poor modeling.

Siege mortars. To take out a nine-knot craft that can tack or steam. With a shell that drops at a steep angle.

I have a verrrry hard time with this picture. No. Not in RL. No. Tell me this ain't so, Joe. I would be slack jawed stupefied if anyone had even proposed this.

I could be wholly mistaken. I don't know, historically, but the image...

siege mortars.

Nothing against you, Armchair - seriously.

Siege mortars.

House rule on marines is in order. No marines in divisions unless composed entirely of marines sounds good to me. I think any rational northern player will agree on it. About my tactics, if I did not put so many guns at Norfolk, there is absolutely nothing preventing Northern player of amphibiously landing directly on Richmond. There has to be a counter for it.

?????

Did you get whumped somewhere?

I haven't looked at the tooltip for marines in a dog's age, but the Good Thing is merely a reduction in a value, is it not? In AACW, they had the 'pontooner' Ability, IIRC. Reduced the penalty for the target Region across a river or seaborne, IIRC. Did I miss something in AACW? I hardly ever used them. And never used Sailors.

Are they now some kind of Ueberunit?

One solution to not getting Richmond taken from the James would be a Real Stack of 500 PWR or even 350, I would hazard. There's nothing exasperating about having to guard Richmond, is there?

What is the deal here, kind sir?

GraniteStater wrote:Siege mortars?

Siege mortars.

Historically, I would bet my house this never happened, but, I truly don't know for a fact.

The image in my mind...hurts, it just hurts. I need an aspirin. This is why I doubt the RL connection so strongly.

We are talking about trying to hit a ship with siege mortars, right?

Before howitzers, all cannons were direct fire - except mortars. High angle, indirect fire. In the ACW, almost immobile pieces with 15" calibers. Trunnion city. Teams of mules, twenty of 'em, probably.

And you're going to emplace this in a coastal fort? And try to hit a ship with a gun that can swivel fifteen degrees laterally in, oh, say, fifteen minutes?

They're heavy. Reaaall heavy. As nimble as a dead ox, except the ox can drive on Michael Jordan.

If the game allows this...I'm moving back to Louisville, where they have some really excellent bourbon and one of the greatest bars I've ever been in.

I'm sorry, this would be, uh, poor modeling.

Siege mortars. To take out a nine-knot craft that can tack or steam. With a shell that drops at a steep angle.

I have a verrrry hard time with this picture. No. Not in RL. No. Tell me this ain't so, Joe. I would be slack jawed stupefied if anyone had even proposed this.

I could be wholly mistaken. I don't know, historically, but the image...

siege mortars.

Nothing against you, Armchair - seriously.

Siege mortars.

Howitzers we don’t have in the game but both sides used them. Mortars and Howitzers could be effective against ship in a big way.

Remember shells can be set to airburst. Explosions and hot metal tend to make a mess out of wood and fabric. The reason ships didn’t mount them was because indirect fire from a moving platform is a mess.

Indirect fire from a fixed position works quite well, however.

* Howitzers didn't exist until the late, very late, 19th century. Look it up. (FYI - my brother was an artillery officer and I have operated the 81mm tube. I know more than a little bit about the King of Battle.).

* There were no 'airbursts', as you are conceiving them, in the 1860s. They had shrapnel - that was it. Oh, and red-hot shot. And large caliber guns that were direct fire, aka Coastal Batteries.

Indirect fire from a fixed position works quite well, however.

Against a moving vessel? Are you serious? Do you have any idea what it would take for sighting, aiming, correction of a siege mortar in that time? Any idea at all?

Mortars are NOT 'point & shoot'. Your constructs here lead me to believe you don't know what is meant by indirect fire, or at least have a very hazy notion of how it's done - really done, like I did with 81mm popguns and my brother did with 155's. Furthermore, the siege mortars in question were heavy, really, really heavy and, as I hinted, are about as easy to redirect within the time needed to acquire a maritime target, aim & correct, as a submarine in the Indianapolis 500.

Hey, for all I know, they did do it back then, but I have an Extremely Hard Time seeing how it could've been done with any kind of confidence at all.

GraniteStater wrote:?????

Did you get whumped somewhere?

I haven't looked at the tooltip for marines in a dog's age, but the Good Thing is merely a reduction in a value, is it not? In AACW, they had the 'pontooner' Ability, IIRC. Reduced the penalty for the target Region across a river or seaborne, IIRC. Did I miss something in AACW? I hardly ever used them. And never used Sailors.

Are they now some kind of Ueberunit?

One solution to not getting Richmond taken from the James would be a Real Stack of 500 PWR or even 350, I would hazard. There's nothing exasperating about having to guard Richmond, is there?

What is the deal here, kind sir?

The deal is if I guard Richmond, I cannot Norfolk. I want to guard Norfolk and block sea acces to Richmond through James. That is what I was talking about when I said I learned to play without reserves.

I didn't see your comments about reserves, but my question is, Why are you so scared of marines, enough to be HRing them?

And as for wanting to guard Richmond & Norfolk at the same time - I haven't played enough CSA in CW2 to grasp your desires fully. It wouldn't be a case of wanting to buy a Maserati for the price of a VW, would it? You don't strike me that way. I am unclear exactly what you fear or have had demonstrated to you, kind sir.

GraniteStater wrote:I didn't see your comments about reserves, but my question is, Why are you so scared of marines, enough to be HRing them?

And as for wanting to guard Richmond & Norfolk at the same time - I haven't played enough CSA in CW2 to grasp your desires fully. It wouldn't be a case of wanting to buy a Maserati for the price of a VW, would it? You don't strike me that way. I am unclear exactly what you fear or have had demonstrated to you, kind sir.

Troops landing on a beach receive a combat penalty - obvious really as they are fighting with their backs to the sea and have to get off the beaches. Not sure that anyone other than the devs know exactly what that penalty is. Now Marines are exempt from the penalty but if you put one unit of marines in a division then that WHOLE division, not just the marines, escapes the landing combat penalty when they conduct an amphibious (not river crossing) assault. So if the Union player is cute he/she just puts a single marine unit in every division he intends to assault New Orleans, Charleston, Savannah, Norfolk etc and hey presto no landing penalty. Way way too powerful. Not sure I should have said this.....it might give Banks ideas

As for the second comment you make regarding Ace's strategy I find that its a richness of AACW and CW2 that we all have different strategies - ways of doing things. Never a right or wrong answer and personally over the years I've learnt more than I'd care to admit to regarding the subtle nuances of the game just by observing the way opponents approach the side they are playing. Whilst its not a route I'd take I can see the sense in it (at least for Norfolk - anywhere else and the cost of the artillery becomes overwhelming for the South - at least IMHO) Then again that's the beauty of the game others might well disagree and have a valid point.

I could not have said it better . About the cost. It only pays off if you stack it with 6lbs. Coastal guns are way too expensive for this strategy.

soundoff wrote:So if the Union player is cute he/she just puts a single marine unit in every division he intends to assault New Orleans, Charleston, Savannah, Norfolk etc and hey presto no landing penalty. Way way too powerful. Not sure I should have said this.....it might give Banks ideas

Not sure either, but does Athena know this? Have you seen her using this strategy on a regular basis?

No she does not.

Does anyone know how bombard success IS determined? If not detection, is it Patrol based? Just a straight % chance? Isl. 10 (it seems) bombards more often than the entrenched guns I place at New Madrid or guns I put in an outpost (fort) built along a shoreline. Is this effect coming from the redoubt? It is possible the n isn't large enough to give useful information, and in fact there is no difference between them.

I like the idea of multiple stacks at Norfolk. You wanna sail up the James, you better control both sides of the mouth! Might use them occasionally elsewhere to stop up the Mississippi or Ohio during specific times, but only temporarily.

Not sure either, but does Athena know this? Have you seen her using this strategy on a regular basis?

I can report Union Athena amphibious divisions with Marines, not sure about a regular basis though, and I have certainly seen her Marines wandering around in landlocked areas.

I have never found the amphib penalty to be that detrimental to my landings and river crossings, but I don't know what the malus actually IS. (I only amphib when I am sure I will win anyway so it could be much more serious than I have been treating it.) It says it applies to the first round, I assume that to mean that it applies to the complete range-closing portion of the battle (range 7-6-5-4-3-2-1-Assault, e.g.) but not to the subsequent (range 1-Assault) rounds. This as opposed to merely affecting the fire phase at the longest range, which would result in almost no penalty.

Much more worrisome in amphibious operations to me is the retreat-pathing if you lose. Marines do not allow you to retreat back to the transports right? If you lost an amphib combat at say, Island 10, you could retreat to an adjacent land region (Columbus or Hickman most likely) using normal land retreat-pathing, but in the case of a coastal fort (Monroe) you would have nowhere to go and would stay in the region? Will you retreat across major rivers that you used river pool or normal move to cross, or are you stuck on the other side?

Now Marines are exempt from the penalty but if you put one unit of marines in a division then that WHOLE division, not just the marines, escapes the landing combat penalty when they conduct an amphibious (not river crossing) assault.

OK, I did know this.

My small experience with them didn't seem to make things that great in a landing. Heck, I didn't bother that much after awhile 'cuz my initial observations were "OK, but I don't need them."

Just goes to show you what the USMC is all about

Historically, Ace is correct (again), though. Amphibious landings, as we think of them, didn't exist until the 1940s. Until then (look at Gallipoli in 1915), these landings were conducted with boats & small craft. Mostly, commanders chose places where the Bad Guys Weren't.

So, there is a strong argument to be made for no plusses to be enjoyed by Marines or Sailors. These operations weren't part of USMC doctrine in the 1860s.

And sailors? Yeah, landing parties, and they could often make a good account of themselves, but in reality, we're talking about platoon sized operations 90% of the time.

And the USMC was maybe, maybe, 10,000 people, officers and men, by 1865 - if that. Could be wrong, but they weren't a big outfit and their main mission was wedded quite closely to naval operations and 'Special Forces' ops - Harper's Ferry, for instance.

If I played Ace and he wanted No Marines at All, I'd most probably agree.

GraniteStater wrote:Siege mortars?

Siege mortars.

Historically, I would bet my house this never happened, but, I truly don't know for a fact.

The image in my mind...hurts, it just hurts. I need an aspirin. This is why I doubt the RL connection so strongly.

We are talking about trying to hit a ship with siege mortars, right?

Before howitzers, all cannons were direct fire - except mortars. High angle, indirect fire. In the ACW, almost immobile pieces with 15" calibers. Trunnion city. Teams of mules, twenty of 'em, probably.

And you're going to emplace this in a coastal fort? And try to hit a ship with a gun that can swivel fifteen degrees laterally in, oh, say, fifteen minutes?

They're heavy. Reaaall heavy. As nimble as a dead ox, except the ox can drive on Michael Jordan.

If the game allows this...I'm moving back to Louisville, where they have some really excellent bourbon and one of the greatest bars I've ever been in.

I'm sorry, this would be, uh, poor modeling.

Siege mortars. To take out a nine-knot craft that can tack or steam. With a shell that drops at a steep angle.

I have a verrrry hard time with this picture. No. Not in RL. No. Tell me this ain't so, Joe. I would be slack jawed stupefied if anyone had even proposed this.

I could be wholly mistaken. I don't know, historically, but the image...

siege mortars.

Nothing against you, Armchair - seriously.

Siege mortars.

According to that impeccable authority Wikipedia:

In defense of fortifications, siege and garrison mortars could harass work parties constructing siege batteries and trenches. They could also be used for fire suppression against hostile siege batteries. Seacoast mortars could penetrate the decks of wooden ships and even threaten the deck plating of ironclad vessels. (Ripley 1984, pp. 58–59) Lastly, these could also kill men where other guns couldn't reach them

I know that Ripley, who they cite, is one of the better authorities on the subject.

And from here: http://www.civilwarartillery.com/basicfacts.htm

Seacoast mortars were designated as 10- and 13-inch and were made of iron. Also known as heavy mortars, these weapons were primarily used for the defense of the rivers and coastal waterways. These mortars had a lug cast over the center of gravity to aid in mounting the heavy weapon.

Actually makes sense when you think about it a bit. Ironclads were were pretty slow, especially heading upstream. And in waterborne attacks, they basically served as fixed gun platforms. A reasonable target for a mortar - necessity being the mother of invention and all that.

Well, this is really what I was saying and why I did say that I didn't know it for a fact. A good bore, 10 -13 inches, a specialized mortar. Not a siege mortar, of which the pictures and the texts I've read do not mention quick swiveling, targeting, etc. Something new, indeed. I would be highly intrigued about an indirect fire against vessels in the time and the technology used - the basic physical problem is more difficult, to bring down a plunging fire against moving craft.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn of a significantly lighter throw weight, some fairly 'high-tech' targeting mechanisms and swiveling apparatus, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they may have been used in fairly restrictive waters where the fire zone was predetermined.

A siege mortar? A different story, I think, though.

COMMENT

I am experienced, but not an expert on artillery and certainly no expert on ACW artillery. I do have a fair idea of the tech used then and can make some fair guesses. An informative point is that the shrapnel used, like Lee at Gettysburg, was fused by wick fuses - I mention Lee, becuase it turns out that his rounds at Gettysburg came from another factory than was used by the ANV up 'til then. QA/QC slightly different; the historian speculated that the ineffective barrage on the third day may have been due to just a fractional difference in fusing length for the wick fuses.

So when one is aware of this, wick fuses (lit by the propulsive charge) are hard to time for "air bursts", to give an example. They had one, two, three second fuses that could be divvied up into maybe quarter-second increments, at best, I would guess. Half second was probably all they expected. So timing anything like an air burst...does one see the problem in physics? With plunging fire? At a moving target perhaps a thousand yards distant or more? Yeah, you could rain shrapnel - if one gets it just right, 1/100, 1/1000, you get the drift.

Also, shredding sails, etc., ain't really all that effective - ask the French navy in their long experience with the Royal Navy. French doctrine was to to dismast - the British went for hull shots. The latter was more effective, as experience showed.

Hence my case of skepticism. Nothing ill meant.

Sea mortars - I'll have to click.

Well, ya know us CSA players always have to make the best we can out of what we have. We have a siege gun at Norfolk, gotta figure out the best use for it. If I can use it to lay hits on amphib landings up the James River, then I'm gonna, history be damned! Protect the sacred soil of the Old Dominion!

Maserati at VW prices? We wish, more like VW's at auction prices is what we're aiming for.

Seriously though, anyone have any idea about what stats affect fort bombardment percentages? Now that I know what to put in my forts, I wanna make sure they can actually hit something.

Do you know about the dreaded DAR? It's the double adjacency rule (ships must go from region under fire from guns to region under fire from guns).

I'd rather have five shots of Old Periwinkle and think about Frontage, thank you.

The DAR...

*shudders*

I've never truly understood it - I get it, kinda, but I just simply avoid 'sailing through' - I always 'back out' of any coastal waters near a Fort.

It's easier to sail in and then back out on the coast. Not so easy in the rivers (especially if you want to get past that region somehow).

And youu really, really have to pay attention to oppo fleets & possible fights, 'cuz I could just swear the code will Retreat you to the Worst Water Region Possible. Lost more than one squadron this way - the land algorithm is kind, in comparison.

I swear it says:

(ha ha) Wet Retreat

IF
Player Loses Battle
THEN
Player Units -> Scr***d to MAX>=10^7

ENDIF