AGEOD Forums

Is the terrain clear just to make possible the assault in the 1861 April campaign?

Any other possibilities than making it harder to defend?

its clear because its clear

I think a coastal fort terrain would be an interesting feature in the future, at least for those that were on islands or near islands (like Fort Fisher). These forts were all but impregnable to land assaults for near the entire war.

Rod Smart wrote:its clear because its clear

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34071[/ATTACH]

So in game terms you can fit a whole army there for an assault.

As the Union I always like to try to rush back in with a decent sized force
before he reinforces it, within just a couple of turns of losing it. Then it
stays a hell of a thorn in the side of the South and they end up maintaining
big armies protecting against further incursion. Send a supply unit along with
and reinforce your initial assault and just about anything they can throw at
it will fail.

Otherwise as the Union I simply take one of the ports nearby and go around
the forts to take Charleston.

To represent Fort Sumter correctly it would need to have some some characteristics which cannot be represented in the game at all at this time.

• It could be bombarded from neighboring forts, and visa-versa.
• The small amount of open land outside the fort on the island is so small and close to the fort that enemy forces could not land on the island without the fort being able to take them directly under fire while landing and while on the island.
• An overcrowding rule would be necessary for forces outside the fort.
• Because the island can be bombarded by neighboring forts, Naval and normal supply would be dictated by artillery in the neighboring forts.

With such rules in place Fort Sumter would be nearly impossible to take and hold as long as Forts Johnson and Moultrie were held.

Captain_Orso wrote:To represent Fort Sumter correctly it would need to have some some characteristics which cannot be represented in the game at all at this time.

• It could be bombarded from neighboring forts, and visa-versa.
• The small amount of open land outside the fort on the island is so small and close to the fort that enemy forces could not land on the island without the fort being able to take them directly under fire while landing and while on the island.
• An overcrowding rule would be necessary for forces outside the fort.
• Because the island can be bombarded by neighboring forts, Naval and normal supply would be dictated by artillery in the neighboring forts.

With such rules in place Fort Sumter would be nearly impossible to take and hold as long as Forts Johnson and Moultrie were held.

So this would need a house rule in PBEM, total fantasy using it as a base of operations.

Captain_Orso wrote:To represent Fort Sumter correctly it would need to have some some characteristics which cannot be represented in the game at all at this time.

What about switching the regional terrain to swamp? This would make attacking a bit more difficult, and wouldn't be completely out of line with the real terrain around Charleston Harbor.

Keeler wrote:What about switching the regional terrain to swamp? This would make attacking a bit more difficult, and wouldn't be completely out of line with the real terrain around Charleston Harbor.

Because its not a swamp, and as Orso noted- attacking should be EASIER, not harder.

Historically, the fort was never physically assaulted successfully. In 1861, MAJ Anderson had agreed to surrender the fort because his supplies were nearly exhausted. The Confederates were concerned that he was stalling until a relief ship could arrive. So Beauregard began a barrage that ended with the fort's surrender without storming the walls. The Union attempted to retake the fort in 1863 with a seaborne assault, but failed miserably. The Confederates eventually evacuated Charleston and the fort ahead of Sherman's arrival.

None of the coastal forts were intended to house tens of thousands of troops and their supplies. In game terms, this is reflected by the overcrowding rule, wherein a fort can only have 25 elements inside it before having a negative impact on defense.

Rod Smart wrote:Because its not a swamp,

Making it a swamp would probably bring other weird things with it and not address that actual situation properly.

Rod Smart wrote: and as Orso noted- attacking should be EASIER, not harder.

Wha....? Like we said when I a was a kid, "no way man". What part did I say that makes you think it would be easier?

Gray Fox wrote:Historically, the fort was never physically assaulted successfully. In 1861, MAJ Anderson had agreed to surrender the fort because his supplies were nearly exhausted. The Confederates were concerned that he was stalling until a relief ship could arrive. So Beauregard began a barrage that ended with the fort's surrender without storming the walls. The Union attempted to retake the fort in 1863 with a seaborne assault, but failed miserably. The Confederates eventually evacuated Charleston and the fort ahead of Sherman's arrival.

None of the coastal forts were intended to house tens of thousands of troops and their supplies. In game terms, this is reflected by the overcrowding rule, wherein a fort can only have 25 elements inside it before having a negative impact on defense.

Yes, the Union actually attempted twice in '63 to attack the fort. Both times they failed greatly.

I've always wondered how they thought they would actually support any troops on the fort with supplies when under constant bombardment.

Rod Smart wrote:Because its not a swamp, and as Orso noted- attacking should be EASIER, not harder.

I'm aware it's not a swamp, but I would trade an inaccurate, but not entirely implausible terrain designation in exchange for more resilient fort defense. I was thinking along the lines of reduced frontage.

I think there's a consensus that there should be some limitations on attacking coastal forts, which had limited space for landing and maneuvering large forces. Ideally there would be a separate crowding factor for the attacker as well, but that would require distinguishing between river/coastal forts and land forts, which is currently not done and might not be currently possible.

Fortifications if guarded by troops/cannon should be very strong. Require endless bombardment and then fall to surrender... Assaulting a Fort should be deadly on you. Think if you will the German Army with a frontal assault on the Maginot in '40.

Now after a short while you starve them out and that's that...

BattleVonWar wrote:Fortifications if guarded by troops/cannon should be very strong. Require endless bombardment and then fall to surrender... Assaulting a Fort should be deadly on you. Think if you will the German Army with a frontal assault on the Maginot in '40.

Now after a short while you starve them out and that's that...

Assaults succeed if you have the firepower to blow forts up, like the Germans did with the Belgian forts.
Weapons evolved very fast, and the forts were not designed to withstand the new calibers.
I don't know how this translates to the civil war. Maybe only siege guns should really do damage to a fort?
I have no idea if the bigger 20lb guns could actually do a lot of damage. I imagine they could take out the defending artillery though.

Edit: spelling

yes -- no -- maybe

It depends on the type of fort and the artillery firing on it. Simply it carrying the moniker 'fort' tells you nothing about its characteristics.

Fort Pulaski fell rather quickly with high-velocity rifled shot smashing its masonry walls, partly by luck --or bad luck-- when one of its magazines became exposed to artillery fire which had broken down a section of the outer wall opposite the magazine. With the magazine exposed the commander felt there was no point in continuing to resist the attack --until then only by bombardment-- and surrendered.

On the other hand Fort Fisher, which is earth-works, held out through very heavy bombardments. Direct fire, regardless of the caliber, hitting earth-works does practically no damage at all. Only when the Union figured out how to silence Fisher's batteries --by targeting the batteries with shells, which air-burst above them driving their crew into their bomb-proofs and damaging/destroying the guns-- could the Union successfully assault the fort.

Why can you attack forts like Fort's Morgan and Gains without being hit by artillery or small arms fire from the fort? Because there is enough land around them to land troops out of sight and range of the fort and then march them in to surround and besiege the fort.

With Fort Sumter, in reality, that is not possible. The ship(s) carrying the troops would come under fire already upon approaching the island and be under fire while debarking the troops. If the troops went ashore onto the southern, open end of the island, they would have to row in on boats to shore --while under fire--, land --while under fire--, take up position --while under fire-- with practically nowhere to take cover at any time.

The only way to land and assault Fort Sumter would be to first subdue its artillery.

Brick and mortar forts were outdated by 1860. All you have to do is park nearby, shoot artillery for a couple days, and walk over after the weekend to accept a surrender.


If you have troops on Sullivans island and/or Morris island, Fort Sumter is untenable and should be easily destroyed.

Civil War artillery, both on land and ships, had it's limitations. On land, there had to be enough good land in the right location to establish batteries. Identifying and preparing these artillery positions took time. The famously-quick battle of Fort Pulaski, which took place April 10-11 1862 was the result of operations that began in November 1861. This included almost a month of landing heavy artillery through the surf, the construction of roads, firing positions, magazines, and bombproof shelters- all in an estuary environment.

Ships needed to have access to channels or other appropriately deep water that provided a direct line of sight to the target while ideally remaining out of range of the target's guns.

When local conditions limited bombardment opportunities, it was extremely hard for Federal troops to capture forts. It became more difficult as Confederates learned that sand/earthen ramparts absorbed heavy fire better than bricks. By the end of the war Sumter was not much more than a pile of soil and rubble, but it held.