Forts and fort artillery changes

[grimjaw]

A question arose recently in another thread regarding CSA coastal fortifications and the way they are currently modeled in the game.

What do you guys think, should Clark, Morgan (NC) and Fisher actually start out as redoubts with far less artillery than actual historic masonry forts like Sumter?

Given the widely varying situation for these and other coastal/river forts, should they be reworked to make them more closely match historical force levels and structures?

I'll make a list of what I can find on the situation they started off with.

Fort Brown, TX - Originally an earthwork star, later construction sounded more like a stockade overlooking Rio Grande river, dating to 1846. Not built as part of seacoast defense system. Not a permanent structure until after the end of the war. More accurate to put it in Brownsville, TX, region.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Brown
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Brown

Fort James, TX - D*mned if I can find anything at all about this by name. There's a Fort Travis that dated from the 1830s that was built on the eastern end of Galveston Island, and a Fort Point constructed a little west of that. Fort Point is mentioned in a couple of documents I could find. Sounds like Fort Point was either built on the site of Ft Travis or nearby. The original Ft Travis location has been destroyed by severe weather. Given the ease with which the "fort" was defeated, probably not one of the seacoast defense system forts. Note to Orso, one of these links mentions that the heavy artillery was removed from Galveston Island in 1861 b/c it was considered indefensible, hmmmmm
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qeg01
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qcf23
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fhe09
http://www.civilwaralbum.com/misc19/2011galveston1.htm
http://www.civilwaracademy.com/civil-war-battles-in-texas.html
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Travis_%281%29

Fort Jackson, LA - 3rd system fort, apparently still in good shape at the beginning of the conflict. Some articles mention artillery was redeployed from Louisiana, but at least one says that during Farragut's dash between the forts there were 69 guns emplaced in Fort Jackson (out of a total of 93 emplacements, I'm sure of all types). A floating boom was employed to slow progress up the river and give more time to the forts to fire on the invasion fleet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Jackson,_Louisiana
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Jackson_%282%29
http://www.civilwaralbum.com/louisiana/fortjackson_history.htm

Fort Saint Philip, LA - Originally a 2nd system fort that saw use in the War of 1812, rebuilt on 3rd system line afterward. Had fewer guns (45) than Ft. Jackson at the time of Farragut's run.
http://www.civilwaralbum.com/louisiana/fortjackson_battle.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_St._Philip
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_St._Philip
next one is quite good, includes Butler's report on the forts after inventory
http://books.google.com/books?id=fyZHAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA614&lpg=PA614&dq=%22fort+saint+philip%22+louisiana&source=bl&ots=gGJ2bZxOoA&sig=Ng7LpIrJX78XlI1GdJVxs05Lc6A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dv1OVLGHB8mmgwS0xIH4DA&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22fort%20saint%20philip%22%20louisiana&f=false

Fort Pike, LA - 1st or 2nd system fort, existed during War of 1812. It had been a prison for some time after that, and was largely abandoned long before the conflict began. According to at least one account there was no artillery stored there by the federal government in 1861. Louisiana Confederate militia moved in, and later evacuated the fort when New Orleans fell.
http://www.crt.state.la.us/louisiana-state-parks/historic-sites/fort-pike-state-historic-site/index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Pike
(next is a post-war medical journal, exceptionally good link describing several forts, including further inland posts, link starts at Ft. Pike)
http://books.google.com/books?id=EzYAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=%22fort+saint+philip%22+louisiana&source=bl&ots=VDgqBt_4Bb&sig=YigHVV3Re0wK-6DvOQB0BJ388Vo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Hf9OVJXtOcKcgwTzwoCoDA&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCjgK#v=onepage&q=%22fort%20saint%20philip%22%20louisiana&f=false
http://www.neworleansonline.com/directory/location.php?locationID=1258&utm_expid=83741828-23.e4hoQ7HzTKKvtkBefBru1A.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CDIQFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.neworleansonline.com%252Fdirectory%252Flocation.php%253FlocationID%253D1258%26ei%3DLgBPVILdCcyqNtz5gtAN%26usg%3DAFQjCNFqd0Y7XDO5sQG3mN2b9-K8F1Azsw%26sig2%3DBYPkW7CJ4ybcJC2DV96hdA%26bvm%3Dbv.77880786%2Cd.cGU%26cad%3Drja

Fort Gaines, AL - 3rd system fort, almost but not fully completed by the time the war started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mobile_Bay#Land
http://www.exploresouthernhistory.com/fortgainesal.html
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Gaines_%281%29

Fort Morgan, AL - Even though it was one of the largest 3rd system forts, reportedly was not garrisoned in 1861 when AL moved in. Probably did have some guns. Like several of the Gulf Coast forts, was used as a prison for native Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Morgan_%28Alabama%29
http://www.exploresouthernhistory.com/fortmorgan.html
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Morgan_%281%29

Fort Gadsden, FL - Not part of the seacoast defense system; originally for use against Florida native American tribes. Should be more like a stockade. About 20 miles north of the closest Gulf beach along the Apalachicola river. Harbor outlet should not be the bay, nor should the forts guns cover coastal waters at that point. Also on the wrong side of the river. A few guns were moved into it from Apalachicola. Abandoned by the CSA in 1863 due to malaria outbreak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Gadsden
http://www.exploresouthernhistory.com/fortgadsden.html
http://www.exploresouthernhistory.com/fortgadsden5.html
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Gadsden

Fort Marion, FL - 18th century Spanish fort upgraded and part of seacoast defense. I've actually been to this one, and they yell at you if you touch anything. Minimal or no garrison when the CW started. Orso, articles contain info that says soon after the Confederates moved in, artillery was removed from the fort for use elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castillo_de_San_Marcos#Confederate_States_period
http://www.fortwiki.com/Castillo_de_San_Marcos
http://staugustine.com/history/castillo-de-san-marcos

Fort Clinch, FL - 3rd system fort, didn't have a full complement of guns when the Confederates took it. Was abandoned in 1862.
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Clinch_%281%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Clinch

Fort Pulaski, GA - 3rd system fort, not garrisoned (caretaker status) in early 1861. Some artillery was still present, but was initially not mounted.
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Pulaski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Pulaski_National_Monument
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/fort-pulaski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pulaski

Fort Johnson, SC - A 3rd federal fort was built on the site at the end of the 18th century. Hardly anything remained at the start of the CW, destroyed by 1812 war and weather. Not an active part of seacoast defense. The CSA built it up into a larger battery over time, but it started off firing on Fort Sumter as more of a mini-redoubt with five guns, including 2 siege mortars.
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/mrri/ftjohnson.html
http://www.sciway.net/james-island/fort-johnson.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Johnson_%281%29

I don't think there's any point in covering Fort Sumter ...

Fort Moultrie, SC - updated 1st system fort, part of seacoast defense. Anderson reportedly left no federal artillery there when he pulled the garrison out in December 1860, but took the lighter artillery from Moultrie with him to Sumter. Sumter needs some Napoleons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Moultrie
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Moultrie
http://www.nps.gov/fosu/historyculture/fort_moultrie.htm
http://www.exploresouthernhistory.com/SCMoultrie1.html
http://moultrie.battlefieldsinmotion.com/General-Timeline.html

I don't know how much of Castle Pinckney's artillery survived the turnover to the CSA, but there was a significant amount there at one point. Redistribution of that could explain artillery elsewhere near Charleston.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Pinckney

Fort Caswell, NC - 3rd system fort, captured as early as January '61 (and given back ...)
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Caswell
I swear the next one is the right link. It references the name of the new owners of the property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Baptist_Assembly
http://www.exploresouthernhistory.com/fortcaswell.html

Fort Fisher, NC - constructed from the ground up by the CSA. Not a 3rd system fort, more like a very effective (for the period) redoubt. Artillery would have had to be brought in from elsewhere, probably those guns withdrawn from other forts I keep harping about. Off topic, but there's a really neat aquarium near there now ...
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Fisher_%282%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Fisher
http://www.nchistoricsites.org/fisher/fort-fisher.htm
http://www.nchistoricsites.org/fisher/armament.htm

More in my next post.

[ajarnlance]

Do you have the Osprey American Civil War Forts book? If you want it just PM me with your email address and I'll send it to you.

[ohms_law]

Speaking of forts, I really think that we ought to have a "build fort" unit to purchase, instead of the whole "4 wagons and 6 cannon" deal.
That would be a lot more intuitive, if nothing else.
Besides, I'd really like to use some 6 lb.'ers in action, sometimes.

[elxaime]

Even better I think would be to make this a series of game-beginning options the CSA can choose where there is a trade-off between having a fort there or getting some guns. Would need some tweaking, since I imagine some of the starting set-up already incorporates guns the CSA dragged from an existing fort (would not want to give them a cornucopia of ahistorical guns). It would basically allow for the CSA to make a series of choices based on what happened between the 1860 election and the beginning of the war.

[pgr]

Speaking of forts, I really think that we ought to have a "build fort" unit to purchase, instead of the whole "4 wagons and 6 cannon" deal.
That would be a lot more intuitive, if nothing else.
Besides, I'd really like to use some 6 lb.'ers in action, sometimes.

+1. I must say, I'm mystified by the cannon requirement in fort building. Sure it makes it cost WS, but the darn things just vanish afterwords. (what are they melting bronze into foundations?) I say either make it into a card like redoubts, or have newly built forts come with a battery of fort guns...then at least thos cannons serve a point. (alternatively, the cannons used in building could simply be permanently fixed in the fort.)

[Keeler]

Speaking of forts, I really think that we ought to have a "build fort" unit to purchase, instead of the whole "4 wagons and 6 cannon" deal.
That would be a lot more intuitive, if nothing else.
Besides, I'd really like to use some 6 lb.'ers in action, sometimes.

I think it would make a good decision card.

[tripax]

Even better I think would be to make this a series of game-beginning options the CSA can choose where there is a trade-off between having a fort there or getting some guns. Would need some tweaking, since I imagine some of the starting set-up already incorporates guns the CSA dragged from an existing fort (would not want to give them a cornucopia of ahistorical guns). It would basically allow for the CSA to make a series of choices based on what happened between the 1860 election and the beginning of the war.

I would suggest a RGD similar to strip guns. In fact, I'm not sure, but it seems more likely that guns would be stripped from a fort than the Navy would allow the army to remove guns from ships for land use.

[grimjaw]

I would suggest a RGD similar to strip guns. In fact, I'm not sure, but it seems more likely that guns would be stripped from a fort than the Navy would allow the army to remove guns from ships for land use.

There's already an RGD to build redoubts. The option to build could be expanded into regions that didn't have a city (e.g. Fort Fisher). I agree that combining cannons + supply wagons into a mixing bowl and coming out with a CW-era dirt redoubt and no cannons doesn't make sense in the current game.

[grimjaw]

More forts. I'm only going to cover ones that existed in April '61 or had begun construction by then or shortly thereafter.

Fort Macon, NC - 3rd system fort, part of seacoast defense, caretaker status in April '61 when NC took it. Probably did not have a full complement of guns. Over time, NC reportedly moved in 50+ "heavy cannons." Current game config seems fairly accurate.
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Macon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Macon_State_Park

Fort Morgan, NC - I can't find anything about this fort by this name in conjunction with North Carolina or the Outer Banks.

Fort Clark (& Fort Hatteras), NC - Not part of the seacoast defense system, didn't exist before the war. Built by the Confederates at the start of the war, completed by August '61. Few guns, and probably not much more than earthworks.
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/312/entry/
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/310/entry/
http://www.accessible-archives.com/2011/08/the-bombardment-of-fort-hatteras-and-fort-clark/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hatteras_Inlet_Batteries
http://www.ncgenweb.us/hyde/military/FTCLARK3.HTM

Fort Johnston, NC - Not represented in the game. Pre-war 2nd system fort based in Southport, NC. Converted to earthworks by the Confederates, contained a small battery of guns.

Fort Anderson, NC - Not represented in the game. Originally named Fort Saint Philip. Located north of the Southport, NC, on the west side of Cape Fear River. Between this and Ft. Johnston, NC, there ought to be some kind of fortification and gun battery in the Southport region, if not finished at the start of the game then under construction and an unlock date by Dec '61.
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Anderson_(2)

Huggins Island Fort - Confederate fort finished by 1861. Based on a coastal island, would have been in the Onslow, NC, region, west of Beaufort. Small earthwork, few guns.
http://www.fortwiki.com/Huggins_Island_Fort

Fort Donelson, TN - According to at least two accounts, the post existed at the start of the conflict, but the fort did not. Construction of Ft Donelson didn't start until summer '61. Ditto for Ft Henry. Seems like most of the CSA fortifications in that area weren't ready by April '61. Both Henry and Donelson existed; IMO, they should both be there, or not, or enough resources provided to the CSA to construct them. Ditto for Pillow and Island Ten. Should be no more than under construction in April '61, if that. Let the arguments ensue.

I'll look at Union coastal forts next.

[grimjaw]

I know I have overlooked several forts that were in CSA hands at the start of the conflict. Forts Barrancas and McRee, Florida, were both accessible from Pensacola and should be represented by at least one fortification. Original armament in both forts spiked when Union soldiers removed to Fort Pickens in early '61, but forts were intact. CSA evacuated after New Orleans was taken.
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Barrancas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Barrancas
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_McRee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_McRee

Alcatraz Citadel, CA - Completed and garrisoned by the end of 1859. Small garrison but many guns. Probably fine as it is, although it might be more accurate to move it onto an adjacent island with no overland access.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatraz_Citadel
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Alcatraz

Fort Pickens, FL - 3rd system fort completed in 1834. Designed to work in conjunction with the other Pensacola harbor forts, and none of them were fully garrisoned by the beginning of '61. Were reinforced in April of that year. Current depiction is pretty accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Pickens
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Pickens

Fort Monroe, VA - Most everybody knows about this one. What is not depicted at that site is the arsenal that existed into the 20th century.
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Monroe

Fort Delaware, DE - 3rd system fort, mostly completed by the beginning of the conflict. Used more as a prison than harbor defense, but still had a garrison and one or more batteries.
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Delaware
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Delaware

More in later posts, I have to do some work.

[Keeler]

Fort Clark (& Fort Hatteras), NC - Not part of the seacoast defense system, didn't exist before the war. Built by the Confederates at the start of the war, completed by August '61. Few guns, and probably not much more than earthworks.

True, but there was also a series fortifications on Roanoke Island, a region not depicted in the game. While Fort Hatteras and Clark, which were indeed little more than earthworks, fell in August 1861, it was not until February 1862 that Union forces captured Roanoke Island and seized full control over the area. I bring this up in the interest of historical accuracy and game balance. If the goal is to simulate the entire Outer Banks defensive network and an appropriate amount of difficulty to capture the area, it might be better to leave Fort Clark as is to simulate all three forts.

I'm not sure if this is true for some of the other forts, but it probably is. In any event I would consider the game's forts current roles as symbols/simulations of larger fortification systems if I were interested in overhauling the fort system. As you have done a good job of showing, there was a wide range of fort types that had varying levels of success. The ones with bleeding-edge technology weren't always the most durable. Fort Fisher was almost entirely constructed of sand ramparts and it survived longer than Pulaski.

[tripax]

I really like this idea. I've always been annoyed by anachronistic forts in the West. And I think that more accurate representation can help players focus on attacking and defending certain key forts and make this aspect of the game more realistic. My understanding is that right now you are using this thread as an info dump. That is great. Once things are collected, I think if this is going to be used in a mod or integrated into vanilla, the key things that I think need to be known for each fort are:

county/location
when garrisoned and by what sort of troops (homeguard, regulars, marines, civilians, militia)
what kind of artillery (this would be represented in the game as coastal, fort batteries, or 6-, 12-, 10-, 20-artillery, etc) and when (artillery and garrison could arrive after the war started).
Any other structures (you mentioned an arsenal at Fort Monroe)
Anything else?

Names of the garrison and artillery forces and structures would be nice, too. Also, if a fort had any significant inhabitants (for instance, an engineer that was especially effective), I'd love to know. I know it is a lot to ask, but if the result of this thread is a list is in this form, it would be easier to add to a mod - if it is ok with you I'd love to add it to mine!

There's already an RGD to build redoubts. The option to build could be expanded into regions that didn't have a city (e.g. Fort Fisher). I agree that combining cannons + supply wagons into a mixing bowl and coming out with a CW-era dirt redoubt and no cannons doesn't make sense in the current game.

I was replying to elxaime's suggestion of an option that it would be interesting to allow the CSA to strip guns from existing forts for field use by giving them a couple such RGDs. It would depend if it was historical.

[grimjaw]

More Union fortifications.

Baltimore & Annapolis, MD - There were numerous 2nd and 3rd system fortifications and batteries at Baltimore and Annapolis. The game models this with garrisons and artillery in high levels of entrenchment, but there should be forts. I suspect that construction of this much fortification in that area would turn DC and the upper Chesapeake into Fortress Maryland, but that's basically what it was. Anything on the water trying to traverse the upper east (I mean west) side of the bay would have come under heavy fire from numerous batteries, much of it from entrenched positions in masonry or earth.
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_McHenry
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Carroll_%281%29
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Madison_%282%29
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Severn

Fort Jefferson, FL - 3rd system fort, never fully completed. Housed a substantial number of people, many of them prisoners.
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Jefferson_%281%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Jefferson,_Florida

Fort Zachary Taylor, FL - 3rd system fort, another one that was incomplete at the start of the conflict. Very heavy contingent of artillery by the end of 1861.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Zachary_Taylor_Historic_State_Park
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Taylor_%282%29

Fort Hancock, NJ - 3rd system fort, known at the time as the Fort at Sandy Hook. Wasn't manned with guns until at least 1862, maybe 1863.
http://www.northamericanforts.com/East/nj.html#sandy
http://www.nps.gov/gate/historyculture/forthancockdetail.htm
http://lostinjersey.wordpress.com/tag/sandy-hook/
http://www.nps.gov/gate/historyculture/fortatsandyhook.htm
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Hancock_%282%29

Fort Wood, NJ (NY?) - 2nd system fort, upgraded over time. Now has a big lady on top.
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Wood_%282%29

New York is sick with forts. I'll cover them in another post.

A few more CSA forts

Fort Walton, FL - Confederate earthwork built on or near an Indian mound. Guns from Ft Barrancas were moved there. Evacuated after Pensacola fell, but existed in 1861.
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Walton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Walton_Beach,_Florida

Fort McAllister, GA - Confederate earthworth fort, built on south side of Ogeechee River (would put it in Liberty, GA, region in the game).
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_McAllister_%281%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_McAllister_Historic_Park
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_McAllister_%281863%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_McAllister_%281864%29

Fort Barrington, GA - Late 18th century stockade on north/east bank of Altamaha river. In the game, it would probably be on the border between the Bulloch and McIntosh regions. No idea what was placed there as artillery, if anything.
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Barrington
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Barrington

Forts Beauregard and Welles (originally Walker), SC - Confederate construction in the Beaufort region. Overwhelmed quickly in November 1861, but should be something there earlier in July or August?
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Beauregard_%283%29
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Welles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Royal

Fort Polk, TX - This is the more accurate location of what is called Fort Brown in the game, but Fort Polk wasn't a seacoast defense system port. It was a fortified earthwork depot.
http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Polk
http://www.northamericanforts.com/West/tx-south.html#polk

[grimjaw]

If the goal is to simulate the entire Outer Banks defensive network and an appropriate amount of difficulty to capture the area, it might be better to leave Fort Clark as is to simulate all three forts.

There should be something there, certainly. But I'd change the graphic to be more representative of what was on the ground, which was not an extensive masonry fort. Some people will again argue that I should just "live with it."

[grimjaw]

tripax, Orso's original question was isolated to the NC Outer Banks, but the issue existed for several fortifications so I expanded on it. I want to limit it to the full campaigns and the beginning of the war, April or July is fine depending on the campaign. For example, there were several smaller fortifications constructed in Texas along the coast, but not until '62 & '63. I don't think that should be automatic.

The main thing I wanted to focus on was making the modeling of the fortifications and armament a little more accurate, if possible without destroying game balance. The game as it is seems to assume that all artillery moves from the southeast and deep south into the mid-Atlantic are already done, and after that they're fixed. Some are just fine with that, but I'm not. Forcing the rebs to have fixed units in the forts, especially the garrison troops, is quite ahistorical. Several of the forts were abandoned when their defense became impractical. Some of the artillery was relocated and I'm sure some was destroyed before leaving it to the federals. As it is, if Fort Clark gets cut off from the mainland as the Union takes surrounding territory, well, you're just stuck until the Union sieges it into oblivion and racks up NM, VP and promotion points for its generals. Bogus. No reason at all that garrison couldn't preemptively decide to spike those guns, destroy the fort by torching the magazine and attempting retreat or disbanding to fade into the population.

[tripax]

Sounds good. I'm just making a suggestion about where your research could lead. If you are simply doing this for yourself, that is fine. If you are suggesting some changes to vanilla, it isn't something I know much about but I'm all for more historical accuracy. If you want to mod changes to forts or suggest changes for other modders, I'd like to help if possible, and my post was in that vein.

[grimjaw]

Oh I'll definitely make these changes in my own games vs the AI, if for no other reason than to see how much it tips the scales or doesn't. But I'll have to wait awhile to implement it. It's taking enough time right now just trying to get regiment names, health, locations and launch dates set and eliminate duplicates.

[Merlin]

One more issue with the forts, and I'm sure tripax will confirm this for Monroe at least, is a good number are subject to naval blockade which severs them from the mainland. I find that very annoying, and I'm fairly certain you can park the Atlantic fleet along with a few ironclads in Charleston harbor just to simultaneously melt the Confederate batteries in all three forts through starvation.

Another thing which is going to have to be addressed eventually is the high number of replacements needed to fix all the batteries. The effects are far-reaching as the Confederate player has essentially zero replacements for heavy field guns, making them useless for purchase until the backlog of needed replacements has been cleared. If some of the batteries need to be eliminated and others reinforced to maximum capacity, that's fine, but it feels really odd that the Confederacy has no reason to begin developing a heavy artillery arm at all until it repairs the forts.

[grimjaw]

One more issue with the forts, and I'm sure tripax will confirm this for Monroe at least, is a good number are subject to naval blockade which severs them from the mainland.

Monroe, Pickens, Jefferson and Zachary Taylor should be subject to this, not that the CSA can pull it off. Until the Union can take surrounding mainland territory and establish another avenue for supply, those forts are basically islands. Starving out a fort like Moultrie via naval blockade alone should be highly unlikely, if not impossible. There's plenty of land access to that fort, and for a naval blockade to get close enough to effectively cut that off should expose it to coastal battery fire. Fort Morgan, AL, is another example. In the case of Fort Gaines, it's 2-3 miles from Dauphin Island to the mainland, and if a few supply boats couldn't run that distance at night using the island as cover from the Gulf ...

Another thing which is going to have to be addressed eventually is the high number of replacements needed to fix all the batteries.

Merlin, I think it should be simple for some of them.

Few if any of the forts were chock full o'guns. Many of them were in caretaker status and the guns dismounted. However, a complete complement of guns at 2nd and 3rd system forts would have meant 100+ cannons. Not all of that would have been coastal and fort batteries, obviously, but I could do some research and figure out a best guess at a percentage.

In the vanilla game, a CSA coastal battery represents 24 guns and Union represents 36; fort batteries, CSA represents 8, Union 15. Totaled for each that's 32 CSA and 51 Union. 32 guns hardly represents the full complement of a battery of most 2nd or 3rd system forts.

IMO, most of those types of forts, *when they were taken*, should be at or near 100% health as far as guns are concerned if there isn't definitive evidence found to show they were spiked like at Moultrie. Many of the forts were taken months before Fort Sumter. That would have been enough time to get crews in to man what was there.

Early on the CSA considered threats against the Gulf Coast ports to be a lower priority. As such, resources (i.e. artillery) were relocated from the some of those areas to the border areas with the Union. I haven't been able to find much on what was relocated. The game represents some of this already with the units present in the regions involved, like Mississippians and Alabamans in Virginia, and Texans in Missouri and Tennessee. These regiment locations are very accurate. Fort artillery locations in April '61 are more nebulous, however.

This thread raises the possibility of significantly changing the coastal defensive structure of the CSA. It could change the types of forts in some regions drastically, and remove some altogether. It could possibly raise the level of fortifications and armament along the Union coastline and its border with Canada. To go along with that, I see no reason to further penalize the CSA with double digit numbers of extremely weak fort artillery units that are cost prohibitive to maintain and ripe for capture and defeat.

None of the fort units should be fixed. If the development team and beta tester legion absolutely insists on keeping them fixed, then disbanding should be added as an option to fixed units.

(Ideally, Rodmans, Columbiads, fort and coastal batteries should have two states: mobile and combat. If they can fight, they can't move. If you can move them they should be more mobile, but they can't fight. 1-2 turns required to switch between states.)

[grimjaw]

An article discussing armament in Fort Macon, in April '61 and at the time of its capture as well as where a few of the pieces came from.

http://friendsoffortmacon.org/archives/armament-of-the-fort/
http://www.civilwarartillery.com/cannon/cannonid.htm

Forts Clark & Hatteras are described as having 32-pounders, which were probably M1841 32-pounders. I believe the equivalent of this in the game is the fort (not coastal) artillery, and the number of guns between the two forts would have been about two batteries, maybe some light field artillery, too. One regiment of North Carolina infantry and the fort garrisons were the only manpower devoted to them at the time they were taken by the Union.

Fort Morgan, NC, aka Fort Ocracoke - Finally found this one. It was also a Confederate construction, and would be more like a period redoubt. Several guns there, but the taking of Hatteras prompted the garrison to abandon the fort.
http://www.ncgenweb.us/hyde/military/FTOCRACO.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocracoke,_North_Carolina#Fort_Ocracoke
http://blogs.lib.unc.edu/civilwar/index.php/2011/09/17/17-september-1861-destruction-of-fort-ocracoke-on-beacon-island-at-the-entrance-of-pamlico-sound-sept-17-1861-by-an-expedition-under-command-of-lieut-eastman-of-the-pawnee/
http://site.ocracokepreservation.org/all-about-ocracoke.html
http://civilwartravels.blogspot.com/2009/06/fort-ocracoke.html
http://ncpedia.org/civilwar/installations/forts

[Captain_Orso]

That's an amazing amount of references you've put together there Grimjaw

Here's something to add to it. During the CW the northern most inlet on the Outer Banks was Oregon Inlet between Bodie Island to the north and Hatteras Islands to the south and which is south of Roanoke Island. The last inlet between the Atlantic and Currituck Sound closed in 1828, probably due to the opening of the Dismal Swamp Canal, which is also not in the game.

Our State, North Caroline - The Sound of Change

This means that to sail into Albemarle Sound safely you should first have to take Fort Clark to be able to sail into Pamlico Sound and then sail north past Roanoke Island into Albemarle Sound.

Currently much of that corner of the map is in disarray. Little fits geographically and therefor also not historically in their meaning for the war.

[Merlin]

Monroe, Pickens, Jefferson and Zachary Taylor should be subject to this, not that the CSA can pull it off. Until the Union can take surrounding mainland territory and establish another avenue for supply, those forts are basically islands. Starving out a fort like Moultrie via naval blockade alone should be highly unlikely, if not impossible. There's plenty of land access to that fort, and for a naval blockade to get close enough to effectively cut that off should expose it to coastal battery fire. Fort Morgan, AL, is another example. In the case of Fort Gaines, it's 2-3 miles from Dauphin Island to the mainland, and if a few supply boats couldn't run that distance at night using the island as cover from the Gulf ...

I think you'll find more than those few of the coastal forts can be blockaded, and simply interposing a fleet between a major city and a fort across the river is enough to cause the batteries to evaporate.

Merlin, I think it should be simple for some of them.

Few if any of the forts were chock full o'guns. Many of them were in caretaker status and the guns dismounted. However, a complete complement of guns at 2nd and 3rd system forts would have meant 100+ cannons. Not all of that would have been coastal and fort batteries, obviously, but I could do some research and figure out a best guess at a percentage.

In the vanilla game, a CSA coastal battery represents 24 guns and Union represents 36; fort batteries, CSA represents 8, Union 15. Totaled for each that's 32 CSA and 51 Union. 32 guns hardly represents the full complement of a battery of most 2nd or 3rd system forts.

IMO, most of those types of forts, *when they were taken*, should be at or near 100% health as far as guns are concerned if there isn't definitive evidence found to show they were spiked like at Moultrie. Many of the forts were taken months before Fort Sumter. That would have been enough time to get crews in to man what was there.

Early on the CSA considered threats against the Gulf Coast ports to be a lower priority. As such, resources (i.e. artillery) were relocated from the some of those areas to the border areas with the Union. I haven't been able to find much on what was relocated. The game represents some of this already with the units present in the regions involved, like Mississippians and Alabamans in Virginia, and Texans in Missouri and Tennessee. These regiment locations are very accurate. Fort artillery locations in April '61 are more nebulous, however.

This thread raises the possibility of significantly changing the coastal defensive structure of the CSA. It could change the types of forts in some regions drastically, and remove some altogether. It could possibly raise the level of fortifications and armament along the Union coastline and its border with Canada. To go along with that, I see no reason to further penalize the CSA with double digit numbers of extremely weak fort artillery units that are cost prohibitive to maintain and ripe for capture and defeat.

None of the fort units should be fixed. If the development team and beta tester legion absolutely insists on keeping them fixed, then disbanding should be added as an option to fixed units.

(Ideally, Rodmans, Columbiads, fort and coastal batteries should have two states: mobile and combat. If they can fight, they can't move. If you can move them they should be more mobile, but they can't fight. 1-2 turns required to switch between states.)

The last is probably more than the game can handle, but in the main I agree. Some of the batteries shouldn't exist, but the rest should be at full strength. Having 20lb. guns in Confederate armies goes a long way toward stalling Union advances in 1863, so clearing the massive replacement requirements would really help the Confederate game.

[grimjaw]

[ATTACH]31955[/ATTACH]

[grimjaw]

This means that to sail into Albemarle Sound safely you should first have to take Fort Clark to be able to sail into Pamlico Sound and then sail north past Roanoke Island into Albemarle Sound.

That's a good point. I don't think the map is going to change, but one could remove the direct links between Oregon Inlet and Currituck sound. I know that the picture then wouldn't reflect the reality, but it already doesn't.

[grimjaw]

I think you'll find more than those few of the coastal forts can be blockaded, and simply interposing a fleet between a major city and a fort across the river is enough to cause the batteries to evaporate.

I don't doubt it. I meant to imply that it shouldn't be possible to blockade some that easily, even though the game will allow for it.

[Merlin]

I don't doubt it. I meant to imply that it shouldn't be possible to blockade some that easily, even though the game will allow for it.

I've played with that a bit over the previous couple weeks, and I can say with certainty that using flatboats to build depots in the affected forts makes the proposition not worth the cost to the Union. You can still starve out the garrisons, but it's more efficient to breach and assault the forts, where forts with no depots can be rendered useless after a couple turns of blockade. Perhaps forts which can be reduced over-quickly through lack of supply should start with a level 1 depot?

[grimjaw]

Perhaps forts which can be reduced over-quickly through lack of supply should start with a level 1 depot?

Many of them should probably have the equivalent of such, or a higher supply/ammo possibility of some type. I read that even as quick as Fort Ocracoke was constructed, they'd dug a cistern underneath it and built other facilities for supply and ammo storage.

Were the seacoast defense forts, 1st/2nd/3rd system, built with prolonged siege resistance in mind? They're basically fortified gun batteries and not built to host thousands. They'd have large magazines to keep up sustained battery fire, but food supply for an army? Some of the islands they're built on would be overcrowded with the equivalent of a division. The state of technology had outpaced them by the time they were used in combat. A naval force in 1812 probably wouldn't have been able to mount the same level of invasion (or rifled artillery) possible in the 1860s, and a fully garrisoned fort circa 1812 wouldn't have had to go unsupplied as long. A depot built in the 1860s in those types of forts would be akin to a tech-upgrade.

Like forts, depots should be revisited, IMO. There are such widely varying costs to building them, from a flatboat on the cheap to extremely expensive supply wagons. Maybe have it changed from converting on-the-board units, to only using the RGD to build depots. Have a requirement that non-support type units be there for the manpower, but otherwise fixed cost/time or depending on region characteristics (MC/loyalty, terrain, development level, transport network).

[grimjaw]

Take Fort Delaware as an example. The island is just over a mile long at it's *widest*, but look how much of it is marshy terrain. It's not that far from the mainland and wouldn't be hard to supply by boat from upriver, but why would you want to stage a large force there? Why would you design that fort to support a large force?

If Fort Delaware has the equivalent of an in-game harbor (protects from weather and naval bombardment), I'm a monkey's uncle. It has a boat dock. You might as well say coastline anywhere has a harbor if this place does.

It's accessible from mainland New Jersey in the vanilla game. IRL, I don't think so. That'd be one hell of a pontoon bridge.

[ATTACH]31957[/ATTACH]

Fort Trumbull, CT, on the other hand, should be a tough nut to crack. It's on the mainland. It could have the equivalent of a harbor, and the fort could be between the harbor and waterside attack. Who cares if you blockade its harbor? You could supply this place from land anytime you want.

[ATTACH]31958[/ATTACH]

[Captain_Orso]

I don't doubt it. I meant to imply that it shouldn't be possible to blockade some that easily, even though the game will allow for it.

You can blockade the harbor of a fort, but that only means 2 things:
1. The production of the location is halved.
2. No naval supply may be moved in through the harbor.

This means that if there is another path for supply to follow to get to the fort, the blockade will have little affect on holding the fort.

[Captain_Orso]

Take Fort Delaware as an example. The island is just over a mile long at it's *widest*, but look how much of it is marshy terrain. It's not that far from the mainland and wouldn't be hard to supply by boat from upriver, but why would you want to stage a large force there? Why would you design that fort to support a large force?

If Fort Delaware has the equivalent of an in-game harbor (protects from weather and naval bombardment), I'm a monkey's uncle. It has a boat dock. You might as well say coastline anywhere has a harbor if this place does.

It's accessible from mainland New Jersey in the vanilla game. IRL, I don't think so. That'd be one hell of a pontoon bridge.

[ATTACH]31957[/ATTACH]

Fort Trumbull, CT, on the other hand, should be a tough nut to crack. It's on the mainland. It could have the equivalent of a harbor, and the fort could be between the harbor and waterside attack. Who cares if you blockade its harbor? You could supply this place from land anytime you want.

[ATTACH]31958[/ATTACH]

LOL I've never looked at Fort Delaware before. It's right in the middle of the Delaware River .

The issue with Fort Delaware and most forts in general is that there's no room on the map to represent them properly. The map would have to look something like this:



And since the regions are created more or less like vector graphics, it wouldn't even be that nice.

Actually, I just realized, Delaware Bay would have to touch Fort Delaware too so that the fort could bombard ships moving from the bay into the river .

The other issue is the 'open' harbors, for which there are no rules in the game. You should basically be able to attack ships in the harbor by bombarding the fort.