Coastal Forts questions

[CarnageINC]

I'm looking for clarification on coastal and River forts and their behavior. I've done searches with past threads but I was curious if these still pertain to 1.15 and the 1.16 beta.

1. Coastal forts only attack blue/brown water ships when attempting to leave the sea/river zone right?

2. Forts block supply going past river/water zone its protecting.

3. Its possible to sneak past coastal/river forts regardless to the fleet size and number of forts guarding an area... ie sneaking past the 2 forts guarding the mouth of the Mississippi River.

4. Forts do not need to reach the level 5 entrenchment to bombard ships, this only pertains to ground forces entrenched by water zones?

Any other major items I missed pertaining to forts? Thanks

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I think that's all right. On #2 though, supply doesn't do any pathfinding. A fort blocks supply going to the harbor it's guarding. It doesn't block supply going to harbors behind it though. The New Orleans forts won't actually block supply to NO and Fort Monroe wouldn't block supply to Richmond (and etc). This is my understanding anyway.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[CarnageINC]

Thanks for the clarifications.

Even if you stop in a water region adjacent to a fort and then move the next turn, you will meet the above requirement and be subjected to bombardment. (i.e. no "sneaking" past)

So its not possible for a fleet to by pass a fort without a bombardment from every fort adjacent to the area?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[CarnageINC]

My concern is mostly about the mouth of the Mississippi River, I've had a union fleet sail up the river without being touched before and it was a most distressing sight. So I was just seeking clarification of what I thought forts could and couldn't do.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[CarnageINC]

Ahhh...thanks Gray I believe that made it more clear for me

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[CarnageINC]

Good, I thought that it was odd results that allowed the fleet through.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[fusileer2002]

Fleets do also have a % chance to avoid detection from the fort when running past, increased I believe if the admiral in charge of the fleet has a trait that helps. I think Farragut has "Fort Runner" or something as his trait. You will occasionally see in the reports " x Fleet has bypassed the defenses of Fort xxxx" meaning the gunners in the fort didnt get a shot off.

I thought forts did block supply from passing past to harbours further up river? If not then my current pbem game suddenly looks less secure My opponents Yankee army has moved from Norfolk down to Wilmington with about 70 000 men to try and cut off my line in Virginia. He has Wilmington but not the forts, and with one of my armies closing in fast behind him I was pretty sure he'd be running into supply issues. But now I'm not so sure.

[Ace]

My concern is mostly about the mouth of the Mississippi River, I've had a union fleet sail up the river without being touched before and it was a most distressing sight. So I was just seeking clarification of what I thought forts could and couldn't do.

Are you talking about our PBEM? In that game, I used a low draft fleet (brigs and transports), and sailed up the Atchafalaya Bay all the way to the crossing between Mississipi and Red river, than south to New Orleans. So, I didnt go past the forts.

In my other game, while playing as CSA, Union shipping sailed to Coney Island just east of New Orleans, and disembarked invasion force to New Orleans without Fort Pike firing a shot (all according to double adjacency rule), but is that geographically correct?

According to my experience, Mississipi mouth forts, although being held by CSA, do not prevent Union naval supply of New Orleans, but it would be nice if that could be corrected (if possible). It would give more realistic feeling of the game.

[TheDoctorKing]

According to my experience, Mississipi mouth forts, although being held by CSA, do not prevent Union naval supply of New Orleans, but it would be nice if that could be corrected (if possible). It would give more realistic feeling of the game.

Except that the forts should, if behaving historically, surrender as soon as the town falls. Or at least within a short period of time. Historically, the Mississippi River mouth forts surrendered as soon as US Navy ships passed them. The harbor forts of Mobile Bay surrendered as soon as US Navy ships passed them and defeated the CSA Navy units in the harbor. The harbor forts of Charleston SC held out tenaciously against US attempts to capture them from the sea between 1862 and 1865, but surrendered shortly after US forces occupied the town from the land side in February 1865. The harbor forts of Savannah, Georgia also surrendered in December 1864 without further resistance after US forces occupied the town from the land side as a result of Sherman's March to the Sea.

In the game, all of these harbor forts would have to be reduced by significant US land forces, which would either have to spend long periods of time besieging them or else absorb very significant casualties in an assault. In general, harbor mouth forts should surrender if the associated city falls or is blockaded by enemy ships inside its harbor (i.e., if the fort has been successfully "bypassed") (Mobile, Charleston, Savannah, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York all suggest themselves).

Inland forts are normally located on the city itself, like Vicksburg. The only comparable case would be Forts Donelson/Henry and Nashville, and I think a case could be made that the forts would have continued to resist even if the USA had somehow managed to take Nashville from the northeast without bypassing them.

[Aurelin]

and I think a case could be made that the forts would have continued to resist even if the USA had somehow managed to take Nashville from the northeast without bypassing them.

I don't think so. Henry was dominated by higher ground, and being on the river's edge, was subject to flooding. And was flooding during the bombardment.

Tilghman knew it was indefensible, so he sent all but 100 men away to Donelson.

[Ace]

Except that the forts should, if behaving historically, surrender as soon as the town falls. Or at least within a short period of time. Historically, the Mississippi River mouth forts surrendered as soon as US Navy ships passed them. The harbor forts of Mobile Bay surrendered as soon as US Navy ships passed them and defeated the CSA Navy units in the harbor. The harbor forts of Charleston SC held out tenaciously against US attempts to capture them from the sea between 1862 and 1865, but surrendered shortly after US forces occupied the town from the land side in February 1865. The harbor forts of Savannah, Georgia also surrendered in December 1864 without further resistance after US forces occupied the town from the land side as a result of Sherman's March to the Sea.

I agree, that is historically correct, and it should be implemented. Here is an idea. Without their "parent" harbor town, fort harbor should be blocked, not receiving any supply. And forts shouldn't generate any supply points of their on, they are forts, not town manufacturing groceries.
This way, they will be forced to surrender like they did historically.

[TheDoctorKing]

I don't think that forts do generate any supply of their own. What they can do is draw supply from a distance, as long as they aren't besieged. And I think that if they are not blockaded by river forces (in all adjacent areas maybe??) they will draw supply by river. Even if they are correctly besieged the inherent supplies that their garrisons have will last them at least two turns.

Historically, none of these forts lasted even a couple of days after their "parent" town was captured. The garrisons pretty much universally surrendered as soon as they were bypassed. The most that might have happened was that the infantry evacuated after destroying the fort guns. It would be nice to implement this somehow but I expect that this is something for AACW2.