AGEOD Forums

I raise this especially given the discussed tactic of fort busting by the union (see Jarko's thread).

Should coastal forts / ports have the ability to lay mines ?

There is certainly historical precident (Mobile Bay etc)

Many of the southern forts were attacked at enormous cost by the Union however in game terms this doesn't repeat itself.

I propose the above idea as one form of redress to restore the coastal forts equilibrium. I am sure others may have different ideas.

I don't think we need a new mechanism, really. The "fix" is simple enough: Make it so that Forts always fire with Defensive fire against naval units. Which makes sense as well, since you know... they do. I mean, the ship(s) have to move to the fort, the fort can't go after them.
Actually, it might be more accurate to make it so that the Forts don't fire unless the opposing units do, which automatically means that their using defensive fire.

Problem with only firing if opened fire on is that it makes the forts protecting navigable river entrances absolutely pointless.

What would be the result of making offensive and defensive fire the same for forts? The guns don't move from their positions after all in order to engage ships either bombarding them or attempting to sneak past.

ohms_law wrote:Make it so that Forts always fire with Defensive fire against naval units.

As far as I can see, this is the only logical thing to do. But I presume I am missing some crucial game-design point (altough I would love to hear what the point is).

We wanted to add mines (there is a even a NATO symbol for them) but did not come with an easy enough implementation of them, given our hard time constraints.

Pocus wrote:We wanted to add mines (there is a even a NATO symbol for them) but did not come with an easy enough implementation of them, given our hard time constraints.

Pocus, I will gladly raise your children and tend to your garden if only you will include mines in the next upgrade

Pocus wrote:We wanted to add mines (there is a even a NATO symbol for them) but did not come with an easy enough implementation of them, given our hard time constraints.

Wouldn't changing the forts offensive fire values to the defensive values effectively do the same?

deleted

Aah, so forts do not have any intrinsic firing value at all? I thought (as it takes artillery to be able to build a fort) a fort has its own guns which (as long as there is a garrison able to handle the guns) are able to fire in *addition* to the guns in the fort.

Or did I understand wrong what you said Gray? Ie the way I read your post, is that if I drag a bunch of 6-pounders to a fort, they will be firing with the O13 D24 values instead of the O6 D12 values of a 6-pounder?


EDIT: And if a fort "overwrites" the actual values for an artillery piece, wouldn't the 24/24 value of a coastal-gun become 13/24?

I don't think that what we're talking about here can be or even should be something that should be changed in the data. The solution that I see is for a fort itself to alter the artillary values of units within it in some manner, which seems appropriate. That sort of change will really need to be made within the .exe itself.

True, I don't think a mere data-base change can fix the problem. If there is a problem that is. Personally I think it is quite a problem that even a newbie such as me can blow up *all* the CSA coastal forts during the first months of the game. However, this has, as far as I can see, been the case in the game from launch, and thus I believe it to be working as designed (I am quite certain the veteran crew is well aware of the situation).

Still, the sorry state of forts is quite a contrast to what they would appear at first glance. Not to mention the efficiency (or rather, lack of efficiency) compared to the cost of building a fort (not as such a factor regarding the pre-war coastal forts, but it does give some food for thoughts).

Fort don't have innate fire (this would demand a new major development) but do modify anything firing from them though.

Captain, are you sure you want to take care of my children while I code mines? You can regret your words

Pocus wrote:Fort don't have innate fire (this would demand a new major development) but do modify anything firing from them though.

They modify the artillery values to the 13/24 values (which would make it counterproductive to put Coastal Guns inside a fort) or by adding to the gun values (for example adding that 13/24 to the gun values)?

This is in the terrain matrix. For example I see that artillery functions at 130% efficiency (per level) when firing from a fort, so if you fire from a 'Permanent Fortification' aka a level 2 fort, your 24 strength gun will function as if he is a 24 x 1.3 x 1.3 gun.

Ok, I think I get it now. Thanks Pocus In other words, the 13/24 for forts in the database does not mean anything at all.

The effective fire from a coastal gun in a fort is 40.56 both in offense and defense (24x1.3x1.3). What is curious though is the actual difference in damage done by the forts when they are defending against a direct bombard compared to the fort-guns opening fire vs fleet moving by. I wonder what causes that difference.

Jarkko wrote:The effective fire from a coastal gun in a fort is 40.56 both in offense and defense (24x1.3x1.3). What is curious though is the actual difference in damage done by the forts when they are defending against a direct bombard compared to the fort-guns opening fire vs fleet moving by. I wonder what causes that difference.

Agreed. That's my question as well, and (with my limited current knowledge of the subject, which is basically just reproducing your own test) why I'm recommending something along the lines of making all fire from within a fort be "defensive" fire.

That being said, knowing that there's a modifier available to adjust in the terrain matrix means that there may just be a data solution available after all. That assumes of course that the value can be increased without unbalancing the game, which I think is questionable considering the fact that the system seems balanced against land units currently. The main issue appears to be limited to dealing with naval fire...
Is there a Naval bombardment value or modifier somewhere? Decreasing that could be a better solution.

deleted

ohms_law wrote:I don't think that what we're talking about here can be or even should be something that should be changed in the data. The solution that I see is for a fort itself to alter the artillary values of units within it in some manner, which seems appropriate. That sort of change will really need to be made within the .exe itself.

Leaving the mathematics to you techo boffins I agree with OHMS' fort arty principal.

Forts are constructed usually with the most beautiful fields of fire. firing lnes and killing zones. Unlike field arty which is deployed in the best pick of a make do situation given terrain.
So whether it is x1.3 or whatever, fort arty needs to be definitely enhanced, especially vis a vie naval bombardment. I mean seriously look at the great forts in history port Royal, Gibralter, the Dardenelles, fleets were terrified of sailing within range of these locales. In AACW the Union fleet with sufficient numbers simply sails past 'any' fort with seemingly impunity.

Just an idea but maybe instead of spreading damage across ships. Ships should be forced to have a frontage, so that more individual ships run the risk of actually getting sunk (similar to land units damage being diproportionate).
If ships got sunk Admirals would have the proper respect for forts.

Also barring game mechanics forts should be able to be enhanced by adding more arty/supplies/construction time. Let that be the players choice how much they wish to invest in a specific fort.
As we all know there are forts and forts.

Pocus wrote:Fort don't have innate fire (this would demand a new major development) but do modify anything firing from them though.

Captain, are you sure you want to take care of my children while I code mines? You can regret your words

Well I did mention the garden as well. But I suppose we could kill two birds with one stone and just employ the children in the garden. You don't have any cotton that needs picking do you

But I do think mines should be seperate from forts. All you need to have mines really is a harbour, you don't need to have a fort as well. Given they were historically used I think there is a sting case for them to be represented

Do you have some save about that Michael (symmetrical, one with fleet on offensive, one in defensive?)

deleted