CSA Fortdefence

[Ace]

For understanding, is it right that fort has a maximum damage of 50 and without fort you can inflict more damage?

No, the inflicted damage to ships is the same with or without the fort, being 50 per single stack.

[Ace]

I was actually asking if it's worthwhile to have more than one Columbaid in the same location.

For the purpose of navy interdiction, one per stack is enough. One would damage passing ships around 30 damage. You can always form more stacks. I view the creation of more stacks as multiple independent locations in a region overlooking the river and interdicting navy passage.

[DrPostman]

Ah, thanks. Years of playing this game and I am still learning things about it. Too many stacks in a region
and you get into frontage issues, don't you?

[VigaBrand]

No, the inflicted damage to ships is the same with or without the fort, being 50 per single stack.

That means, if I have two coast artillery, it will be better to have two stacks with each one has a artillery? So I can sufer twice 50 hits?

Other question, to blockade the river for supply, did I need a fort or can the river blocking by entrentcht artillery?

[Ace]

Too many stacks in a region and you get into frontage issues, don't you?

If you have too many stacks, you ll get roasted if you are attacked by land. As for firing on passing ships, more stacks is almost always better(3 artillery per stack is enough for ships if they are not 6lbs)

[Ace]

That means, if I have two coast artillery, it will be better to have two stacks with each one has a artillery? So I can sufer twice 50 hits?

Yes, it is better to put coastal artillery in separate stacks.

Other question, to blockade the river for supply, did I need a fort or can the river blocking by entrentcht artillery?

Not sure about that, according to wiki entreched artillery is enough, but it would take some time to test it.

[John Schilling]

I was actually asking if it's worthwhile to have more than one Columbaid in the same location. I've had a rare occasion where there was one captured nearby that I could have put with another one. I captured one once besieging a fort and I used it to storm the fort with devastating effect the next turn.

If you want to maximize damage on naval forces - and for something like Fort Paducah you probably do - you will probably want a Columbiad inside the fort and a second heavily entrenched outside. If you want to hold the fort against land assault, you will probably want a brigade inside the fort and at least a division heavily entrenched outside. I tend to use a division and a brigade, allowing the brigade (+Columbiad) to hold the trenches while the division can maneuver within a few regions of the fort on turns when the fort is not immediately threatened.

This gives two separate bombardments on any naval force trying to run past, and if there's some lighter artillery backing up the Columbiads, you may well see 50 points of damage from each. Actually, if I can get Fort Paducah built, I kind of want to give it a full coast artillery battery. Another option is a single Columbiad, either entrenched or in the fort, and a strong gunboat force waiting in the water region just past the fort to to engage the battered enemy when he emerges.

On the land side, the entrenched division will inflict most of the casualties on an attacking force, and the brigade garrison inside will ensure that the attacker doesn't get immediate control of the region as his prize for defeating the division. You'll still have to send a relief force fairly quickly, but in land warfare forts are best viewed as a way of buying time at the lowest possible cost rather than serving as an Absolutely Impregnable Strongpoint.

[anjou]

Good info here guys. thanks

[Ace]

In land warfare forts are best viewed as a way of buying time at the lowest possible cost rather than serving as an Absolutely Impregnable Strongpoint.

Excellent post, couldn't have said it better.

[VigaBrand]

Hello,
thx for great information.
Is it possible to build the fort with the art and a transportship instead of a supply waggon? (like Depots)

[DrPostman]

Hello,
thx for great information.
Is it possible to build the fort with the art and a transportship instead of a supply waggon? (like Depots)

I don't see why not.

[Captain_Orso]

Absolutely! And it saves you on the costs. Compare the build costs between a Supply Unit and a Riverine Transport and you'll never build anything in a harbor with a Supply Unit again.

Another tip, never use captured equipment to build Depots or Forts. If you use your own, the units land right back in your Build Pool. If you use captured equipment, it's gone forever.

[DrPostman]

Another tip, never use captured equipment to build Depots or Forts. If you use your own, the units land right back in your Build Pool. If you use captured equipment, it's gone forever.

I did not know that. I suppose I should have. I wonder if I will ever stop learning new things about this game

[pb783]

Hello,
thx for great information.
Is it possible to build the fort with the art and a transportship instead of a supply waggon? (like Depots)

Building with an ocean going transport is half the price of a supply wagon. Building with a riverine transport is the same cost as a supply wagon.

You're getting some good tips on forts here. In the campaign game without Kentucky the South can push and capture Cairo, IL at the beginning. That might be possible with Kentucky in the game too, but I think you'll have more issues due to being restricted from the use of Kentucky.

Artillery in forts are set to automatically bombard passing ships in most patches. I believe that is also true for 1.17a. Setting powerful artillery in Norfolk and Ft. Monroe (if you control it) could be devastating to Northern naval units trying to use the Chesapeake or trying to enter the James River.

So, what are the key points to defend? Norfolk/ Ft Monroe, Paducah/ Cairo, the mouth of the Mississippi. Any others?

How do you move the big guns around? If they are on a rail line, use that. If they are in a port, use a ship. Ocean going transports can operate on rivers. In both cases, unload the artillery in the structure you are planning on using for defense.

It can take months to move an artillery even one region, if there is no transport capacity.

Thanks for the notes Captain_Orso on the captured equipment. I hadn't realized that either.

[DrPostman]

In this previous game, playing the South, I took Cairo but a huge army parked outside and I knew I couldn't hold it. I did
have one river transport, a single gunboat, and an ironclad. That was enough to put my 2 big guns into and evacuate,
saving them. They came in very handy at Fort Henry/Donaldson as 3 turns later he tried to sail down to take a few TN
towns. I don't think I could have pulled that off had I not left a regiment in town as a sacrifice. The ships parked on the
river just outside of Cairo the first turn and then swiftly went on down to where they were intended to be. I also gave
the stack evasion orders.

When I take Cairo I always do it with a division formed in Memphis on all my available river craft and I set them to storm.
Badabing, badaboom, it's almost always mine.

[pb783]

In the interest of being transparent, VigaBrand and I are completing negotiations on a PBEM. VB tells me he has played PoN. I've played AACW, but only against Athena.

I do plan an AAR, if time is available.