bombardment

[keith]

Why cant ships bombard targets other than in support of other units

[Jabberwock]

The reasoning behind this rule was that land units could withdraw beyond range of ship's guns while still maintaining their position in the same region. If they are trying to prevent an amphibious assault, then they would have to expose themselves to naval gunfire.

It was originally implemented under the first attempt at a bombardment system, which was heavily unbalanced in favor of naval forces.

[tagwyn]

When I attempt to launch an attack on a fort, I begin with an attempted bombardment followed by marine forces against the fort. Invariably I get my bottom handed to me. Ground forces disappear and the fort thumbs its nose and my attack force vanishes!! Upset stomach status. t

[keith]

would it not be possible for naval units to bombard fixed assets or cities accruing victory points for such actions depending on the target, i mean the csa navy being able to sneak a ironclad up to NY and losing of a few rounds would surely be worth a few vp, it would also force the fed to spend money to defend there coastline.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

I've almost given up on clicking the bombardment button. Seems like every time I do I end up with 30 to 50 hits against my fleet and 0 to 3 hits against the fort and/or ground units therein. Happens with small to very large fleets, with or without amphibious assault concurrent. But knowing me I'm probably overlooking something important.

[Dixicrat]

I've almost given up on clicking the bombardment button. Seems like every time I do I end up with 30 to 50 hits against my fleet and 0 to 3 hits against the fort and/or ground units therein. Happens with small to very large fleets, with or without amphibious assault concurrent...

+1

[Banks6060]

I think bombarding forts is pretty fool hardy. However bombarding a position that is level 3 trenches and below works great .

[Jabberwock]

I've almost given up on clicking the bombardment button. Seems like every time I do I end up with 30 to 50 hits against my fleet and 0 to 3 hits against the fort and/or ground units therein. Happens with small to very large fleets, with or without amphibious assault concurrent. But knowing me I'm probably overlooking something important.

With the current system (which may be considered for modification soon, crossed fingers here), that's just the way it works. Send a large enough fleet to inflict some damage and survive. Go back to port for some free repairs. Rinse and repeat. It costs your opponent artillery replacements, and all it costs you is time, as long as you sent enough to survive.

Banks, please ignore what I just wrote.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Once again, Jabberwock straightens me out! (Chaplains aren't expected to know anything about military tactics anyway.)

[Pocus]

With the current system (which may be considered for modification soon, crossed fingers here), that's just the way it works. Send a large enough fleet to inflict some damage and survive. Go back to port for some free repairs. Rinse and repeat. It costs your opponent artillery replacements, and all it costs you is time, as long as you sent enough to survive.

Banks, please ignore what I just wrote.

Not quite, ship repair costs money and war supply!

[Jabberwock]

Additional details would be welcome. This seriously affects any efforts to rebalance bombardment.

[Daxil]

Banks, please ignore what I just wrote.

Now I know why you're so secretive all the time. You should just put each other on ignore.

[Jabberwock]

Now I know why you're so secretive all the time. You should just put each other on ignore.

That would be so much less fun.

Plus, every once in a while, Pocus sneaks one by me. I'm trying to avoid making TOO much of a fool of myself.

[Banks6060]

I didn't read the part where I was suppose to ignore what you wrote until I already read what you wrote...

Buuut I've already forgotten what you wrote anyway.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Not quite, ship repair costs money and war supply!

Now I consider myself unstraightened out.

[Aphrodite Mae]

Last four posts:


Thanks for making me grin, gents!
Hav

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

The repair cost is in direct proportion of the hits repaired compared to full price.

[Jabberwock]

Thank you, Pocus!

Ok, Lovejoy -

The trick is to do more actual damage (not cohesion damage) to any shore batteries than you take in return. For that, you should need about a minimum 4-1 odds (strength rating - considering artillery elements only) against a shore battery in level 4 trenches. Increase the odds for better trenches, leadership, artillerist attribute, being in a fort, etc. The average rebel fort (without additions) has maybe 70 points of artillery. Considering that it's a fort, and the likelihood of improved trenches by the time you get there, I'd suggest a 450 point fleet minimum, to break even.

Above about 900 points, you reach the cap on damage that a fleet can do by bombardment (around 40 points), and lose efficiency unless you split your fleet. If you have the resources, it's nice to still be able to send in several fleets at once and take out a fort's artillery completely with just bombardment. You still might need a couple brigades to handle the garrison if you want to occupy it.

One more thing, the player that initiates bombardment seems to have worse odds. If your fleet is just sailing through and the fort decides to bombard, looks like you inflict about 20% more damage, and take about 20% less. Reverse looks to be true if the fleet initiates bombardment. It appears this adjustment is applied after the damage caps, not before.

[Coregonas]

Replacement Ratio seemed also (on average) to be a bit more effective than newly created units? A replacement point of infantry replaces really 20 HITS ?

As an example... I buy a single point of Elite troops for my starting Stonewall bde.

Every 300 men are 6 hits. As 4 elements need replacements, I need 24.

a) Once 20 hits are Healed, the last element is going to get no more points?
b) there is a chance than YES, it gets more healed, up to the 24, and the replacement is LOST?
c) there is a chance than YES, it gets more healed, up to the 24, and the replacement is NOT LOST?
d) Is it posible only 1,2 and so on up to 19 are healed, and the replacement point gets lost, before the 20 hits are used?


Well... Consider this just for bombardment purposes, in case than, ON AVERAGE, every replacement point adds MORE than the "base" HIT points via replacement

[Jabberwock]

That's a good point.

Standard attrition:
If we're looking at a 2-1 return for land vs. 1-1 for sea, you need to do twice as much damage to your opponent to break even. Now, as the union, you still have about 1.5x the $ and WS, but breaking even is a nice benchmark. In which case I'd say don't try bombardment anywhere with a fleet less than 800 strength. So optimal bombardment fleets by that strategy would be from 800-900 points, acting in teams of 2 fleets where available. Use Dahlgren with the first fleet to go in.

Historical attrition:
I don't believe ships suffer from additional attrition like land units, but since there is no buying of naval replacements, I strongly doubt it. Shore batteries and fort garrisons do suffer from attrition every turn. By mid-1862, when the union can start to afford massive bombardment fleets, the rebs should be running out of replacements. Send your ships to the blockades until then. After that point, start cleaning up.

Cruising for cannonballs:
If you haven't already got two Imperial Death Star fleets in operation, then on initially moving into a new area adjacent to batteries or a fort, don't bombard. Just cruise through on your way back to the nearest decent port for repairs. Take advantage of the differential between offence and defense for bombardment. Even with Death Star fleets, bombardments should be done on the way back to port.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Thank you, Pocus!

Ok, Lovejoy -

The trick is to . . .

THIS info I need to print out!

[Coregonas]

To see a pattern for replacements, buying a single replacement for some "low quantity" troops (like elite inf), observe results, wait until replacement gone, then build again only 1...

Checked with the Stonewall brigade. It has 4 inf so 4 replacement "SLOTS". Now, it is in a depot, so refills at a high ratio. I have not the exact data in front of me... I ll try to search for them.

I remember now only 3 of the 4 battalions get replacement points, for 2 or 3 turns, then started to refill the 4th bn.

Most of the turns, the replacement POINT was LOST, so I had to re - buy, but I believe some turn I didnt lost it. So perhaps, 1000 men on average refilled, not 2000.

-----
I am also looking into Attrition loses, I believe it is EXTREMELY TOO HIGH as now it is.

Jus looking into one of my militia elements, 750 men at all. A minimum 150 men have been lost in 3 months. (I even suspect some more due to exp points going down).

The unit was every turn in GREEN / GREEN status (so PASIVE), moving as much as posible by railroad, but some water (without railroad) was forced to move, that was 2 hits - 100 men lost.

a 20% of the power in 3 months lost while traveling in the "paradise" ->
a 80% in a year.

That is without moving at all thorough enemy terrain, bad weather, offensive status and so on.

PROPOSAL for review: any GREEN status should get no hits to Attrition. Or drop it to a VERY VERY LOW level (<=1%?)

[Dixicrat]

One more thing, the player that initiates bombardment seems to have worse odds. If your fleet is just sailing through and the fort decides to bombard, looks like you inflict about 20% more damage, and take about 20% less. Reverse looks to be true if the fleet initiates bombardment. It appears this adjustment is applied after the damage caps, not before.

I believe that this is because the Offensive value and Defensive values of Fort batteries, etc. are so different. For example, looking at the 2CSAFortBatteries.mdl file, OffFire=13, DefFire =24, and ROF=2. Thus, by my calculations, on offensive fire the chance of a single hit per round will be 24.3%; but firing defensively, the chance of a single hit per round is 42.2%. Of course, this is calculated without consideration of any other factors (command, abilities, etc.).

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

When I activate the bombardment button for shore batteries, it doesn't stay activated turn to turn. For instance, I activate bombardment for Cairo, and I want it to stay permanently activated. But two turns out of every three it will unactivate itself. Version 1.11d, no mods.

[Daxil]

When I activate the bombardment button for shore batteries, it doesn't stay activated turn to turn. For instance, I activate bombardment for Cairo, and I want it to stay permanently activated. But two turns out of every three it will unactivate itself. Version 1.11d, no mods.

Ive had this happen too. I thought it was just me but guess not.

[Captain]

In my PBEM I have taken fort Munro the union has 3 fleet blockading up the James and another around Munro itself.

I am guessing he has pounded me as my naval guns and fixed guns strength has gone way down. Lucky I brought a fair bit of extra arty when I took the fort.

Anyway I keep building heavy arty replacements but they don't seem to be getting to Munro (there is a depot there I know:confused

I am too scared to risk withdrawing the damaged arty to hampton in case it gets sunk on route.

I have a fairly strong division at Munro now

Advice anyone

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

Advice anyone

Park the most damaged artillery in the fort region, outside the fort, passive, no bombard orders. That way you can thumb your nose at Union ships while reinforcing those batteries. An amphibious assault would be able to capture them, but would have to brave artillery fire from inside the fort on the way in. If you have a few extra troops, park them outside in a separate stack with defend orders (should give the arty time to retreat). If those Union ships have been bombarding you, they are liable to be in sad shape.

[Jarkko]

the Offensive value and Defensive values of Fort batteries, etc. are so different. For example, looking at the 2CSAFortBatteries.mdl file, OffFire=13, DefFire =24, and ROF=2. Thus, by my calculations, on offensive fire the chance of a single hit per round will be 24.3%; but firing defensively, the chance of a single hit per round is 42.2%.

I am interested about this, and I think I have seriously misunderstood something. For reference, a river Ironclad has OffFire 14 and DefFire 10 ROF 2, and a steam frigate has them respectively 10, 9 and 2.

Thus it would appear to me, that it might in fact be better for fleets who wish to bombard actually *not* to bombard, but move back and forth around the fort. The forts however open fire on the fleet moves (everytime the fleet does not evade), which results in the fort firing with Offensive fire and the fleet returning fire with Defensive fire.

So instead of a fort shooting with 24 DefFire at a bombarding SteamFrigate who shoots with OffFire 10, you would have the fort shooting with OffFire 13 and Steam frigate returning fire with DefFire 9. Seems quite a difference to me in losses recieved compared to the minimal loss of effectiveness.

I tried this in solo hot-seat last night vs Ft.Pike. The fleet actually recieves about 40% less damage each firing. The fleet is moving back and forth the combat can be initiated several times (initiated three times in my test turn) during a turn (altough it resulted in the fleet being *very* low on cohesion). End result, the fort garrison was eliminated and the guns unable to fire. Where as a direct bombarding caused the defenders in the fort to take damage (but nobody croaked), but the fleet took some serious punishment in return.

Need to do this with screenshots and accurate numbers to be of any value for discussion (ie: "Is the best way to bombard a fort to *not* bombard the fort?"), but is there again something obvious I am missing?