Building forts

[Daxil]

I'm just as new, but if Daxil is right, and a division in a fort has the holding power of a corps, then I'd conclude a fort is at least equal to two bdes.

I'm just going off Rafiki's link up top. It says there are major frontage issues during the first day of contact. They could be an extra corps in a constricted space, freeing up a couple divisions for action elsewhere. Not to mention, I believe with their zone of control they need to be attacked if you want to pass either side of them. (someone confirm?) So they effectively take up 3 spaces.

what kind of artillery is better if you want to bombard ships? Columbiad and costal?

Coastal, but Columbiads are nice since they can also engage land elements. I'm curious about mortars as defensive batteries. I could definitely see them being a problem IRL.

[sval06]

I like this thread because we can see that building a fort or not greatly depends of player's choice (as well as the locations), and at the end this reflects the quality of AACW: not one way to play nor to win...

Personnaly as the CSA I usually build fort in NO for all the reasons said before (I did during the first winter as I do not see a major threat here before that date). But I trust on corps and army movements elsewhere, as the CSA just cannot hold the line for 5 years hidden behind a serie of forts.

... And I'm eager to see your conclusions about artillery Dixicraft, since there are also different ways to manage it...

[soundoff]

... And I'm eager to see your conclusions about artillery Dixicraft, since there are also different ways to manage it...

I think Dixicrat was trying to be humourous sval....I think his use of the word 'mortars' is the givaway

Though perhaps you had realised it and were poking fun back given that you called him 'Dixicraft': oke:

All this subtle humour is way over this old mans head. apy:

[Dixicrat]

I think Dixicrat was trying to be humourous sval....I think his use of the word 'mortars' is the givaway

To my friend Soundoff: actually, I was serious, believe it or not. No attempt at humor this time. So, allow me to explain myself.

I have frequently seen reference to "Siege Artillery" within this forum. To me, that term includes both Mortars and Columbiads. I don't have my spreadsheet with me right now, but I seem to recall that mortars have a range of 8, albeit a low initiative. Meanwhile, Columbiads have good range, fair initiative, and, most importantly in this case, the best hit probability of all artillery. By my calculations, Columbiads have a raw "to hit" % of something like 45%, for each round of battle. Few other artillery weapons come close. I doubt many on these forums would disagree that Columbiads are an excellent weapon for a siege.

The reason why I said that I was "surprised" by the results of my spreadsheet was that I would have intuitively assumed that a weapon with a ROF of 1 (as the mortar has) would be inferior to the other artillery pieces which have ROFs of 2. But surprisingly, the 35% raw "to hit" % of mortars gives you a better chance of a hit than even a 12 lbr... and the damage is notably greater.

These factors, coupled with the excellent range of the mortar, are why I say that I think that mortars make a good choice for any stack defending a critical position.

Now that I've said all of that, let me add that I've only been studying AACW for a few weeks, and so I've got a lot to learn and a long way to go. It's possible that some of my fundamental assumptions are wrong. Whoever disagrees with me, I'm eager to hear what you have to say.

[soundoff]

I have frequently seen reference to "Siege Artillery" within this forum. To me, that term includes both Mortars and Columbiads.

Ah now I comprehend and stand corrected Its just that in game Columbiads and Seige Artillery are not the same thing...though they may serve the same function. Similarly, within the game, there is no artillery piece called a 'mortar'.

Mind you Dixicrat where you come off reckoning I'm Scottish I have not the foggiest idea. Could take real exception to that Hadrians wall was not built for nothing

[Aphrodite Mae]

...Level 2 forts with a strong defensive force are a bitch to beat...you've got to have AT LEAST 3-1 odds IMHO for it not to be a massacre of your attacking troops. With a level 2 fort...you could probably hold off an entire Army with just a couple of divisions if they assaulted.
...

Havely here. (Mae is resting her sweet little self with a dainty little nap. )

Nobody has mentioned the importance (IMHO) of the CSA building a Level 2 fort at Norfolk. Admittedly, I haven't yet tried this... maybe for some reason or another it can't be done. But with the importance of Norfolk's position, it seems to me that this would be a top priority. ...Gentlemen?

Fondly,
Havely

[Daxil]

One thing you have to consider about building forts is: what happens if I lose it? Losig Richmond or Norfolk after having fortified them you probbly can kiss Virginia goodbye.

[Pdubya64]

Havely here. (Mae is resting her sweet little self with a dainty little nap. )

Nobody has mentioned the importance (IMHO) of the CSA building a Level 2 fort at Norfolk. Admittedly, I haven't yet tried this... maybe for some reason or another it can't be done. But with the importance of Norfolk's position, it seems to me that this would be a top priority. ...Gentlemen?

Hmmm... considering that I really want to keep Norfolk in CSA hands at all costs, I say go for it. Just make sure it's well garrisoned. Besides, you need some high "police" factor infantry to help convert the province from that ugly yankee influence anyway! [SIZE="1"](Yankees in Norfolk? How'd they ever get in?)[/size]

Personally, as the Confederacy I have tended to build a depot at Scott, MO as early as possible for supply purposes for Polk. Then when I can take Paducah from the clutches of the Union, that's where I build a fort to bottleneck naval traffic and generally be a pain in the neck.

Oh, and as I haven't seen either Havely or Mae previously, hello and welcome to the forums ladies!

[Colonel Dreux]

Havely here. (Mae is resting her sweet little self with a dainty little nap. )

Nobody has mentioned the importance (IMHO) of the CSA building a Level 2 fort at Norfolk. Admittedly, I haven't yet tried this... maybe for some reason or another it can't be done. But with the importance of Norfolk's position, it seems to me that this would be a top priority. ...Gentlemen?

Fondly,
Havely

I have tried and have built a fort at Norfolk in pretty much all the games I've played. After having done this a number of times, my advice would be to not build a fort at Norfolk because for some reason the North decides to get that fort not long after you build it. The only time I've held on to Norfolk with a fort is if I had already taken Ft. Monroe, which must make it a lot harder for the Union to take a fortified Norfolk.

If you build the fort early on you simply don't have enough troops or artillery to defend it properly and the North can take it with one of their early command forces or armies. And once they've taken it it is that much harder for you to take back because it is fortified and they can supply it and run forces in and out of it towards Richmond. The AI has sent the AoNEV straight south from D.C., bypassing Richmond to the east, just to take Norfolk. Normally it gets attacked out of North Carolina or directly from the sea, but armies have come from D.C. and Harpers Ferry as well. It's interesting.

[Brochgale]

I am finding that (for the CSA) building forts MAY be a waste of much-needed artillery and supply resources...at least in the first year or two of the struggle. what are the specific benefits of having a fort in a region and, are they really worth expending these resources to build...again, strictly speaking for the CSA?

As someone who regularly plays CSA the sepcific benefits from building forts are that they slow down and weaken huge Yank armies especially if you park a brigade/divisision in them - I refer to a PvP situation here as the AI I dont think it is worth the expenditure of resources.

It is also the case that early in the game you have limits on how many divisions you can establish as CSA so expended resources on recruiting infantry etc is not really worth it from my point of view till you have the Generals on stream to create the divisions with. - But each to thier own I guess.

I usually elect to build forts in an arc around Richmond, Freids. Charlottesville etc - get the idea. Or out west where I have built depots for instance. For me as CSA it is all about buying time? Forts I think buy me that time? If I capture Bowling Green for instance my opponent will have destroyed any depot or fortifications, I will always build depot and fortify - in an effort to make Kentucky and not Tennessee front line before sheer manpower of yanks overwhelms me. Again PvP is totally different from playing against AI!

TIP = buy cheapest art you can get as you will always get them back after fort is built unless they changed that for 1.14 patch.

I just think having your replacement pool well stocked is more important than recruiting new bigades etc. But again it is each to thier own and the style that gives you most pleasure in playing game after all thats what it is about!

[Brochgale]

Oh and I never fortify Norfolk - like others I view that as a waste as in PvP I have never been able to hold it for duration of War! Against AI i have but I still dont fortify. What I would really like to do with Norfolk is unlock that Naval Engineer and move him to Wilmigton or some other Port!

[Schattensand]

It is jan 63 and the blue armies never made a real amphibic assault on one of my ports, I like to see that, they just hang in Washington build enormous armies there but never attack, just futile raids that have no chance to success. Maybe 63 will bring some big battles I still wait for them.
I fortified St Louis and Cairo after taking them, waiting for the counteroffensive , that never came.
If you can not build armies, for lack of manpower you have lots of money and warmaterial, what to do with it anyway, more ships and arty? Rail and river is as well up to limits.
Union never sinks my runners and CSA has this huge amount of resorces it never really had. AI tends to ruin its economy by extensive use of print papermoney, and a real offensive it is unable to perform.
Still its a nice game.
May be start in 62 or 63 would be more challenging for CSA.

[LSSpam]

Built one in Harpers Ferry as the Union vs the AI. Was a waste though, later that year I cleared the Shenandoah of rebels anyways. But I imagine in PBEM it might be a decent idea. It's an important depot for any rebel offense into Western Maryland, forcing them to by-pass it while slipping around your main Eastern Army would put them at a significant disadvantage.

[Brochgale]

It is jan 63 and the blue armies never made a real amphibic assault on one of my ports, I like to see that, they just hang in Washington build enormous armies there but never attack, just futile raids that have no chance to success. Maybe 63 will bring some big battles I still wait for them.
I fortified St Louis and Cairo after taking them, waiting for the counteroffensive , that never came.
If you can not build armies, for lack of manpower you have lots of money and warmaterial, what to do with it anyway, more ships and arty? Rail and river is as well up to limits.
Union never sinks my runners and CSA has this huge amount of resorces it never really had. AI tends to ruin its economy by extensive use of print papermoney, and a real offensive it is unable to perform.
Still its a nice game.
May be start in 62 or 63 would be more challenging for CSA.

I got some huge battles as CSA v AI in 63 - at least AI did not let me trap it the way it allowed itself to be trapped in past especially at Freidricksburg - I have had runners sunk and a certain admiral wounded twice so maybe it s the settings you are using - I always go for optimum and hard against AI. Out west it is still a bit half hearted though or so it seems. Although I have never yet been able to capture St .lious and I have never bothered with Cairo.

Well I do tend to play against AI to try things out that I might employ in a PvP game. More from the point of view of the time it takes to get from A to B or to build and actually deploy new divisions etc. How long can a fort with a decent brigade hold out with a General etc. Expt with entrenchment levels. In other words I play against AI to experiment with game, dont get that chance against a human!

[dduff442]

The manpower requirements of fort construction are prohibitive IMO -- 56 manpower gone forever in the construction effort. If you got the manpower back after construction was complete, forts would be much more worthwhile.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Big Ideas]

Forts are now excellent value but I still haven't constructed any as I don't want the troops inside to cause a major NM drop once they surrendered. What I need is a fort with a deep tunnel and secret exit into a nearby river with hidden barges for a sneaky gettaway.

[Banks6060]

I've been very pleased with the fruit of my fort building efforts thus far. I'd say even with the cost associated with building them in version 1.13b...they're WELL worth the expense if for nothing other than offering strong locations for "point defense"....much like an investment in gatlings for Union garrisons.

Imagine the combination of a couple of gatling batteries...a large infantry brigade...a couple of artillery batteries...and a fort. I'd wager a garrison could stand against near 10 times their number if they had that kind of firepower.

Really makes me wish that some kind of gatling unit or equivalent existed for the south as well as the north. I don't know how closely that technology was guarded by the north...but I don't think it would be outside the realm of possibility for the CSA to attain such a unit within the timeframe of the game....(i.e. January 1866).

[enf91]

Didn't the Confederacy have a steam gun?

[slimey.rock]

Sounds like the work of Mythbusters

[mikee64]

In my 2+ years of playing the game (mostly pbem) I had never once built a fort until seeing Banks use them so effectively in his AAR. I now have them underway at key strategic points in my current game. Excellent job pointing out the usefulness there Banks!

They are still a little expensive for my tastes but if you can use the 6 lb'ers and transports instead of wagons, it is a little easier. The problem is the inland sites where you still have to use the very expensive supply wagons.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[mikee64]

Yes Gray that change was another reason I finally decided to start building. But even at 4 elements if using wagons thats ~$40k (depending on inflation) 20CS and 20WS just for the supply elements. Thats a big chunk of resources for the CSA. Using river transports is ~50% cheaper but obviously you can't do this everywhere.

Based on the code you posted does it also cost $10 in addition to the units? (MoneyCost = 10) If so I didn't realize that and wonder if it's reflected in the ledger for planned balance?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[enf91]

Is siege artillery of any use inside forts?

The question's about a year old, but it's still good (unlike milk). Siege artillery like mortars are probably moderately useful inside forts, but they have the "siege expert" ability, making them more useful outside forts attacking in.

[Brochgale]

The question's about a year old, but it's still good (unlike milk). Siege artillery like mortars are probably moderately useful inside forts, but they have the "siege expert" ability, making them more useful outside forts attacking in.

I always build seige guns in anticipation of having a crack at Fort Monroe but somehow I never get round to it - having a crack that is. I dont much see the point of having them as CSA stuck in a fort soaking up valuable metal as it were!

[dduff442]

Forts remain one of the weaker bits of the game, IMO. Construction is too quick, the cost overall probably too low and the manpower employed in construction just disappears... This is something that needs attention for version 2.

Using river or naval transports for fortress construction is just strange.

I know a lot of people are unhappy naval transports are so much cheaper than wagons. Naval and riverine transportation ought to be much cheaper than road transport as these were much more economical in real life. The problem is that once built, a there's no distinction between river/naval and road depots, so a river depot can draw supplies overland even if the geography doesn't support supply by river.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[mikee64]

I've finally built some forts, but only using wagons. I now have the required forces gathered to build my first using transports, but am having no luck. I've got the 4 undamaged supply elements and artillery, and am in a region with a city. But I don't even get the "build fort" button. Any ideas? Is there anything you have to do different when using transports instead of wagons?

Thanks.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted