Civil War Fortifications

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ohms_law]

Agreed

[anarchyintheuk]

Personally, I like the cost and building restrictions as is. Are forts expensive because they were so rarely buillt or are they so rarely built because they're so expensive? Nashville is a pretty good example of wartime, purpose built fortifications (or would you say level 8 entrenchments?). The cost to the Union was enormous. If anything, I think forts don't take long enough to construct or should only be built upon level 8 entrenchments.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ohms_law]

You're idea on increasing the time is quite plausible... Currently, the build time is set at 25 days, which I can definitely agree is way too short a time period for construction of a fort structure

Yea, I tend to agree with this as well. I don't think that it's massively deficient, but it probably should be longer. 30 days to start, and longer for higher levels? Is that possible?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ohms_law]

Yea, I realized that about 30 seconds after I posted...

[Charles De Salaberry]

There's only one level of fort in ACW.

Not to be nit-picking, but under the 'Siege Combat' section of the manual it states 'Fort Level: Pre-war forts are considered level 1 forts while level 5+ trenches are level 2 forts'. This fort level gives a bonus to the besieged side in determining the SRV (Siege Roll Value) which in turn determines whether or not a breach is made. It doesn't say if permanent fortifications give any bonus to the SRV, but it does say that it requires two breaches to completely breach a permanent fort in contrast to the one breach required for pre-war forts and cities - I have to question this since the only time I've seen a complete breach for a city or pre-war fort is after a second breach is made (I do not have any experience with a permanent fort having been breached). It should be noted that the only way to achieve the above stated level 2 fort is to have a unit entrenched to level 5+ within a structure (pre-war fort, permanent fortification, city, depot, or Indian village) in the first place since entrenched units outside a structure cannot be besieged.

I like your ideas for permanent fortifications being built wherever you want, as well a reducing the cost and increasing the build time. I always thought it was odd that you could build a permanent fort in 2 turns but it would take you at least 8 turns with 1 infantry unit and 1 artillery unit to get to a level 8 non-permanent entrenchment.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Yea, I tend to agree with this as well. I don't think that it's massively deficient, but it probably should be longer. 30 days to start, and longer for higher levels? Is that possible?

...and should the build time be influenced by the weather?

[Captain]

From this thread anyway, it seems most players agree the costs of forts are far to prohibitive. Also being the balanced chaps we are, most of us recognise that the appropriate limiting factor on forts should be construction time.
Yes Chaplain (excuse me for not attending your sermons I think weather should extend construction time. Possibly also location?

To keep the ball rolling, should certain units aid in reducing construction time of forts? i.e-engineers

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Possibly also location?

Good point. Areas with a high water table (e.g., swamps) might be more difficult. But with both weather and location influencing build time, we may be introducing big coding complexities.

[Captain]

Good point. Areas with a high water table (e.g., swamps) might be more difficult. But with both weather and location influencing build time, we may be introducing big coding complexities.

Don't ask. You don't get Padre

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Suspicions confirmed. Line of thought abandoned.

[Daxil]

I think if you're going to make this as historical as possible, construction times should probably go up. It takes years and years, in fact, to complete forts, so you'd really want to plan ahead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Gorges

That might be too much in game terms, but that particular fort took 8 years. Fort Sumter was begun in 1827 and still not finished in 1860! Granted, they probably weren't putting 100% effort into getting these done. I think at some point the fort is usable and maybe in game terms that should be when it's finished. I would think 12-24 months might be realistic in game terms (juist throwing that out though). Let me just say, if you make it take years to construct, the thing better have a reward at the end.

Also, it seems the modern forts were built of granite instead of brick. Why are the pre-war forts not called "brick" forts, and why are they not buildable? It might make more sense, and be more cost effective, to build them in some cases.

[ohms_law]

Between 45-60 days would be best, in my opinion.

[Captain]

This leaves us with simple decisions.

1.) Time of construction. (in days)
2.) Cost of construction. (in SupplyTypes and Artillery units)
3.) City required or not (Pretty much decided already)

These are the parameters accessible to change in the fort structure file and therefore the subject of discussion here.[/QUOTE]

Ok Gray we begrudingly acquiese!

3-Already agreed
1-Open for debate let's get some feedback on this
2-Ships or wagons I say no difference. _ Can we factor cost into location? (or can't the game codes do that either)
Now I am just kicking off the debate but what about 1xsupply and 1xnaval guns ?

[ohms_law]

Now I am just kicking off the debate but what about 1xsupply and 1xnaval guns ?

um... that's what this thread is for... We've been debating exactly this for many posts.


See especially post #24.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Captain]

Values I'm kicking around here are just possible for the "official" game. Anything substantially less, gets in the realm of "free candy" and would have to remain a "MOD" only... Don't misunderstand this to mean that I oppose any experimentation with lower values, it's just that I personally look at all changes as to the feasibiltity of whether they would benefit the game "officially" or not. Lowering the costs of forts to such a low value would probably tend to ahistorically unbalance the game towards their use, which is something I can't do officially.

Of course that was just a starting suggestion on my part.If we are to do this properly we need to look at how the current expense is related to historical reality and then take it from there.

Any Army Engineers on this site?

[ohms_law]

If we are to do this properly we need to look at how the current expense is related to historical reality and then take it from there.

The only problem with that is it can ignore playability/balance. I'm all for realistic values for everything, but ultimately playability trumps all. These are games first, after all (If I really wanted a pure simulator instead of a game I'd simply go back to my friends in the military, or something...).

[Charles De Salaberry]

We'd have to get Pocus to weigh in concerning Level 1 vs Level 2 forts, but the only structure defined in the ...ACW/GameData/Structures... folder is a Level 2 fort. The manual is severely outdated and probably incorrect in this case and I would trust more the actual game data files that can be looked into.

As far as we are concerned, the only forts capable of being built during the game are these Level 2 forts.

While I was playing the game yesterday I noticed, quite by accident, that the British Coastal Defences are a Level 8 Permanent Fort. Out of curiosity I explored the rest of the 'Foreign' forts:
Fort Erie, in Ontario (Upper Canada), is a Pre-war Fort.
Fort Amherst, across from Detroit, is a Level 3 Permanent Fort.
Fortress Quebec is a Level 4 Permanent Fort.
The Coastal Defences for France is a Level 8 Permanent Fort.
Fort de France in the French West Indies is a Level 2 Permanent Fort.

The permanent forts that we can build are only level 2. Assuming that Pocus meant the permanent forts to represent fortress complexes along the lines of Verdun (with several smaller forts providing support for each other), then limiting our forts to level 2 makes sense since it takes decades to reach the level of these fortress complexes.

As an aside, since I know you've been making authorized changes to the game, a few editorial suggestions for Canada:
There were no permanent fortifications in Upper Canada west of Kingston, Ontario, therefore -
Change Fort Erie to a town from a pre-war fort. Fort Erie fortifications were abandoned after the war of 1812. This will free up a pre-war fort slot for your use.
Get rid of the permanent fort at Amherstburg (Fort Amherst). This was another 1812 fort that had been abandoned in the 1830's - in this case used as a Psychiatric Hospital.
Move Fortress Quebec to Quebec City, where it belongs, instead of Toronto. If there is a need for a fort in Toronto, in order to maintain game balance, I suggest you change the name to Fort Henry (which was the name of the main fort in the fortifications built around Kingston).
I don't see any need to change the levels of the forts that I suggest remain since the Citadelle at Quebec City, Fort George (in Halifax, and not represented in the game), and Fort Henry (the defences around Kingston), were among the strongest fortifications in North America until the Civil War occurred. With that in mind, New York City, Brooklyn, Newark, Boston and San Francisco should also probably also have permanent forts placed in them.

[Daxil]

The only problem with that is it can ignore playability/balance. I'm all for realistic values for everything, but ultimately playability trumps all. These are games first, after all (If I really wanted a pure simulator instead of a game I'd simply go back to my friends in the military, or something...).

I think that's where the developers would differ with you. I'm sure they're closely intertwined, though.

[Charles De Salaberry]

Values I'm kicking around here are just possible for the "official" game. Anything substantially less, gets in the realm of "free candy" and would have to remain a "MOD" only... Don't misunderstand this to mean that I oppose any experimentation with lower values, it's just that I personally look at all changes as to the feasibiltity of whether they would benefit the game "officially" or not. Lowering the costs of forts to such a low value would probably tend to ahistorically unbalance the game towards their use, which is something I can't do officially.

WRT costs, I looked into what a fort really costs, considering 2 Supply Wagons and 4 Artillery units. Assuming the cheapest artillery (6 pounders), the minimum cost is:
Union - $128,000; 56 Conscript Companies; and 60 Tons of War Supplies.
Confederate - $120,000; 56 conscript Companies; and 56 Tons of War Supplies. (Confederate 6 pounders are cheaper and take less war supplies)
Assuming the most expensive (Naval Guns) the maximum cost is:
$280,000; 56 Conscripts; and 108 Tons.

What really concerns me with the cost of these forts is that there seems to be no real benefit to expending that amount of money, personnel, and materiel. The expenditure of the supply wagons makes sense since it conveys the benefit of creating a 1/2 depot in the fort. The expenditure of the artillery makes no sense because there is no benefit created from that particular expenditure. I have no objection to leaving the cost as it is if there were some way to create extra benefits for the fort. For example, since it costs 2 supply wagons why not create a full depot in the fort, or if you stay at 1/2 depot then all those freed up clerks can be used to form an infantry garrison unit.
If it is possible, my suggestion for the cost would be to leave it as is, and create a Garrison for the fort consisting of one infantry unit and one artillery unit (preferably both of them being static units).

WRT construction time, that can be a rather difficult one to nail down. The best example we have for the game is the defences built around Washington. The Arlington Line, which was built in Arlington County, VA, was begun in May 1861 and was under continual work until nearly the end of the war. If we consider that the actual process for construction of any fort begins the minute the player decides to build one, finding or buying the units required, moving them to the fort location, finally beginning the actual build, and continuing until the units inhabiting the fort reach a level 8 entrenchment level, we are talking about months. Since the game mechanics are only concerned with the actual construction of the fort walls and not all of the other logistics involved, the game time of 25 days actually begins to seem reasonable.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

The only problem with that is it can ignore playability/balance. I'm all for realistic values for everything, but ultimately playability trumps all. These are games first, after all (If I really wanted a pure simulator instead of a game I'd simply go back to my friends in the military, or something...).

I take the opposite view: realistic values trump all. (I'm careful to say "realistic values" and not "realism.") Personal preference.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Daxil]

Since the game mechanics are only concerned with the actual construction of the fort walls and not all of the other logistics involved, the game time of 25 days actually begins to seem reasonable

.

Im not sure how you came up with that? It takes at least a year to just get the wall foundations up, historically speaking.

This means you can't have a garrison automatically attached to any structure. It is placed there independantly either in the game setup files, or by the gamer choosing to construct the unit independently and then moving it there.

In that case Id reduce the costs and up the time.

[Charles De Salaberry]

Im not sure how you came up with that? It takes at least a year to just get the wall foundations up, historically speaking.

Forts built during the Civil War era were mostly of earthen construction so they went up rather quickly. Refer to the Civil War Fortification Study Group. Forts Henry, Donelson, Island 10 and a number of forts in Washington's defences were ready to defend in very short order. Fort Henry was completed in a month (June to July 1861). Of course, the poor planning and siting of some these forts had more to do with their capture than how fast their walls went up.

However, I think you are misunderstanding the intent of my previous post. Building the fort could conceivably take up to year or longer. Since the actual placement of the fort on the map represents the final 'raising of the walls' that point represents the culmination of all the work done preparing the site. The actual building of the fort requires the player to commit resources in the first place, move them to the site and then complete the construction of the fort (represented in the game by the final build command).
To follow the progression of the building of the fort, I'll give you an example:
I decide I want to build a fort for the Union in Washington, DC, at the beginning of the April, 1861 campaign.
1. Early April, 1861. I will have no units available to build that fort until all the required units are activated or until I build them myself. I decide to build the units myself instead of using units already on the map.
2. Late April, 1861. Still no builds available, and nobody activated.
3. Early May, 1861. I go to purchase the 4 Artillery units and two Supply Wagons required. I want to build four 6 pounder units and two supply wagons as close to Washington as possible. I find a single supply wagon available to build in Maryland and the next closest is in New York, but I find that in the initial build only four 6 pounder units are available (one each in Delaware, West Virginia, Missouri, and Kansas). I decide to build the 6 pounders available in Delaware and West Virginia, and purchase 12 pounders as the other two units. I purchase one 12 pounder available in New Jersey (the only one), and one 12 pounder in New York.
4. Late May, 1861. 1st MD Supply is finished training in Washington, DC (perfect, right where I want it) 1st NY Supply is finished training in Buffalo (not so good, but then again where are my artillery?). I search for my artillery units. The 6 pounder in Delaware is in Wilmington and will be completed in 26 days. The 6 pounder in West Virginia is in Parkersburg and will be completed in 26 days. The 12 pounder in New Jersey is in New Brunswick and will be completed in 25 days. The 12 pounder in New York is in New York city and will be completed in 18 days. I put the 1st NY Supply on a train for Washington where it will arrive in 16 days.
5. Early June, 1861. Training for the artillery is still going on. The 1st NY Supply is now in Anne Arundel (almost home)
6. Late June, 1861. Training for all my artillery, except for the 6 pounder in West Virginia, is done and they are on the way by train to Washington, all will arrive in less than 11 days. My 6 pounder in West Virginia still needs 3 days to complete training. I do have a 12 pounder in Washington which has just activated so I will use that one.
7. Early July, 1861. Everything is in place, so I hit the build fort button.
8. Late July, 1861. 11 days left before the fort is completed.
9. It is now Early August, 1861. Fort Prince George's was completed at day 11 of the late July turn.

In all it took almost four months to complete this fort. All of the apparent inactivity in building the fort from the time I first decided to build the fort until I pushed the build fort button can be explained as the whole process of finding the right site, surveying that site, and initial preparatory work, etc. The 25 day building the fort process just represents the final stages of the fort building left in order to make it a defensible position.

If you wish to build a fort in the minimum 25 days right from when you want it until it is built, you will have to have those units right on site at that time, a very unlikely occurrence, and once you do it those units disappear greatly handicapping any stack they may be part of. Getting the required units to the wilds of Arkansas becomes quite an undertaking and would take substantially longer.

[Charles De Salaberry]

It is possible to change the depot settings of the fort to be the equal of a full depot. However, again... you fellas have to realize we are working with the data definitions to effect the changes here. If I may point out, currently any structure built does not come with an auto garrison unless it it preplaced there in the game setup files. They are 2 separate items as far as the game is concerned. This means you can't have a garrison automatically attached to any structure. It is placed there independantly either in the game setup files, or by the gamer choosing to construct the unit independently and then moving it there.

I thought that that might be a problem. Is there some way to give the fort extra abilities which would justify the high cost, or perhaps, can we specify exactly which units would be used (such as only 6 pounders)?