Entrenched Artillery Ship Bombardment

[SkyWestNM]

My PBEm opponent is telling me that none of my artillery emplacements are firing at his passing ships. The emplacements are both in and out of structures AND are entrenchment level 5+. My older coastal forts with coastal artillery seem to occasionally fire.
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks in advance.

SkyWestNM

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[SkyWestNM]

You are really on top of things, Grey. I read your posts most all the time and I'm glad burnout on ACW has not arrived. Excellent! Thanks for answering so quickly.

So, Vicksburg (with a triple adjacency, I think) has fire at boats going up or down river possible, correct?. And so Adams, MS, below it, with one adjacency, does not? Is this also correct?

Will I always read about a bombardment in the combat results messages then when a bombardment happens?

I'm wasting alot of my artillery waiting and watching for Union gunboats that thumb their noses at me as they go by, huh?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[SkyWestNM]

Thanks Grey,

When I had looked into some of the coding files on individual regions (whew there were over 1700+) I noticed a series of numbers in each which I assumed were used to define adjacencies et al. Thanks for confirming that. And thanks for goin the extra mile to show me where map issues can be somewhat cryptic. I see as a cartographer, that is your special interest.

Can I assume then, if no bombardment message is forthcoming at turn end, that bombardment did not occur? I need to stop asking my opponent if I hit his ships?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

SkyWestNM:

Anyone wishing to give me feedback on whether this region should be swamp terrain instead of Hill terrain, please do so...

Well I'm not American so what the heck do I know but from this link surely it has to be swamp

http://www.48ovvi.org/oh48hd3.html

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soloswolf]

While I think hills could certainly apply as well, I think that making it swamp would help illustrate (in game) the difficulties of a landing there. The various tributaries to the Big Black, Yazoo (and ultimately Mississippi) are fueled by the slight elevations on either side of the Mississippi. And the case for hills is made stronger by the fact that Hayne's Bluff was never really reached due to it's commanding position. However, all accounts I have read of moving men and material in that area speak to the immense difficulty created by the constantly wet ground.

I say swamp.

[SkyWestNM]

You musta renamed it too. The game's region finder (cntrl-f) comes up empty. I visited down there thirty years ago and it is really diverse. Much of the earthworks and lunettes were still there. The area around is very diverse and could be either hill or marsh. The lowlands are swampy but much of the higher ground is both lightly (scrub oak/pine) or heavily vegetated (overgrown with "wait a minute" vines and fallen trees). Confusing for us city bound folks to navigate. You could call it either.

I see you have Grant performing his end around.

[soloswolf]

A quick note regarding spelling...

Period maps seem to note "Haine's Bluff" as you have it now. Current maps show "Haynes".

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[SkyWestNM]

Got it Gray! Thanks. I figured it out after I read your post elsewhere that Haynes Bluff is a new created region.
Now just to make sure I understand correctly, the double adjacency must occur anywhere on the river next to the region, NOT just the structure, correct?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[SkyWestNM]

I got it, Gray. Thanks for helping me understand so wonderfully with screen shots. I appreciate the extra time you have spent to educate me. I had previously thought just moving next to an artillery piece caused a shore bombardment.


a. And, I assume, it does not matter whether the artillery piece is in a structure or not. Not to be a pest, but river bomabardment occurs so long as artillery is entrenched in the region at 3+, correct?

b. Does that mean a division/Corp on bivouac in a region with entrenchments fires all its inherent Division/Corps artillery as a shore bombardment?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soloswolf]

Very nice! It ill be interesting to see if it comes into folks' plans now...

(And by 'now' I mean when it actually comes out... )

[Banks6060]

Great work Gray!! As always of course .

[Comtedemeighan]

Looks good

[runyan99]

I just ran a test, and once again the buttons are wrong.

Guns entrenched to level 5 will NOT bombard if the button is unpressed (which is opposite of what the button says it does).

If you press the button, the guns WILL bombard.

This feature has been frequently buggy and confusing since version 1.0, and it's frustrating that it still does not work properly.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[77NY]

Curious, Did you check it against the v1.13d Public Beta (RC1a) release? That's a newer executable that now supercedes v1.13b.

hold on... I'll provide you the v1.13d executable separately for your test... (keep your v1.13b however for reverting back)
.

Coastal arty now has 200 power instead of 30. Is that WAD under 1.13d?

[SkyWestNM]

This is prolly the answer to my original question and why all my grey suited artillerists along the Mississippi have asked for permanent furloughs.

I'll try it (sigh) this next turn Sept 63.

[runyan99]

Curious, Did you check it against the v1.13d Public Beta (RC1a) release? That's a newer executable that now supercedes v1.13b.
.

Sorry Gray, I'm not going to install a beta right now. I ran the test with 1.13b.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

Don't you have a change log from 1.13b to 1.13d?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted