Building Fortifications or The Great Cannon Blackhole

[Captain_Orso]

I'm experimenting around with somethings trying to understand the nuances of this game. So one of the things I wanted to find out is what do the cannons that I us to build a fortification turn into once it is build. This was spawned by reading Jarkko's discussion Bombard strategy vs forts; interesting.

To make a long story short, I built 4 light artillery batteries and stole two supply trains from the Army of North-Easter Virginia, I hope they'll forgive me , and sent them to Loudon, VA.

The first thing I found out was that I can't build a fortification on the open field, not that the doc says so, but it is in the wiki http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Fort#Effects_of_forts. I found this seemingly odd after considering that IFAIK the town where Ft Donelson was built IRL could have hardly beem called a city in game terms, but that's just a stupid reality argument.

I decided to build it in Alexandria, because it was close-by. But I'd have to convince the garrison there to take a vacation first, locked units don't you know. There's and interesting story about this too, but I'm saving that for another post.

The first thing I noticed was that you don't need two supply trains (four elements) to build a fort. You only need one supply train with 4 elements. kewl .

Once the fort was build I dived on it to have a look at those nasty cannons lurking in there . Where are they, where'd they go ? Gone, two batteries of 6lb.ers and 2 of 12lb.ers @ 12 cannons each, 48 cannons in all - vanished .

I don't get it . I thought it would look something like the pre-built forts (Ft Monroe, Ft Caswell, Ft Sumter etc). But nothing?

So then I thought, maybe they're so generically integrated into Alexandria, that you can't click on them an see them. Let's see what happens when I shove a Reb Brigade at them , better than sticking a wasp and a wolf-spider in a canning jar and shaking it up a bit . Oh I'm nasty.

So Campbell's Brigade storms up from Manassas, Rebel-Yell and all and ... and they almost ran right through the back door before stopping leure: .

The fortification is empty of any even generic defenses what-so-ever. All those lovely cannons walled into the battlements for God knows what demonic reason. I hope Campbell has Amityville nightmares.

[soloswolf]

Once the fort was build I dived on it to have a look at those nasty cannons lurking in there . Where are they, where'd they go ? Gone, two batteries of 6lb.ers and 2 of 12lb.ers @ 12 cannons each, 48 cannons in all - vanished .

... And a fort in it's place.

[Gray_Lensman]

Captain_Orso:

If you want to post a question about features in the game all you have to do is post that question straight out, there are dozens of forumites here that are generally quite willing to try to give you some helpful answers and tips. As a "newbie", ridicule of the game design features while trying to get answers from the more experienced "oldsters" is not really conducive to getting the answers you really want.

[Degataga]

While I grant it doesn't make much sense from a logical perspective, IMO its a good way to check fort-spamming. If there was just a raw resource cost plus a supply wagon the Union player could build forts in every city he takes quite easily.

[Micah Goodman]

Than the answer to building forts so be to up the cost with supply type units instead of using a combination of supply units and cannon. It seems very 'gamey' to include cannon in the requirements for construction and then not have the cannon in place once construction is compleate. Also to prevent spaming of forts you could increase the time it takes to build them as well.

[Captain_Orso]

... And a fort in it's place.

Yes-in-deed it is.

While I grant it doesn't make much sense from a logical perspective, IMO its a good way to check fort-spamming. If there was just a raw resource cost plus a supply wagon the Union player could build forts in every city he takes quite easily.

I assume you mean, being that there is a limit of economical artillery batteries in the supply pool. 6lb-er artillery costs $13, 3 conscripts and 3WS. I built the 4 in Delaware to build my fortification. There are still 3 in West Virginia, 3 in Kansas and 6 in Missouri in the supply pool. It's '62 in my test and being a n00b I don't know if the supply pool will ever replenish or additions are made, but that's 4 forts altogether.

After these are gone the next batteries along the lines of economics are 12lb-er. They cost $18, 3con and 5WS. There are 96 in the supply pool. That's more 24 forts! I don't think that is going to stop an extremely economically strong USA from building forts. If you still need forts after those 28, you're ... doing something wrong .

This was just unexpected to me, being to me illogical. I guess I'll just have to get used to it.

A really logical way to limit fort-spamming would be to need to use an engineer to build one and limit the number of engineers, maybe even make it take longer to build.

The fortification I built was a level 2 right from the get-go. Can you build level 1 fortifications too?

That would also be interesting if you not only needed an engineer to build a fortification, but had to first build a level 1 and then improve it to being a level 2.

Are there higher levels than 2?

How do you achieve them?

Captain_Orso:

If you want to post a question about features in the game all you have to do is post that question straight out, there are dozens of forumites here that are generally quite willing to try to give you some helpful answers and tips. As a "newbie", ridicule of the game design features while trying to get answers from the more experienced "oldsters" is not really conducive to getting the answers you really want.

*GAAAAA*

My dearest Gray,

Let me blow off a little steam with people who might understand me. I'm trying to learn the game the best way I can and I spent HOURS today getting this little experiment to run.

If I'd have asked, "how do you build a fort?" do you really think anybody would take me terribly seriously? I know I wouldn't, because the question is answered it the manual and elsewhere. I don't need anybody to take me on the hand like a little child. I can read. If I can't find what I'm looking for, I ask.

I work in software support for one of the worlds major computer manufacturers. It irks me to no end when a customer it too lazy to open the manual and look for themselves. But if one comes and points out that something doesn't make sense to them I try to explain why it is the way it is. Sometimes the features a customer wants just aren't there. That's why we have a 'Request for Improvement'. And I've laughed with numerous frustrated customers about surprising discoveries and passed on a lot of RFIs.

But why do you find it so offensive that I point out things that are surprising or illogical to me?

I wanted to know what happened to the artillery that I had to collect to build a fortification. How do they compare to the Fortification Batteries that I've already encountered in the game? Does it make a difference if the artillery used is 6lb-er or 12lb-er or 10lb-er Parrotts or Rodmans?

Do you really think that I should have expected the artillery to be used-up like building material?

Just my $.02

Orso

[arsan]

All of this is WAD.
The cannons and supply are consumed to create the permanent fort structure. I see it just as a way to represent the necessary investments in building it.
You will have to buy and install there the guns and garrison you what to put in the fort in addition to the construction cost.
One can invent dozens of different ways of representing this cost to build a permanent fortification in game (money, war supply, wagons, guns... a combination or some or all of them... whatever...). About which one is better or worst, opinions can vary wildly.
The game designers chose what seemed best to them, and as this is his game...
Could this have been done differently?? Sure. Will using for example 3 wagons instead of 2 guns plus a wagon improve the game somewhat?? Nope IMHO.

Cheers

[Captain_Orso]

Hola arsan,

okay, I accept.

But just imagine my surprise. Me sitting up there in Washington admiring the glistening paint on my freshly built fortification through my field glasses, when suddenly Campbell's Brigade comes hoot'en 'n holler'en over the fields. I'm thinking, "just you wait, just a little closer ... little closer ...". Suddenly nothing but necked rebel-butts waving at me from the battlements. Glad this was just a test.

[arsan]

Hola arsan,

okay, I accept.

But just imagine my surprise. Me sitting up there in Washington admiring the glistening paint on my freshly built fortification through my field glasses, when suddenly Campbell's Brigade comes hoot'en 'n holler'en over the fields. I'm thinking, "just you wait, just a little closer ... little closer ...". Suddenly nothing but necked rebel-butts waving at me from the battlements. Glad this was just a test.

Moral: always remember to man your new shiny (and empty) forts... or at least... close the door!
As a personal comment... IMHO forts ar not too interesting in AACW. I rarely build them, except maybe some with the CSA on the big rivers to block naval movement.
I don't think i have ever built one with the USA.
Forts were beginning to get outdated by the AACW times... armies deployed on 100 miles long trench lines were the new fashion! Ask Lee and Grant!

[ShovelHead]

As a personal comment... IMHO forts ar not too interesting in AACW. I rarely build them, except maybe some with the CSA on the big rivers to block naval movement.
I don't think i have ever built one with the USA.
Forts were beginning to get outdated by the AACW times... armies deployed on 100 miles long trench lines were the new fashion! Ask Lee and Grant!

Not fortifing Washington or Richmond (or your moved capital) invites disaster from easy capture by your opponent. Forts allow even small/battered forces to hold key positions. The Confederate player cannot garrison all of their key ports with their limited forces and benefits greatly by using forts. Fortifing ports allows small garrisons to hold against a Federal invasion while a reaction force is sent to relieve the garrison.
A lot of problems players have in the game are due to inadequate garrisons of their rear areas.

[W.Barksdale]

Not fortifing Washington or Richmond (or your moved capital) invites disaster from easy capture by your opponent. Forts allow even small/battered forces to hold key positions. The Confederate player cannot garrison all of their key ports with their limited forces and benefits greatly by using forts. Fortifing ports allows small garrisons to hold against a Federal invasion while a reaction force is sent to relieve the garrison.
A lot of problems players have in the game are due to inadequate garrisons of their rear areas.

Just like Johnston relieving Pemberton at Vicksburg!

[Gray_Lensman]

<deleted>

[ShovelHead]

Just like Johnston relieving Pemberton at Vicksburg!

Pemberton should not have been in command at Vicksburg due to inexperience and Johnston was too timid.

"Pemberton fell back into the trenches of Vicksburg....Grant himself admitted after the war that he was very concerned about possibility of having one of his exterior points attacked by Johnston, and having Pemberton, with the luxury of moving on interior lines, come out and join the attack. And at that early date, Grant himself was vulnerable; should his defensive circle be cut in half, he would have faced the possibility of having to have his two halves of his forces fall in opposite directions for the Mississippi. An energetic Confederate commander would have the golden opportunity of destroying a major portion of Grant's army before the Union forces could reassemble."

http://www.cincinnaticwrt.org/data/ccwrt_history/talks_text/smith_johnston_pemberton.html

[Gray_Lensman]

My dearest Gray,

Let me blow off a little steam with people who might understand me. I'm trying to learn the game the best way I can and I spent HOURS today getting this little experiment to run.

If I'd have asked, "how do you build a fort?" do you really think anybody would take me terribly seriously? I know I wouldn't, because the question is answered it the manual and elsewhere. I don't need anybody to take me on the hand like a little child. I can read. If I can't find what I'm looking for, I ask.

I work in software support for one of the worlds major computer manufacturers. It irks me to no end when a customer it too lazy to open the manual and look for themselves. But if one comes and points out that something doesn't make sense to them I try to explain why it is the way it is. Sometimes the features a customer wants just aren't there. That's why we have a 'Request for Improvement'. And I've laughed with numerous frustrated customers about surprising discoveries and passed on a lot of RFIs.

But why do you find it so offensive that I point out things that are surprising or illogical to me?

I wanted to know what happened to the artillery that I had to collect to build a fortification. How do they compare to the Fortification Batteries that I've already encountered in the game? Does it make a difference if the artillery used is 6lb-er or 12lb-er or 10lb-er Parrotts or Rodmans?

Do you really think that I should have expected the artillery to be used-up like building material?

Just my $.02

Orso

Now my $.02

I'm not offended, just incredibly bored with the occasional newbie that thinks he can garner a better response to his questions about the game by posing them in such ways as to ridicule AGEod's game design. You're not the first to employ this approach nor will you be the last but as for me personally I don't think I'm going to bother responding and/or furnish any detailed database answers to such posts anymore.

In contrast to this post, DaemoneIsos' post (another recent newbie) at this link: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=15348 is a good example of someone really interested in finding out answers to game design issues without feeling the necessity to ridicule the game design itself.

[Captain_Orso]

Now my $.02

I'm not offended, just incredibly bored with the occasional newbie that thinks he can garner a better response to his questions about the game by posing them in such ways as to ridicule AGEod's game design. You're not the first to employ this approach nor will you be the last but as for me personally I don't think I'm going to bother responding and/or furnish any detailed database answers to such posts anymore.

In contrast to this post, DaemoneIsos' post (another recent newbie) at this link: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=15348 is a good example of someone really interested in finding out answers to game design issues without feeling the necessity to ridicule the game design itself.

This is the - what - third or fourth time that you've titled my critic and comments as ridicule, which is a derogatory remark. Then you say that I bore you. You ACT like you are personally attacked by my critic. And ACT like you speak for the 'veteran' community telling me the manner in which I have to approach this forum and threatening me with exclusion through ignoring. Those are all personal attacks, regardless of how emotionless you try to present them.

But you have yet to lose one word about the content of my critic other than to point me toward documentations that I had already listed as having known about and read.

If you feel personally attacked, then I'm sorry about that. But stop picking on me just because I don't present issues with the humbleness you expect.

[Gray_Lensman]

This is the - what - third or fourth time that you've titled my critic and comments as ridicule, which is a derogatory remark. Then you say that I bore you. You ACT like you are personally attacked by my critic. And ACT like you speak for the 'veteran' community telling me the manner in which I have to approach this forum and threatening me with exclusion through ignoring. Those are all personal attacks, regardless of how emotionless you try to present them.

But you have yet to lose one word about the content of my critic other than to point me toward documentations that I had already listed as having known about and read.

If you feel personally attacked, then I'm sorry about that. But stop picking on me just because I don't present issues with the humbleness you expect.

ah, okay, forget it... this thread isn't worth the effort nor time for me to waste on posting trivial database details. Search them out for yourself. Have a nice day!

[Big Ideas]

I think the level 1 forts represent the pre-war forts that where built after the War of 1812. As such they are much easier to breach- being outdated to modern artillery and ammo types. The level 2 forts represent modern forts that have only recently been made- using improved techniques of protection and siting. These forts are much harder to breach. The supply wagons and artillery units used in the construction can be recruited again as they appear in the force pool (F2)- so you can build as many forts as you want/can afford. So there isn't a blackhole for your arty. Though of course if you use arty from a state that has been over-run then those arty won't be able to purchased without risk of enemy occupying their city while still training.
I have played only as the CSA in 13 PBEM games and I don't build forts as I think they are a trap for your units inside. Once your forces surrender you are giving away heaps of NM. My experience is that the Union has enough troops to invest the fort and continue his advances. I try instead to use counter-moves to the Union offensives.

[enf91]

As George Scott, playing George Patton, said:
"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man. If the great mountains and oceans could be overcome, anything built by man can be overcome."
This is true. Someone who has to rely on forts probably doesn't have the resources to defend the fort properly and wage a formidable mobile warfare campaign. HOWEVER, as Banks showed in his fight against soundoff, while his fortress line was eventually breached, it took soundoff the better part of a year to do so.
This self-contradicting message has a one-line summary: To each his own.

[gchristie]

Never built a fort before...but Manstein made me a believer in the tournament final! Now as the Union player I build one in Washington, DC to prevent the quick grab by my opponent. And if by building that fort I avoid a quick loss, then an investment of four cheap batteries and some supply is money, etc. well spent.

Otherwise, I do not build them.

Never gave the rationale for how to build them much thought, as I tend to defer to the wisdom of the developers 'cause they're a heck of a lot smarter about such things than I!

Since I'm at it, this game is fantastic! Been playing it almost exclusively for 1+ year and feeling like I've gotten far more than my monies worth. Kudos, Team AGEOD and her merry band of pranksters, betas, coordinators, modders and such.

[Captain_Orso]

Hi Big Ideas,

Many thanks for your reply.

I think the level 1 forts represent the pre-war forts that where built after the War of 1812. As such they are much easier to breach- being outdated to modern artillery and ammo types. The level 2 forts represent modern forts that have only recently been made- using improved techniques of protection and siting. These forts are much harder to breach.

I believe I read somewhere that after Napoleon's siege of Viena, which was a massive fortress at the time, fortresses were no longer deemed to be of use. Forts can come in handy, I guess, at the right place and at the right time. But enf91 states above (thanks for your reply too enf91 ) with enough effort, they all fall.

The supply wagons and artillery units used in the construction can be recruited again as they appear in the force pool (F2)- so you can build as many forts as you want/can afford. So there isn't a blackhole for your arty.

Now that's something very interesting! How right you are. I just checked. The 4 6lb-er from Delaware that I used to build my test-fort are indeed right back in the build-pool where they started.

Though of course if you use arty from a state that has been over-run then those arty won't be able to purchased without risk of enemy occupying their city while still training.

Yes, don't you know. The very first Rodman that I dared to build, scratching the cost together was built in Lexington, Ky when I thought I had that area under control. The best laid plans of mice and men ... Right after they were on the map a CSA division rolled up and squashed my garrison and captured it like they could smell the metal cooling. leure:

So I dragged together what forces I could spare, determined to get that darn battery back. The CSA-Division just laughed my attacks off and then slipped away.

So I went and built two more, I'll-show-you-style. Darn thieven Rebs .

I have played only as the CSA in 13 PBEM games and I don't build forts as I think they are a trap for your units inside. Once your forces surrender you are giving away heaps of NM. My experience is that the Union has enough troops to invest the fort and continue his advances. I try instead to use counter-moves to the Union offensives.

But why would they surrender? From being besieged and running out of supplies?

I've yet to play the CSA, but from the situations where I've gotten a good rap on my knuckles as the USA I believe you are right. It allway seams that the CSA is so much more mobile.

[enf91]

During a siege, the game computes a "siege roll value" dependent on special abilities, existing breaches, artillery, and a few more things. If that value exceeds the average discipline of the defending troops, and the defenders have no supply wagons, they surrender.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Captain Orso:

The main advantage of a fort is the massive ZoC it creates. On the rare occasion I build one, that's a primary consideration. As Union, I'll use Gatling guns for heavy-duty point defense rather than a fort.

[Captain_Orso]

During a siege, the game computes a "siege roll value" dependent on special abilities, existing breaches, artillery, and a few more things. If that value exceeds the average discipline of the defending troops, and the defenders have no supply wagons, they surrender.

Hi enf91,

Ah, yes. Something that I read and have already forgotten for lack of encountering it.

Many thanks, I'll try to remember now.

[Big Ideas]

HOWEVER, as Banks showed in his fight against soundoff, while his fortress line was eventually breached, it took soundoff the better part of a year to do so.
.

We only got to see the glory side of forts in that AAR. Yes forts can do that job- assist in hold off larger forces for a while. And Soundoff tried to use his large numbers in storming the forts without prior breaches so his losses were hefty (Also Soundoff knew the game was close to ending and was probably trying to knock Banks out of the game instead of wearing him down- an option he would have taken if the turns were more regular). The game gives you (and takes from opponent) an average of 1NM for approx four elements destroyed. So a full sized division will yield ~4NM if destroyed. Once your forts are besieged their occupants can be worn down very quickly. Units under siege are unable to recover hits unless located in a city with a non-blockaded port. Cohesion recovery is penalised -1.5 per day if besieged. Units out of supply take 25% hits per turn and have big combat penatlies. Also while besieged you can take quiet a large number of hits from the besiegers if they aren't in passive mode and they have an artillery advantage. So while the number of breaches is increasing, the defender is taking losses, cohesion recovery is reduced, and supply will become harder to by. Often the defender can surrender without the attacker taking any losses if the besieger can wait that long. Or if the besieger storms the fort after it is breached the defenders are sufficiently weakened to make it a much easier attack. Also the units lost in a siege loss their leaders too.

[Topeka]

*I work in software support for one of the worlds major computer manufacturers. It irks me to no end when a customer it too lazy to open the manual and look for themselves.
Orso

I know I'm just pouring gasoline on the fire, but this is an IT support attitude that I find way too typical. All customers are treated with disdain, while the IT support, who don't earn a red cent for the company, ridicule the people who actually earn money just because only they have the special knowledge that you need to press function-F8 to get 2 monitors to work from one computer.

Sorry to hijack the thread. [/VENT]

[Captain_Orso]

I know I'm just pouring gasoline on the fire, but this is an IT support attitude that I find way too typical. All customers are treated with disdain, while the IT support, who don't earn a red cent for the company, ridicule the people who actually earn money just because only they have the special knowledge that you need to press function-F8 to get 2 monitors to work from one computer.

Sorry to hijack the thread. [/VENT]

LOL. Of course being in the industry, all the stories of long waits on hot-lines (they used to cost real money here in Germany, while you were just to listening to the on-hold-sound-track), tech-support 'gurus' who viewed any call as a disruption of their private-space, etc, etc.*

I think you're getting free tech-support for store-bought products, like a DSL-modem from Netgear, with with the major IT-industry. Companies like IBM and HP, just to name two, make a very large amount of their income through maintenance contract. I used to work for a hardware manufacturer that made more than the half of its income through service contracts. It is a very serious and competitive business and the big players are always trying to out-bid their competitors. Yes, you can buy maintenance for HP servers at IBM and the other way around.

Yes, you get calls sometimes from customers asking you, "how do I get two displays to work on my system". If it's in the manual under the heading of dual-monitors, and in the index under 'monitor, dual' and the section clearly states, "press F8 to activate a second monitor", it gets us support guys peeved, because all the customer had to do was open the manual and read for 10 minutes. Obviously this was too much trouble for him to do. This is not what tech-support is there for.

If however he looks in the manual and does what is written there and it doesn't work, or it is unclear what is meant (happens often enough) or it just isn't in the manual, we have no problem with helping the customer. That's what I'm there for.

And if the customer wants somebody to come by and install all his outstanding patches and reconfigure his system, that's consulting. Professional Services is there for that. But that's contract work, ie it get's paid by the hour or per order. But that's another story.

*I also know lots of stories and real-life anecdotes about DIUs (Dumbest Imaginable User). Ever here about the guy who's monitor doesn't work? It wasn't plugged in. I swear on my mother's grave, while I was technical assistant at a packaging plant, I got just such a call. We laughed our butts off after that.

[Schattensand]

Could it be, that you write a lot, without coming to the point.
Celebrating yourself wont help a lot, have the tendency too, so i know.

To me the caring in the forum seems extraordinary, but some posts will not be answered or in a way you may not like. Hm, if so - look at yourself first.

[Colonel Dreux]

Now my $.02

I'm not offended, just incredibly bored with the occasional newbie that thinks he can garner a better response to his questions about the game by posing them in such ways as to ridicule AGEod's game design. You're not the first to employ this approach nor will you be the last but as for me personally I don't think I'm going to bother responding and/or furnish any detailed database answers to such posts anymore.

In contrast to this post, DaemoneIsos' post (another recent newbie) at this link: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=15348 is a good example of someone really interested in finding out answers to game design issues without feeling the necessity to ridicule the game design itself.

You're too salty Gray. Nobody cares that certain posters bore you. If you have nothing good to say just ignore the post. Everyone respects the immense amount of work you've done, but you need to chill out and not take every little comment so seriously.

Allow people to have their opinions about the game.

[arsan]

You're too salty Gray. Nobody cares that certain posters bore you. If you have nothing good to say just ignore the post. Everyone respects the immense amount of work you've done, but you need to chill out and not take every little comment so seriously.

Allow people to have their opinions about the game.

C'mon guys!
Was really needed to bring back from the dead like this a two weeks old post ??
Are you bored too?? trying to pick fights or start flame wars??
Sorry, but i don't think your post offer anything positive to the discussion at hand, really.
I think you could also take note of your own advice and chill out too.
Or use the PM to offer personal attitude advices to other forum members.
Just my 0,2 cents

Cheers!

[Colonel Dreux]

C'mon guys!
Was really needed to bring back from the dead like this a two weeks old post ??
Are you bored too?? trying to pick fights or start flame wars??
Sorry, but i don't think your post offer anything positive to the discussion at hand, really.
I think you could also take note of your own advice and chill out too.
Or use the PM to offer personal attitude advices to other forum members.
Just my 0,2 cents

Cheers!

It's my opinion. My comment is not even heated. However, people need to be given room to have their say without being jumped on for being opinionated, disagreeable, or whatever.