Fort Pickens

[wosung]

So, what are Union player doing about Fort Pickens, esp. playing against the AI?

It seems that the AI often (?!) targets Fort Pickens with 1k-2k Mississppi forces no matter what's going on up North in Memphis or Vicksburg. Even a 700 cv Div with a engineer trait commander can't hold it for ever.

Throwing good money after bad?

Best regards

[PhilThib]

One way to "solve" the matter would be to lower the attractivity of Ft Pickens for the AI

[veji1]

Can you change attractivity of certain objectives based on the season ? It would be great to see the Union AI go for more coastal invasions in winter when the fronts are static, and the CSA AI go for Fort Pickens etc at the same moment in time.

[PhilThib]

This is feasible, it's handled via events

[wosung]

Well, a change in AI attraction of Ft. Pickens probably shouldn't be initiated based one guys *opinion*. So I'd rather wanna hear from other players experience.

Besides, is there a better way to protect Ft. Pickens. Or, generally, coastal/river Fts.? Even if supply is NOT blockaded, apparently, if the besieger is willing to spend enough men, ressources and time, he'll get those Fts. anyway. Like in RL.

As Union player, a division seems to be not enough for defense. I suspect, even a weak corps INSIDE the Ft. wouldn't help. So your options would be either placing a divsion inside (and evacuating it before X breeches) or having a full corps outside the Ft.
Anyway, against the AI this lone division was enough to distract some 1k-2k CV Southern forces from Memphis and Vicksburg acting as matador's cape. If it would have be coming from the North instead its impact wouldn't be that big.

Best regards

[ulysses]

One thing would be having a watershed between the Fort and the main land: It always bother me as Unsion-player, that I have enough ships in the sea to blockaed the ports, but the troops are able to cross it should be as with the rivers.

The second thing would be to make Fort Pickens - as Fort Monroe - not so attraktiv for the AI of the rebs to concentrate troops.

[wosung]

At least, apparently AGEOD has toned down the AI attraction of Ft. Monroe. In AACW 1 Southern AI loved to concentrate its forces over there...

[veji1]

One thing would be having a watershed between the Fort and the main land: It always bother me as Unsion-player, that I have enough ships in the sea to blockaed the ports, but the troops are able to cross it should be as with the rivers.

The second thing would be to make Fort Pickens - as Fort Monroe - not so attraktiv for the AI of the rebs to concentrate troops.

+1 to the whole reply :
- If you are faced with an ennemy who has naval supremacy, how on earth are you supposed to be able to get to a fort that is really far down a sandy peninsula ? There should be a distinction between some forts that were built on the coast and those where a real body of water has to be crossed, ie fort sumter or fort pickens. in that case make the harbour zone the equivalent of a major river would be great, if codable.
- CSA ai should only try to block the forts already in Union possession during normal months and only go for them in the winter when there are troops to spare because of a static front.

[charlesonmission]

Fort Jefferson (Dry Tortuga) is an island.... same would apply there. Assuming it is in CW2 like AACW.

+1 to the whole reply :
- If you are faced with an ennemy who has naval supremacy, how on earth are you supposed to be able to get to a fort that is really far down a sandy peninsula ? There should be a distinction between some forts that were built on the coast and those where a real body of water has to be crossed, ie fort sumter or fort pickens. in that case make the harbour zone the equivalent of a major river would be great, if codable.
- CSA ai should only try to block the forts already in Union possession during normal months and only go for them in the winter when there are troops to spare because of a static front.