Fort Monroe and Fort Pickens

[elxaime]

A question for the knowledgeable.

Usually a blockade or sufficient presence on a river prevents enemy movement. The two Union-held southern forts, Ft. Monroe and Ft. Pickens, are both in coastal water regions that can be blockaded by naval forces. However, in neither case does it appear that a Union naval presence (of any size) can prevent a Confederate land force from marching atop them to begin a siege/assault. Looks as if either can be taken by a CSA rail-borne force whenever they wish so I assume both are lost causes. Is this correct? Or is there some way of defending them that doesn't involve stationing a Corps there? Thanks.

[Captain_Orso]

I was on the Peninsula last year. I can assure you that ships on either or both sides can not hinder a force from marching from Richmond to Hampton in any way. It's just far to wide.

Neither fort can be reach by rail. The rail line from Richmond reaches only just past Richmond and the one "near" Pickens is actually quite far away with a swampy area between it and the fort.

Neither fort is actually that endangered as you assume. The South will have great difficulties keeping any force of size in supply on the Peninsula if the Union blockades the harbors along the Peninsula, both north and south. Even in summer very little supply will travel up the swampy terrain. The same goes for Pickens, even if the CS puts a depot in the town north of Pickens.

Which is not to say that it cannot be done. It's been done to me on Pickens a number of times, and maybe once or twice on Monroe. But if you have reinforced either fort and keep them in supply and are prepared to provide reinforcements should they need them you should be able to hold out in either indefinitely unless the South is prepared to besiege with a huge force and assault taking heavy losses in doing so. I would also say that if the South were able to blockade either fort, they would fall rather quickly.

If any fort is besieged and starts taking hits, you must add artillery to the forts defenses. This will prevent further hits and may allow you to actually repair some already taken.

In general no position is completely unassailable. It's only a question of the cost.

[GraniteStater]

Athena has both of these on the brain. How much depends on the particular game instance.

Essentially, Athena has a very hard time distinguishing between Keeping an Eye on Things and Holy Mackerel, Attack! It's too bad, because you can be tromping down I-64 with five Corps to Richmond and she'll still have 2250 Pwr camped at Monroe.

Pickens is a little justifiable. If the Union (human) player doesn't put a goodly amount in Pickens, she will most happily put a Corps there and take it. After much experience, I put no more than a Div there, maybe 350 Pwr. If she wants it that bad, she can have it - I'll eat the Div. Losing Pickens is annoying, but not a Big Deal.

Monroe is a Huge Deal, IMO, although you can live without it, it's not a back-breaker, just Extremely Inconvenient. I'd rather have it than not. I will tussle over Monroe, myself, but that's me.

[Captain_Orso]

Yes, you could say, Athena can be obsessed with Monroe and Pickens. But I've given her a new obsession for a while now; Norfolk.

And maybe I'm a little like her in that respect ; I can't leave Norfolk empty when I know I can keep it to myself . First, the Marines go in (The Marines - OF COURRRRRSE!) and then the Washington Brigade with Shields. Then just reinforce and fortify and watch as Athena does the Monroe-Hop onto Norfolk.

She almost got it once, she assaulted and killed all my infantry, but I still had several batteries punching back and reinforcements were already on the way.

While Johnston sat on Norfolk, knocking incessantly on his own back door, McDowell was on the front porch peaking through the curtains. Of course, spying Granny-Lee in his frillies he didn't dare knock **

One thing that has been common, both at Norfolk and Pickens, once Athena has earned a bloody nose, she didn't assault again, nor do anything else. And since she so nicely pulled a large force from the field just to sit on my steps and pine * *, how could I send her away.

Eventually, with my disrupting Richmond and supplies, Johnston ran out of them and back to Richmond to get off her Norfolk-Potato-Diet. She never took a step toward Monroe, but is still sitting on Pickens, also just waiting, and I have no idea what she's waiting on.

Personally I think if Athena took Fort Monroe, Washington, Annapolis and Baltimore should suffer from being blockaded, just like Richmond and Norfolk. I'm not sure if they are. If it were so, it would make Ft Monroe a great strategic goal for Athena. Of course, again, she may have to neglect protecting Richmond to viably attack Ft Monroe, and that might not really be possible.

[GlobalExplorer]

I have noticed that too, Athena attacks Pickens turn after turn with little result.

And I have questions about the value of the two forts.

1. Does Southern control of Monroe mean that no US supply can flow in and out of Chesapeake Bay? Not that it is that important, but I always thought that this is something no Union player would want to happen.

2. Isn't the capture of the naval guns worth it alone? The key of course is that the Forts are taken, not only attacked without payback. But I have attacked other Forts before (Fort Fisher imo is very important), and with a force strength >1000, marines, siege artillery, supply, the garrison usually capitulates in a few turns. I could then move the naval guns from Pickens to somewhere where they really hurt the Union (Paducah, Fort Henry, ..). Within a few months I can have both the forts and free naval guns for Mississipi / Ohio.
Do you think this is worth it or not?

[Ol' Choctaw]

1. Perhaps it should but it does not effect any Union Cities to lose it. What it does is free up all of the CSA port that are reduced by scripted effects.

2. Capturing the guns is very hit and miss. Usually they are gone when you do take it but it is at a serious investment in troops and time. Pickens is the same. Most of the time just building troops in the area is enough for the AI to start building up the garrison.

[Captain_Orso]

I have noticed that too, Athena attacks Pickens turn after turn with little result.

And I have questions about the value of the two forts.

1. Does Southern control of Monroe mean that no US supply can flow in and out of Chesapeake Bay? Not that it is that important, but I always thought that this is something no Union player would want to happen.

No, navel supply does not follow a path per se, it "jumps" from coastal-harbor-to-coastal-harbor. This is basically also why one used to be able to blockade Richmond only from the James River region and not James Estuary nor Hampton Road. Now it is blockaded from Hampton Roads too, but that is specifically hard coded as an additional blockade region.

Hampton Road could be hard coded to also blockade Washington, Annapolis and Baltimore, but I believe that would only affect production and not navel supply being shipped into those harbors, but I may be wrong about that last part.

2. Isn't the capture of the naval guns worth it alone? The key of course is that the Forts are taken, not only attacked without payback. But I have attacked other Forts before (Fort Fisher imo is very important), and with a force strength >1000, marines, siege artillery, supply, the garrison usually capitulates in a few turns. I could then move the naval guns from Pickens to somewhere where they really hurt the Union (Paducah, Fort Henry, ..). Within a few months I can have both the forts and free naval guns for Mississipi / Ohio.
Do you think this is worth it or not?

If you assault a fort, there is a small chance of capturing equipment. If you besiege a force into surrender they will destroy all "heavy" equipment before surrendering. You will not get any artillery nor supply trains etc.

If I'm the Union, since there is only a small chance at actually capturing coastal artillery, if I actually needed it somewhere the time it takes to put a force together, land it on the fort, besiege, wait for surrender or breech before assaulting, then transporting the coastal away from the fort and to where I need it is so great, I'd just buy the artillery.

Generally I use Rodman's instead of coastal, because a. they don't cost nearly as much, and b. they fight navel quite well, but also land units. Coastal only fire on navel targets.

[Captain_Orso]

I have noticed that too, Athena attacks Pickens turn after turn with little result.

And I have questions about the value of the two forts.

1. Does Southern control of Monroe mean that no US supply can flow in and out of Chesapeake Bay? Not that it is that important, but I always thought that this is something no Union player would want to happen.

No, navel supply does not follow a path per se, it "jumps" from coastal-harbor-to-coastal-harbor. This is basically also why one used to be able to blockade Richmond only from the James River region and not James Estuary nor Hampton Road. Now it is blockaded from Hampton Roads too, but that is specifically hard coded as an additional blockade region.

Hampton Road could be hard coded to also blockade Washington, Annapolis and Baltimore, but I believe that would only affect production and not navel supply being shipped into those harbors, but I may be wrong about that last part.

2. Isn't the capture of the naval guns worth it alone? The key of course is that the Forts are taken, not only attacked without payback. But I have attacked other Forts before (Fort Fisher imo is very important), and with a force strength >1000, marines, siege artillery, supply, the garrison usually capitulates in a few turns. I could then move the naval guns from Pickens to somewhere where they really hurt the Union (Paducah, Fort Henry, ..). Within a few months I can have both the forts and free naval guns for Mississipi / Ohio.
Do you think this is worth it or not?

If you assault a fort, there is a small chance of capturing equipment. If you besiege a force into surrender they will destroy all "heavy" equipment before surrendering. You will not get any artillery nor supply trains etc.

If I'm the Union, since there is only a small chance at actually capturing coastal artillery, if I actually needed it somewhere the time it takes to put a force together, land it on the fort, besiege, wait for surrender or breech before assaulting, then transporting the coastal away from the fort and to where I need it is so great, I'd just buy the artillery.

Generally I use Rodman's instead of coastal, because a. they don't cost nearly as much, and b. they fight navel quite well, but also land units. Coastal only fire on navel targets.

[GlobalExplorer]

On further inspection, I agree with you. I realized diverting the 1000-stack I need for Pickens is not nearly as easy as it was with the Union.
I would also need some two and one star generals, siege artillery and transport ships. With the Union it was easy to "pre-produce" huge stacks (Massachussetts for example) and ship them to any fort I liked.
With the CSA it takes time and resources that I need elsewhere.
Instead, I'm currently spamming the seas with blockade runners, that seems to work out.

What actually happens with money from sunk shipping? At the moment the figure is excessively high (currently 40-50 per turn). I wonder if it is just subtracted from the Union income or if it also benefits me directly.

[Captain_Orso]

No, the Union losses 1 WSU and $5. The CSA gains nothing directly from it.

[GlobalExplorer]

Ok. But why 1 WSU and $5? The event log said I destroyed 46$ and x WS

[Captain_Orso]

Ah, okay. We were talking about 2 different things. Your talking about the affects of having raiders in the shipping lanes. I know the Union losses the amount of income you've noted, but I'm not sure that the South is gaining it.

Check the tool-tip for money and WSU. You may be able to recognize such an income there.

At one time I'm fair certain that the South didn't gain any of that in income, but that was a while ago and it might have changed.

[GraniteStater]

I think you're right, Cap - the CSA sinks $$ & WS, but gains nothing from the action.

[Captain_Orso]

From having just read something in the beta-forum, I believe the values of WSU and money in the message in the mail-box may also be greatly inflated; by between 5 and 10x.

I'm not sure if the South should actually (historically) be making gains from raiding. The few raiders that were out there were not capturing ships and then sailing them to port and selling them and their cargo. But goods that had great value compared to size and wight, such as gold and currency, medicine, weapons, were certainly taken from board before ships were sunk.