Who's afraid of the Big Bad Harbor Forts?

[GraniteStater]

Not me.

Just an aside from some current posts - regardless of other concerns, such as cost effectiveness, etc., this is to report that my experience with running the harbor forts for Blockade ports has been encouraging. My standard Up Close fleet is a Blockade flotilla and two Brig units for twelve elements [8 + (2 x 2)]. Add a TP.

They haven't been hurt all that much and, especially with a TP, can stay on station a surprisingly long time, Turn after Turn after Turn.

Just want to let folks know. This is based on three PbeM's observations, two current.

[Krec1]

Funny you posted this. I kinda play it the same way. never hurts to add a few extra ships TP to any Blockade, i hate having to switch out or go to port to resupply. The Union can do the extra stuff and really not have to worry about he cost.

[GraniteStater]

my first fan

[vicberg]

Starting Union builds plus freebies are usually fine, though building more doesn't hurt. The issue is the under-powered coastal batteries. I know this because I'm working on a MOD for WON (shameless plug for it).

[GraniteStater]

It's a good mod, I'm enjoying it.

[vicberg]

Thanks! It's still work in progress and will be adding more as time goes on.

[Cardinal Ape]

Ya, coastal forts do surprisingly little damage. Its the big entrenched armies you gotta worry about sailing past.

But why are you sailing past the forts to induce a blockade when you could just capture the fort and have it induce the blockade?

[GraniteStater]

*shhh!*

I'm hunting wabbits.

* * *

*after no one gets Elmer Fudd allusion*

To answer your question, uh, didn't build enough yet? Couldn't spare the Amphib EF up to this point. Plus, I've discovered something about large seaborne invasions: you really need two TP fleets. One to land the guys and stick around, just in case, and a second one to go pick up more guys to reinforce and expand.

[Gray Fox]

Most of the coastal forts have two batteries of guns. I split these into two stacks inside each fort. Each stack gets a separate chance to fire and cause damage.

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Bombard_and_Blockade

[vicberg]

Good idea, but the damage will be halved. Still comes down to batteries being under-powered. They should have greater range than ships (because of higher vantage point, more stable firing platform and game balance, if for no other reason) and do more damage. This would slow up Union invasions. The Union did invade constantly throughout the war, but I believe CW2 makes it a bit too easy. The Union needs to incur losses *multiple* ships and incur high damage to remaining ships. This would force the Union player to build more ships and spend more on ship replacements. In other words, it would force more strategic level decision making. Do I go the invasion route and I am FORCED to build ships and ship replacements or do I stay with overland and the Rebs no longer have to do major garrisons of the coastal areas.

I think this is a somewhat major gap in the game right now. I'm tempted to MOD the coastal batteries (which would be simple simple simple compared to what I've done in WON, another shameless plug for the MOD...:cool I've invaded in 2 locations in the south. I've lost maybe 2-4 ships total in 2 invasions past 4 forts (both invasions into areas protected by multiple dual forts, see my AAR....another shameless plug..:blink . After these invasions, my fleet is fine. I've only built 2 monitors and nothing else for the Atlantic side of the game. This shouldn't really be happening IMO. The rest of this game for the most part seems to be spot on, with maybe the exception of supply/ammo being transported past enemy forts, but I don't think I can do anything about that. It's built into the engine.

[Gray Fox]

I believe that the damage is maxed at 50 per stack battery, from the link. So two may do 100.

[Jerzul]

Good idea, but the damage will be halved. Still comes down to batteries being under-powered. They should have greater range than ships (because of higher vantage point, more stable firing platform and game balance, if for no other reason) and do more damage. This would slow up Union invasions. The Union did invade constantly throughout the war, but I believe CW2 makes it a bit too easy. The Union needs to incur losses *multiple* ships and incur high damage to remaining ships. This would force the Union player to build more ships and spend more on ship replacements. In other words, it would force more strategic level decision making. Do I go the invasion route and I am FORCED to build ships and ship replacements or do I stay with overland and the Rebs no longer have to do major garrisons of the coastal areas.

I think this is a somewhat major gap in the game right now. I'm tempted to MOD the coastal batteries (which would be simple simple simple compared to what I've done in WON, another shameless plug for the MOD...:cool I've invaded in 2 locations in the south. I've lost maybe 2-4 ships total in 2 invasions past 4 forts (both invasions into areas protected by multiple dual forts, see my AAR....another shameless plug..:blink . After these invasions, my fleet is fine. I've only built 2 monitors and nothing else for the Atlantic side of the game. This shouldn't really be happening IMO. The rest of this game for the most part seems to be spot on, with maybe the exception of supply/ammo being transported past enemy forts, but I don't think I can do anything about that. It's built into the engine.

I agree in part and disagree in part.

First, there are many instances in the war where emplaced batteries were wholly ineffective in preventing the movement of ships past their guns (see Vicksburg and the forts on the mouth of the Mississippi). On the other hand, the three forts of Charleston would have demolished any union ships trying to get past them and when the Vicksburg guns did hit ships, they were to great effect. The games' biggest issue here is that the forts do not fire on stationary targets. So once your fleet is through they do not bombard even if they are sitting in the harbor blockading. I think this is hard coded so there is not much to do about that.

I don't know if it is possible, but is there a way to increase damage versus a specific target? IE make emplaced artillery have a higher damage rating versus ships?

Or just do as Vicberg suggests and up the power of Coastal artillery, that would probably help.

[vicberg]

I'm not following you. I've not seen damaged maxed out anywhere. Rate of Fire, Rolls to hit affected by various factors and then damage done.

This is what a coastal does

Range = 9
DmgDone = 5
CohDone = 15

As compared to a steam frigate which does

Range = 8
DmgDone = 3
CohDone = 10


IMO, not enough differentiation.

[vicberg]

I agree in part and disagree in part.

First, there are many instances in the war where emplaced batteries were whole ineffective in preventing the movement of ships past their guns (see Vicksburg and the forts on the mouth of the Mississippi). On the other hand, the three forts of Charleston would have demolished any union ships trying to get past them and when the Vicksburg guns did hit ships, they were to great effect. The games' biggest issue here is that the forts do not fire on stationary targets. So once your fleet is through they do not bombard even if they are sitting in the harbor blockading. I think this is hard coded so there is not much to do about that.

I don't know if it is possible, but is there a way to increase damage versus a specific target? IE make emplaced artillery have a higher damage rating versus ships?

Or just do as Vicberg suggests and up the power of Coastal artillery, that would probably help.

Built within the Regions (using a tool, forget the name, not user friendly) is the ability to specify regions as "straits", and forts may bombard if ships move into the region (because of the narrow area involved). It's used in combination of turning OFF forts bombarding passing ships which I think is somewhat silly since ships passing WAY out of range of coastal guns can get hammered if you aren't careful setting movement orders.

I haven't gone far enough to see if the forts do NOT bombard within the "straits" region if you simply stop in that region. My understanding is that they still fire because the strait is within the region and the ships are moving into it. I'd have to check that.

But this functionality could be used, in combination with turning off "forts firing at passing ships" to specify effective vs. ineffective forts. For Charelston, make it a strait and upgrade the coast batteries, possibly the to hit roll and if that isn't enough, add more batteries. The problem is that there's ONE dice roll for the coastal battery (two if you follow grey fox approach). The fleet has 20 rolls.

[Gray Fox]

From the Wiki link:

"bmbMaxHitsDoneByLand = 50 // How many hit points can be done by Land units against a fleet "

So one attacker can do 50 hits of damage maximum. Two attackers...(?)

If you pass three forts, then obviously you get pounded from three groups of guns. So two groups of guns in one fort would follow the same rule of thumb.

P.S. also this line from the same link:

"bmbMaxHitsDoneByNav = 25 // the reverse "

Which indicates that the fleet with 20 rolls can only do 25 points of damage in return. It's not clear if it would do 50 against my fort.

[vicberg]

Yes, just searched CW2 directories. Not being used.

[vicberg]

Nope, found it

bmbMaxHitsDoneByLand = 40
bmbMaxHitsDoneByNav = 40

My guess is it's max hits for the entire combat. Naval units have the same limitation in GameLogic.opt. The issue is that a coastal has 12 hits. A steam frigate has 20 hits. Penetration for a steam frigate is 3. Protection for a coastal gun is 5.

The other issue to keep in mind is that when the fleet gets 20 rolls, it may have a limit of 40 damage done, but no limit on cohesion done. So in a situation where the fleet is rolling 20+ times against the forts and the forts are rolling 2 times against the fleet, long before damage comes into play cohesion loss will stop the combat, unless there's another fort specific rule I'm unaware of.

The above limit hampers those sea zones covered by 2-3 forts.

This would definitely have to be played with for game balancing.

[GraniteStater]

Yes, let's 'balance' this puppy even more. Why, by the time we get it right, the Union might have a shot at actually winning - by Early April of 1965.

[Gray Fox]

Here's a thread I found where Captain Orso also mentions the max of 50 hits:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?35707-predicting-fort-bombardment&highlight=bombarding+ships+cw2+captain+orso

In a different thread, he mentions that a player might put a Supply Unit in an important coastal fort for the 10% combat bonus.

[vicberg]

Thanks Fox,

That's an interesting read. I'm wondering now if forts got nerfed somehow along the evolution of this game? That thread implies that fort bombardment can be brutal, however, my experience and GraniteStater experience is that forts don't do much.

Granite, you are thinking CSA has too much of an advantage already? Union has too much of an advantage?

[GraniteStater]

Let me expound - if I have it right, CSA coastal arty didn't do a great job of hitting moving targets. When the USN felt uppity and wanted to slug it out, the CSA did much better.

But go ahead, make every southern harbor and river fort a Point of Doom. Let's have Fortress Australasis, shall we? Sure, give the CSA a free river fleet to reflect that southern domination on the Tennessee and Mississippi in 1861 that's been so well recorded. Give them a 5-5-4 admiral to command it (who the heck was he again? Oh, yeah, forgot, he's really stood out in all the reading I've done...). Make sure that Union Replacements are late and hungry, because the Wiki has some comment about 'the Union didn't replace in the field'. Maybe that wasn't their method, but it's not like that marvelous administrative machinery of the Confederacy, again, so well attested to, performed weekly miracles at getting fully equipped, trained and supplied fresh levies to the front.

You want facts? The entire industrial production of the South in 1860 was one-third of New York (the state). There's a little old river mill in Rollinsford, NH, about five miles from me, that produced 1/4 of all blankets for the US Army in the war. That's one mill in one small town in New Hampshire.

Shelby Foote: "The North fought that war with one arm tied behind its back. Harvard students were sculling on the Charles in 1864. If the South had won more victories - and I mean a lot more - the North would have taken that other arm out. They really had no chance to win that war."

I think he was right. As long as the Union wished to fight it, the disparity in resources was going to tell - brilliant leadership and grim resolve can only do so much - yes, throughout history, those two human factors have retrieved many dark hours. Still, a cannonball doesn't care about your fighting spirit. Morale may be to material as three to one, but you still have to have the wherewithal to fight.

The Romans were annihilated at Cannae and Hannibal stayed in southern Italy for fifteen years. The Romans just raised more armies, they had the sinews of war - money. IIRC, they teach Latin in school, not Punic.

The game has been designed to give the CSA a chance, using historical Southern strengths. There's a bit of ahistorical tweaking that's been done, mostly for playability. Mostly, it's well modelled and reflective of the time (the strength of a good defensive position, for instance).

Myself, I would like to see local blockades imposed by parking off the mouths of rivers, etc. That's not the rule, though.

Go ahead, make darn sure the Union doesn't have any levers at all. Reduce the Union strategy to Build 14 Times as Many Guys as the Other Side and just march south. Hey, that's fun, I wanna play that game.

[GraniteStater]

Thanks Fox,

That's an interesting read. I'm wondering now if forts got nerfed somehow along the evolution of this game? That thread implies that fort bombardment can be brutal, however, my experience and GraniteStater experience is that forts don't do much.

Granite, you are thinking CSA has too much of an advantage already? Union has too much of an advantage?

Nah, it's pretty fair. I have a couple of gripes, but's it's eminently playable. I had to work hard to beat havi narrowly in 1.03 and never did win a PbeM in AACW (0-4, once as the CSA in an inherited game).

[vicberg]

LOL,

Games are always a trade off of accuracy vs. play. I'd personally like to see a greater choice posed to the Union, which is to focus on coastal invasions (requiring more ships builds, etc.) vs. land army and overland attacks. Right now, I can do both without a thought.

However, I understand what you are saying. I've got my hands full with WON right now anyway. If I were to do anything, it would be to bump up coastal (in various ways), and reduce the CSA in other ways, such as the free river fleet. The goal isn't to eliminate Union ability to invade, but rather to slow it up. It would have to be balanced by nerfing CSA in other ways. That free 5-6 river ironclads is something I've always found questionable. I forgot about the Horatio Nelson wanna be for the CSA.

[vicberg]

But go ahead, make every southern harbor and river fort a Point of Doom.

I've got to respond to this. It would never be one-sided. The point is to increase damage on the fleet, to force more of a choice for the Union, not to create an impregnable fortress, though Charleston should be a spot that is rarely invaded directly for obvious reasons. When I lose 4 ships (or less) invading New Orleans and Mobile, both covered by dual forts, I can immediately see that something is off. I'd expect losing much more and having to replace much more. And IF I do anything, it would be done with game balance in mind, so the CSA would be nerfed in some way.

[GraniteStater]

When I lose 4 ships (or less) invading New Orleans and Mobile, both covered by dual forts, I can immediately see that something is off.

Why? Farragut barely got his hair mussed, really. The Turns are two weeks - Farragut ran the entrance to the Mississippi at night and a two week Turn can be said to incorporate that.

The South didn't do really good at moving targets. The USN kindly parking and dueling it out was more favorable to Southern tastes.

A-ha! you might say, what about the fleets in the harbors? Well, I could guess is the relative invulnerability demonstrated reflects vessels moving about...yeah, it's kinda weak, but what can I say? I would think a full block by sitting at the entrances would be justified, but I didn't get the email for the development meetings.

[vicberg]

Because all great games force agonizing choices. Union doesn't have to worry about a vital aspect of the war, building ships. They have plenty to begin with. Build them if you want, but IMO, a waste.

Imagine a scenario where 1) Coastal batteries were improved, not creating a fortress CSA America, but doing more damage and making invasions more costly. 2) The CSA imaginary river fleet isn't there, or is maybe down to 1 ironclad and a "normal" CSA Admiral, with CSA starting money/WSU is increased accordingly. The CSA receives more powerful forts and loses the imaginary fleet (or most of it). I'm not even talking about using strait-block to determine effective forts vs. ineffective forts. Simple change to the coastal battery model and a removal of the CSA ironclad fleet/bump up of starting assets. Maybe 1 hour of work.

What would this do strategically? Not sure until I've had a chance to play test, but it's a pretty good guess that it would force more choices for both sides. Will the CSA build up their river fleet or invest in more coastal batteries/garrisons for their forts along the river or simply keep building troops? Will there be a higher priority in defending these forts as it's the only true prevention of a Union dominated Mississippi? Does the Union invest in ships (river and sea) for invasions or build up the land army?

IMO, a bit more historical while preserving the existing game balance. But who knows? There's limitations within the game engine that affect every AGEOD game, so it will never be fully historical and there's no way to determine game balance until it's tested out. Worth doing? No idea.

[GraniteStater]

Worth doing, as you described it.

[Cardinal Ape]

The games' biggest issue here is that the forts do not fire on stationary targets. So once your fleet is through they do not bombard even if they are sitting in the harbor blockading. I think this is hard coded so there is not much to do about that.

I'd agree with that. Though the game does provide a way to damage stationary fleets with the sea mine and submarine RGD's.

Maybe the CSA could use more of these cards? I'm not a big fan of these cards affecting NM - I'd rather see them do more damage without the NM gain. Alternatively, a new bombard card could be created. I'd think it would be rather easy to do.

Copy the sumbarine RGD, add a check for adjacent artillery, and then simulate a normal bombardment?
Maybe something like: AlterCuSubUnit = ApplyToList;Attempts 20;Probability 35;ChgHealthPerc -50;ChgCohesionPerc -50

[ArmChairGeneral]

I think the stationary target thing feels clunky in play, but is kind of justified, at least in sea zones. No captain would ever sail his ship into the range of shore based guns without a specific military objective (like supporting an amphibious assault or bombardment). Artillery ranges are miniscule compared to the size of the ocean. There is a lot of sea-room in the average coastal water tile that wouldn't be within range of land based artillery, (like almost all of it) more than enough to establish a blockade safely.

Viewed in this way, it is pretty unrealistic that a coastal fort would get to fire on a passing or blockading fleet AT ALL, but the mechanic fits a lot better for river bombardment, where emplaced artillery certainly could cover the entire passage. OTOH, the stationary target thing is a bit stickier when it comes to rivers, it would be harder to blockade a river harboer without coming under the guns at least some. The existing mechanic, abstracted as it is, at least meets a middle ground: coastals get to bombard some (despite the fact that they shouldn't get to much at all) balanced by river emplacements only getting to bombard twice (you usually get to bombard again on the exit).

I think in terms of balance that the worst tweaks to make would be to hits. Naval hits are extremely expensive, and even adding to hits by a fractional amount would nerf Union blockade strategies to the point of unplayability (IMO they are already only break-even cost effective at best) and it is clear the designers wanted blockading to be a thing. While I think it would be cool to have a way to affect brownblocks, increasing damage to the fleet sounds too unbalancing.

Is there a way to mod the number of ships required to blockade a specific harbor on the fly? It would be cool to have an RGD like "Harbor Defenses" that increased the number of ships needed to blockade, (like the way adding emplaced artillery does) giving you the ability (or maybe just a chance to) raise the number of ships needed to blockade a harbor for a period of time. I am envisioning a chain as the icon. That could temporarily break a brownblock without costing the other side an unbalancing amount of resources. Maybe better flavoring than "Harbor Defenses" would be to change the current (mostly useless) "Blockade Runner" to this effect, and then you wouldn't even have to add a graphic. Balance could be achieved by adjusting the refresh and length of effect so that it would be worth playing but not a panacea.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I am pretty convinced that brownblocking is superior to blueblocking. You directly affect production in the blockaded region(s), and depending on which harbor it is you also add to the overall blockade % affecting all enemy harbors. On top of this you derive some direct military benefits (intel obviously, but others as well) simply from the forward position. Yes, you run the risk of suffering expensive to replace hits, but forts don't deal that much damage relative to the size of a blockade squadron, especially considering you have some chance of avoiding the bombardment altogether. Brownblocks need relatively small fleets compared to an equivalent effect achieved via blueblocking, depending on what you are blockading, and can often be established using cheaper ships like gunboats and brigs (although then hits become a bigger problem).

Absent sandbox testing showing that the average hits incurred is a greater cost than the effect you get, I am inclined to think that direct Union blockades of cities like Charleston and Savannah are more effective than putting the same fleet into the blockade box.