Shore bombardment

[Sean E]

February 1863 and Jackson’s Corps in Fauquier, VA is bombarded by Farragut’s fleet from the Potomac and suffers 385 hits!
Next turn Farragut returns and dishes out another 239 hits to Jackson troops nearly wiping them out. Also D.H.Hills division cops 178 hits.

Now to me that sounds way too much damage given the technology of the naval units of that time. The CSA units were entrenched, though I’m not sure if that gives more or less protection in this case? Still the losses were 2 divisions and a few brigades worth which would not be possible. Do the shore bombardment values against troops need to be toned down?

[Hobbes]

Do you have the latest 1.06d patch installed? I'm very surprised to see losses that high!

Cheers, Chris

[Pocus]

Send me the saved game please.

[jhdeerslayer]

I'm in a PBEM where my Union opponent is constantly shelling my Norfolk units with the result being using up my much needed replacements I can't afford to use. I have to move my units just to avoid this.

All seems a little gamey and not right to me.

Maybe there's a way to decide what units do or do not get replacements.

[Hobbes]

Idea removed as I thought of a flaw.
Please ignore.

[runyan99]

I'm starting to think that the interaction between land infantry/guns and fleets should be removed completely, except for forces which are either 1) in a fort or 2) in a city.

This would remove the problem of fleets doing Iwo Jima bombardments on the infantry in the Norfolk region, and the problem of entreched infantry divisions acting like forts which are equally capable of defending against land assault and interdicting rivers at the same time.

I think it's fair to assume that any force which is not in a fort or a city is officially 'inland', and is not in danger from 19th century naval guns.

[Nial]

I'm starting to think that the interaction between land infantry/guns and fleets should be removed completely, except for forces which are either 1) in a fort or 2) in a city.

This would remove the problem of fleets doing Iwo Jima bombardments on the infantry in the Norfolk region, and the problem of entreched infantry divisions acting like forts which are equally capable of defending against land assault and interdicting rivers at the same time.

I think it's fair to assume that any force which is not in a fort or a city is officially 'inland', and is not in danger from 19th century naval guns.

*nod* The rule of thumb up to this time period was that shore installations had the advantage against naval units. ( stable platform vs. moving one. Option to use heated shot. Capability to have much larger guns. ) It isn't like the Missouri is off shore with it's 16" guns ya know. In fact it was common for ships at anchor for repairs to move just one or two long nines to a headland for an impromtu shore battery. Those two guns would be enough to ward off all but the most serious of attackers due to the first two advantages stated above. Throwing ironclads into the mix changes things a bit. But the basic premise is unchanged.

Nial

[PBBoeye]

I'm starting to think that the interaction between land infantry/guns and fleets should be removed completely, except for forces which are either 1) in a fort or 2) in a city.

This would remove the problem of fleets doing Iwo Jima bombardments on the infantry in the Norfolk region, and the problem of entreched infantry divisions acting like forts which are equally capable of defending against land assault and interdicting rivers at the same time.

I think it's fair to assume that any force which is not in a fort or a city is officially 'inland', and is not in danger from 19th century naval guns.

Total agreement here. Would like to see the capacity either severely diminished or removed completely.

[KillCalvalry]

If it's PBEM, why not have a house rule on that; that Naval units can bombard FORTS, and that's it. Maybe that is a bit restrictive, but the real-life cases of bombardments being decisive were all centered on Forts.

[runyan99]

If it's PBEM, why not have a house rule on that; that Naval units can bombard FORTS, and that's it. Maybe that is a bit restrictive, but the real-life cases of bombardments being decisive were all centered on Forts.

That's not workable, because any land guns entrenched at the 5+ level will automatically attempt to interdict naval traffic.

[Spharv2]

I wouldn't mind the interaction being restricted a bit, but to remove it completely would be almost as silly as having entire divisions wiped out. How about naval guns can support land units which are in a defensive posture, but not offensive? After all, the only reason Lee didn't continue the Seven Days battles was because the AoP had reached the shelter of the naval guns that could support the defense. The attack at Malvern hill was launched mainly as a last ditch effort to stop McClellan from retreating under those guns.

This would remove the simple bombardment of a force alone in the countryside (Which would have the good sense to move inland since they aren't facing land opposition), while still simulating the powerful addition they could be to a friendly force along the coast. Of course, this assumes that such detail is possible, I have no idea. If it comes down to keep it or take it out completely, I say leave it in.

[McNaughton]

I am really wondering about the true effectiveness of naval bombardment.

There was always the 'threat' of being caught by the gunboats (Shiloh, Peninsula), but what 'real' possibility of damage would there be? I cannot recall of a single engagement where land forces went up against naval gunboats and were heavily mauled.

--GUNBOATS vs FORTS--

The best examples can be gunboats (armoured and unarmoured) against land fortifications. Not a single land fortification was 'beat' by a naval bombarding force. At best, it was avoided so as to land troops directly beyond in order for them to engage and capture the fort (land based rifled artillery tended to be better at silencing a fort than equivalent naval forces).

While a fort may be 'reduced' in outlook (fort Sumter), it's actual fighting capacity could not be affected. More 'real' damage was done in 1861 over the heavier bombardments in 1863 and beyond (Sumter was bombarded to surrender in 1861, even a naval landing in 1863 couldn't achieve this).

Even with a direct and immobile target, as in a coastal fort, a naval task force could not engage and counter this threat of land-based artillery or fortifications.

--GUNBOATS vs ARMIES--

Range of artillery was generally restricted to about 2000 yards, regardless of the actual range (advanced spotting and targetting didn't exist). Naval artillery, even on gunboats, probably equated to a battery of heavy artillery (4-6 guns). Gunboats, in order to maximize their effect, would require a good field of fire against the opposing forces, basically direct fire.

I wonder, if an army could or would ever be in a strategic or tactical position to get itself 'mauled' by gunboat artillery, even if this force was engaged in combat on or near the coastline. Even a slight ridge, tree line, foliage, etc., on the riverline will completely obscure the bulk of these forces against a gunboat.

The threat of gunboats was just that, a threat. During the Penninsula and Shiloh, the Confederate forces were not only up against a possible threat of gunboats, but also defending Union armies in good geographic positions. These Confederate forces were also at the point where they could not mount effective offensive operations. It may be, that the gunboat excuse was just that, an excuse not to continue the attacks when other factors came into play (saw a documentary of Shiloh recently, dealing with 'what if's', which stated that Beauregard fought the second day pretty much as best as it could have been faught, given the situations, and that gunboats probably were not as much of a threat as percieved by history).

--GUNBOAT ROLES--

What then is the role of a gunboat? Well, controlling the seas, and blockading the enemy, a passive act, probably should be the role of gunboats and other coastal vessels. Their ability to stop movement on rivers, runs the gauntlet of coastal forts, and perform brown water blocades is what fulfills a gunboat's role.

Why not just use transports? Well, if your enemy uses transports to blocade, then just send in a gunboat of your own and you just sunk a bunch of enemy transports and have naval control of the riverline.

--WHAT COULD BE DONE--

In lieu of a total revamp of the system, I think that the following could be done in order to mitigate the losses.

#1. All naval vessels can only attack other naval vessels. (Using the $Naval tag)

#2. All land forces can only attack other land forces. (Using the $Land tag)

#3. Coastal Artillery can fire upon naval vessels. (Using the $Naval tag)

[Sheytan]

seems to me this has been discussed quite a bit in more then one thread. what is certain however is the bombardment results from sea to land are at times quite out of wack. heck I dont even bother to buy heavy artillery replacements as the forts get denuded quickly once the union starts rolling up and down the coast bombarding. something needs to be done however, it really is a weak link in what is a very good game.

so we have sea bombardment, broken links and goofy weather...oh, and we have the ease of production in where as the confeds can build up WS in remote states that it would appear should not even have the infrastructure to support such development. (my current game on turn 2 I got 2 ws for foundry built in little rock, and 4!!! points the next turn in corinth I think it was,heck my only problem as confeds is money). once these are fixed this game will be in my ever so humble opinion be perfect...oh and perhaps then I will consider buying the next game ;}

[Jabberwock]

seems to me this has been discussed quite a bit in more then one thread.

For information purposes, here are some of the relevant threads:

Naval Bombardment and 1.6
Moving along coastal waters w/ironclads
Boats
Shelling passing ships
Duels between forts and ironclads
Indian question (problem?) and bombardment observation
Building forts as the CSA..

Perhaps this subject should be moved to the modding section. Enjoy the game.

[McNaughton]

Perhaps this subject should be moved to the modding section. Enjoy the game.

If it is moved to the mod section, then it basically states that AGEOD shouldn't be looking at this concern, that it is a 'mod preference' over what it more likely is, a 'game balance issue'. Coastal Artillery was officially changed to mitigate it's losses vs. naval vessels, now the issue arises when non-coastal forces (field and heavy artillery) engage ships going by and resulting in similar total annihilation.

[Jabberwock]

If it is moved to the mod section, then it basically states that AGEOD shouldn't be looking at this concern, that it is a 'mod preference' over what it more likely is, a 'game balance issue'.

Hence my suggestion. I respect your knowledge and opinions, but in this case I think you are wrong. If this becomes a modding issue, y'all can do what you like to further cripple the USN.

Coastal Artillery was officially changed to mitigate it's losses vs. naval vessels, now the issue arises when non-coastal forces (field and heavy artillery) engage ships going by and resulting in similar total annihilation.

Which I have yet to see substantiated, except by Sean E, and that looks like an isolated bug; it is worse than what was happening under the Iwo Jima system.

In my recent experience, my opponent complained he "had a hard time keeping up with replacements" when he put an entrenched division where my 30 ship (almost 2000 point) armada could get at it. That's not blockade ships and brigs either. A mix of ironclads, armoured frigates, and steam frigates mostly.

IMO, there was a reason (or several) that the Confederates avoided posting land forces in coastal areas outside of forts where the USN could get at them.

In regard to fleets vs. forts, anyone interested in the subject please reread my posts on previous threads, then do your own research on Fts Hindman, Walker, et. al. without relying on Wikipedia.

That said, I am following Pasternaski's example regarding divisions: Retiring from this discussion to enjoy the game.

[Hobbes]

From my own experience I also think land artillery units are destroyed too easily by naval bombardment (although the navy does take quite a hit in return). Maybe the damage to both sides should be toned down.

A few other ideas :-

Stop the interaction between entrenched units outside of a structure with artillery and naval units.

Only forts in towns with harbours or towns with harbours can be bombarded and the bombarding ship has to be in a sea/river area of one of the harbour exit points (And I think these need some revision – there are too many – but I would be happy to review the main ports at least).

Make forts easier to build. 2 guns + 1 supply. (You would still need at least a third battery for garrison really).

Cheers, Chris

[Pocus]

For units capable of being shelled (= units with arty and an entrench level of 5+) and which are not in a coastal city/fort, perhaps a toggle is in order? This would indicates that they are not positionned to fire on ships, and can't be fired upon either.

[McNaughton]

Hence my suggestion. I respect your knowledge and opinions, but in this case I think you are wrong. If this becomes a modding issue, y'all can do what you like to further cripple the USN.

I as well respect your knowledge and point of view. I see, but I think that the USN was more of a 'passive threat' to the CS than an actual, active killer of the Confederate army should it venture even 5 kilometres close to the coast. The USN didn't win by killing the Confederate Army, it won it by securing the riverlines and coastal areas and supporting amphibious invasion.

Which I have yet to see substantiated, except by Sean E, and that looks like an isolated bug; it is worse than what was happening under the Iwo Jima system.

In my recent experience, my opponent complained he "had a hard time keeping up with replacements" when he put an entrenched division where my 30 ship (almost 2000 point) armada could get at it. That's not blockade ships and brigs either. A mix of ironclads, armoured frigates, and steam frigates mostly.

IMO, there was a reason (or several) that the Confederates avoided posting land forces in coastal areas outside of forts where the USN could get at them.

In regard to fleets vs. forts, anyone interested in the subject please reread my posts on previous threads, then do your own research on Fts Hindman, Walker, et. al. without relying on Wikipedia.

That said, I am following Pasternaski's example regarding divisions: Retiring from this discussion to enjoy the game.

True, yet I do actually wonder about the 'real threat' to the entire force.

While the few examples I have read about in the War of 1812 (notably the US invasion of York), where a British force advanced almost directly on to the beach and was beaten back by the Naval vessel's artillery suits me fine to say that as a support for existing ground units landing in force, naval units can provide direct support. However, once the British retreated back into the bush a few metres beyond, they were no longer subject to naval fire (due to lack of direct sighting) and the USN played no further role in the battle (even though, as a province in AACW it would be subject to constant naval support fire). Even here, the only reason for the British force to be near the beach was because they were disputing the American landing. Otherwize they would have kept out of range and undetected.

According to the current system, the entire Confederate force in the Peninsula is vulnerable to USN naval fire up to (but not including) Richmond. Stick 30 Ironclads in the James River, and the USN can defeat anything that the CS decides to place in the Peninsula (even on the North shore). It assumes that if a force is in a coastal province, it is as if they are all on the beaches in the direct fire of the warships.

If divisional artillery have frontage limitations, then maybe too naval bombardment should have frontage limitations as well?

IN GAME RESULTS?

However, after reading up the history of changes in regards to naval bombardment, I don't see the current issue to be back breaking. I primarily play the union, and use the USN in blocade and direct army support roles (i.e., controlling rivers, supporting land attacks on forts, etc.), so I was running on 'faith of repetition' from the CSA point of view. If this is isolated enough of a situation, then leave it at that.

COMPROMISE?

In order to have a good compromise neither side is left happy. It seems like neither side is happy regarding the current situation, which probably is a good thing in regards to AGEOD's policy.

#1. Passivitiy from the land POV. Depending on the stack's level of aggression, they could be vulnerable to coastal fire. Defensive or passive assumes that the land forces are keeping from the beaches, meaning no naval artillery fire and counter fire, as well as no resistance to an amphibious assault.

#2. Also, inducing frontage limitations (like artillery), limit the number of ships that can effectively engage a land target at a time. Usually land targets are fixed objectives, that can only be engaged by a few vessels at a time (indeed, many coastal spaces would be tight to hold more than a few vessels). Given these numeric limitations, increasing the ability of warships to fire upon land forces on the coast might be in order (as I believe neutering was done as a whole to limit the devestating effects of large stacks).

[PBBoeye]

#1. Passivitiy from the land POV. Depending on the stack's level of aggression, they could be vulnerable to coastal fire. Defensive or passive assumes that the land forces are keeping from the beaches, meaning no naval artillery fire and counter fire, as well as no resistance to an amphibious assault.

#2. Also, inducing frontage limitations (like artillery), limit the number of ships that can effectively engage a land target at a time. Usually land targets are fixed objectives, that can only be engaged by a few vessels at a time (indeed, many coastal spaces would be tight to hold more than a few vessels). Given these numeric limitations, increasing the ability of warships to fire upon land forces on the coast might be in order (as I believe neutering was done as a whole to limit the devestating effects of large stacks).

Oooooh, I like these suggestions - both of 'em.

There are reasons the USN took the doctrinal approach it did during the war. If a player chooses to ahistorically concentrate naval forces on bombardment instead of blockade, then to some extent that leaves open the blockade. OK, well and fine - but I believe the frontage factor for naval vessels is pretty important here. No killer stacks at sea, either - especially so in rivers or bays!

The first suggestion is great, and I think addresses the 'unit physical location' issue inherent in any region or province-themed game such as AACW.

[Hobbes]

I don't like the idea of having to stay in aggressive posture in order to be able to defend against amphibious assault. All my defending units along the coast would have to spend their time in an aggressive posture - going on the offensive against any enemy units that enter the region and losing cohesion.
It would also be very confusing for players.

Cheers, Chris

[McNaughton]

I don't like the idea of having to stay in aggressive posture in order to be able to defend against amphibious assault. All my defending units along the coast would have to spend their time in an aggressive posture - going on the offensive against any enemy units that enter the region and losing cohesion.
It would also be very confusing for players.

Cheers, Chris

I was trying out something simple, but maybe a toggle could be implemented whenever on a coastal territory where you have to activate a unit in order for them to be aggressive against naval targets. Something, in order to have the ability to have units on coastal provinces without them falling to the mercy of player-induced strong naval stacks.

However, possibly removing the power of strong stacks in itself (through frontage) might serve to eliminate the last vestiges of naval bombardment being overpowered (it in itself may result in the need for indivisual ships to be more powerful).

[Hobbes]

Yes I like the sound of the frontage idea but it may need quite a bit of thought, maybe the amount of ammo left could also be a consideration as to whether ships can bombard.

I hope Pocus picks up on some of the points in the thread. The toggle idea is also good. If units outside of a port have it set to inland and an amphibious invasion occurs then the navy cannot bombard but the attacking force do not suffer the invasion penalty.

However if there is also a garrisoned port in the area can this not be bombarded that turn?

I'll have some more thoughts when I get more time.
Cheers, Chris
P.S. obviously if a toggle was used hitting the toggle would remove any fortification already gained by the units. I wonder if this would be a lot of work - are there easier ways?
Any critique of my earlier suggestions?

In BoA wasn't it impossible for naval units alone to completely destroy land units?

[mikee64]

.
In my recent experience, my opponent complained he "had a hard time keeping up with replacements" when he put an entrenched division where my 30 ship (almost 2000 point) armada could get at it. That's not blockade ships and brigs either. A mix of ironclads, armoured frigates, and steam frigates mostly.

I guess that would be me; not so much a complaint as a comment, really. The problem does indeed seem worse when you consider the defense of the peninsulas in VA, and against a human opponent you pretty much have to defend these peninsulas. Having grown up there, it seems to me a force could defend against a land advance up a peninsula while avoiding extreme damage from naval units simply by refusing its flanks away from the water.

Some good ideas in this thread, and at any rate it is not a game-breaker IMO.

In the game against Jabberwocky I had a division under Magruder entrenched up to level 7 inside Hampton Roads dueling with his fleet. Yes, it was using replacements, but not at a rate that made me consider withdrawing from the position. And Magruder was inflicting about as many hits as he was suffering.

The situation worsened for me when JW made a land assault, which Magruder repulsed fairly easily. He was hit pretty hard with losses of his own though, at which point he became pretty helpless against the bombardment. That was not any fault of the engine though, that was just a sound move by JW to weaken Magruder.

I do question what happened next though. Knowing he had a force wanting to move up the peninsula, I sent in a division under Longstreet. Magruder went into passive posture inside the structure hoping to recover, while Longstreet was set to defensive posture outside the city. The next turn, Magruder got bombarded again, but Longstreet did not. I guess I thought the posture difference and being inside the structure would have caused Longstreet to get bombarded, but it did not.

[PBBoeye]

Lots of Virginians in this forum.

[chainsaw]

Lots of Virginians in this forum.

Does Fairfax and the DC suburbs count? As one old biddy from Richmond once told me "Sir, no one of any account has ever come from northern Virginia" (I wanted to remind her of Lee's boyhood home in Alexandria, the Arlington estate, etc etc)

[PBBoeye]

Poor losers, is all.



Heck, I might be moving up to Sterling next year!

But, in truth, I am a Texan by birth!

[Sean E]

I think a toggle button in the special orders for units in coastal areas would be the way to go here. Normal setting for inland units which would not be able to fire on naval units and in turn would not be able to be fired on them. The other to make it a naval fort, which could fire on and be fired at by naval units.

Though I suspect the casualty rates I quoted at the start of the thread are too high not to be a bug?

[Sheytan]

the toggle button does indeed seem like the solution here, toggle on, you are coastal, toggle off you are inland, coastal can interdict etc, inland cannot, the choice is yours. sounds like a very good solution and one id love to see.

I think a toggle button in the special orders for units in coastal areas would be the way to go here. Normal setting for inland units which would not be able to fire on naval units and in turn would not be able to be fired on them. The other to make it a naval fort, which could fire on and be fired at by naval units.

Though I suspect the casualty rates I quoted at the start of the thread are too high not to be a bug?

[PBBoeye]

the toggle button does indeed seem like the solution here, toggle on, you are coastal, toggle off you are inland, coastal can interdict etc, inland cannot, the choice is yours. sounds like a very good solution and one id love to see.

Whew. It will be interesting to see the AI implement that. I think it is a good idea. However, I also am not coding this puppy.