User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:58 pm

Pocus wrote:No, there is not difference between the various kinds of artilleries, except there is a test on the range, the artillery must have a range 5 or more... which is apparently the case even for the 6", so perhaps this must be changed.


range of 7: 20lb Parrot, Fort bty, Columbiad, Rodman

range of 8: Siege arty

range of 9: Coastal

Seems like 7 or greater is sensible..... :sourcil:
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:18 am
Location: UK

Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:22 pm

I know little about such things but would siege artillery be any use against
shipping?

Edit: from what little I have read I think only the largest artillery pieces could have created a full blockade from Fort Monroe so maybe from a game point of view only coastal artillery should be considered for a coastal region blockade?

Lesser artillery could be useful in places like Fort Fisher but to me it seems the game would be fine using only coastal guns. If you want to blockade a coastal region put a battery of coastal artillery there.

Cheers, Chris

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:36 pm

Hobbes wrote:I know little about such things but would siege artillery be any use against
shipping?

Cheers, Chris


Probably low chance of a hit, but whoo-wee if it did... :eek:

Rate of Fire for Siege is 1 vs 2 for the others, and Siege has DmgDone of 1 vs 5 for coastal. However, Siege has a higher OffFire value.... :confused:

Of course, I have no idea which of these does what in fire vs ships, but I'll bet I know someone who does..... :innocent:

A combination of range and one or two of these should be a good place to start..... :sourcil:
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]

[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

satisfaction
Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:23 pm

Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:40 pm

Nothing more to report, but must say I'm thrilled with the discussion. It is my understanding that adjacent land units fortified to 5 (can change this I believe) can blockade river hexes (not sure if this is coastal too, but there is only 1 variable for this I believe). Just thought I would throw this into the discussion.

Andrew

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:18 am
Location: UK

Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:04 am

satisfaction wrote:Nothing more to report, but must say I'm thrilled with the discussion. It is my understanding that adjacent land units fortified to 5 (can change this I believe) can blockade river hexes (not sure if this is coastal too, but there is only 1 variable for this I believe). Just thought I would throw this into the discussion.

Andrew


I'm thrilled as well Andrew! :sourcil: I'm very glad somebody else showed an interest in seeing coastal forts represented well in the game. At the moment though I'm now waiting for Philippe (I call him by his real name when I want him to make a change) to release a variable we can play with for coastal artillery.

I have no doubt he will at some point unless he sees a good reason not to do so.
Cheers, Chris

User avatar
Jabberwock
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Weymouth, MA
Contact: ICQ

Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:31 am

lodilefty wrote:Probably low chance of a hit, but whoo-wee if it did... :eek:


The only example I can think of at the moment is when the Mississippi Fleet mortar schooners (siege artillery on boats) tried to bombard CSS Arkansas (which was undergoing repairs at Vicksburg). They didn't manage to hit her, but as lodilefty says ...
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]

Image

User avatar
Jabberwock
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Weymouth, MA
Contact: ICQ

Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:46 am

lodilefty wrote:range of 7: 20lb Parrot, Fort bty, Columbiad, Rodman

range of 8: Siege arty

range of 9: Coastal

Seems like 7 or greater is sensible..... :sourcil:


I concur about the 7 range.

I would also suggest adjusting the ranges of the Columbiads to 8, and Rodmans to 9, since they were actually the biggest coastal guns available.

Then, if fort blockades could be done in the same way as ships (by element), have range 7 guns = 1 element, range 8 = 2 elements, range 9 = 4 elements.

Two questions:
1. Are fort batteries supposed to model old 24 and 32 lb smoothbores? Or are those supposedly included in the coastal guns category? If it is the first, then I'd suggest lowering their range to 6, make the minimum range 6, and changing the effective elements to:

6 -> 1
7 -> 2
8 -> 3
9 -> 4

2. If there is a Columbiad model in the db, as implied by the previous post (I haven't looked yet), then why isn't it buyable?

EDIT: Maybe because I haven't played enough as the rebs recently.

ANOTHER EDIT: :bonk: Ok, I finally realized that Rodmans in the game represent the 4 1/2 inch rifled guns McC had on the Peninsula, so 7 is appropriate.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]



Image

satisfaction
Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:23 pm

Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:05 pm

Just want to let you all know that I am not ignoring my mod and discussion, I'm simple on vacation. I will be doing a personal inspection of Ft. Taylor! Really I'm doing a diving/drinking trip to Key West, but I will be checking out the fort. Look forward to picking this up when I return the 31st. Maybe we'll have a variable to play with? :siffle:

satisfaction
Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:23 pm

Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:03 pm

Well back to the grind, and the mod! Something I want to throw out came from walking around Ft Taylor with the historian there. The coastal forts built pre Civil War were all of brick masonry construction, and I emphasize brick. The work is very impressive, but these forts seemed to be much more vulnerable to bombardment than forts of earth. However they would be hell to try and storm with ground troops. Can we model these types differently in AACW? The old coastal forts should deal out punishment (big and well sighted guns) but could be hammered to dust, but would be tough to attack via land. The newer earth forts (like Donelson) should be almost immune to naval gunfire, but somewhat easier to storm (still hard). Finally I feel my initial reason for doing this mod (forts guarded key waterways and hence could blockade) was even more evident standing on the ramparts. However ships would have no problem sailing a little further out and continuing on in the open seas, I need to find a way to blockade only the key waterway while leaving the ability for ships to sail just out of gun range. The guns were huge, but still could not reach out very far. Thoughts?

User avatar
Jabberwock
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Weymouth, MA
Contact: ICQ

Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:10 pm

satisfaction wrote:Well back to the grind, and the mod! Something I want to throw out came from walking around Ft Taylor with the historian there. The coastal forts built pre Civil War were all of brick masonry construction, and I emphasize brick. The work is very impressive, but these forts seemed to be much more vulnerable to bombardment than forts of earth. However they would be hell to try and storm with ground troops. Can we model these types differently in AACW? The old coastal forts should deal out punishment (big and well sighted guns) but could be hammered to dust, but would be tough to attack via land. The newer earth forts (like Donelson) should be almost immune to naval gunfire, but somewhat easier to storm (still hard). Finally I feel my initial reason for doing this mod (forts guarded key waterways and hence could blockade) was even more evident standing on the ramparts. However ships would have no problem sailing a little further out and continuing on in the open seas, I need to find a way to blockade only the key waterway while leaving the ability for ships to sail just out of gun range. The guns were huge, but still could not reach out very far. Thoughts?


Reworking forts would involve creating a new terrain type. (In the DB, see Terrains7a.xls, Fort tab - at the bottom are attack & defense bonuses for different ranges) I'd like to see at least three fort types: the pre-war 3rd-system brick forts, typical earth forts, and high-sited earth forts (Donelson, Vicksburg, Port Hudson, etc.)

I think most of the map issues could only be solved by creating new regions, which is a lot of work. The largest rifled guns and mortars had max ranges of about 5 miles (but effective ranges considerably less). The big rifles were somewhat effective against armor at ranges under 1/2 mile. Some of the current coastal regions look like they cover about 30 miles out.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]



Image

satisfaction
Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:23 pm

Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:35 pm

Jabberwok you hit what I'm thinking right on the head. Would love to see those different fort types. Might be some type of Mod 2.0. Also what you say about the range of guns vs. the size of regions is exactly what I think. That is why I'm tweaking some of the adjacencies to not tag that sea hex, but instead the constricted waterway it guarded. Issue I run into is with rivers that go far inland. Still working around that.

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:21 pm

Just dropping here to say I' m looking for your mod effort... :coeurs:

About forts, I'm currently trying to represent earthen fortifications ( Fort Fisher...) by level 2 forts. Other solution, like creation of new structure are possible but too complex to be built by myself shortly and I guess they should have as drawback to be totally unusable by AI...But this can be fixed by events...
[LEFT]Disabled
[CENTER][LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/

[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]



[/LEFT]

satisfaction
Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:23 pm

Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:10 pm

Clovis wrote:Just dropping here to say I' m looking for your mod effort... :coeurs:

About forts, I'm currently trying to represent earthen fortifications ( Fort Fisher...) by level 2 forts. Other solution, like creation of new structure are possible but too complex to be built by myself shortly and I guess they should have as drawback to be totally unusable by AI...But this can be fixed by events...


Yeah, I've wasted most of this week trying to create new stuff...and as of today I give up. I sort of see how it is possible, but don't have the time or energy to try right now. My goal is to spend a good number of hours this weekend and hopefully have my version one done for next week. Clovis I'm testing in both general and your mod, both seem the same for this stuff....so should be compatible. I love your mod so want to make sure it works perfect with it. This first version will be simply forts and what they blockade and what hexes the "control". Next version will get more complex, getting into the actual units and some more blockade type effects for upstream ports. (my thoughts here are that control of NO is going to hurt the ports upstream...not full blockade but needs to hurt them some way) I'd love to make control of the Miss. a serious blow.

satisfaction
Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:23 pm

Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:31 pm

Alright after some more minor (read my 2 year old taking my note pages to never never land) delays think I'm about ready to release the first part of this mod. I've decided to just release the basics, which I've tried to test as well as I can. I will call this version 0.1 (maybe slap a beta on there too). The changes allow forts to blockade. Forts I've focused on are Monroe, Pulaski, Fischer. Also adjusted Wilmington, Norfolk, New Bern and Savannah. Does anyone know how I can post my updated files for people to download if they like. Would love to have others try these as I'm sure they will find problems and come up with great suggestions. Focus of 0.2 will be upstream effects of blockades.

User avatar
GShock
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:30 pm

Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:30 pm

If i may give an advice, Satisfaction, stick to Clovis. If you combine efforts, surely he can tell you a lot about the engine and you can get to the goal easier. ..perhaps you can even build the mod all together, instead of having 20 mods, better just a bigger, better one.

Note to AgeOD: We need a sticky to direct peeps to FTP for officially approved mods. :siffle:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
We ain't going down!

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:04 pm

GShock wrote:Note to AgeOD: We need a sticky to direct peeps to FTP for officially approved mods. :siffle:

There is no concept of "an officially approved mod"; anyone and everyone is free to publish any and all mods they like (the more the merrier!), and the community is free to make use of such mods in any way they like (or not), as long as they relate to AGEOD's games.

The only level of official approval you will see is when elements of a mod are integrated into the official patches :)

That said, I'm looking into a way of making it easier to find (and download) mods, but that's not something that will pop up in the imminent future :cwboy:
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE
Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER]

User avatar
GShock
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:30 pm

Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:11 am

Best way would then be in my opinion to gather all mods, descriptions, versions, install notes, changelogs, into a new stickied and locked thread where someone (guess who ! Lol) could do the job.

I.E. : http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=315315

At least we know what's out and what's not...and we know where to get it, which, since it can't be AgeOD's Ftp, got to be somewhere else...(including these forums as attachments i suppose) on behalf of the authors.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

We ain't going down!

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:07 pm

deleted

User avatar
Jabberwock
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Weymouth, MA
Contact: ICQ

Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:16 am

Gray_Lensman wrote:While again reading thru the Shelby Foote "Civil War Narrative", I found the following information quite interesting...



This rather pointedly demonstates that naval action against forts would in most cases be rather one sided.


Yes, pointedly, and always in favor of the land forces if you disregard: Fort Walker, Fort Hindman, Fort Hatteras, Fort Clark, Fort Beauregard, Fort Henry, Fort Fisher, etc.

Please check Foote's description of the bombardment of Fort Walker.

A narrow-channeled cul-de-sac harbor surrounded by three forts (actually five, but three in the game), plus several other batteries, and full of obstructions and torpedoes can hardly be considered a representative example of ship vs. fort interaction during the Civil War. The trouble with this apparently ever-ongoing debate is that there is no representative example, because there are simply not enough variables to represent the different circumstances that applied to these interactions. The simple solution is to come down on the side of "forts always win", because that is "common knowledge". I believe satisfaction is working in the direction of a solution.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]



Image

User avatar
Jabberwock
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Weymouth, MA
Contact: ICQ

Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:44 am

From The Atlantic Coast by Daniel Ammen, a description of the first bombardment of Fort Fisher (24th December, 1864).

At daylight the different divisions of the fleet stood in at low speed. At 11:30 A.M. the signal was made to engage the forts, the Ironsides leading, and the Monadnock, Canonicus, and Mahopac following. The Ironsides took her position in the most beautiful and seamanlike manner, got her spring out, and opened deliberate fire on the fort, which was firing at her with all available guns.
The Minnesota then took her position in handsome style, closely followed by the Mohican, which ranged ahead and anchored; a few shells gave the range, and then they opened rapidly and with precision on the guns in the fort, receiving at the same time their fire. There was a considerable gap in the line, and some fifteen minutes elapsed before the Colorado passed in and ahead, anchored, opened on the fort, and was followed by other vessels of the line. The other lines then got into position with a moderate degree of success, and the works of the enemy were alive with the bursting shells. The fort maintained an indifferent fire from the more distant guns, and but little, if any from the parts of the work within range of the shell-guns of the fleet.
At signal made by the admiral to "fire slowly", the firing from the vessels became veritable target practice at particular guns of the fort, with the officers in the tops to mark the ranges; from the inner line and from the ironclads and gunboats near them the firing was also accurate. The outer lines were somewhat too distant, and many shells from them were observed to fall short.
Two service magazine explosions occured in the forts, and several buildings were set on fire and burned. The Admiral's report says: "Finding that the batteries were silenced completely, I directed the ships to keep up a moderate fire, in the hopes of attracting the attention of the transports and bringing them in. At sunset General Butler came in, in his flag-ship, with a few transports, the rest not having arrived from Beaufort. Being too late to do anything more, I signaled the fleet to retire for the night for a safe anchorage, which they did without being molested by the enemy." With the exception of a boiler explosion on the Mackinaw by a shell, the casualties were entirely from the bursting of 100-pounder Parrot rifled guns, and they were serious. These occured on board of the Ticonderoga, 8 killed, 11 wounded; Yantic, 2 killed, 3 wounded; Juniata, 5 killed, 8 wounded; Mackinaw, 1 killed and 1 wounded, and Quaker City.
Some of the fleet were somewhat damaged by shells. The Osceola received "a shell near her magazine, and at one time was in a sinking condition; but her efficient commander stopped up the leak, while the Mackinaw fought out the battle notwithstanding the damage she received."


Note - The italics in that excerpt are either the author's or the editor's.

from the same source, the second and third days of the second bombardment (January 14-15):

On the 14th, all of the small gunboats carrying XI-inch pivot guns were sent into positions commanding the north face of Fisher to dismount the guns bearing along the intended line of assault by the army; line No. 1 at the same time delivering a rapid fire on the fort to keep the enemy in his bomb-proofs. The vessels were fairly in position at 1 P.M., and all of them actively employed until long after dark, and during the whole night this gunboat fire was added to that of the slower fire of the ironclads. The guns far up in the line of works alone replied to this attack, and in doing so hit the gunboats occasionally, cutting off the mainmast of the Huron and doing other damage.
...
At 9 A.M. on the 15th signal was made for the fleet to bombard as per plan. The last of the vessels got into position by 11 A.M., but the heads of some of the lines were in action very promptly. The reader will bear in mind that the ironclads remained where they had first anchored, and were supplied with ammunition brought alongside during the night.
...
"At three o'clock the signal came, the vessels changed their fire to the upper batteries; all the steam-whistles were blown, and the troops and sailors dashed ahead, nobly vying with each other to reach the top of the parapet . . . The sailors took to the assault by the flank along the beach, while the troops rushed in at the left [right?], through the palisades that had been knocked away by the fire of our guns."
...
In fact, the palisades, a shelving sea beach, the rifle pits, some small sand-hills, and the trench before mentioned served partially to protect the survivors of the heads of the columns from the fire of the small arms on the bastion until the heavy guns of the fleet again opened on that part of the fort, and made it necessary for for the Confederates to look to their safety.
In the meantime, the National troops had gained the parapets on their front, had carried seven of the traverses most to the west, without serious loss, attacked the traverses more toward the sea, one after the other, and the vessels farthest in, especially the Ironsides and the monitors, resumed a fire of heavy shells between the traverses in advance of the troops, as they carried traverse after traverse, most obstinately defended as they were by the Confederates. But the odds were against them. They had to face as gallant men pressing onward as the Confederate defenders, who were flanked by a destructive fire of heavy shells; they had, in fact, either to abandon traverse after traverse or be killed where they stood. By nightfall the bastion was carried and some of the traverses on the sea face.
...
But while the battle raged hot in the fort and its defenders looked for relief from Hoke's division along the peninsula, and have upbraided General Bragg because it did not advance, the half dozen gunboats placed close along the beach north of General Terry's lines, defended by General Paine's brigade, about 4 P.M. saw from their mast-heads Hoke's skirmish line advancing, and with shells exerted a restraining influence. Had assaulting columns followed the skirmish line, they certainly would have reached General Terry's intrenchments in bad plight, and admitting that line had been carried, the Confederates would not have been formidable after a march of two miles toward Fort Fisher on an open sandspit under the fire of gunboats.


I apologize for the run-on sentences, but hey, I didn't write it.

Admittedly, the second bombardment was made by 48 wooden vessels including the minor gunboats, and 5 ironclads; but they were up against the "Malakov of the Western Hemisphere", which contained at least double the number of troops and guns as most of the Confederate forts shown on the map. By the time of the army-navy assault, they silenced every gun along the sea face, and all but one on the north parapet, suffering incidental damage themselves. Then they began the first "rolling barrage" that I've read of in history, clearing the works that certainly couldn't have been taken by just the land forces without that support.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]



Image

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:35 am

deleted

User avatar
Jabberwock
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Weymouth, MA
Contact: ICQ

Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:47 am

Gray_Lensman wrote:Your posts are also interesting. It seems that there are indeed one heck of a lot more variables that need to be taken into consideration. I wonder if the game is even capable of modeling this in a reasonable manner. You didn't say what volume/page number, that you found your passage?

I was rereading (last night) that particular part of Shelby Foote's Narrative that I posted above. I will be paying particular attention to more naval vs fort battles as I continue.


The first excerpt is from pp. 221-222, the second from pp. 231-237. The pages in between and the skipped over sections are also interesting, but not always for the same reasons. The Atlantic Coast is considered either volume 2 of The Navy in the Civil War series, or volume 15 of The Army and the Navy in the Civil War, a.k.a. Campaigns of the Civil War all published by Scribner. Links to the other books are available in this thread.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]



Image

satisfaction
Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:23 pm

Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:40 am

I definitely want to have this be part of the Clovis mod. First though it would be nice to have a few other brave souls try out these basic changes. There is one file that I know we have both modified, so really not much overlap. Just in case though a few others would help, just to be sure. The thing I am most concerned with is how I've dealt with the adjacencies...don't want to bring that into Clovis until I am sure it is ok. The discussion on bombardments is great. I'm reading Thunder on the Mississippi right now for even more reference. I think I'll start to tackle all of that in version .3 or so of the mod. Want to work on upstream blockade effects next. One item I know for sure is that I want the Mississippi and control of it to really mean something. Might also need events for some of my ideas, so going to have to educate there. For example the fall of Donelson would result in the RR line next to it being ripped up due to the fact that gunboats very easily went a few more miles upstream and destroyed the bridge. Let me know if you would like to volunteer...oh and also how/where I can post the files (it's not that many and they are not big)

User avatar
Jabberwock
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Weymouth, MA
Contact: ICQ

Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:56 am

I'll help in any way I can.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]



Image

satisfaction
Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:23 pm

Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:57 pm

Jabberwock you want to test these files too? I'll be happy to email them to you. PM me your email if interested.

satisfaction
Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:23 pm

Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:39 pm

Looking for any more volunteers. Got two testers right now. These changes are very basic, but I'm being methodical before I move into the harder stuff. PM me if you would like the files sent to you.

satisfaction
Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:23 pm

Thu May 01, 2008 11:26 pm

So far so good on the basics, looking at rolling out my next few of these. I'm running into a block on the upstream stuff....see post ona adjacencies in mod forum. Maybe events that fire when forts/cities are captured that reduce the production/supply of upstream cities! Would this work...can you change those values with an event? :8o:

Oh next basic changes target:

New Orleans
Mobile River will be blockaded by forts
those other 2 cities on Albermarle Sound by the forts on outer banks
(those are done and I'm still playing with them)
maybe Richmond (going to do tonight...but kind of a reach)

User avatar
captainmatt
Sergeant
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:55 am
Location: North Carolina
Contact: Website

Mon May 12, 2008 2:58 am

beeper wrote:La Ricain, You seem to have some knowlege about the blockade runners in the CW. This subject has been an interest to me for some time. But I haven't read to much about them. They seem to be treated as a minor issue in most history that Ive read. Would you know of any material that would shed some on this for me? I would like to learn more about this. Seems like a facinating part of the war.
Seems logical that the South would have built ,or bought, fleets of them.
I assume that they just didn't have the resourses to do so.

Thanks.... Beeper


I've written a little on the subject, and recommend reading "Lifeline of the Confederacy" by Steve Wise. There are sources out there, just have to know where to look. Also, try the National Civil War Naval Museum site at http://www.portcolumbus.org

-- Capt. Matt

User avatar
captainmatt
Sergeant
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:55 am
Location: North Carolina
Contact: Website

Mon May 12, 2008 3:37 am

satisfaction wrote:Well back to the grind, and the mod! Something I want to throw out came from walking around Ft Taylor with the historian there. The coastal forts built pre Civil War were all of brick masonry construction, and I emphasize brick. The work is very impressive, but these forts seemed to be much more vulnerable to bombardment than forts of earth. However they would be hell to try and storm with ground troops. Can we model these types differently in AACW? The old coastal forts should deal out punishment (big and well sighted guns) but could be hammered to dust, but would be tough to attack via land. The newer earth forts (like Donelson) should be almost immune to naval gunfire, but somewhat easier to storm (still hard). Finally I feel my initial reason for doing this mod (forts guarded key waterways and hence could blockade) was even more evident standing on the ramparts. However ships would have no problem sailing a little further out and continuing on in the open seas, I need to find a way to blockade only the key waterway while leaving the ability for ships to sail just out of gun range. The guns were huge, but still could not reach out very far. Thoughts?


Well, the only issue I have with that is the example of Fort Pulaski near Savannah. Pulaski, which was officially finished in like 1859, fell to a Union ground attack in 1862. The problem was the fort had almost all smoothbore fortress guns (as most coastal forts did), and the Union landed with longer range rifled guns and large mortars. They simply pounded Pulaski from a range where Pulaski's guns couldn't reach out. Just and FYI...

User avatar
captainmatt
Sergeant
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:55 am
Location: North Carolina
Contact: Website

Mon May 12, 2008 3:43 am

Jabberwock wrote:I concur about the 7 range.

I would also suggest adjusting the ranges of the Columbiads to 8, and Rodmans to 9, since they were actually the biggest coastal guns available.

Then, if fort blockades could be done in the same way as ships (by element), have range 7 guns = 1 element, range 8 = 2 elements, range 9 = 4 elements.

Two questions:
1. Are fort batteries supposed to model old 24 and 32 lb smoothbores? Or are those supposedly included in the coastal guns category? If it is the first, then I'd suggest lowering their range to 6, make the minimum range 6, and changing the effective elements to:

6 -> 1
7 -> 2
8 -> 3
9 -> 4

2. If there is a Columbiad model in the db, as implied by the previous post (I haven't looked yet), then why isn't it buyable?

EDIT: Maybe because I haven't played enough as the rebs recently.

ANOTHER EDIT: :bonk: Ok, I finally realized that Rodmans in the game represent the 4 1/2 inch rifled guns McC had on the Peninsula, so 7 is appropriate.


Are Confederate Brooke Rifled Naval guns represented in the game???

Return to “AACW Mods”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests