Make Gibraltar unpregnable without a sea blockade.

[veji1]

I just besieged and swiftly took Gibraltar with the french in the summer of 1805. This is way too easy, Gibraltar was virtually unpregnable, once could only hope to starve it if completely blockaded and in the XVIIIth century the RN always managed to get supplies through. Only in the extremely unlikely case that the Frenc/Spaniard gain the naval upper hand for some time in the area should Gibraltar be able to fall.

Something might need to be hardcoded there.

[monniker]

I'm opposed to this. Gibraltar was never actually besieged in the Napoleonic Wars, to my knowledge, and though its fortifications and its reputation are impressive, that is no substitute for what might have been. It's easy to assume the outcome, but it's still conjecture until it's proven.

Gibraltar probably does need to be made stronger, but I don't think the right response is to say that it can't be taken without naval superiority. If the British player doesn't want to reinforce Gibraltar against sustained siege or assaults, then they should be able to realistically lose the city. History is replete with examples of impregnable defenses being broken. As this is a game, the possibility should be real and attainable, especially for Spanish players who do not have military support from France.

Should it be easy? No. Should it be hardcoded to be nearly impossible? Probably not. This is, after all, a sandbox-style game. Unlike history, maybe the commanding officer turns out to be a coward. Maybe he has a bad spell for a month or two leaving the garrison poorly led. Maybe the Spanish and the French get lucky.

Just my opinion.

[lycortas2]

Yeah, the Spanish were playing their hand close to their chest. Part of their navy fought Nelson but the Spanish army never made a move against Gibraltar. Canny play Spanish real player.

[Skibear]

Gibraltar held out under siege from France and Spain for 3 years 7 months without falling in the 1780s. It should be virtually impossible to assault, and given that its not actually a walled city as per the model but essentially an unbreachable (at least in the sense of wall breaches making the structure lose its defense benefit in the game) natural feature. Frontal assault should be incredibly costly/suicidal due to restricted frontage making it a 1 to 1 odds. As mentioned above the only real hope should be starving the garrison out if the British player loses control of the sea.
These contemporary pictures well illustrate the scale of the problem for the attacker armed with a musket approaching over open ground against a massive rock. Not to be underestimated. It didn't not fall because enemies hadn't tried hard enough in the past...:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_of_Gibraltar#/media/File:Sortie_of_the_Garrison_of_Gibraltar.jpg

[veji1]

Gibraltar held out under siege from France and Spain for 3 years 7 months without falling in the 1780s. It should be virtually impossible to assault, and given that its not actually a walled city as per the model but essentially an unbreachable (at least in the sense of wall breaches making the structure lose its defense benefit in the game) natural feature. Frontal assault should be incredibly costly/suicidal due to restricted frontage making it a 1 to 1 odds. As mentioned above the only real hope should be starving the garrison out if the British player loses control of the sea.
These contemporary pictures well illustrate the scale of the problem for the attacker armed with a musket approaching over open ground against a massive rock. Not to be underestimated. It didn't not fall because enemies hadn't tried hard enough in the past...:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_of_Gibraltar#/media/File:Sortie_of_the_Garrison_of_Gibraltar.jpg

Yeah, I think some guys here don't realize how fantastic a defensive positino Gibraltar is. really You cannot take it in 1700/early 1800 warfare without starving it. You just couldn't assault it or really hardly could.

So let's say maybe it shouldn't be untakeable, but only assault should be able to make breaches, not siege. That way to breach a level 3 fort, you would have to pile bodies on top of it..

[monniker]

It seems we must disagree! I'm unconvinced that because it wasn't taken before it couldn't be taken then with more resources directed at its destruction. But I am not a soldier or an engineer.

Nonetheless, whoever is right or not, it would be interesting to hear the developers' opinions on this. I'm curious as to whether or not they want Gibraltar to be conquerable or not, and what sort of effort they think it will take.

I'll provide my experience taking Gibraltar. I took it from England in 1805 with over 40k men in divisions under the best available Spanish generals (so Jose de Palafox and Ballesteros) and a bunch of guns. I suspect most players would think my 13k casualties were insufficient against a force of 7k (who before surrendering took about 4k casualties).

[Drake001]

I don't think it should be taken without naval superiority.

The main thing though is that Spain really wasn't interested in fighting a war against Britain. They were reluctant allies of the French, though Napoleon dangled Portugal provinces in front of them to risk attacking Portugal and angering the Brits. (see other thread - Prussia and 3rd Coalition - about "political trading" for types of treaties)

[monniker]

I would agree with you on your stance with Spain in regards to their relationship with France, but in this game there are quite a few points to be gained by taking Gibraltar and Malta from the British, which is a not inconsiderable reason for the Spanish to want to fight Britain- albeit in a limited, one-time war, such as the one they begin the game involved in. To win the game as Spain, taking Gibraltar and Malta are both priorities, even if not supreme ones.

[PhilThib]

We don't want (for game reasons) that Gibraltar is uncapturable...it should only be totally and hugely costly without a complete naval blockade, as the alternative is a full direct bloody assault. We'll check the frontage and defense issue anyway to see if there is something wrong in the defense.

[veji1]

Well to explain how I did it :
- in 1805 sent Davout down there in late April once the weather got better. He got there in early July, by August it was taken, with hardly any loss. I just transformed the Davout corps into an army "Armée du Sud" and added a corps commanded by Brune with the troops from the Antilles expedition in Toulon. And that was it. I had a battle in front of Gibraltar, as if the english had sortied and been plastered.. then just sieged it and when I had 3 breaches and no fort protection left I assaulted and boom easily done with minimal losses all around.

To me the main issue is that Gibraltar or the garrisson or whatever, should have a special ability that make siege rolls fail each time in terms of creating a breach. So basically only assault can create breaches which mean the costs are astronomical. either that or the blockade juste starves the garrisson to death.

It would be interesting to mod the garrison to give it a unique ability like -100% to siege rolls or something and see what happens.

With the military capabilities of the time, only naval superiority could make Gibraltar fall.

[PhilThib]

Suggestions are interesting but not possible, siege rolls are NOT related with the garrison type or location specifics like terrain (although it should, this is not in the engine. check manual page 114-115). So the only factors we can have to boost defense are defensive artillery and leadership.
In addition, may be some regular scripted event automatically repairing breaches could be added to, although it may not be fully optimal.

Will think about it

[veji1]

Suggestions are interesting but not possible, siege rolls are NOT related with the garrison type or location specifics like terrain (although it should, this is not in the engine. check manual page 114-115). So the only factors we can have to boost defense are defensive artillery and leadership.
In addition, may be some regular scripted event automatically repairing breaches could be added to, although it may not be fully optimal.

Will think about it

I am sure you wil find something within the engine, but just as the "getting tired out in the sea "british fleet being whacked by french fleet suddenly going out of port, this is big drawback to Britain's abilities. Gibraltar was basically the UK's aircraft carrier into the mediterranean.

EDIT : Actually I don't quite understand your answer : special abilities like engineer and stuff (the orange an red pentagon symbols) give higher chances for the siege roll to succeed. Are you telling me that only the besieger is taken into account in the siege roll ? that the defender doesn't matter ? because then there is a real big code flaw that should be sorted. It would seem to me that giving some defender units (fixed garrison units for example) in specific places abilities to make siege rolls a lot harder and therefore stop or slow down breaches would make complete sense.

[PhilThib]

I was meaning that a beiseged leader with those abilities would help defense

[Skibear]

It seems we must disagree! I'm unconvinced that because it wasn't taken before it couldn't be taken then with more resources directed at its destruction. But I am not a soldier or an engineer.

Nonetheless, whoever is right or not, it would be interesting to hear the developers' opinions on this. I'm curious as to whether or not they want Gibraltar to be conquerable or not, and what sort of effort they think it will take.

I'll provide my experience taking Gibraltar. I took it from England in 1805 with over 40k men in divisions under the best available Spanish generals (so Jose de Palafox and Ballesteros) and a bunch of guns. I suspect most players would think my 13k casualties were insufficient against a force of 7k (who before surrendering took about 4k casualties).

The failed assault in 1782 involved 65,000 French and Spanish, 86 cannon/mortars on land + 138 cannon on floating batteries, versus 7,500 defenders. At its height several weeks of intense bombardment (after already 3 years of siege) resulted in ignominious defeat for the attackers. View the pictures and maps and you will get a clue as to why. The approaches along the narrow flat strip of land (now the airport) are overlooked by a massive rock, towering high and making movement impossible with no cover from view or fire even with sapping. Should you find suicidal troops able/willing to cross that ground the choke point to the west of the rock is a deathtrap covered by fire from two sides with obstacles and water features. This could not be sapped like a city wall might traditionally be done. The only danger points in the siege were from starvation when supplies didnt get through for a period of several months, typically 6+ months with a convoy the defenders were suffering but still in decent shape. The rock of gibraltar should not be an easy win.

[veji1]

I was meaning that a beiseged leader with those abilities would help defense

So you could give Gibraltar a sort of generic leader (or better with the name of the actual fortress leader), unable to move, with a superduper 'unbreachable walls on siege rolls" trait ? Maybe if we tested that it would work out well : If we can starve the garrison until it whittles down to close to nothing (how long would it take, etc, all this being tested) we can take Gibraltar, if not it's going to be a bloody mess assaulting a level 3 unbreached fortress. all would have to be play tested of course.

[veji1]

The failed assault in 1782 involved 65,000 French and Spanish, 86 cannon/mortars on land + 138 cannon on floating batteries, versus 7,500 defenders. At its height several weeks of intense bombardment (after already 3 years of siege) resulted in ignominious defeat for the attackers. View the pictures and maps and you will get a clue as to why. The approaches along the narrow flat strip of land (now the airport) are overlooked by a massive rock, towering high and making movement impossible with no cover from view or fire even with sapping. Should you find suicidal troops able/willing to cross that ground the choke point to the west of the rock is a deathtrap covered by fire from two sides with obstacles and water features. This could not be sapped like a city wall might traditionally be done. The only danger points in the siege were from starvation when supplies didnt get through for a period of several months, typically 6+ months with a convoy the defenders were suffering but still in decent shape. The rock of gibraltar should not be an easy win.

Indeed. What I would like to be able to play test (I suppose by disabling the AI so that you can churn out turns) is how long would it take in game to starve a blockaded Gibraltar ? If it works in 6 to 9 months for example, and that then either they surrender OR an assault becomes easyish, then I would say we would have a satisfactory solution.

[Highlandcharge]

I suppose in a pbem game you could have a house rule where the attacking faction must starve the garrison out, doesn't help in single player though.....

[vaalen]

The failed assault in 1782 involved 65,000 French and Spanish, 86 cannon/mortars on land + 138 cannon on floating batteries, versus 7,500 defenders. At its height several weeks of intense bombardment (after already 3 years of siege) resulted in ignominious defeat for the attackers. View the pictures and maps and you will get a clue as to why. The approaches along the narrow flat strip of land (now the airport) are overlooked by a massive rock, towering high and making movement impossible with no cover from view or fire even with sapping. Should you find suicidal troops able/willing to cross that ground the choke point to the west of the rock is a deathtrap covered by fire from two sides with obstacles and water features. This could not be sapped like a city wall might traditionally be done. The only danger points in the siege were from starvation when supplies didnt get through for a period of several months, typically 6+ months with a convoy the defenders were suffering but still in decent shape. The rock of gibraltar should not be an easy win.

This is the truth. I wonder if any of you guys have actually been there. I was, a long time ago, and took a tour that described the great siege in detail. I challenge anyone to go there, take the route an attacking army would have to take at the time, and still believe it was possible to take that place by storm, I think taking this tour would convince everyone that it could not possibly be taken by storm, not in the nineteenth century. I think Gibraltar may well have been the strongest defensive position in the history of the human race.

I do not know how the game handles frontage, but if there is some flexibility, perhaps the frontage could be made so narrow that it would be virtually impossible to bring more than a tiny fraction of an attacking force to bear, which would be accurate. In addition to a leader with the appropriate special ability, perhaps a fortress artillery unit could be created that had a LOT of guns.

But there is no way that anyone should be able to take it except by starving out the garrison, which means a long term naval blockade in the face of the Royal Navy. Not impossible, if the Royal Navy can be defeated.

[Captain_Orso]

I imagine it would be possible to create a modifier specifically for Gibraltar so that frontage is so small that no assault could ever succeed.

Supplies is another issue altogether. Blockading Gibraltar should not be that difficult, which means no naval supply will reach it. Just park enough ships in front of Gibraltar and it's blockaded.

But the RN would only have to send a fleet into the coastal region--not even fight a battle, which might not be possible, but just as long as their fleet ends the turn in the bay--during the next turn's execution a pile of supplies will flood into Gibraltar, because of the way naval supply works.

[PhilThib]

I have made some important changes that would solve most worries. Won't be in next patch as could not be tested, most likely in the following one. Should close your worries

[Skibear]

I very much like the look of where that is going

[vaalen]

I imagine it would be possible to create a modifier specifically for Gibraltar so that frontage is so small that no assault could ever succeed.

Supplies is another issue altogether. Blockading Gibraltar should not be that difficult, which means no naval supply will reach it. Just park enough ships in front of Gibraltar and it's blockaded.

But the RN would only have to send a fleet into the coastal region--not even fight a battle, which might not be possible, but just as long as their fleet ends the turn in the bay--during the next turn's execution a pile of supplies will flood into Gibraltar, because of the way naval supply works.

Actually, that was exactly what happened when the Royal navy sent supply fleets with a large escort during the great siege.in the late eighteenth century. The French and Spanish fleets did not leave. Sometimes they did not engage the Royal Navy, sometimes they did. Once, they even defeated the British ships. But the supply ships always got through, and landed their cargo. There were several times when the garrison was so short of fresh food that the scurvy became a real problem, and even biscuit and salt meat were in very short supply. But the British always sent the Royal Navy, which arrived just in time, and was able to supply the garrison without driving away the blockading fleets.

So in this case, the game engine would do perfectly.

[vaalen]

This is a great solution! Yes, it does close my worries, and I am eager to see it implemented.

Thank you.

[veji1]

Is that unit capturable ??? because if the french or spaniards or whoever eventually manage to take Gibraltar after a long siege or blockade (as it should be necessar), can they properly defend it ?

[lukasberger]

I have made some important changes that would solve most worries. Won't be in next patch as could not be tested, most likely in the following one. Should close your worries

Oh, that looks great!