I'm curious if anybody else thinks forts give a little too much of a defensive bonus?
I've been besieging Forts Monroe and Pickens for almost two game-years now, and have yet to make any significant progress: And by besiege, I mean 5:1 odds (including siege arty). A full division vs a single regiment.
The one assault I tried netted me losses of 3500 men to the garrison's 1000 losses --- and I still didn't take the fort!
PhilThib wrote:Well, check what happened historically at the CSA forts nearby Savannah and Wilmington (see the movie "Glory" for instance)...and you are not far from reality
It's true, Forts Monroe and Pickens held out through the entire war --- but that's because the Rebs never seriously attacked them.
Fort Pulaski (Savannah), and Fort Wagner (Charleston --- the fort in the movie "Glory"), are probably not good examples for your argument: Fort Pulaski was the same sort of pre-war brick design as Ft Pickens. Considered impregnable when it was built, the new rifled artillery rendered it obsolete: The Yanks blew holes in the walls like it was swiss cheese, and it was taken down in less than a week. Ft. Wagner was an ad-hoc structure built during the war, and as the movie depicts, assaulted by the 54th and 55th Colored Inf Regts --- after only a days bombardment, and at 1:1 odds, they still managed to breach the walls --- driven back because they lacked reinforcements to exploit the attack.
After almost two years of constant seige, no fortress in the game should still be standing.
el_Gato wrote:It's true, Forts Monroe and Pickens held out through the entire war --- but that's because the Rebs never seriously attacked them.
Fort Pulaski (Savannah), and Fort Wagner (Charleston --- the fort in the movie "Glory"), are probably not good examples for your argument: Fort Pulaski was the same sort of pre-war brick design as Ft Pickens. Considered impregnable when it was built, the new rifled artillery rendered it obsolete: The Yanks blew holes in the walls like it was swiss cheese, and it was taken down in less than a week. Ft. Wagner was an ad-hoc structure built during the war, and as the movie depicts, assaulted by the 54th and 55th Colored Inf Regts --- after only a days bombardment, and at 1:1 odds, they still managed to breach the walls --- driven back because they lacked reinforcements to exploit the attack.
After almost two years of constant seige, no fortress in the game should still be standing.
Several things must also be kept in mind reference sieges:
1. Sucessful sieges cut off the source of supply. The fact the Union could not resupply Ft. Sumter made it all that much easier.
2. Coastal forts in a position difficult to approach and/or bombard that would require local sea superiority to take.
If the North had a superior Naval prescence in and around the key coastal forts, then taking them in a siege would be next to impossible. I.e. Fort Pickens left to its own sould fall in something much less than 2 years, but next to never if there is a naval contingent controlling Pensacola Bay and the Gulf approach and providing constant resupply.
I've taken Fort Monroe in just a couple of turns several times. So I think it depends on the game.
Also, I think many of the "forts" referenced in the history books really were more entrenchments than true forts. The game currently models two types of fortifications: "forts," which are expensive but permanent, and "entrenchments," which are cheap but time-consuming and not permanent. I think most of the "forts" described in the history books were more like the latter option - extensive entrenchments rather than true permanent forts.
I actually like the way the game handles the choices. True permanent forts should be expensive to force a true strategy choice. I also question whether the AI can adequately handle a modified setup.
Also, I think many of the "forts" referenced in the history books really were more entrenchments than true forts. The game currently models two types of fortifications: "forts," which are expensive but permanent, and "entrenchments," which are cheap but time-consuming and not permanent. I think most of the "forts" described in the history books were more like the latter option - extensive entrenchments rather than true permanent forts.
I actually like the way the game handles the choices. True permanent forts should be expensive to force a true strategy choice. I also question whether the AI can adequately handle a modified setup.
Forts, Forts, Forts
el_Gato wrote:I'm curious if anybody else thinks forts give a little too much of a defensive bonus?
I've been besieging Forts Monroe and Pickens for almost two game-years now, and have yet to make any significant progress: And by besiege, I mean 5:1 odds (including siege arty). A full division vs a single regiment.
The one assault I tried netted me losses of 3500 men to the garrison's 1000 losses --- and I still didn't take the fort!
I am just finishing a PBEM game as the south where I deliberately set out a fort based defence building new forts in Richmond and NO also taking Pickens and Monroe.
Despite being held by beefed up divisions, heavy arty , well supplied with depots and well entrenched they all fell very quickly.
So IMO I think forts really are a waste of time. They are nothing more than a minor speed hump to the nth and the cost to the south far outweighs any benefit (see my other thread).
I am not saying I agree with this (quite the converse) however given the game mechanics to date that's how it seems to play out. I can't see how the seiges of Petersburg,Vicksburg or Atlanta can be replicated in game terms.
Given this the southern player almost has no choice but to play mobile defence whether he wants to or not.
Your experience with Monore is interesting as it has not been replicated in my personal experience.
Rafiki wrote:Sounds about right
Yipee! Thank you
I think I'll reduce the building costs as well to 2 cannon and two supply; still a substantial cost, but it will allow me to play more defensively as the Union to enable the Rebels to build up their forces which in turn will give me a longer game (I've played and won two games so far by mid-1863, and before I've fully built 4 armies each of 9 divisions).
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests