DAR (Double Ajdacency Rule) and non-water regions

[Captain_Orso]

I just ran into a situation I've probably never encountered before. I'm playing the CS and have Annapolis. The US is dug in deeply in Baltimore. I sent fleet into Annapolis harbor and got mercilessly bombarded by the units in Baltimore.

Until now I always thought that the DAR only referred to adjacent water regions. This occurrence however indicates that any adjacent region suffices to activate the DAR.

Is this WAD?

[lodilefty]

I just ran into a situation I've probably never encountered before. I'm playing the CS and have Annapolis. The US is dug in deeply in Baltimore. I sent fleet into Annapolis harbor and got mercilessly bombarded by the units in Baltimore.

Until now I always thought that the DAR only referred to adjacent water regions. This occurrence however indicates that any adjacent region suffices to activate the DAR.

Is this WAD?

AFAIK, yes. Same story in WIA: move Port of Boston to Boston Harbor gets shelled....

[Jim-NC]

As Lodilefty says, WAD. It had been stated before that the harbor counts as a water region for bombardment (in an earlier thread on DAR). So if you have the water region and harbor adjacent, then BOOM.

[Captain_Orso]

Thanks guys

Well I won't make that mistake again

[Jim-NC]

Good looking teeth there Capt'n.

On a more serious note, DAR is one of the more confusing areas of the game to me. You have to manually determine which areas can bombard where. And what makes it most difficult, is you only get a message when you actually bombard. There has been many a game where someone (not just me) have emplaced guns or built a fort, only to see enemy ships sail right on by capturing that important town behind it, and not realize that they could never bombard the fleet. Then's there when the fleet sneaks by, and gets no damage (think Island # 10 in RL).

That's why the forts have the weird diamond shapes they do (to provide DAR around the fort).

[Meagher]

I know it's been mentioned before, but it bothers me that the fort region doesn't defend itself. Landing a fleet in Hickman, KY will get you bombarded, but landing a fleet directly at Island 10 (Lake, TN) will not.

[Stauffenberg]

I know it's been mentioned before, but it bothers me that the fort region doesn't defend itself. Landing a fleet in Hickman, KY will get you bombarded, but landing a fleet directly at Island 10 (Lake, TN) will not.

This has been discussed a lot (I was reminded of this when I brought it up too ). Basically the scale of things here means that the landings will, perforce, be made beyond the range of the sited guns.

Straight-in landings against forts like Sumter are another matter of course, and I've resolved to used house rules in pbem to settle this historically.

[Altaris]

One idea I've been toying around with in my head as a mod/house rule, is that the starting forts (and starting forts only) would not be able to be invaded directly by amphib assault under most circumstances. The rationale here is that the starting forts are based around "fort regions", really small areas at bottlenecks that wouldn't have been capable of being assaulted directly by amphib assault while the fort guns were in place.

Now, to keep them from being invulnerable, I was thinking of setting up a series of events that checked to see if Coastal Artillery was in existence in the fort. If the Coastal Arty was gone (destroyed), then the event would remove the fort from the game, and the house rule prohibiting amphib assault would be lifted. This setup would also require making naval bombardment capable of taking out the Coastal Artillery guns (albeit at potential heavy losses).

The thought process here is that to take one of the starting forts, one would have to:
1) Take it via overland assault (think landing north of the Forts Henry & Donelson fort and assaulting it from the land connection)
2) Silence the coastal artillery via heavy naval bombardment, thus removing the fort via event and allowing the assault to take place

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Interesting. Take the Coastal Arty back down to 5-10 protection? Make it a bit cheaper so it's not so hard to replace. Could make the forts a more interesting part of the game.

[Captain_Orso]

Hey Jim,

to determine where DAR works you have to look where your land region is adjacent to 2 or more adjacent harbors/water regions. You need to hover over the water regions with the mouse pointer to get them to light up so that you can see where they start and end. That's it, if you can see that they are adjacent to the land region, then the DAR will be in affect. You also have to leave your logical expectations behind sometimes. Galviston is adjacent to a bunch of coastal and river regions so that if you try to sail a fleet along the coast and up the Brazos River it will get bombarded about 4 times. But Galviston City is on Galviston Bay and artillery dug-in in the city can still bombard ships on the other side of the region That's another one of those things I learned the hard way

There are no guarantees to bombarding passing ships, especially small fleets with high hide/evasion values. Your Real-Life™ example of the running of Island #10 will happen to you in the game too at times.

AFAIK the boarder-ring around forts constitute the land region outside of the fort and is to allow you to drag land units into them on the coastal forts who's graphic actually covers any land on the map that might be there to land on. There used to be a line pointing to the ring with a big dot at the outer end that you could use to drag units onto, but I think those got eliminated, probably because they cause too many issues with adjusting the regions and most people didn't even know what they were for anyway.

---

Fort Sumter is certainly exception to all other forts--though I can't claim to know all the forts represented in the game intimately. Firstly, it takes up practically the entire island on which it was built leaving very little room for troops to land other than on the peer and that would be restricted in how many troops you could land. The game has no mechanism in restricting how man men, horses and equipment can operate in a region. Sumter should actually be the exception to that rule.

Additionally Sumter is actually behind Forts Moultrie and Johnson. It would be impossible to represent this on the map though. In an area that would otherwise be represented by one region there are three forts, one of which should not even be able to hold the same number of troops as other regions. You shouldn't be able to be bombarded by any of the forts while in front of the bay, but once entering the bay should be able to be bombarded the entire time you are there, no movement or DAR necessary, but this is not in the game. Basically you can say that the game represents this by giving ships the bombard button. If you don't press it, you are considered to be operation outside the range of a fort's batteries--why the heck would they get closer if they didn't have to?--if you press the bombard button then you bombard--in other words you fleet sails into range of the fort and bombards for the turn.

You also have to consider that fort is not fort. There are huge differences between Fort Monroe, Fort Donnelson and Fort St Philips. They are in Real-Life™ not comparable. But, the game had to do something to average out what a fort is. Fort

The only issue I have with the DAR and forts is that the Bombard Passing Ships button turns off by itself for too many reasons; if you add or remove a unit from a stack, if the leader commanding a stack changes from active to inactive or the other way around, I'm not sure what else, but it makes for a major PITA if you have to check them constantly.

[Longshanks]

The only issue I have with the DAR and forts is that the Bombard Passing Ships button turns off by itself for too many reasons; if you add or remove a unit from a stack, if the leader commanding a stack changes from active to inactive or the other way around, I'm not sure what else, but it makes for a major PITA if you have to check them constantly.

Amen! But one does train oneself to remember to check, and then one pounds one's hand with a hammer when one forgets just ONE freakin' week and the enemy sails a corps in riverine movement mode by in pretty red/red mode and one's fort just waves "howdy!" at them, even though you've bothered to put 2 EXTRA coastal guns that you captured from the North Carolina forts you took and then had to sail them back to Baltimore and then rail them all the way to the Mississippi so you could stick them in the nifty fort you built in Paducah that was going to put somewhere between 50-100 hits on each and every log that dared to drift by. Not that that's ever happened to me, I mean you, er, one....uh.....

[Jim-NC]

Hi Captain Orso,

I was refering to the forts area having diamond shapes. This was to facilitate DAR, it is why they used to have those weird spindles (lines with dots you called them). It would allow them to bombard units. Grey had worked on them a few patches ago. They could have made the forts any shape they chose (round, square, diamond) but round would invalidate the DAR, and so was not used.

And I agree, not every fort is created equal. Ft. Fisher for example, is on the end of an island, with plenty of coastline to land on outside of the fort's guns (been there). Ft. Pulaski is like Sumter (an island in a river - been there), and thus can not have troops land on it (there was spit of land at the back of the fort for supply offloading, but in game terms, not landing approved).

[Stauffenberg]

Interesting thread. But the backdrop to all this is how effective is fire from forts against ships in the game vs real life? At the beginning of the conflict both sides assumed fort to ship fire would be devastating—as it was against primarily sail ships in the past. What they discovered however was that constantly moving steam-powered boats were very hard to hit as they simply continued to cruise in an oval blasting away at a stationary land target. Armoured ships of course made things even more difficult for forts.

A few questions: how many have actually had ships sunk by fort fire? How effective a strategy is it to simply sail past some forts and land at your ultimate target, to gain surprise for example, as opposed to telegraphing your intent by taking down the outer forts first? The forts guarding the mouth of the Mississippi are the best example as Union ships simply fought their way past Forts Jackson and St. Phillip and landed at New Orleans.

As the CSA it has become routine to start building additional coastal artillery asap. These are mostly built in Georgia (and as an aside I wonder if this is historically based, as opposed to them appearing at Tredegar in Richmond?) and a few should usually go to Norfolk. I’ve seen Union fleets take 60+ hits sailing by, repeatedly, but no sinkings, and certainly no invasion flotillas turned back as they carry on up the James to land. One could say that as things stand, forts and coastal artillery have more a nuisance value than any sort of strategic check against far-flung invasions—or am I wrong on this? I have a limited number of pbem games under my belt.

[Jim-NC]

Very few ships get sunk. If the opposing player is smart, and knows that there will be 50ish hits, they build a big enough fleet to take the punishment.

My of the time I sink something, it is land units using riverine transport. The opposing player either didn't know (about the guns) or thought they could sail a supply unit or single unit past my guns.

It is a nuisance, nothing more. However, if you don't take the forts, you don't receive supply. In one game, a union army sailed into Charleston bay, and captured Charleston. They did not capture the forts however. I then was able to push them into the city and besiege them. The entire union army (2 or 3 divisions) surrendered after a long siege (the union kept trying to sail fleets with transports past 3 forts, and I was hitting for 100ish points to the fleet each time (in and out). I didn't sink any ships, but did enough damage that they had repair (and the repair time took too long to keep the army fed).

[Stauffenberg]

Very few ships get sunk. If the opposing player is smart, and knows that there will be 50ish hits, they build a big enough fleet to take the punishment.

My of the time I sink something, it is land units using riverine transport. The opposing player either didn't know (about the guns) or thought they could sail a supply unit or single unit past my guns.

It is a nuisance, nothing more. However, if you don't take the forts, you don't receive supply. In one game, a union army sailed into Charleston bay, and captured Charleston. They did not capture the forts however. I then was able to push them into the city and besiege them. The entire union army (2 or 3 divisions) surrendered after a long siege (the union kept trying to sail fleets with transports past 3 forts, and I was hitting for 100ish points to the fleet each time (in and out). I didn't sink any ships, but did enough damage that they had repair (and the repair time took too long to keep the army fed).

That's quite the drama, and one can visualize it happening RL; but why didn't your opponent just take down the three forts, one after the other, and attempt to get transports in as well? This situation pushes the union player towards the tactic of hitting key targets with surprise direct invasions by large fleets that can take punishing hits from forts it has to sail by, while staging simultaneous direct landings at the forts in question. Or invade the forts a turn later.

Which leads again to the need for house rules or changes in a future patch to cover what is not just a combat nuance, but has the highest strategic implications in the game. There surely is room here for a ton of chrome and detail that could be included: proper bombardment with guns able to be knocked out, ships sunk, torpedoes (mines), chains, flaming rafts and different fort types as has been discussed here. At least a special class of "unassailable by landing" forts for cases like Sumter and others--at least unassailable until all or most of it's guns are knocked out. Individual fort characteristics could be reviewed at a glance with tooltips.

[Altaris]

I've been doing some testing around naval bombardments and forts firing on ships. Found some strange/interesting things.

First off, it does seem that coastal artillery usually caps out around 35-40 points of damage it can deal out in one bombardment phase. So if you have a fleet that can take this sort of damage, it's not that big a deal.

Secondly, I found that if a navy is bombarding a land target, it seems to be hard-coded that it can't reduce it's target by more than 50% of its health. I found this while testing bombardment where I would deal out 6-10 hits on fort units each turn, then suddenly would only do 0 hits a turn no matter how many ships were bombarding. I then noticed the defenders were always exactly at 50% strength when the 0 hits kicked in. I confirmed by giving them some replacements, at which time they started taking hits again. This is an issue, IMO, as navies should have the capability of taking out coastal guns (albeit at high risk/cost).

I'd really like to see more naval importance given to forts. In RL, most of thes initial forts in the game were handled by naval bombardment into submission, but this doesn't seem to be doable in the current game model.

[Captain_Orso]

@Longshanks that's when I use the 'Restore Previous Turn' option, but sometimes I'm just too lazy . The interesting thing is seeing the differences in the results of other battles that coincidentally occurred during the same turn on the second run-through. Makes you realize how much variance there really can be in the game, when one run-through of a battle has you winning stupendously and the next has you losing miserably.

The thing with all the nuances and chrome you could put into the game is that it has little to do with strategy and a lot to do with tactics. Also, it seems that in Real-Life™ most of the combat forces put together were calculated a lot closer to the edge of what was necessary to do the job; very little over-kill. So getting a couple of ships damaged and taken out of the battle could make a big difference.

Another thing is that the game never realizes hopeless situations. If you ran past Forts Jackson and St Philipp and straight into New Orleans in the game--as was historical--the forces in those forts would never give up for being cut off.

But back to the game, I've read in the forum that bombardment vs passing ships targets the largest ships first and trickles down onto the smaller ones if a larger ship cannot be targeted. So it will take a lot of hits to actually finally sink a ship. But hits are also made on transported units. So even if you don't out-right sink any ships you will more than likely be hitting the invasion force itself too.

One funny thing I've noticed in testing is that it seem that transported artillery is actually firing back at enemy bombarding forces. I see that their ammo supply has dropped as if they were in battle . I wonder greatly if this is WAD.

I've attached a scenario that can be used to test bombardment--and other things. I actually originally built it to test the Dispirited Leader trait and before that Sieging and before that .. Bombardment , but have modified it a lot since the first version. The name is still Dispirited Leader Testing though. Load up Sherman's army in New Orleans onto Attack Fleet 1 and dance them back and forth between Falmouth Beach and Mobile Bay a couple of times and watch the fireworks

[Captain_Orso]

I've been doing some testing around naval bombardments and forts firing on ships. Found some strange/interesting things.

First off, it does seem that coastal artillery usually caps out around 35-40 points of damage it can deal out in one bombardment phase. So if you have a fleet that can take this sort of damage, it's not that big a deal.

Secondly, I found that if a navy is bombarding a land target, it seems to be hard-coded that it can't reduce it's target by more than 50% of its health. I found this while testing bombardment where I would deal out 6-10 hits on fort units each turn, then suddenly would only do 0 hits a turn no matter how many ships were bombarding. I then noticed the defenders were always exactly at 50% strength when the 0 hits kicked in. I confirmed by giving them some replacements, at which time they started taking hits again. This is an issue, IMO, as navies should have the capability of taking out coastal guns (albeit at high risk/cost).

I'd really like to see more naval importance given to forts. In RL, most of thes initial forts in the game were handled by naval bombardment into submission, but this doesn't seem to be doable in the current game model.

Good catch Ataris

The cap on receiving hits seems to be controlled by artillery units in the defending stack. I have Taylor with Phifer's Bde in Vicksburg with the 1st AL Art. Columbiad and the Pine Bluffs Art. 10lb-ers entrenched at level 5. Phifer's Bde has 4 infantry rgt. and 1 6lb-er battery. Once the 2 field artillery units--1st AL & Pine Bluffs--both reach 4/8 no further hits are recorded for the US. The infantry and 6lb-er seem to take occasional 'hits', but I think this is normal attrition.

So this has nothing to do with forts, but rather bombardment itself.

[Longshanks]

Another thing is that the game never realizes hopeless situations. If you ran past Forts Jackson and St Philipp and straight into New Orleans in the game--as was historical--the forces in those forts would never give up for being cut off.

Just finished reading a history on this fight. Actually, the union "mortar schooners" continued to bombard the CSA forts heavily after Farragut squeaked through ("ran through" makes it sound like it was fast). So, they surrendered at least in part to stop the shelling.

But back to the game, I've read in the forum that bombardment vs passing ships targets the largest ships first and trickles down onto the smaller ones if a larger ship cannot be targeted. So it will take a lot of hits to actually finally sink a ship. But hits are also made on transported units. So even if you don't out-right sink any ships you will more than likely be hitting the invasion force itself too.

Yup, I can confirm this one, although it doesn't happen too often in the games I've played/refereed.

One funny thing I've noticed in testing is that it seem that transported artillery is actually firing back at enemy bombarding forces. I see that their ammo supply has dropped as if they were in battle . I wonder greatly if this is WAD.

I have seen land units in riverine movement mode fight land battles on the rivers, and I've seen this more than once. I call it "walking on water." I think it's WAD, but it seems odd to me.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

But the backdrop to all this is how effective is fire from forts against ships in the game vs real life? At the beginning of the conflict both sides assumed fort to ship fire would be devastating—as it was against primarily sail ships in the past. What they discovered however was that constantly moving steam-powered boats were very hard to hit as they simply continued to cruise in an oval blasting away at a stationary land target.

I think this is confirmed in Lincoln and His Admirals, by Craig L. Symonds. But it's been some time since I read it.

[Captain_Orso]

Just finished reading a history on this fight. Actually, the union "mortar schooners" continued to bombard the CSA forts heavily after Farragut squeaked through ("ran through" makes it sound like it was fast). So, they surrendered at least in part to stop the shelling.

True, now that you mention it, I believe that the militia at Ft Jackson gave up--actually mutinied--because they had no water left other than that which was coming in from the Mississippi because the dikes at the water's edge had been damaged and the fort was built so low to the water that it was flooding at some places. So you can't sink ships in AACW, but you can sink forts

Well, they don't call it "Squeaking the Guns" for nothing

Yup, I can confirm this one, although it doesn't happen too often in the games I've played/refereed.

Do you mean the transported troops being hit? I've not tried to figure out more details of this, but I don't find it terribly seldom. Seldom is how often somebody tries to Run the.. Squeak the Guns Since the damage is spread out a lot, you really have to look at each regiment and should probably know what their exact status was before .. *mmm-mm* the guns since you can be losing hits simply form attrition.

I have seen land units in riverine movement mode fight land battles on the rivers, and I've seen this more than once. I call it "walking on water." I think it's WAD, but it seems odd to me.

Well there are accounts of US troops on riverboats up the Yazoo or one of it's tributaries skirmishing with Johnnies on the shore, and in some of the river battles they did fight from boat to boat with rifles etc, but the idea that the field artillery was setup to fire while passing forts or other boats kind of sounds a bit far fetched. I'm sure you could do it, but not entire batteries that were only being transported and had to be unloaded again in a few hours or days.

I think this is confirmed in Lincoln and His Admirals, by Craig L. Symonds. But it's been some time since I read it.

I'm not sure if the steamers constantly being in motion was the biggest difference compared to the increase in size, caliber and accuracy in artillery. Remember the steamers are sailing at a steady speed, so with some practice hitting them from the shore is not much more difficult. Firing artillery from a ship on the other hand is much more difficult, because the entire gun-platform is rocking back and forth and swaying to-and-fro.

Some of the old forts were simply not built to withstand such artillery barrages as from 10 inch Dahgrens etc.

NEW INFO about the cap on damage through bombardment. This cap appears only to apply to bombardment occurring solely through the fleet bombarding and the land units either being in a fort or having their bombardment button also pressed.

However if bombardment occurs because of the DAR--ie the fleet is sail by--there is not such capping of damage. Why it is capped when the fleet is stationary I have no idea.