Union Navy bombardment damage

[DrPostman]

I don't think the Union Navy suffered even 10% of what they do in the game
from the shore. Is that going to be addressed in any future update, or am
I off base on this? It just seems that my fleet always suffers horrendous
damage from the shore while inflicting hardly any. I realize that shore
bombardment is never all that effective.

[John Schilling]

I don't think the Union Navy suffered even 10% of what they do in the game
from the shore. Is that going to be addressed in any future update, or am
I off base on this? It just seems that my fleet always suffers horrendous
damage from the shore while inflicting hardly any. I realize that shore
bombardment is never all that effective.

You don't say what you mean by "horrendous damage", but for comparison: On 7 April 1863, a Union force of one armored frigate, seven monitors, and one ironclad attempted to bombard Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. Two hours later, the Union fleet was too heavily damaged to continue the attack. The ironclad would sink that night, and one of the monitors had to be decomissioned and returned to service only after being largely rebuilt. Fort Sumter had sustained only minor damage, with only five men killed and AFIK no guns dismounted.

This was the norm in sustained battles between Union fleets and Confederate forts. To the best of my knowledge, none of the third-system forts inherited by the CSA (what AACW calls "Level 1 Forts"), were ever defeated by naval bombardment, nor any of the roughly equivalent river fortifications established inland. Several were bypassed by fleets under steam, a tactic not available when the third-sytem forts were designed, but even then serious damage was common.

In this, I think AACW has it right. Union fleets under Farragut can usually bypass a Confederate fort intact. Union fleets without Farragut, sometimes can. Trying to actually defeat Confederate forts with naval forces, gives the Union a bloody nose just about every time, though the strategy is viable if the Union player is sufficiently persistent and the Confederacy does not adequately reinforce the forts.

[charlesonmission]

Good post. Even Fort Pulaski wasn't taken by the navy, but by land guns by a bombardment alone. Here is a short review I wrote on the fort. http://www.americancivilwartoday.com/2013/01/01/a-review-of-fort-pulaski/

Fort Clark and Morgan did surrender after a naval bombardment, but Union troops were also nearby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hatteras_Inlet_Batteries

Charles

You don't say what you mean by "horrendous damage", but for comparison: On 7 April 1863, a Union force of one armored frigate, seven monitors, and one ironclad attempted to bombard Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. Two hours later, the Union fleet was too heavily damaged to continue the attack. The ironclad would sink that night, and one of the monitors had to be decomissioned and returned to service only after being largely rebuilt. Fort Sumter had sustained only minor damage, with only five men killed and AFIK no guns dismounted.

This was the norm in sustained battles between Union fleets and Confederate forts. To the best of my knowledge, none of the third-system forts inherited by the CSA (what AACW calls "Level 1 Forts"), were ever defeated by naval bombardment, nor any of the roughly equivalent river fortifications established inland. Several were bypassed by fleets under steam, a tactic not available when the third-sytem forts were designed, but even then serious damage was common.

In this, I think AACW has it right. Union fleets under Farragut can usually bypass a Confederate fort intact. Union fleets without Farragut, sometimes can. Trying to actually defeat Confederate forts with naval forces, gives the Union a bloody nose just about every time, though the strategy is viable if the Union player is sufficiently persistent and the Confederacy does not adequately reinforce the forts.

[DrPostman]

Bad damage I can understand and accept, but when 20 vessels are sunk I have to question if
that isn't a bit of overkill.

[Captain_Orso]

It really depends on the exact situation; what vessels were bombarding/bombarded, what their status was at the time (damage/cohesion/supply), how often they were bombarded.

Don't expect any major change. There's not need for it. I know of only one bombardment of a well-manned, well-prepared fort that really did what it was supposed to do and that was the second attack on Fort Fischer and there were over 50 ships bombarding.

Basically I think you're asking the wrong question here. The question should be, "if bombarding a fort into submission doesn't work, what does?"

Simple answer:

• Bock supply.
• Besiege with lots of artillery.
  the latter is the easiest to do, the former, if possible, works best

Leaders with sieging abilities and siege artillery are welcome

1. Make a breach
2. Assault
3. Win
4. Go home
5. Drink rum

[Ethan]

1. make a breach
2. assault
3. win
4. go home
5. drink rum

[DrPostman]

It's always the "forlorn hope" that wins the day in my games