Hello,
for the fort on the atlantic, is it better to position your garrison outside the fort, so that the union invasion army must shore attack them or is it better to stay inside and defend the fort?
Both have advantages/disadvantages. Inside the fort, your guns can fire upon the ships. Outside, they need to get to higher level entrenchments. Inside the fort they can't attack a landing force. Outside the fort they can. Inside the fort, they can withstand siege for a long time (especially good against inactive generals), and must be stormed. Inside the fort, they get bonuses when the fort is stormed.
Personally, I leave the auto garrison in the fort. It's such a small force, that I keep it in. If I have a division defending, then I would put that outside the fort however, as with the larger force, I can keep the union from ever storming the fort.
Personally, I leave the auto garrison in the fort. It's such a small force, that I keep it in. If I have a division defending, then I would put that outside the fort however, as with the larger force, I can keep the union from ever storming the fort.
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
Gen. Monkey-Bear
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:35 am
- Location: The San Francisco Bay Area
From experience, most Union players set their landing forces to assault on the coastal forts. If your opponent is one of those people, you should keep the garrison inside the fort because they have a very big advantage defending against an assault. It probably still won't hold, but it might cause your opponent more casualties 
I have seen strategies for both. with a fort, remember to bombard, you need the DAR (double adjacency rule), which means the fort region must touch 2 river/sea regions that are next to each other. The forts you build are stronger then the initial forts, but they do cost resources (artillery and supply units).
It depends on what you want to do and what your opponent is doing. For example, if they have 2 or 3 divisions in Ft. Monore, you could build a fort in Norfolk (it won't stop them from getting supply to Monroe however). If it is lightly defended, you can capture Monroe, saving your units for a fort somewhere else. Forts can keep a much larger enemy force static (trying to capture), but to be effective, your units must be inside the fort, which can be a death trap (when the enemy does capture them). I can say that a fort will stop river supply from getting to an enemy unit. So if they land behind your lines (like south of Memphis), but you control a fort on the river (like Island # 10), then they can't get supply via the river. This may be the difference between victory and defeat.
It depends on what you want to do and what your opponent is doing. For example, if they have 2 or 3 divisions in Ft. Monore, you could build a fort in Norfolk (it won't stop them from getting supply to Monroe however). If it is lightly defended, you can capture Monroe, saving your units for a fort somewhere else. Forts can keep a much larger enemy force static (trying to capture), but to be effective, your units must be inside the fort, which can be a death trap (when the enemy does capture them). I can say that a fort will stop river supply from getting to an enemy unit. So if they land behind your lines (like south of Memphis), but you control a fort on the river (like Island # 10), then they can't get supply via the river. This may be the difference between victory and defeat.
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
Ol' Choctaw
- Posts: 1642
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm
VigaBrand wrote:That is great information.
Mean the DAR that with a fort in Norflok I can't stop the union fleet from driving to richmond? In my last game, a union fleet stand in the river adjacenc to Richmond and I can't bomb them away.
It means that the fleet must move from one river/ocean region next to the fort to another adjacent river/ocean region next to the fort. This is why the existing forts are diamond shaped, as they will have 2 "borders" with water regions. I can't remember if Norfolk meets the DAR rules or not (and I can't open the game to check right now). A lot of players miss this rule, and their forts do nothing against enemy ships. Also, remember that their is a maximum amount of damage a fort can do to a fleet (iirc it's 50 points per "attack"), thus a large fleet can sail past your fort and land troops behind it. I do know that a fort in Richmond will never bombard a fleet unless the fleet starts the bombardment (there are not 2 river regions adjacent to Richmond adjacent to each other). I also know that a fort in Paduach KY can bombard several regions (including parts of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers).
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
DrPostman
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
- Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube
Well that changes things a bit. I've always built a good sized division in Memphis with all the river fleet to do a run by
Cairo to the second river section and jump off in an assault. Usually works too. I'd rather not do that because its easy
for the Union to besiege me in Cairo while Paducah would be more of a problem and always has less resistance in taking
it (a good sized regiment can usually do the trick).
Cairo to the second river section and jump off in an assault. Usually works too. I'd rather not do that because its easy
for the Union to besiege me in Cairo while Paducah would be more of a problem and always has less resistance in taking
it (a good sized regiment can usually do the trick).
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Some points---
I did some studies about invading forces vs entrenched defending forces. The invading force was about 3 times larger than the defending which had just a little more than 1/3 the artillery that the invading force had.
The quintessence was that the artillery was devastating; as long as enough defending infantry was alive to protect the artillery and the force did not break and run --were set to hold-at-all-costs--, the artillery pounded the invaders horribly. Some times the invading force, about 2 divisions vs a small defending division with an extra 12lber, was destroyed down to just the artillery, of which about 1/3 - 2/3 hits had been scored. Occasionally, even though the defenders were on hold-at-all-costs, the commander lost his nerve and retreated. In nearly no case was the invading force in any condition to do anything other than lick their wounds and try to recover.
If this were vs a region with a fort the invaders might besiege the fort, but
[INDENT]they would take a long time of recovery before they were strong enough to attack it, depending on the exact situation
getting supplies could be a major issue
they would be very vulnerable to counter-attack.
[/INDENT]
So always keep a small garrison in your forts, and if you are serious about defending them against invasion you will need a well entrenched force of nearly division size with some extra artillery.
----
Norfolk is adjacent to James Estuary, Hampton Roads and the Atlantic Coast region to the east; it's the region, not the town that counts. So units sailing from Hampton Roads to James Estuary can be bombarded by units in the Norfolk region.
The problem with Norfolk is that with a few ironclads it is not that difficult to blockade it and you can invade directly if the defender is only inside the town or even if it is you can attack it from the south --historical approach-- and starve the defenders out if they try to hold out. A fort will be of little use in this case.
----
Forts in and of themselves don't block supplies, artillery that can bombard does.
----
If you can draw any open path on the map with your finger from your unit to a supply source, even around forts and enemy forces, you will probably get supply. If you are planning to block supply, the converse is the case.
----
Owning Paducah with a fort and good artillery will break the Mississippi in two and cut the Ohio off in the process. This will be a major PITA for the Union for many reasons.
If you do this DO NOT think that the Union cannot "walk" across the Mississippi from Scott, Missouri and attack Paducah. Your fort in Paducah with all the artillery in the world will not even raise an eyebrow on a force "marching" across the Mississippi or the Ohio. You must defend from the banks of the rivers.
I did some studies about invading forces vs entrenched defending forces. The invading force was about 3 times larger than the defending which had just a little more than 1/3 the artillery that the invading force had.
The quintessence was that the artillery was devastating; as long as enough defending infantry was alive to protect the artillery and the force did not break and run --were set to hold-at-all-costs--, the artillery pounded the invaders horribly. Some times the invading force, about 2 divisions vs a small defending division with an extra 12lber, was destroyed down to just the artillery, of which about 1/3 - 2/3 hits had been scored. Occasionally, even though the defenders were on hold-at-all-costs, the commander lost his nerve and retreated. In nearly no case was the invading force in any condition to do anything other than lick their wounds and try to recover.
If this were vs a region with a fort the invaders might besiege the fort, but
[INDENT]they would take a long time of recovery before they were strong enough to attack it, depending on the exact situation
getting supplies could be a major issue
they would be very vulnerable to counter-attack.
[/INDENT]
So always keep a small garrison in your forts, and if you are serious about defending them against invasion you will need a well entrenched force of nearly division size with some extra artillery.
----
Norfolk is adjacent to James Estuary, Hampton Roads and the Atlantic Coast region to the east; it's the region, not the town that counts. So units sailing from Hampton Roads to James Estuary can be bombarded by units in the Norfolk region.
The problem with Norfolk is that with a few ironclads it is not that difficult to blockade it and you can invade directly if the defender is only inside the town or even if it is you can attack it from the south --historical approach-- and starve the defenders out if they try to hold out. A fort will be of little use in this case.
----
Forts in and of themselves don't block supplies, artillery that can bombard does.
----
If you can draw any open path on the map with your finger from your unit to a supply source, even around forts and enemy forces, you will probably get supply. If you are planning to block supply, the converse is the case.
----
Owning Paducah with a fort and good artillery will break the Mississippi in two and cut the Ohio off in the process. This will be a major PITA for the Union for many reasons.
If you do this DO NOT think that the Union cannot "walk" across the Mississippi from Scott, Missouri and attack Paducah. Your fort in Paducah with all the artillery in the world will not even raise an eyebrow on a force "marching" across the Mississippi or the Ohio. You must defend from the banks of the rivers.
Relying on forts to slow down the Union can be a sword with 2 sharp ends. Every fort can be blockaded and starved. If you don't have river navy similar or only slightly smaller than the Union, forts will not adequately block him. You will be surrounded and starved. That is what happened historically.
-
colonel hurst
- Corporal
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:06 am
I have often built at Paducah as the CSA and it makes it seriously tough to take West Tennessee for the Union, at least for a couple of years. I usually put a decent sized garrison in the fort to hold it. Remember to put at least a Columbiad in the fort to bombard Union ships at the confluence. Putting a general with the fort defender trait will help if you undergo a siege.
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
The main advantages of forts are that they have a great influence on whether an enemy force can pass through their region to move beyond it, and that they have a far better defensive value. The down side is that they are expensive and can only fit so many men inside.
What many player don't realize until it's too late, is that forts are not bottomless pits anymore that can hold any size force you might throw into it. That means that if the enemy is coming with a corp or so, you will need to have a large force entrenched outside the fort to help defend the fort. Look at the Wiki article on the Battle of Fort Donelson. It illustrates very well how most of the CS troops were outside the fort proper fighting from trench works that they mostly dug themselves. This is what you need to do.
So the advantage of Paducah at all, with or without a fort (besides how it dominates the rivers) is that to attack it you have to attack across a major river first (if it's being defended properly), which is about the same as invading from ships.
You can force the Union to do the same for Charleston MO, but it is easy for him to avoid that by attacking from the north. Also note that only defending Paducah leaves Columbus KY open for attack. So there is no simple solution.
What many player don't realize until it's too late, is that forts are not bottomless pits anymore that can hold any size force you might throw into it. That means that if the enemy is coming with a corp or so, you will need to have a large force entrenched outside the fort to help defend the fort. Look at the Wiki article on the Battle of Fort Donelson. It illustrates very well how most of the CS troops were outside the fort proper fighting from trench works that they mostly dug themselves. This is what you need to do.
So the advantage of Paducah at all, with or without a fort (besides how it dominates the rivers) is that to attack it you have to attack across a major river first (if it's being defended properly), which is about the same as invading from ships.
You can force the Union to do the same for Charleston MO, but it is easy for him to avoid that by attacking from the north. Also note that only defending Paducah leaves Columbus KY open for attack. So there is no simple solution.
Forts have their uses and abuses, like everything else. As the southern player, can you spare a division to sit somewhere in/outside a fort? Or do you need it for mobile defense? Also, think about what happens when the enemy takes the fort? Can you take the area back?
Even Paducah can be attacked from landward (if you lose Nashville, and the enemy moves in behind you). I find it better to have a corps dig in there, as you get the same river controlling ability when your entrenchments get high enough, and if necessary, you can abandon your fieldworks, and the enemy doesn't get to keep that brand new fort.
Personally, in AACW, I only build forts in my capital. This can slow down the enemy if they get there, and allow you to hold with a smaller force then otherwise is necessary. 1 Division in a fort can easily hold off 2-3 divisions. This helps keep the enemy from capturing your capital with a sneaky naval invasion. It will buy you 1 round to march a relief force to lift the siege (note: you have to have a relief force that can march or rail there to help the garrison).
Even Paducah can be attacked from landward (if you lose Nashville, and the enemy moves in behind you). I find it better to have a corps dig in there, as you get the same river controlling ability when your entrenchments get high enough, and if necessary, you can abandon your fieldworks, and the enemy doesn't get to keep that brand new fort.
Personally, in AACW, I only build forts in my capital. This can slow down the enemy if they get there, and allow you to hold with a smaller force then otherwise is necessary. 1 Division in a fort can easily hold off 2-3 divisions. This helps keep the enemy from capturing your capital with a sneaky naval invasion. It will buy you 1 round to march a relief force to lift the siege (note: you have to have a relief force that can march or rail there to help the garrison).
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
Ol' Choctaw
- Posts: 1642
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm
It was not a big fleet, just the blockading minimum with 12 ships. When he went for resupply, guns fired on him and crippled him only to run into CSS Virginia coupled with a single gunboat which forced them back to the guns once again. In the end , he lost all 12 ships.
We have strayed off the subject, all this was done without a fort. I wanted to say it is better to invest in more artillery and entrench it than to invest in a fort.
We have strayed off the subject, all this was done without a fort. I wanted to say it is better to invest in more artillery and entrench it than to invest in a fort.
-
Ol' Choctaw
- Posts: 1642
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm
Ace wrote:It was not a big fleet, just the blockading minimum with 12 ships. When he went for resupply, guns fired on him and crippled him only to run into CSS Virginia coupled with a single gunboat which forced them back to the guns once again. In the end , he lost all 12 ships.
We have strayed off the subject, all this was done without a fort. I wanted to say it is better to invest in more artillery and entrench it than to invest in a fort.
But if you have a fort the entrenchment is automatic. You can place multiple stacks in a fort, can you not? So several small stacks are better than one big one.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:But if you have a fort the entrenchment is automatic. You can place multiple stacks in a fort, can you not? So several small stacks are better than one big one.
You are right, if you can afford the cost, which is very high. In fact, the side which can use the forts more often is the Union. The CSA has no resources for them. Forts are very useful for controlling valuable supply crossroads with fewer forces than without them. They are not useful in front line regions due to risk of siege.
-
DrPostman
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
- Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube
Ace wrote:Yes, one columbiad and one or two 6lb should max at 50 pt damage. Experiment with it a little.
I was actually asking if it's worthwhile to have more than one Columbaid in the same location. I've had a rare occasion where
there was one captured nearby that I could have put with another one. I captured one once besieging a fort and I used it to
storm the fort with devastating effect the next turn.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests