AGEOD Forums

Does anyone think that the naval bombardment is a little too effective against shore batteries in forts?

Historically, the ironclads had some difficulty attacking batteries on shore in forts. Some attacks, like the attack on Charleston in 1863, or the initial advance on Fort Donelson by river, were repulsed.

Before the war, in the age of sail, the conventional wisdom was that a gun on shore was worth two or more in the water. In the civil war, the invention of steamships and ironclads changed that relationship. It tended to even things up.

In the game however, I find that the ironclads are getting all the best of it, and are blowing away shore batteries on a regular basis. At a power of 88 for an ironclad, and only 30 or so for a shore battery, I seems that the ironcads are much more powerful than a coastal battery. I think that is a little too much credit to the ironclad. It would seem that in the game, a gun on an ironclad is worth about three guns ashore, and that seems out of whack to me.

How much credit do the shore batteries get for being in a fort? Are they getting shortchanged here, or is the power rating of the coastal guns just too low in relation to the ironclads?

We'll investigate that aspect, may be there aren't enough guns in the shore batteries...

runyan99 wrote:Does anyone think that the naval bombardment is a little too effective against shore batteries in forts?

Historically, the ironclads had some difficulty attacking batteries on shore in forts. Some attacks, like the attack on Charleston in 1863, or the initial advance on Fort Donelson by river, were repulsed.

Before the war, in the age of sail, the conventional wisdom was that a gun on shore was worth two or more in the water. In the civil war, the invention of steamships and ironclads changed that relationship. It tended to even things up.

In the game however, I find that the ironclads are getting all the best of it, and are blowing away shore batteries on a regular basis. At a power of 88 for an ironclad, and only 30 or so for a shore battery, I seems that the ironcads are much more powerful than a coastal battery. I think that is a little too much credit to the ironclad. It would seem that in the game, a gun on an ironclad is worth about three guns ashore, and that seems out of whack to me.

How much credit do the shore batteries get for being in a fort? Are they getting shortchanged here, or is the power rating of the coastal guns just too low in relation to the ironclads?

Also agree that naval bombardment seems too effective considering historical facts.

Well, wasn't an ironclad a ship that had numerous guns on both its sides compared to monitors which had only a pair of guns sitting in its turret? I guess the former could do some damage to a fort. The latter was rather inferior in this respect.

Fort Henry (built below the flood level of the Tennesee River) armed with 9 dubious cannon (many of them "cast from potmetal") vs. four Union River ironclads and three gunboats mounting 54 guns.

Ranges began at 1700 yards and ended up down to 600 yards.
Results: ironclads struck average of 28 times each, one with "two guns disabled, her stacks, boats and cabin riddled" another (essex) "took another now through her bioler, which left her powerless -- out of control drifted downstream out of fight."

Union casualties: 12 killed, 17 wounded.
CSA: 10 killed, 11 wounded. Most of the guns burst following the rapid firing, only two knocked out by the gunfire.

Fort was manned by two officers and 54 men.

Yes, the fort surrendered, but in another hour, it would have been flooded by the river anyway.

Vicksburg: Union fleets would not sail past it cause plunging fire from the bluffs would have been deadly to the ships.

Even the forts near New Orleans, they were not beat up by the Navy, they were cut-off and did not have enough infantry .... which was the problem in most places, USA infantry landed while Navy bombarded and forts gave in when they were outflanked by the infantry.

The historical record for the ACW is that Navy could not generally hurt modern (earthen) forts, but forts coudl generally not stop the Navy from landing troops and taking them in the flank.

Result: stalemate, not Navy crushing all forts.

Maybe we need a variety of ratings for forts. I like the "pre-war fort" rating, what about "bluff fort" for river forts that were high up and could hold off navy with plunging fire?

Other ideas?

the 30 vs 88 value is not accounting the fact that there is a coefficient associated to land units firing against ships, and another one for ships against land units. In my experience coastal batteries are rather deadly against ships, even ironclads. Don't hesitate to do some tests and reports. Also a note of importance: the hits shown in the message are the raw hits that you estimate, not the real ones, which are taking into account damage reductions from protection and earthworks.

Pocus wrote:the 30 vs 88 value is not accounting the fact that there is a coefficient associated to land units firing against ships, and another one for ships against land units. In my experience coastal batteries are rather deadly against ships, even ironclads. Don't hesitate to do some tests and reports. Also a note of importance: the hits shown in the message are the raw hits that you estimate, not the real ones, which are taking into account damage reductions from protection and earthworks.

Pocus....is there somewhere to see the resulting damage to the ships? Like how many were sunk/damaged?

The naval battles screen is a bit weak as well, not sure if I ever sink anything.....or, it is VERY hard to sink stuff, cause nothing ever makes it into the destroyed box.

Adam the VIth wrote:Pocus....is there somewhere to see the resulting damage to the ships? Like how many were sunk/damaged?

The naval battles screen is a bit weak as well, not sure if I ever sink anything.....or, it is VERY hard to sink stuff, cause nothing ever makes it into the destroyed box.

Add to that that bombardments don't actually generate a combat screen, and it's very hard to tell whether something has been destroyed while running the guns.

It seems there are variants in the AI. In one game - during 1861 - the US naval units were particularly aggressive and tore my CSA coastal forts, from Norfolk to Mobile, to pieces. It was ugly. My ships were no match, and neither were my land guns. Blockade runners were all sunk, too! What a naval disaster for the CSA!

The guns of Norfolk sank my Monitor in late '61 in my game.

In my limited experience, the USA is going around blowing away all my coastal defense guns. I was particularly peeved too when they blew away two of my siege guns when I was besieging that one lone USA fort near Norfolk. Didn't even know they could do that!

*never mind, got posted to wrong thread*

Pocus wrote:the 30 vs 88 value is not accounting the fact that there is a coefficient associated to land units firing against ships, and another one for ships against land units. In my experience coastal batteries are rather deadly against ships, even ironclads. Don't hesitate to do some tests and reports. Also a note of importance: the hits shown in the message are the raw hits that you estimate, not the real ones, which are taking into account damage reductions from protection and earthworks.

Pocus: Still reading my Shelby Foote Civil War Series (you guys read it too I can tell!). Book2: pages 225-230. Defense of Charleston harbor by coastal artillery, small ships, torpedoes, obstructions, etc. Easily drove off nine Federal ironclads, without any loss other than some bricks from Fort Sumter. Two of the ironclads sank!

We really need something to fix this coastal issue. My suggestion would be to create a unit called "naval defenses." It would combine all of the devious elements used by (primarily) the CSA to hold off superior Union fleets. It would likely be expensive in terms of war materials, but not too bad in terms of cash. It should be deadly to ships. Also, we need to increase the defensive/protective ratings of coastal artillery. The problem overall is that if the fleet is big enough, the artillery could not fire fast enough to kill it.....but rarely was the artillery knocked out in the manner the game allows.

Not sure what I can do to help in a new look at this, but I'm willing.

Right. And the Charleston guns in that particular attack didn't even get a scratch, and if I recall correctly, only one of the three or so forts in the harbor was engaged.

If you try the same attack in the game, the 9 ironclads will blow away every single gun in Charleston harbor without much of a problem.

By the way, since forts also obstruct movement, they abstractly model obstructions and the other stuff you are talking about, so I don't really think it's necessary to add more detail to the game in this respect. The solution is just that the forts and the guns in them have got to be beefed up, the ironclads need to get adjusted down, or some of both.

so you did some serious testing? I just ran one, April 63 scenario, Porter Command consisting of 5 ironclads (the gunboats and transports removed from the fleet) against Vickburg defenses, with only the garrison in place (TN army moved away), consisting of 2 coastal artilleries, one fort artillery and a militia (which don't take part in the exchange).

The place is a permanent fortification with the garrison having a level 4 trenches network.

I order the fleet to bombard, just to be sure that a fight occurs, then run the turn. Got two reports, the fleet being caught while running the gauntlet (first report), and then the bombardment triggers a second exchange.

Raw hits (ie before protection is applied) are (sum of both exchanges):

Union deals 88 hits, CSA deals 86 hits.

But these are the raw hits (a lot of dirt in the air...). Now I check the fleet and the 3 artilleries (the militia is untouched):

CSA took a total of 11 hits, 3 on the fort battery, 4 on each battery.

Union took:
USS Mound City: 10 hits
USS Carondolet: 5 hits
USS Cairo: 10 hits
USS Indianola: 26 hits (a bit more and it would be sunk)
USS Pittburg: 16 hits

total 67 hits

Seems like the batteries gave some problems to the ironclads.

I can perhaps see to put the real hits done, instead of the raw ones, but it was a bit tricky to do, so I went for the quick solution in the message, but if you take the time to do some testing, you will see in the end that an entrenched artillery has quite a lot of punch.

Until you bring me some hard facts, the equation won't change, and I just can't spend too much time checking things that are not backed by a real test.

runyan99 wrote:
If you try the same attack in the game, the 9 ironclads will blow away every single gun in Charleston harbor without much of a problem.

This result from a test you did, or is this assertion just a guess of your? If the former, I would like to see the saved game. If the latter... I have nothing to add

I, for one, would like the message to show the actual hits, as the raw hits don't give us anything that matches the resulting after effects of the exchange.

Overall, some scrutiny of the Naval Game is in order...a tactic I am trying out with Runyan in a PBEM is the 'Monitor Deathstar' tactic - I have 12-16 monitors patrolling out of Ft. Monroe, down to the Florida Keys, and then, who knows?

The tactic seems devastating, on the face of it. For example, when they cruised by Norfolk, they seemed to lay waste to a Union Force sitting outside the city - 120 hits reported, with maybe 8 in response. I saw two bright green dots go to two red dots. Ouch. My intel is he had 1 leader, 2 infantry units, a supply unit, and a field artillery piece.

After that, I wish I could of invaded.

Next turn, it cruises on past Charleston, and another favorable report comes through - I wonder if Runyan's post above is that battle?

The fleet now sits in Ft. Pickens. Where will it go, now? Mobile? New Orleans? Both? Why not cruise up to Cairo - 12 monitors on the Mississippi oughta be real useful in the Summer of 1862.

I did the same Viksburg test you did Pocus, and got mixed results. The ironclads seemed to take the worst of it, but Vicksburg there is kind of a difficult example, because there are a lot of infantry units there too which seem to absorb bombardment hits, and in my PBEM game, I get drastically different kinds of results when ironclads bombard entrenched infantry formations, particularly divisions, and when they bombard units defending forts alone.

I wanted to do a Charleston test, but it's extremely difficult to set up, because I cannot seem to purchase Monitor class boats in the 1862 or 1863 scenarios, and if I try to use the 1861 scenario to build a monitor fleet and send it to Charleston, it gets bombarded by every CSA fort down the coast, and is frazzled by the time it even gets to Charleston.

So, I used the July 1861 scenario, built an ironclad monitor fleet, and parked it next to the first CSA fort along the coast, Fort Clark in NC.

Fort Clark it pretty well stocked with guns, better than most forts with both one Coastal battery and one Fort battery. To test how they would do, I sent just three monitors with no leader to bombard the fort, and see what the results would be.

The results of the first test were that the garrison took 17 hits, while the monitor fleet suffered 9 hits. That doesn't sound to bad, until you take a close look at the results.

Both CSA batteries have been all but completely destroyed, and even the infantry garrison has taken almost 300 casualties.

On the USA side the monitors have suffered very little damage at all, and in fact still have most of their cohesion too. This fleet will easily be able to eliminate the fort defenses next turn if it resumes the attack.

Attached are the files showing the results of the battle from both sides, and a file called 'ironclad test' which starts with a large fleet parked near Fort Clark, if anyone else wants to use this setup to try bombarding some other forts.

Extrapolating these results, it seems clear to me that 9 monitors would easily be able to reduce the Charleston forts, although it is a test I cannot actually carry out.

Wilhammer wrote:The fleet now sits in Ft. Pickens. Where will it go, now? Mobile? New Orleans? Both? Why not cruise up to Cairo - 12 monitors on the Mississippi oughta be real useful in the Summer of 1862.

True enough. Your massed fleet is totally unstoppable.

That doesn't seem to jive at all with the smackdown that the Charleston forts put on 9 Union ironclads in 1863.

Not to be fixated on Charleston, a few words about Ft. Donelson and some other examples.

Foote attacked Donelson with 4 ironclads I believe in Feb '62. While the ironclads knocked around some sandbags and breastworks, not a gun or a man in the fortifications were lost to the fire of the gunboats. The gunboats were repulsed, each ship taking more than 50 hits, and with 54 sailors as casualties.

I could send Foote and 4 ironclads against lightly armed Henry/Donelson in the game as a test, but I'm pretty sure I know what the results will be.

The historical situation as I understand it was that ironclads had a very difficult time doing any damage at all to brick and mortar forts, or guns on bluffs. That was why so many of these fixed positions were eventually taken not by gunfire, but by a ground offensive.

Island 10 was taken by land. The two forts below New Orleans, Ft. Jackson and Ft. St. Philip sustained a 96 hour bombardment not by gunboats but by mortar boats, which did little or no damage to the forts. The guns at Vicksburg were, off the top of my head, never seriosuly challenged from the water.

In AACW the balance seems exactly in the opposite direction, and ironclads can reduce any strongpoint in the game to smithereens by gunfire alone.

runyan99 wrote:Not to be fixated on Charleston, a few words about Ft. Donelson and some other examples.

Foote attacked Donelson with 4 ironclads I believe in Feb '62. While the ironclads knocked around some sandbags and breastworks, not a gun or a man in the fortifications were lost to the fire of the gunboats. The gunboats were repulsed, each ship taking more than 50 hits, and with 54 sailors as casualties.

I could send Foote and 4 ironclads against lightly armed Henry/Donelson in the game as a test, but I'm pretty sure I know what the results will be.

The historical situation as I understand it was that ironclads had a very difficult time doing any damage at all to brick and mortar forts, or guns on bluffs. That was why so many of these fixed positions were eventually taken not by gunfire, but by a ground offensive.

Island 10 was taken by land. The two forts below New Orleans, Ft. Jackson and Ft. St. Philip sustained a 96 hour bombardment not by gunboats but by mortar boats, which did little or no damage to the forts. The guns at Vicksburg were, off the top of my head, never seriosuly challenged from the water.

In AACW the balance seems exactly in the opposite direction, and ironclads can reduce any strongpoint in the game to smithereens by gunfire alone.

They weren't Ironclads at Fort Donelson, but unarmoured river gunboats. Pocus did say that his test on Vicksburg was after the city had been evacuated of its infantry.

McNaughton wrote:They weren't Ironclads at Fort Donelson, but unarmoured river gunboats.

Not according to Shelby Foote. The four ironclads were the Carondelet, St. Louis, Pittsburg and Louisville, accompanied by two wooden gunboats and 12 transports.

Runyan is right!! Pocus: Attention required here mon ami.

Another example -- Drewry's Bluff:

On May 9,1862, Norfolk fell to Union forces. The crew of the C.S.S. Virginia, forced to scuttle their vessel to prevent her capture, joined the Southside Artillery at Drewry's Bluff. Commander Ebeneezer Farrand supervised the defenses of the fort. He ordered numerous steamers, schooners, and sloops to be sunk as obstructions in the river beneath the bluff. Six more large guns occupied pits just upriver from the fort. Men worked around the clock to ensure a full state of readiness when the Union fleet arrived.

The Federal squadron steamed around the bend in the river below Drewry's Bluff early on the morning of May 15. The force, under Commander John Rodgers, consisted of five ships. The ironclad Galena and gunboats Port Royal, Aroostook, and Naugatuck joined the famous Monitor to comprise Rodgers' force. At 7:15 a.m. the Galena opened fire on the fort, sending three giant projectiles toward the Confederate position.

The five Union ships anchored in the river below the fort. When Confederate batteries in the fort replied, the whole vicinity shook with the concussion of the big guns. Southern infantry lined the banks of the river to harass the sailors. On the Monitor, the rifle balls of the sharpshooters "pattered upon the decks like rain."

On the bluff the defenders encountered several problems . The 10-inch Columbiad recoiled so violently on its first shot that it broke its carriage and remained out of the fight until near the end. A casemate protecting one of the guns outside the fort collapsed, rendering that piece useless.

After four long hours of exchanging fire, the "perfect tornado of shot and shell" ended. With his ammunition nearly depleted, Commander Rodgers gave the signal to discontinue the action at 11:30. His sailors suffered at least 14 dead and 13 wounded, while the Confederates admitted to 7 killed and 8 wounded. A visitor wrote that the Galena "looked like a slaughterhouse" after the battle. The massive fort on Drewry's Bluff had blunted the Union advance just seven miles short of the Confederate capital. Richmond remained safe.

I think naval vessels are a bit overpowered at present. Not greatly so, but enough to warrant some tweaking.

McNaughton wrote:Pocus did say that his test on Vicksburg was after the city had been evacuated of its infantry.

Yes, I didn't do that the first time.

I marched out all of the nonfixed infantry, then had the same 5 ironclads with Admiral Porter bombard the defenses.

Looked like the ironclads won. They inflicted 41 hits, suffering 27, at least on the report in the dialogue box. If you then take a look at the units involved, the ironclads all still seem to be at full strength, ready for another round. On the other side, two of the defending batteries are now nearly at half strength, and the infantry garrison took 240 casualties to boot.

About two more bombardments like that, and I estimate the Viksburg defenses, which with two coastal batteries and a fort battery is the best equipped fort or defensive position I have yet found in the game, will be reduced to nothing. Another victory for the Navy and the ironclads.

Files attached.

runyan99 wrote:Yes, I didn't do that the first time.

I marched out all of the nonfixed infantry, then had the same 5 ironclads with Admiral Porter bombard the defenses.

Looked like the ironclads won. They inflicted 41 hits, suffering 27, at least on the report in the dialogue box. If you then take a look at the units involved, the ironclads all still seem to be at full strength, ready for another round. On the other side, two of the defending batteries are now nearly at half strength, and the infantry garrison took 240 casualties to boot.

About two more bombardments like that, and I estimate the Viksburg defenses, which with two coastal batteries and a fort battery is the best equipped fort or defensive position I have yet found in the game, will be reduced to nothing. Another victory for the Navy and the ironclads.

Files attached.

Download your files and checked them in details. You should do that too, because you are ok to scrutinize the CSA units but not the USA ones!

Vicksburg militia took 5 hits

for the artilleries:
LA Battery took 3 hits
Vicksburg artillery took 3 hits
TN Battery took no hits.

total 6

Porter Fleet:
Total 11 hits

I concur that the exchange was less biaised in favor of the artillery in your test, but there are some dice rolls involved. Perhaps the batteries got lucky in my test, and were unlucky in your, but in any case we are far from a one-sided result, especially considering the fact that a shore bombardment can never destroy entirely a unit (so the batteries will never be destroyed).

For historical examples of successes, see how Stringham (Butler expedition against the Hatteras) managed to turn into rubble Forts Clarke and Morgan (by a clever combination of long rang fire and usage of steam power to fire and move rapidly) or how Fort Macon (Hatteras too, but at the south) was destroyed to rubble by ships guns.


The uber stack strategy can perhaps be a problem though.
Too few ammos used also.
Bombardment against targets without a landing following up is perhaps an abuse (BOA works like this, but the limitation was left in AACW).

As for damages, really I don't know, first the real damages should be displayed not the raw ones, this can show the truth.

Pocus wrote:especially considering the fact that a shore bombardment can never destroy entirely a unit (so the batteries will never be destroyed).

That's just not the case. I've had many batteries wiped out completely and removed by naval bombardment in my PBEM game.

EDIT - tried to prove that by wiping out the guns at Fort Clark, but they are actually not being destroyed. Strange, as I have had a number of batteries destroyed in another game.

Download your files and checked them in details. You should do that too, because you are ok to scrutinize the CSA units but not the USA ones!

Vicksburg militia took 5 hits

for the artilleries:
LA Battery took 3 hits
Vicksburg artillery took 3 hits
TN Battery took no hits.

total 6

Porter Fleet:
Total 11 hits

Well, that doesn't seem to tell the whole story. Apparently the ironclads have a lot more 'hits' to take, because the file in question shows them with very little damage, while the batteries, which can perhaps absorb fewer 'hits' are well on their way to destruction.

Okay, I found the backup file which shows some east coast fort batteries being bombarded and destroyed. Two in fact.

File attached.

Wilhammer - no peeking at this one.

Pocus wrote:so you did some serious testing? .....

Until you bring me some hard facts, the equation won't change, and I just can't spend too much time checking things that are not backed by a real test.

Pocus, I asked previously, where can I find the results data? The game only provides a very general "hits taken."

Another question, which I will test once I understand where to look for the results.....when forts appear to be the aggressors (they are mentioned in the message as firing on a fleet, vs. the opposite) they REALLY seem to take a beating.

I ALWAYS lose the coastal batteries......sure, I don't have replacements in place, but I'm the CSA, I can't afford it!

The other problem may simply lie in the fact that without an in-game screen that allows me to see what damage I did to the individual ships, I can't make out whether the batteries are at least sinking some ships.

I'll test like crazy, just tell me where to look for results in the saves/backups, whatever.

Pocus: no offense bud, but we're trying to help here and you pretty much sneered at us and sounded, well, pissy. Look, I know this is your baby, but I love it too! ... I'm just trying to help make it better. I'm not a beta tester, or a developer, I'm just a fan who wants to help. Please don't take offense to comments meant to help in the improvement process!