Building forts

[CWNut77]

I am finding that (for the CSA) building forts MAY be a waste of much-needed artillery and supply resources...at least in the first year or two of the struggle. what are the specific benefits of having a fort in a region and, are they really worth expending these resources to build...again, strictly speaking for the CSA?

[vonRocko]

I have never built a fort as rebel or union. I always have better uses for the 4 artillery the WIKI says are needed to build. As the south, it is hard enough to gather all these guns to waste on an immobile fort. As far as specific benefits go,I think most of them[like supply interdiction,or naval bombardment] can be achieved without a fort. But I may be missing something,and I hope more experienced players will respond to your question.

[Dixicrat]

I'm certainly not an experienced player. But I always use 6 lbrs for building forts, saving bigger guns with better range for unit stacks. 6 lbrs are fairly cheap to build, too.

[Dixicrat]

Another important consideration with forts is the zone of control it exerts. Select any unit with a fort, then hover your mouse over the circular-looking icon at the left of the status icons on the unit panel. You'll see that units in a fort generate 100 zone of control points, which is massive.

[vonRocko]

Another important consideration with forts is the zone of control it exerts. Select any unit with a fort, then hover your mouse over the circular-looking icon at the left of the status icons on the unit panel. You'll see that units in a fort generate 100 zone of control points, which is massive.

Good point,I never considered that. I must experiment.

[CWNut77]

Another important consideration with forts is the zone of control it exerts. Select any unit with a fort, then hover your mouse over the circular-looking icon at the left of the status icons on the unit panel. You'll see that units in a fort generate 100 zone of control points, which is massive.

So does this mean that the fort controls all the surrounding regions? Help me understand this "zone of control" scheme.

[Rafiki]

Does this help? http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Fort#Effects_of_forts

[CWNut77]

Does this help? http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Fort#Effects_of_forts

MAN you're quick -- do you live in Cyberspace -- yes, most helpful, thanks

So you tell me Raf, what do YOU think? Are they worth the effort for the CSA?

[Rafiki]

MAN you're quick -- do you live in Cyberspace -- yes, most helpful, thanks

Quick? Nah, it was a whole 33 minutes that passed before I answered

So you tell me Raf, what do YOU think? Are they worth the effort for the CSA?

I'm really not the person to ask about CSA strategic choices

I find the price is steep, but if you plan on "drawing the line" somewhere where you don't have forts already, it might be worth it. I also won't be surprised to see a CSA fort sitting on strategic places where the Union might be looking into transporting supplies by river (E.g. where the Arkansas enters the Mississippi, IIRC?)

[CWNut77]

It's just that the CSA is SO limited in supply wagons. Artillery can be more easily purchased...but the wagons are often too expensive to build. Oh well, more incentive to capture them from the Yankees

[squarian]

I'm still a wet-behind-the-ears newbie, but the one place I have seriously considered building a fort is New Orleans, since it seems like losing it will more or less guarantee the loss of LA and lower MS too.

[Dixicrat]

It's just that the CSA is SO limited in supply wagons. Artillery can be more easily purchased...but the wagons are often too expensive to build. Oh well, more incentive to capture them from the Yankees

Since wagons are used to build both forts and depots, they're certainly in high demand. Its been mentioned elsewhere, but just in case you haven't seen it... river transports can be used in lieu of wagons for building depots. Unfortunately, they cannot be used for building forts. But with the money, WS etc that you save by using transports where you can, you'll have more wagons for building those inland depots and forts.

[Dixicrat]

I'm still a wet-behind-the-ears newbie, but the one place I have seriously considered building a fort is New Orleans, since it seems like losing it will more or less guarantee the loss of LA and lower MS too.

I completely agree with you. "Nawlins" demands a fort: its the mouth of the Mississippi, its the largest southern city, its the sole source of WS for Louisiana (admittedly not much, but every little bit helps for a non-industrialized nation), it generates $10K of the 11K which LA produces, AND its a strategic objective for the Union.

IMHO, Vicksburg is another excellent site for a fort. I had eventually wanted to experiment with trying to build a fort at Vidalia, too... (A harbor just across the river from Natchez) ...but after looking at Rafiki's link, I've learned that a city is required. Apparently, a harbor just won't do.

[CWNut77]

Dixicrat & Squarian:

I understand that transports can also be used for building depots. Depots, however, are not my main concern. The South does not need these as much as the North as the North is the invading force most of the time. I am more concerned with using my supply wagons up as they are valuable for my larger forces on the map -- they take hits in battle and are very helpful for the instances where my units will stray from supply lines. And, like I said, these are expensive to replace.

New Orleans does not so much demand a fort -- there are 2 forts guarding the southern tip of the Mississippi for that purpose. Garrison the mouth with a naval force and it makes it kinda hard for the Union to "run" the forts as was done historically. Oh, and make sure there is a force entrenched in New Orleans as well.

I do agree with Vicksburg though...even though I have never done this myself. Historically Vicksburg was very well fortified indeed, and held out for a couple months' siege before capitulating. My choices? I have been fortifying Richmond, Nashville, and sometimes Columbus, KY. But, like I said I am reconsidering for other strategies at the moment.

[squarian]

Same subject, different issue:

Especially given the apparent river interception glitch, I have been trying to compensate as CSA by building heavy guns to reinforce forts, Island No. 10 and Henry/Donelson, but also planning ahead to buy extra columbiad/coastal battys for New Orleans or Vicksburg. Extra guns seem to be the only way to limit Union incursions along the rivers.

[Banks6060]

I'd say there are probably two early spots to put forts as the CSA. Richmond...and possibly Chattanooga.

Depending upon how the game goes....you'll probably want to follow the historical outline and put forts in all yur coastal cities...Charleston, Savannah, Wilmington...and then probably Vicksburg if it gets that far.

Otherwise you'll want to just do what is best for your particular needs.

Level 2 forts with a strong defensive force are a bitch to beat...you've got to have AT LEAST 3-1 odds IMHO for it not to be a massacre of your attacking troops. With a level 2 fort...you could probably hold off an entire Army with just a couple of divisions if they assaulted.

The Supply wagons are a little expensive, but with all the free ones you get, it really shouldn't be too large a burden to buy 4 more of them each year....6lb artillery is great for building forts.

[Rafiki]

Especially given the apparent river interception glitch

The jury is still out on that one; so far things seem to be WAD

[Coffee Sergeant]

The benefit of a fort is that it can hold off a much larger attacking force with minimal troops. This will give you time to get reinforcements down there to properly defend the region.

New Orleans is a good place to put a fort. It generates the most cash and WS of any Southern city outside of Richmond, and if I remember correctly provides a few conscript companies too. Plus it is farther away from the front, and easier for the Union to get to before you can react. It takes more than one turn for troops from the Tennessee theater to get there. If the Union is serious about taking it, the CSA can't get your troops in time to defend it properly before its captured, if you don't have a fort.

[Zebedee]

The benefit of a fort is that it can hold off a much larger attacking force with minimal troops. This will give you time to get reinforcements down there to properly defend the region.

New Orleans is a good place to put a fort. It generates the most cash and WS of any Southern city outside of Richmond, and if I remember correctly provides a few conscript companies too. Plus it is farther away from the front, and easier for the Union to get to before you can react. It takes more than one turn for troops from the Tennessee theater to get there. If the Union is serious about taking it, the CSA can't get your troops in time to defend it properly before its captured, if you don't have a fort.

May I respectfully strongly agree with the first point and strongly disagree with the second

Surely the places for forts are the areas which are consistently and almost constantly contested and provide a way for you to reduce the amount of troops needed to hold the area in order to build either a reserve behind the frontline or to gather the forces to launch a counterstroke?

Surely one gets several turns notice of any large invasion fleet sailing towards New Orleans? In addition, they have to pass through the gauntlet of the pre-existing forts, any gunboats or frigates which are patrolling the area (and which will also interdict supply from the sea), get past the locked troops who are entrenched outside the city, and then successfully take the city. At the minimum, that's surely at least 3 turns of clear warning for the confed player to choose whether or not to respond to save the city in the first place?

Once there, even if the city falls, it's not a huge catastrophe for the CSA as the upside is that there is now a Union army fighting at huge disadvantage in that area due to the problems it will have with supply. The CSA player surely has time to gather the forces to retake the city or, depending on which front/s the Union player has stripped, to go on the offensive elsewhere as well as being able to at least neutralise the Union forces down there, to be dealt with once other objectives are taken and secured. In effect, a sea invasion towards New Orleans against an opponent of equal skill ought to become a deathtrap for whatever forces the Union sends.

But if there is a fort there, then all bets are off because I don't have the troops to garrison it properly to prevent it falling before reinforcements arrive and I really don't want to be digging a Union army out from a fort I've built in New Orleans.

Personally, I'd rather use the limited CSA resources elsewhere and minimise fort building to areas where I must build them, primarily Virginia and then main depots close to the frontline which are not defended in force, and then only when the frontlines stalemate along riverlines. The CSA will always lose a war of attrition, and so has to strive to keep the war as fluid as possible to prevent the Union following a 'build and drive and build and drive' strategy. Building too many forts as the CSA seems to me to be a recipe for disaster as it denudes your mobility and provides ready made bases for the union to utilise.

[Coffee Sergeant]

You will not have "several turns" notice. You'll be lucky if you get one. The entire fleet can be moved inside Ft. Pickens or one of the forts off the keys and you won't see it . Even if you do you don't know where they'll strike. It could be anywhere from Galveston to Mobile.

Farragut has the "Fort Runner" attribute, which means he has a good chance of bypassing the fort altogether.

Supply doesn't seem to be an issue. As long as transports are stationed adjacent to the region they will supply the troops there.

[Zebedee]

Supply doesn't seem to be an issue. As long as transports are stationed adjacent to the region they will supply the troops there.

One gunboat is enough to disrupt the supply given several hours testing against Athena and some posts by Pocus as guidance. I am always open to error though given I've just managed to starve two corps to death only two regions away from a depot

I'm not certain why you won't see a substantial transport fleet sailing around the eastern part of the USA though. I've not yet failed to spot a fleet one turn out of two when moving for an amphibious landing, and unless Athena is cheating the same spotting rules apply for all.

Farragut's ability only comes into play for the fleet he is commanding at any one time. Reinforcements etc will have to do without that ability.

As for the rest, aren't you just providing an expensive speed bump for the Union to bounce over and one which will bite the CSA player when s/he comes to take back?

[Spharv2]

I'm not certain why you won't see a substantial transport fleet sailing around the eastern part of the USA though.

Point is, that fleet you see can land anywhere along well over 2,000 miles of coast, they might be headed to NO, or Mobile, or any number of points. But, NO is the most important coastal city for the CSA, so you want to defend it as well as you possibly can.

As for stranding the union in a bad area? Doesn't work that way, your gunboat you're using to interdict supply won't last long unless the Union player is enough of an idjit to not send escorts with the fleet, if they do, your ships are toast. Plus, it's a lot harder to take NO back from the land side than it is from the sea. Those marshes and swamps absolutely kill an overland attack. Once NO is gone, it's very hard to reclaim, unless you're getting so little pressure elsewhere that you can move a pretty large force down there.

[Zebedee]

Point is, that fleet you see can land anywhere along well over 2,000 miles of coast, they might be headed to NO, or Mobile, or any number of points. But, NO is the most important coastal city for the CSA, so you want to defend it as well as you possibly can.

As for stranding the union in a bad area? Doesn't work that way, your gunboat you're using to interdict supply won't last long unless the Union player is enough of an idjit to not send escorts with the fleet, if they do, your ships are toast. Plus, it's a lot harder to take NO back from the land side than it is from the sea. Those marshes and swamps absolutely kill an overland attack. Once NO is gone, it's very hard to reclaim, unless you're getting so little pressure elsewhere that you can move a pretty large force down there.

I'm not sure about the invasion force being such a threat everywhere... I mean, surely you guys in PBEM track them and assess size etc?

Still not sure of relative power of both sides, but gunboats seem a pretty cheap way of interdicting on the offchance the Union tries to land in New Orleans. You do get a fair few of them free as the CSA to start with and I'd gladly sacrifice them all (plus every brig and frigate) to cut off even for a few turns the force needed for the Union to hold down New Orleans and be supplied by sea. The bonus of taking 50k plus troops by siege is an additional incentive.

But then if the invasion force is that large that you need to move such a large force to reclaim it, will a fort really help out other than being a minor roadbump? All you surely need to do is to keep the Union player honest, and a fort is surely not needed for that?

My point is really that as the CSA, if the Union wants somewhere badly enough they will get it. Your job is to make them pay for it elsewhere.

[Jabberwock]

Hesitant to even post this, because it's one of my favorite tricks. I'll just state it, and let others figure out how it's done. I've given a few hints in various places around the forums. You won't even get a one-turn warning of an amphibious invasion playing PBEM against me, unless I feel like giving you one, or you're just very lucky. Sometimes I'm deliberately clumsy with early raids, to make an opponent think that they'll see it coming when it's for real.

One turn it looks like the coast is clear, the next I'll have troops attacking an objective (or several). It's harder to do in some areas, like Louisiana/Mississipi (or at least the initial objectives I can hit this way are limited there) ... Which is a good reason why I don't invade New Orleans much anymore.

Athena is not cheating, she doesn't know this trick, and only does it very rarely by accident.



P.S. I prefer a reactive defense as the south, the front line is just there to fix the Union forces in place and tire them a little.

[Zebedee]

Hesitant to even post this, because it's one of my favorite tricks. I'll just state it, and let others figure out how it's done. I've given a few hints in various places around the forums. You won't even get a one-turn warning of an amphibious invasion playing PBEM against me, unless I feel like giving you one, or you're just very lucky. Sometimes I'm deliberately clumsy with early raids, to make an opponent think that they'll see it coming when it's for real.

One turn it looks like the coast is clear, the next I'll have troops attacking an objective (or several). It's harder to do in some areas, like Louisiana/Mississipi (or at least the initial objectives I can hit this way are limited there) ... Which is a good reason why I don't invade New Orleans much anymore.

Is that using a glitch in the game mechanic involving the way fleets move to and from the 'offmap' boxes?

[Jabberwock]

Nope. That's not it.

[Daxil]

I think a fort in Richmond, obviously, is a good idea. If you can defend Richmond with one division as oppossed to a Corps, that's a good investment and frees up the rest of your likely outnumbered army if the US is pressing. New Orleans isn't a bad idea, but I might build one there second. Unless that's its first and primary naval objective, the US probably won't be able to attack it with more than one division before Spring 1862, so just get some elements + guns down there right away and consider the fort later depending on if you think you can spare the resources.

I like the idea of a fort at Chattanooga. That railway line is the Confederate spine. IMO you lose Memphis, South Cumberland, or Chattanooga, you're in deep shit as the Confederacy because the lines through Georgia / SC are easy to cut with all the rivers. They also are along the main railway to Trans Miss, so build an Ironclad fleet to cover that link. With that in mind I might opt not to build a fort at Richmond or NO, but rather Memphis/Cumberland/Chattanooga using the battle ifor Tennessee and KY as a delay so you can get this Maginot Line up. Thinking as I go here.

[Bâton Rouge]

Hi all.
I'm a complete newbie and I'm trying too to figure out the interest of building forts.
I wonder if they have some kind of financial interest. Forts cost is more or less equal to two strong brigades except you use more WS and less troops. So, if you suppose their military value is equal to these two brigades, it may be interesting to build them if you are limited by troops but not by WS. It's usually the case in my limited experience but is it what generally happens in your games?
A related question is: do you feel limited by the number of supply wagons you get for free or capture in your games? I don't, so I could consider use some for forts, but I just play AI and a "real" game may be very different.

But the BIG question is: is a fort equal to two strong brigades? I have no idea. A couple of question to make my mind:
What do you consider a standard garrison for a fort if you expect a division size attack and need a 3 or 4 turns delay to prepare counter attack?
Same question for a corps size attack.
Another related question: what kind of artillery is better if you want to bombard ships? Columbiad and costal?
Is siege artillery of any use inside forts?
Thanks in advance for all the answers.

[squarian]

is a fort equal to two strong brigades? I have no idea.

I'm just as new, but if Daxil is right, and a division in a fort has the holding power of a corps, then I'd conclude a fort is at least equal to two bdes.

What do you consider a standard garrison for a fort if you expect a division size attack and need a 3 or 4 turns delay to prepare counter attack? Same question for a corps size attack.

Given the cost and difficulty of building one, it seems to me I wouldn't want to put one anywhere that wasn't worth at least a division-sized garrison. In other words, if it's worth defending with a fort, it's probably also worth devoting a division to garrison it.

what kind of artillery is better if you want to bombard ships? Columbiad and costal?

I'm anxious for a qualified response to this question, since I've been assuming Columbiads and coastal guns are best on the basis of their historical role, without actually studying the numbers.

Is siege artillery of any use inside forts?

Likewise - I've been assuming yes, but I'd like to know if I'm right.

[Dixicrat]

I've created a spreadsheet analyzing which artillery units are best for various roles. I'll try and present this tomorrow. If not then, then fairly soon. My conclusion is that mortars are great defenders... which is rather different than my initial conclusions, but numbers don't lie, right?