Ironclads with 1.16 RC 4a

[Njordr]

Hello. Just yesterday I moved a 4 ironclads fleet lead by Admiral Foote in support of my troops besieging forts Henry & Donelson.
While I remember in my past games ironclads provided quite a punch against forts, I noticed they've been bombarded by the forts, suffering some damage without returning any consistent hit.

After having conquered them, I moved on against Island No. 10 and it happened again. Even worse, I'd say, for Islan No.10 garrison is 5 times more powerful than H & D.

Has anyone noticed the same effect?

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Any position with Coastal Artillery will demolish enemey fleets. They added massive protection bonuses to coastal arty to prevent the "deathfleet" syndrome that causes problems sometimes.

Historically, fleet's very rarely reduced forts on their own did they? I can't really think of any situation where that happened.

[Njordr]

Historically, fleet's very rarely reduced forts on their own did they? I can't really think of any situation where that happened.

If I remember correctly, Foote's fleet placed some good hits on Forts Donelson & Henry... Yes, the fleet caught massive damage, too.

By the way, what is the "deathfleet syndrome"?

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

The union can combine all their ships from all theatres together and get multi-thousand power stacks. Without coastal arty protection, the deathfleets can sail around and inflict hundreds of hits on a bunch of forts without taking much damage at all.

[Njordr]

The union can combine all their ships from all theatres together and get multi-thousand power stacks. Without coastal arty protection, the deathfleets can sail around and inflict hundreds of hits on a bunch of forts without taking much damage at all.

I see... I never applied such a strategy.

By the way, I wonder if forts become "ship-slayers" now... It may have sense with wooden ships, but not so much with ironclads.

[Pocus]

Have you actually tried that? There is a cap on the number of hits a fleet can inflict on a land target. Same for the reverse, but the forts get an advantage here...

[cwhomer]

Historically, fleet's very rarely reduced forts on their own did they? I can't really think of any situation where that happened.

Forts Hatteras and Fort Clark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hatteras_Inlet_Batteries

Fort Pulaski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Pulaski

In the first case, neither Hatteras nor Clark were proper forts and both were severely undermanned; in the second, significant damage was done by shore batteries on nearby Tybee Island- but those batteries were largely there because of the naval bombardment.

That said, most historians consider both examples of naval fleets bombarding forts into surrender, thanks largely in part to the James Rifled Cannon. Physical damage alone may not have been enough, but the psychological toll of taking fire without being able to return it, (with a similar effect, I believe, that flanking fire had on regiments), the exhaustion of ammunition, and the interdiction of reinforcements and supplies all forced combined to force the garrisons to surrender.

On the other hand you have examples such as Fort Fisher and Fort Sumter which, despite repeated efforts to bombard both into submission, held out nearly the entire war. Due to geography and supporting fortifications, the Union naval advantages were smaller or non-existence in these cases.

The current system works fine, but to accurately simulate history I have always felt that forts, especially coastal forts, need a little gradiation in terms of how "tough" they were; some forts were simply harder nuts to crack than others.

Something for a modder or a ACWII programmer to explore.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[cwhomer]

There will be no more non crash or database changes for AACW except in the case of reverse or incorrect logic.

I know, which is why I said it was for a modder or someone developing AACW 2 to look at.

My apologies if that was unclear.