Questions on Coastal Artillery

[Stauffenberg]

The CSA player is well-advised to build extra coastal artillery asap and get some to Norfolk in particular. Union activity around the James is inevitable, and it is satisfying to say the least, to see your newly positioned heavy guns scoring 23-38 hits or so upon a passing union naval force.

These guns can be built in Georgia and will appear in Savannah as well as further south in Brunswick. Some of the 3 gun builds here can also be judiciously be placed in Mississippi forts at Memphis perhaps, Vicksburg certainly. Virginia gets a few coastal artillery builds, although it seems as though these are not always available in every game.

My questions: are these guns of any great use when placed in inland forts? At Chattanooga they would of course interdict riverine units on the Tennessee R., but how effective would they be against land assaults? Their gun specs seem to indicate they would be a real asset.

[lodilefty]

Coastal Artillery has a TargetType = $Naval set in the model...

..so it will not participate at all in land combat.

While one could argue that these guns are capable of firing at infantry, etc. the idea is that they are emplaced facing the water and are difficult to move...

[Longshanks]

Hmmm, so if I invade a fort with coastal guns, the land combat calculations do not include the coastal guns?

I understand the guns may fire at the ships, or land units using riverine movement, but they are not part of the actual land combat result?

When I look at a Battle Report, I get a different impression...

[Stauffenberg]

Makes perfect sense thanks.
As for hard to relocate--indeed. For some reason a build appeared in the small harbour of Tappahannock in Virgina, and it's taking about a month and a half of slogging to move the guns to Richmond.

[Ethan]

Then, to make it clear, if I assault a CSA standard fort (1 infantry unit + 1 fort battery unit + 1 coastal artillery unit) I understand that the coastal artillery unit won't fire against my invasive troops, is this correct Lodi?

Thank you very much in advance!

[charlesonmission]

Hmmm, so if I invade a fort with coastal guns, the land combat calculations do not include the coastal guns?

I understand the guns may fire at the ships, or land units using riverine movement, but they are not part of the actual land combat result?

When I look at a Battle Report, I get a different impression...

Coastal artillery is in the battle report screen for but doesn't participate.

Charles

[lodilefty]

Then, to make it clear, if I assault a CSA standard fort (1 infantry unit + 1 fort battery unit + 1 coastal artillery unit) I understand that the coastal artillery unit won't fire against my invasive troops, is this correct Lodi?

Thank you very much in advance!

Yes, but Coastal will fire on the Ships.

[Ethan]

OK, thanks a lot again.

[Longshanks]

Yes, but Coastal will fire on the Ships.

I thought fort guns only fired on ships when they left the region, under the "double adjaceny" rule.

[charlesonmission]

For those of you that are wondering if this is logical, I recently visited Fort Fisher and it was confirmed there that the vast majority of Union casulties during the Fort Fisher attack on land were from infantry and field pices, not coastal artillery. Battery Buchannan did fire at Union troops, but with minimal effect. One idea would be that coastal artillery would have 10% of the fire power on land troops. However, I don't think the current game mechanics. Something to hope for in a AACW2, if such a things comes into being.

Yes, but Coastal will fire on the Ships.

[MarkCSA]

And you learn something new every day! Never knew this, thanks guys!

[Stauffenberg]

For those of you that are wondering if this is logical, I recently visited Fort Fisher and it was confirmed there that the vast majority of Union casulties during the Fort Fisher attack on land were from infantry and field pices, not coastal artillery. Battery Buchannan did fire at Union troops, but with minimal effect. One idea would be that coastal artillery would have 10% of the fire power on land troops. However, I don't think the current game mechanics. Something to hope for in a AACW2, if such a things comes into being.

Even so, there is the question of the siting for these guns, whether it could be changed or not, and whether any special preparations were made--canister for example. One of these heavy guns, more effectively sited to deal with infantry assaults, and loaded up with double canister... I imagine the results might be impressive.

[ohms_law]

I'd think that it would depend on exactly what's being talked about. Somehow I doubt that a 150 Armstrong Gun would be site-able quickly enough to effectively fire on infantry (who could, you know.... move). The Armstrong at Fort Fisher was on rails anyway, but you know part of the point behind coastal artillery is that the guns are emplaced within barbettes.

The Fort Fisher Buchanan Battery, which I think is most representative of "Coastal Artillery", were installed in (massive) earthenworks, you know? Even if you turned them... you'd have to dig them out before being able to fire them on anyone.

[Stauffenberg]

I'd think that it would depend on exactly what's being talked about. Somehow I doubt that a 150 Armstrong Gun would be site-able quickly enough to effectively fire on infantry (who could, you know.... move). The Armstrong at Fort Fisher was on rails anyway, but you know part of the point behind coastal artillery is that the guns are emplaced within barbettes.

The Fort Fisher Buchanan Battery, which I think is most representative of "Coastal Artillery", were installed in (massive) earthenworks, you know? Even if you turned them... you'd have to dig them out before being able to fire them on anyone.

That's clearly the case in most situations, or in ideal or "normal" circumstances. I guess what got me thinking along these lines is the fact that the CSA player can create some 3-6 additional coastal artillery units of 24 cannons each (costing $60,000, 2 conscripts and 15 WS ea) which can be moved as desired, albeit slowly. If you are siting these above Chattanooga, Fredericksburg, or at Memphis or Vicksburg, you would presumably have the option of allowing for a more unconventional field of fire. If no naval targets appear they will otherwise be doing nothing.

I wonder what info could be dug up about super heavy ordnance the south managed to create (somehow), where it was sent to, and how employed?

[Yellowhammer]

Stauffenberg - re: coastal arty at Chattanooga. Note that the Tennessee River is impassable at Muscle Shoals Alabama (which is historically accurate), so Union fleets cannot reach Chattanooga.

[Longshanks]

It's true Union fleets can't reach Chattanooga, but units can use Riverine movement and are susceptible to naval gun fire.

[charlesonmission]

When I was out Fort Fisher a few weeks I bought the Fort Fisher Ordnance t-shirt which was on sale for $5. It lists all the ordnance used at Fort Fisher. If people are interested, I can write them here. Having toured Fort Fisher and read William Trotter's Ironclads and Columbiads, it appears to me that the game and the other comment about coastal artillery being emplaced is correct. Basically, under normal circumstances coastal artillery can't fire at land assaults. At Fort Fisher, the majority of the coastal artillery faces towards the sea, but the land assault of course happens from land. It isn't possible to replace weapons that way thousands and thousands of pounds quickly. Battery Buchannan was able to fire on Fort Fisher itself when it saw a Union flag on the parapet. The reason Battery Buchannan was different was because it was separated from the fort about a kilometre away. According to the Fort Fisher Park, this gave very few of the casualties and the vast majority of the casualties inflicted by the CSA was from field pieces and muskets/rifles. Therefore, I'd still say a 10% attack on land would be reasonable to reflect that yes sometimes coastal artillery can fire on troops, but with minimal effect.

Charles

That's clearly the case in most situations, or in ideal or "normal" circumstances. I guess what got me thinking along these lines is the fact that the CSA player can create some 3-6 additional coastal artillery units of 24 cannons each (costing $60,000, 2 conscripts and 15 WS ea) which can be moved as desired, albeit slowly. If you are siting these above Chattanooga, Fredericksburg, or at Memphis or Vicksburg, you would presumably have the option of allowing for a more unconventional field of fire. If no naval targets appear they will otherwise be doing nothing.

I wonder what info could be dug up about super heavy ordnance the south managed to create (somehow), where it was sent to, and how employed?

[Aphrodite Mae]

[...]
I wonder what info could be dug up about super heavy ordnance the south managed to create (somehow), where it was sent to, and how employed?

Stauffenberg, my husband has a fairly large library of CW Artillery books. If you'll send him a PM describing what you want to know, I'm sure that he'll be able to recommend exactly what you need.

As for "super heavy ordnance", the best reference that I know of is a work by Phillip Katcher, by Osprey Press. It's a fairly slim volume, but it details all of the stuff that you're curious about, IIRC. I don't remember the title. (Sorry.) What I do remember, though, is that Bill/Dixicrat complained to me bitterly about how Katcher's scholarship was poor. How, and to what extent, I have no idea.

[Longshanks]

My wife thinks heavy ordnance is me with a chain saw.

[Stauffenberg]

Stauffenberg, my husband has a fairly large library of CW Artillery books. If you'll send him a PM describing what you want to know, I'm sure that he'll be able to recommend exactly what you need.

As for "super heavy ordnance", the best reference that I know of is a work by Phillip Katcher, by Osprey Press. It's a fairly slim volume, but it details all of the stuff that you're curious about, IIRC. I don't remember the title. (Sorry.) What I do remember, though, is that Bill/Dixicrat complained to me bitterly about how Katcher's scholarship was poor. How, and to what extent, I have no idea.

Thanks for that Mae, I'll likely drop him a line sometime on that and other artillery issues (including the mythical confederate rocket). Given the ingenuity of the South in that conflict, I've ceased being surprised at discovering new wonders and blunders south of the Mason-Dixon line.

PS Enjoyed your Sergeant Pepper spoof.