Shelling passing ships

[Jacek]

This is problematic. Say, you entrench your stack to level 5 and it automatically shells passing enemy ships. Now that would be fine if it concerned only field artillery units in your stack, but apparently ANY artillery unit ignites this. That means if you have artillery elements in your infantry brigades/regiments they will shell those OVERPOWERED ships.

With field artillery it is different - you can always remove it from stack or send to a different region but mostly you cannot do this to those infantry units beacuse mostly you need them to sit in those 5+ trenches right there!

Recently Magruder stack near Alexandria is commiting this suicide by firing with their tiny regimental/brigade Parrot arty on Farragut fleet on the Potomac, inflicting 10 hits and taking 103 in return.

NOT NICE.

[mikee64]

I'm not sure its due to just the imbedded artillery elements anyway - if you look at my AAR where DH Hill's stack was eliminated because it fired on passing ships, there was a sharpshooter unit in the stack which was destroyed with all the rest of them. I agree, even with toning down bombardment results, this could still be a problem.

[Jacek]

You mean that a SHARPSHOOTER unit may also ignite such beahviour? Because of their initiative trait perhaps?

[runyan99]

This does seem a little out of whack. You cannot keep a single unit of artillery at Norfolk, for example, because if you do it will get into a duel with the first Union fleet that passes by, and probably get blown away.

The trouble is we need some entrenched guns to engage ships, like at Viksburg, and some not to, like at Norfolk perhaps.

Is a bombard button for artillery, like the on/off button that ships currently have, the answer to the problem?

[Pocus]

your experience Jacek is with 1.02, with 1.04 you should not get this problem.

Only artillery can triggers passing fire, but embedded artillery can too. If the problem persists, Runyan's proposal is a good one.

[Jacek]

I second Runyan proposal. I would like to have an option to choose between shelling the ships or sitting still without firing and let the enemy flotillas move unchecked.

[mikee64]

You mean that a SHARPSHOOTER unit may also ignite such beahviour? Because of their initiative trait perhaps?

No, the SS unit was stacked with artillery. But the return fire wiped out the entire stack. Here is the message and the force that was eliminated:



This was with 1.03; unfortunately I don't see anything in the 1.04 readme that indicates this could not still happen if the return fire is strong enough.

[runyan99]

A large gunboat fleet is capable of dishing out an Iwo Jima style shelling on land forces.

Historically, on the other hand, I have a hard time finding an instance where gunboats caused more than a handful of casualties to infantry forces.

[Pocus]

this is weird, because gunboats have a range of 4 and only range 5+ ships are allowed to bombard or retaliate from passing fire. To be confirmed...

[Wilhammer]

I've never seen gunboats bombard, but I have seen ironclads dish out a world of hurt.

Fleets that are normally used by me contain a mix of gunboats, transports and ironclads, for I typically depend on the ironclads to bombard, the gunboats to defend against other ships and take hits, and the transports to land stuff. The gunboats then get sent out to block crossing of rivers, sealing rivers, or blockades.

It is like Iwo Jima though, but more effective, using Massed Ironclads.

-------------

Another point. If a force shoots at the flotilla passing by, the flotilla then returns fire on the ENTIRE force - the damage gets spread about OR more damage is dealt out to more targets.

I am not sure what that exactly means - does it mean that the flotilla is bombarding at everything, dishing out more damage, than if it had engaged just one unit? That is likely the case, as combat at sea and between bombarding forces and non-bombarding forces, it is conducted like ranged land combat, and all the land combat rules, including sticking around and beating up the force that won't retreat.

-------------

[Pocus]

no, this is not a combat per se, but an exchange of hits, so you don't get retreat, rout and such.

With 1.04, fleets should be less potent when bombarding.

[runyan99]

I was using the word gunboat kind of generically. It is the ironclads and the monitors which deal out the punishment.

[Pocus]

ok, don't hesitate to perform some new tests with the new game balance introduced in 1.04.

[Jabberwock]

ok, don't hesitate to perform some new tests with the new game balance introduced in 1.04.

I think it went too far the other way now, in favor of land based units. An average between the old and new would be about right. If I send a 2500 point naval stack to bombard even the strongest fort, maybe it won't wipe out the fort, but it should not do 0 damage while taking 60 hits in return fire.

Also, I'd like to see mortar schooners in the game. Porter and Foote had them at New Orleans and Island #10 respectively. I can put heavy artillery on brigs, and pretend, for now, but it would be nice to have. Strength about 14 points offensively (1 13" 200lb. mortar), 8 defensively (large brig, ship-rigged), indirect fire only, range approximately 2 miles. Of course, with the new rules they would be kind of useless . . .

[runyan99]

I'm still getting more experience with the new balance between the forts and the guns. I have found a few examples that showed that guns in these positions are no longer to be trifled with. In one example, my opponent's riverboat fleet attempted to bombard Henry/Donelson at a moment when I had an entire division in the fort including about 5 or 6 batteries, and the river fleet took a terrific pasting, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

As for the mortar boats, it is true they are not included in the game, but perhaps it is not a great oversight when you consider the fact that historically they were responsible for achieving almost nothing.

[Jabberwock]

In one example, my opponent's riverboat fleet attempted to bombard Henry/Donelson at a moment when I had an entire division in the fort including about 5 or 6 batteries, and the river fleet took a terrific pasting, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

That's pretty much what happened to Foote at Donelson.

As for the mortar boats, it is true they are not included in the game, but perhaps it is not a great oversight when you consider the fact that historically they were responsible for achieving almost nothing.

True, but then they were only used against very strong positions.

[Jabberwock]

I have found a few examples that showed that guns in these positions are no longer to be trifled with.

I only trifle using cavalry.

As it stands now, half the Union Navy in 1863-4 wouldn't have been able to take on Fort Clark.

[runyan99]

You want to post a test and a file?

[Hobbes]

this is weird, because gunboats have a range of 4 and only range 5+ ships are allowed to bombard or retaliate from passing fire. To be confirmed...

I noticed gunboats bombarding a few days ago and wondered about it as they only have a 4 range.

Chris

[Jagger]

As for the mortar boats, it is true they are not included in the game, but perhaps it is not a great oversight when you consider the fact that historically they were responsible for achieving almost nothing.

One nice feature of BOA is the ease of creating new units. The major difficulty would be creating a new graphic if an existing one can't be used. I assume it is just as easy within AACW.

[Jabberwock]

To demonstrate, I started 1863, brought in all the atlantic fleets + gulf blockade fleet, against a minor fort. 10 hits inflicted - 17 received. Not as bad as I claimed in my previous post, but still not right.

Fleet strength went from 1800 to under 1200.

[runyan99]

I don't see anything wrong with that result. Fleets didn't have an easy time reducing forts by gunfire.

Keep in mind the Caswell garrison only has 20 'hits' in two batteries to start, so your fleet has reduced the fort batteries by 50%, while your fleet has spread 17 hits around the fleet. Your fleet won.

[Jabberwock]

I don't see anything wrong with that result. Fleets didn't have an easy time reducing forts by gunfire.

Keep in mind the Caswell garrison only has 20 'hits' in two batteries to start, so your fleet has reduced the fort batteries by 50%, while your fleet has spread 17 hits around the fleet. Your fleet won.

Normal sized fleets could have problems against well defended and reinforced forts. This was everything the Union had available from both blockades against an unreinforced fort.

[runyan99]

If it is 'unreinforced', it is still an intact fort with a full complement of guns in the game.

What decent fort did a massive fleet reduce by gunfire during the war? What's the historical precedent for your argument that your fleet should have an easier time against Caswell?

Keep in mind, if your fleet bombards again, I expect the guns in the fort to be reduced to almost nothing.

[Jabberwock]

What decent fort did a massive fleet reduce by gunfire during the war?

Fort Hatteras comes to mind - wasn't even a massive fleet.

[Jabberwock]

Keep in mind, if your fleet bombards again, I expect the guns in the fort to be reduced to almost nothing.

I would also expect my fleet to be reduced a ridiculous amount.

Edit:

We were both wrong.

'S. Dupont's command has bombarded Ft Caswell Garrison, landing 0 hits and suffering 9 hits from the returned fire.'

Fleet strength is still above 1000.

[Pocus]

there is some randomization here, so you will want to do 3+ tests here.

[Jabberwock]

there is some randomization here, so you will want to do 3+ tests here.

I don't think I'm understanding what you mean. If I roll back turns I keep getting the same results.

[runyan99]

Fort Hatteras comes to mind - wasn't even a massive fleet.

Hatteras was an incomplete sand fort without its full complement of artillery. You cannot use Hatteras as a model for all Confederate forts.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~nchyde/FTHATTER.HTM

[Jabberwock]

Hatteras was an incomplete sand fort without its full complement of artillery. You cannot use Hatteras as a model for all Confederate forts.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~nchyde/FTHATTER.HTM

Fort Clark (across the inlet) was an incomplete sand fort without its full complement of artillery (5 guns). This is also where the infantry assault you might read about took place. Most casual histories get them mixed up.

Fort Hatteras was a sand fort, true, and they had a limited supply of powder due to damp conditions. It was not a full scale third system brick fort with casemates and parapets. But it was not incomplete, it was well designed, and it did have its full complement of artillery (20 guns). It was bombarded by 5 steam frigates, 1 sailing frigate, and a revenue cutter (brig). The commander refused to surrender to the army, arguing that he could have held out against mere soldiers all year, it was the big guns of the navy that had beat him.

Lets try this in the game. 5 steam frigates, 1 frigate & one brig sail up to Ft Clark, and get blown out of the water, end of story. There is a problem.

edit: That was an exaggeration, they probably just sail back to Fort Monroe, badly beaten and bruised, having accomplished nothing.