Shelling passing ships

[Jabberwock]

I'm not asking that we go back to the old 'Iwo Jima' system, that was unbalanced just as badly in the other direction. I'm stating my opinion that the new system still needs to be tweaked. If nobody else speaks up here, I could accept that maybe I am just a crank on this subject, but I am enjoying debating it with you runyan.

[runyan99]

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.

Well, you could try that in the game, but Ft. Clark in the game would be stronger than it was historically.

We're having a hard time using a game example which closely reflects historical data.

There is also a problem where if the 7 ships (unarmored) that you mention above can reduce a place like Ft. Clark in the game, then the places like Ft. Donelson, with similar defenses, don't stand a chance against a bombardment.

When in doubt, I think the benefit has to go to the forts, because I can find more examples of forts whipping ships than the other way around.

[Pocus]

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

This is normal, you do the same actions, so the same results are repeated.

Instead, roll back, do nothing, then attack (at turn N+2 then, not N+1), this will allow the dices to be vastly different.

As ships are mobile, can concentrate and pick their targets, I prefer that they must be very prudent when they bombard forts, for game balance purpose at least, and I would think it is more historical too.

[Jabberwock]

Well, you could try that in the game, but Ft. Clark in the game would be stronger than it was historically.

We're having a hard time using a game example which closely reflects historical data.

There is also a problem where if the 7 ships (unarmored) that you mention above can reduce a place like Ft. Clark in the game, then the places like Ft. Donelson, with similar defenses, don't stand a chance against a bombardment.

When in doubt, I think the benefit has to go to the forts, because I can find more examples of forts whipping ships than the other way around.

I agree with all of that.

The Union never built every ship that is available in the game, or used every ship in the blockade fleets against a single point. The Confederates didn't have all the artillery and gunpowder for their garrisons that they start out with in this game.

If a Confederate position was outclassed or had supply issues, they would usually be abandoned, they always needed the men elsewhere. If a Union fleet was outclassed by a fort, the commander was thinking "I'd rather get pasted by rebs than by a congressional committee." Union fleets took a pretty good shellacking in many of these cases. Sometimes the bombardments were effective, often not.

I believe a problem that crops up in analysis is when the observer looks at casualties and thinks "Oh, casualties were very light, not like a land battle, the bombardment must have been ineffective." Maybe the walls were falling down, the barracks were on fire, half the guns were out of commission, and the magazine was about to blow up or run out, but two ships got sunk and the fleet sailed off. Then it becomes a question of who had the option to run away.

These are problems in dealing with what-if situations.

I look at game balance by playing each side. Under the old system, I had great fun as the federal navy, not so much as rebel garrison commanders. Under the new system that is reversed.

[Wilhammer]

I almost wish that Naval units had their own 'Divisions' that suffer from the same efficiency problems as ground units without command or under over burdened leaders.

I bet if the Union piles 3 dozen monitors together and patrols them up and down the coast, they will still give some frightful damage, but I find it hard to imagine a fleet of monitors of that size actually doing this.

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

The Union 'Monitor Deathstar' might be fun, but it is hardly good simulation or history.

The naval aspect of this war worked ONLY when in combined arms 2-D combat. The ships served to pin defenders and make life miserable while the infantry force HAD to close with the enemy to take out the fort.

[Jabberwock]

This is normal, you do the same actions, so the same results are repeated.

Instead, roll back, do nothing, then attack (at turn N+2 then, not N+1), this will allow the dices to be vastly different.

As ships are mobile, can concentrate and pick their targets, I prefer that they must be very prudent when they bombard forts, for game balance purpose at least, and I would think it is more historical too.

Thank you for the clarification.

'S. Dupont's command has bombarded Ft Caswell Garrison, landing 0 hits and suffering 18 hits from the returned fire.'
'S. Dupont's command has bombarded Ft Caswell Garrison, landing 0 hits and suffering 11 hits from the returned fire.'

[pakfront]

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

Coincidentally I am reading 'Combined Operations in the Civil War' - Rowena Reed. Granted, a contenscious author, but she covers the Ft. Hatteras reduction. She claims that Ft Clark was unable to reach the attacking ships due to the small caliber of their guns, and in fact ran out of ammo in 2 hrs. Ft Hatteras was essentially invulnerable except to plunging fire from 2 pivot guns which endangered the magazine.
Later on (about as far as I've gotten) during the attack on Port Royal, it seems the Union ships were able to take advantage of enfilading fire due to the partial completion of the works. There also was some classic 'this dang ball don't fit my gun' ammo confusion in the defending Forts.
Anyway - it seems from her introduction the ability of a fleet to harm a fort was dependent on the construction and armament of the fort. A well positioned, well built, well armed fort was not at great risk from a fleet.

[Queeg]

Anyway - it seems from her introduction the ability of a fleet to harm a fort was dependent on the construction and armament of the fort. A well positioned, well built, well armed fort was not at great risk from a fleet.

It seems to me that the historical scenario was that a fort attacked by a coordinated land/naval force was at great risk. But naval fire alone was rarely, if ever, sufficient. The current model seems to capture that pretty well.

[jimwinsor]

We could give presumably high-sighted forts constructed in Hill terrain (ie, Vicksburg, Port Hudson) a defensive combat bonus from river fire, reflecting the fact the guns are situated on a high bluff practically immune from naval fire.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

We could give presumably high-sighted forts constructed in Hill terrain (ie, Vicksburg, Port Hudson) a defensive combat bonus from river fire, reflecting the fact the guns are situated on a high bluff practically immune from naval fire.

I agree that high-sighted forts deserve better modifiers than low-sighted forts. An argument could also be made for an offensive combat bonus due to plunging fire.

[Jabberwock]

Coincidentally I am reading 'Combined Operations in the Civil War' - Rowena Reed. Granted, a contenscious author, but she covers the Ft. Hatteras reduction. She claims that Ft Clark was unable to reach the attacking ships due to the small caliber of their guns, and in fact ran out of ammo in 2 hrs. Ft Hatteras was essentially invulnerable except to plunging fire from 2 pivot guns which endangered the magazine.
Later on (about as far as I've gotten) during the attack on Port Royal, it seems the Union ships were able to take advantage of enfilading fire due to the partial completion of the works. There also was some classic 'this dang ball don't fit my gun' ammo confusion in the defending Forts.
Anyway - it seems from her introduction the ability of a fleet to harm a fort was dependent on the construction and armament of the fort. A well positioned, well built, well armed fort was not at great risk from a fleet.

Excellent observations, Pakfront.

I also just read some descriptions of the Port Royal battle. Fort Walker would have made a better argument than Fort Hatteras, a massive fleet vs. a brick fort. Of course, the opposing argument would be that it was unfinished, only 16 guns were working, and it is therefore not representative. Besides, it is not shown on the map. Ft Henry was not representative for the same reasons, however, Ft Donelson, Ft Jackson, and Vicksburg are.

There should at least be two levels of forts, representative and unrepresentative.

[runyan99]

It's a complicated issue, because all forts were not created equal.

[Jabberwock]

Exactly, but what we have in the game are all Level 1 forts.

BTW - Pocus, please remove Ft DeSoto. It was not built until 1898.

[Pocus]

I will see this PhilThib about this database issue.

[tagwyn]

The best example of ineffective bombardment from the war that I recall was the Union Ironclad attack on Charleston. Ironclads were repulsed with heavy losses by Gen Beauregard's defenders. Attempts at reducing forts without infantry support were generally abandoned after that fiasco.

[Jabberwock]

The second most inneffective would probably be Porter's mortar attack on Fts Jackson & St. Philip. Almost 17,000 15" 200lb. shells fired over the course of 6 days. Results - 18 casualties, 7 guns destroyed, 2 burned down buildings in Ft Jackson, 2 functional forts. Somewhere between these examples and the slaughter at Ft Walker is what we are trying to model. There is a definite difference between results at strong, well-sited forts and weak or poorly-sited forts.

[Adam the VIth]

I agree that high-sighted forts deserve better modifiers than low-sighted forts. An argument could also be made for an offensive combat bonus due to plunging fire.

HUZZAH! I could not agree more and stated this about a month ago! Vicksburg was a bear because of its elevation, not because it had bigger guns or some magic powers....it's all about elevation!