Weak Forts in Key Southern Cities

[PvtBenjamin]

Many key Southern cities( Norfolk, Wilmington, Mobile, New Orleans & Charleston) are forced to be protected by these ridiculously weak (even at level 1) forts. This should change in the PBEM game, just let the player decide if they want the forts or put a unit in the city. With no Navy and level 3 amphib for the North its impossible for the South to protect except with multiple units which they don't have.

[battlevonwar]

The part about weak isn't the issue it's the fact they're over 'key cities' that's annoying. I'd just prefer remove them from Objective Cities. It's fine for AI but for a thinking human Norfolk for instance is extremely vulnerable, as well as New Orleans. The Union Opponent will simply attack in force if they want them. The South has an answer pack 4-5 Units around the Fort to protect it. It's not fun... Not saying you want the objectives impervious to naval invasion just saying is there another way?

[Bo Rearguard]

It's fine for AI but for a thinking human Norfolk for instance is extremely vulnerable, as well as New Orleans.

I figure Norfolk must have extremely vulnerable in real life considering that the Confederates basically gave it up with a fight when Yorktown fell. That doesn't usually happen in the game anyway.

When you look at Confederate situation in 1862 there were just coastal vulnerabilities everywhere. The country was basically too big to defend with the South's threadbare armies and nonexistent navy. Confederate Brigadier General Henry Wise made a famous trip to Richmond to appeal to Confederate Secretary of War Benjamin Judah for more troops to protect Roanoke Island in the North Carolina Sounds. Judah told him to just make do with what he was given. There simply weren't any reinforcements to be had. Not long after Wise returned to his post the place fell easily to General Burnside and the North Carolina Sounds with it. My feeling is the game is replicating well the rather irksome strategic situation Jeff Davis & Co. found themselves in of having to defend almost every point on the compass.

I think aside from Charleston and Wilmington the Union usually took whatever it set its mind to on Confederacy's coastline. And Wilmington just took a little longer than most.

[battlevonwar]

All this is true Bo Rearguard, although the Union didn't adventure about the interior of The Carolinas or Virginia either? Because when they did they met larger armies in force and they were supplied on the Coastlines not so in the interior. The larger expeditions were well supplied from Rail and overland through Kentucky/Tennessee and Maryland. The Scale of the game doesn't suite history really to make all this 110% valid for in game actual play. There weren't 8 or 9 Indian Mounted Cavalry running around fighting like frontlines units either. You could spend 500 Production as the CSA to convince a nation to join your side, no nation would join the CSA unless she won.

All over the map yep, the CSA was vulnerable and they did use Submarines, Ironclads, and a meager navy to fight a few tiny battles. Some of the battles for Ports lasted till the very end of the War cause there was a very good reason to hold onto them. Don't even get me mentioning how the James was not as vulnerable as it is in this game. The issue with the Forts is they simply are 1 struck and killed and then the occupying Unit takes the Fortress Location without a fight at all. Even if you chose to defend, you don't have a historical or ahistorical option in any of this. . .

If you want a more historical feel give no Supply to interior excursions except where they would of been historically feasible. e.g. Ft. Monroe... Making Secondary Supply Centers throughout the Coastlines is just Ahistorical in that sure was it possible for the Union to put 100,000 Men into Coastal Florida, I imagine they could. Did they? No... There is a reason... probably without Rail the distance from the Supply Centers up North would of made them a nightmare to supply and not worth the effort. When it's quite a lot easier to trace a more 'direct line to supply'.

It's fine for AI but for a thinking human Norfolk for instance is extremely vulnerable, as well as New Orleans.

I figure Norfolk must have extremely vulnerable in real life considering that the Confederates basically gave it up with a fight when Yorktown fell. That doesn't usually happen in the game anyway.

When you look at Confederate situation in 1862 there were just coastal vulnerabilities everywhere. The country was basically too big to defend with the South's threadbare armies and nonexistent navy. Confederate Brigadier General Henry Wise made a famous trip to Richmond to appeal to Confederate Secretary of War Benjamin Judah for more troops to protect Roanoke Island in the North Carolina Sounds. Judah told him to just make do with what he was given. There simply weren't any reinforcements to be had. Not long after Wise returned to his post the place fell easily to General Burnside and the North Carolina Sounds with it. My feeling is the game is replicating well the rather irksome strategic situation Jeff Davis & Co. found themselves in of having to defend almost every point on the compass.

I think aside from Charleston and Wilmington the Union usually took whatever it set its mind to on Confederacy's coastline. And Wilmington just took a little longer than most.

[Platoonist]

I was thinking that maybe one way to put a bit of a crimp on the pace of Union naval and amphibious operations might be to eliminate the loops on the map. Right now any Union ship, troop transport, or amphibious force can pop into one of these handy wormholes at sea and emerge from them later hundreds of miles away, fresh as a daisy. No loss of readiness or supply, no possibility of storm damage or running into an errant ironclad. No need to restock coal or water.

I get the feeling that they were put in the game as a convenience to the Union player to relieve the tedium of sailing ships and transports all the way around the lengthy Florida peninsula.....but maybe that should be tedious and wearisome.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

I was thinking that maybe one way to put a bit of a crimp on the pace of Union naval and amphibious operations might be to eliminate the loops on the map. Right now any Union ship, troop transport, or amphibious force can pop into one of these handy wormholes at sea and emerge from them later hundreds of miles away, fresh as a daisy. No loss of readiness or supply, no possibility of storm damage or running into an errant ironclad. No need to restock coal or water.

I get the feeling that they were put in the game as a convenience to the Union player to relieve the tedium of sailing ships and transports all the way around the lengthy Florida peninsula.....but maybe that should be tedious and wearisome.

That might actually be a good idea here...though there will be complaints about the tedium or the 'I forgot to move them' deal haha.
I wouldn't mind at all the personal detail of actually having to move these naval forces by hand as it were.
You actually make a good point about them running into an errand CSA Ironclad or what have you. This would give further incentive for a confederate player to actually buy some ships just for that purpose.

[Bobo2025]

The warps take the same amount time, no? These should remain.

Like many irregular units:
Marines
Rangers
Indians

All of them should be closer to regiment sized 5 strength units to reflect what they were. The US Marines in the ACW were IIRC < 5000 total men.

[devoncop]

The warps take the same amount time, no? These should remain.

Like many irregular units:
Marines
Rangers
Indians

All of them should be closer to regiment sized 5 strength units to reflect what they were. The US Marines in the ACW were IIRC < 5000 total men.

Agree regarding the size of Marines, Rangers and Indians....Divisional sized units makes no sense. I would still argue that Indians should be able to operate as do Rangers with a minimum level of supply if out of regular supply to reflect their greater ability to live off the land.

To balance this Indians really should be restricted to use West of the Mississippi.

It has the added benefit of making landings more of a hazard for the Union as well.

[battlevonwar]

During the battle of Pearidge I believe it was The CSA Units showed up to the fight with muskets at times. The Indians that fought weren't really meant for frontline service. They didn't have the same style of fighting... Under 7500 Native Americans fought in the Civil War to give scale. I have a game where a guy has 7 or 8 Native Cavalry ... LOL it's quite funny to see

I would also indorse Marines being 5 Strength and maybe a 1 strike power that can really take a position but not hold, they must be followed up by a regular unit. They opened the beaches they didn't take the objectives but of course the scale of this game I think takes into consideration Marines are just part of a Division and you're really buying both... Perhaps a slight price increase though?

Also garrisons would be nice in this game strength 5 garrisons... You have to place a whole brigade on an objective and in the ACW there were a TON of local defense forces the size of a brigade all over the map.

The warps take the same amount time, no? These should remain.

Like many irregular units:
Marines
Rangers
Indians

All of them should be closer to regiment sized 5 strength units to reflect what they were. The US Marines in the ACW were IIRC < 5000 total men.

Agree regarding the size of Marines, Rangers and Indians....Divisional sized units makes no sense. I would still argue that Indians should be able to operate as do Rangers with a minimum level of supply if out of regular supply to reflect their greater ability to live off the land.

To balance this Indians really should be restricted to use West of the Mississippi.

It has the added benefit of making landings more of a hazard for the Union as well.

[Bo Rearguard]

Also garrisons would be nice in this game strength 5 garrisons... You have to place a whole brigade on an objective and in the ACW there were a TON of local defense forces the size of a brigade all over the map.

It would be nice to be able to purchase regiments for this sort of duty. When playing as the Union I always try to preserve the handful you get out west at the start of the game for sitting on partisan hexes.

[kevini1000]

How come nobody can build regiment size units. Both sides get some, but they can't be built.

[PvtBenjamin]

The part about weak isn't the issue it's the fact they're over 'key cities' that's annoying. I'd just prefer remove them from Objective Cities. It's fine for AI but for a thinking human Norfolk for instance is extremely vulnerable, as well as New Orleans. The Union Opponent will simply attack in force if they want them. The South has an answer pack 4-5 Units around the Fort to protect it. It's not fun... Not saying you want the objectives impervious to naval invasion just saying is there another way?

The forts do serve the purpose of preventing early amphibious attacks, otherwise the Southern player would need to send 5 more units which they don't have. Maybe a DE in late '61 like the German one in the Europe game to bolster defenses in France. You can pay to improve the key Forts to 10 strength if No Fort is removed. Also Fort Modernization needs to have more of an impact.

[Bobo2025]

Also garrisons would be nice in this game strength 5 garrisons... You have to place a whole brigade on an objective and in the ACW there were a TON of local defense forces the size of a brigade all over the map.

It would be nice to be able to purchase regiments for this sort of duty. When playing as the Union I always try to preserve the handful you get out west at the start of the game for sitting on partisan hexes.

Call them Militia units but yes you need units to hold some rear areas and secure flanks.

[metabagel]

During the battle of Pearidge I believe it was The CSA Units showed up to the fight with muskets at times. The Indians that fought weren't really meant for frontline service. They didn't have the same style of fighting... Under 7500 Native Americans fought in the Civil War to give scale. I have a game where a guy has 7 or 8 Native Cavalry ... LOL it's quite funny to see

Yeah, and you are blowing those Indian cavalry to smithereens!

[battlevonwar]

LOL, the Forts are sort of a joke in that if they force a unit to face the water it gets pulverized without city protection. The only time they're good to have is when they're not an objective and level 2... They can be rather hard to kill then.

Those Little Indians knew better... Custer came with a Corp this time

During the battle of Pearidge I believe it was The CSA Units showed up to the fight with muskets at times. The Indians that fought weren't really meant for frontline service. They didn't have the same style of fighting... Under 7500 Native Americans fought in the Civil War to give scale. I have a game where a guy has 7 or 8 Native Cavalry ... LOL it's quite funny to see

Yeah, and you are blowing those Indian cavalry to smithereens!

[battlevonwar]

5 strength militia would be nice on key cities rather than letting them be simply overrun by Cavalry. Considering the Partisan Units are as strong as a Brigade I don't see it being out of the realm of possibility since a good deal of Civil War era cities had some militias ... They don't even have to be full strength or on every location but it's a little too easy to just cakewalk real estate especially in the South. The North gets the PA and Ohio event.

Also garrisons would be nice in this game strength 5 garrisons... You have to place a whole brigade on an objective and in the ACW there were a TON of local defense forces the size of a brigade all over the map.

It would be nice to be able to purchase regiments for this sort of duty. When playing as the Union I always try to preserve the handful you get out west at the start of the game for sitting on partisan hexes.

Call them Militia units but yes you need units to hold some rear areas and secure flanks.

[Bobo2025]

On this, Pulaksi and the fort at the mouth of the MS River can't be upgraded. This is....a problem given the cost of losing both. Can anything be done to either at least start Pulaski at a 1 or allow me to upgrade it?

[metabagel]

My opponent just landed a unit of Union marines (I think it's a regiment, but fights more on par with a division) east of Wilmington, and it immediately marched west above a CSA brigade (cutting it off from supply) and attacked the fort at Wilmington. The marines were +2 infantry equipment. The fort was fully reinforced and +1 fort tech. The marines destroyed the fort in a single attack and occupied Wilmington. The cut-off brigade (+1 infantry equipment) started its next turn with zero supply.

This feels off for a few reasons. Fort Fisher at Wilmington was a really tough nut to crack for the Union. A one-shot kill by a single unit feels unrealistic.

The brigade had weak ZOC, which didn't prevent the marines from moving adjacent to the fort. Fair enough. However, the assault took place adjacent to the brigade. Surely, that would have some effect on the assault on the fort? It doesn't seem to have.

I don't know what the supply value for the brigade was before being cut off, but it was entrenched at level 2 directly SE and adjacent to Wilmington in the fortification hex. Since they apparently weren't at all involved in combat against the marines, their supply of ammunition should have been completely topped up on the following turn. So, it seems like they ran out of food? Surely, they carry some food in their haversacks? Wouldn't the fortification have some supply? I feel like they should have started the CSA turn with at least a supply level of 3, which may have allowed them to move to where they could draw supply again.

Clearly, the CSA brigade started the new turn at zero supply because they were unable to trace supply anywhere on the current turn, even though they were fully supplied (at whatever level I'm not sure) on the previous one. Note that they are operating in friendly territory. It's not like they are cut off deep in Union territory. It doesn't seem like the supply calculation makes a distinction.

If I would have placed a division on the fortification SE of Wilmington, I think the ZOC may have prevented the marines from closing with the fort on the same turn in which they landed.

[metabagel]

On this, Pulaksi and the fort at the mouth of the MS River can't be upgraded. This is....a problem given the cost of losing both. Can anything be done to either at least start Pulaski at a 1 or allow me to upgrade it?

I think you can't upgrade if units are adjacent?

[PvtBenjamin]

On this, Pulaksi and the fort at the mouth of the MS River can't be upgraded. This is....a problem given the cost of losing both. Can anything be done to either at least start Pulaski at a 1 or allow me to upgrade it?

I think you can't upgrade if units are adjacent?

I think the problem is neither forts are at 5 supply. I couldn't upgrade them either with no ships adjacent. Not that upgrading really does that much.