Confederate Fort Supply weirdness

[DarkHorse2]

It appears that the game treats Forts as regular units, along with dependency on supply levels.

However, there are several Confederate Forts that are in less than mediocre supply, such that you cannot upgrade them when new fort technology is discovered.

This really strikes me as weird as Forts should contain the necessary stockpiles to meet their supply requirements. Otherwise, why would anybody build them at that location?

Some of these include some of the Forts on bends of the Mississippi River in the middle of swamps. Another is on an neighboring island (Fort Pulaski) And another is very close to New Orleans (Fort Jackson).

After the War of 1812 there was a push by the United States to better protect its maritime interests. From 1816 through the end of the American Civil War, the United States constructed over forty state of the art coastal fortifications. This included Fort Pulaski, which was built to protect the port of Savannah. Construction of the fort began in 1829 and took 18 years to complete.

Fort Pulaski saw its heaviest use during the Civil War. Beginning the conflict as a United States fort, Fort Pulaski was seized by the State of Georgia. Authority over the fort was transferred to the Confederates States of America. The United States once again took possession of the fort after a fifty day siege and two day artillery battle that saw the first use of rifled artillery in combat.

But in the game, Fort Pulaski only has a supply level of 3!
Fort Jackson, supply level of 4!
Island No 10, supply level of 4!

Those forts should probably have their own supply.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

It appears that the game treats Forts as regular units, along with dependency on supply levels.

However, there are several Confederate Forts that are in less than mediocre supply, such that you cannot upgrade them when new fort technology is discovered.

This really strikes me as weird as Forts should contain the necessary stockpiles to meet their supply requirements. Otherwise, why would anybody build them at that location?

Some of these include some of the Forts on bends of the Mississippi River in the middle of swamps. Another is on an neighboring island (Fort Pulaski) And another is very close to New Orleans (Fort Jackson).

After the War of 1812 there was a push by the United States to better protect its maritime interests. From 1816 through the end of the American Civil War, the United States constructed over forty state of the art coastal fortifications. This included Fort Pulaski, which was built to protect the port of Savannah. Construction of the fort began in 1829 and took 18 years to complete.

Fort Pulaski saw its heaviest use during the Civil War. Beginning the conflict as a United States fort, Fort Pulaski was seized by the State of Georgia. Authority over the fort was transferred to the Confederates States of America. The United States once again took possession of the fort after a fifty day siege and two day artillery battle that saw the first use of rifled artillery in combat.

But in the game, Fort Pulaski only has a supply level of 3!
Fort Jackson, supply level of 4!
Island No 10, supply level of 4!

Those forts should probably have their own supply.

With some of these forts, get an Hq that in itself is in good supply nearby to boost supply levels. Also its possible to attach a fort to an Hq though it will not highlight that its available unless you click on the fort itself after selecting an Hq.
Some of these forts are just in poor locations supply wise, but great for strategic reasons. If its super critical because of a situation, then an Hq and other forces are best to support these forts......

[DarkHorse2]

This is hard to do, especially early on, when HQs are in short supply.

It is not so bad for New Orleans after the 'Bragg' event. But have noway of doing it for the NC fort.

It should be fixed rather than having to use the HQ work around.

[Platoonist]

A lot of the issues involve the using the Strategic Command supply system from the previous games on a much larger (and far more rural) map. There are a lot of Daniel Boondocks hexes on this map where the supply level in 2, 1, or zero due to vast swamps, mountains and forests. (Try keeping a unit alive in southern Florida.) That's as it should be, but during the war isolated places like Fort Jackson, Island No. 10 and Pulaski were routinely supplied by river or they couldn't have been built in the first place. However, the land supply system seems to be built only for conducting overland or port supply. I think if it were possible for major river hexes to conduct supply much as railroads do it would help. After all they were major transportation links in 19th century America thanks to steamboats. Hindering these links were why many forts existed. But whether that's possible in the game code I don't know.

[DarkHorse2]

Of grave concern is the impact of poor supply levels on the overall combat efficiency of the fort, as shown below:

---

FortPulaski.jpg (70.33 KiB) Viewed 807 times

[DarkHorse2]

A lot of the issues involve the using the Strategic Command supply system from the previous games on a much larger (and far more rural) map. There are a lot of Daniel Boondocks hexes on this map where the supply level in 2, 1, or zero due to vast swamps, mountains and forests. (Try keeping a unit alive in southern Florida.) That's as it should be, but during the war isolated places like Fort Jackson, Island No. 10 and Pulaski were routinely supplied by river or they couldn't have been built in the first place. However, the land supply system seems to be built only for conducting overland or port supply. I think if it were possible for major river hexes to conduct supply much as railroads do it would help. After all they were major transportation links in 19th century America thanks to steamboats. Hindering these links were why many forts existed. But whether that's possible in the game code I don't know.

Within the context of the game I think the only way to address this is by adding some kind of organic supply source to the hex.

This is how it was handled for "Fort Pickens". I think at least the same should be done for "Fort Pulaski".

---

FortPickens.jpg (7.67 KiB) Viewed 764 times

[Platoonist]

Fort Pulaski is in a particularly bad location. On an island with no port. After it falls when the Union gets the free brigade it can put on the island due to a decision event it can't move or upgrade the brigade ever.

[DarkHorse2]

Fort Pulaski is in a particularly bad location. On an island with no port. After it falls when the Union gets the free brigade it can put on the island due to a decision event it can't move or upgrade the brigade ever.

That sounds bad as well.

Wasn't there some kind of beta testing on this? Balthazor?

[Platoonist]

That sounds bad as well.

Wasn't there some kind of beta testing on this? Balthazor?

Actually, it isn't a free Union brigade. But it's relatively cheap considering its presence in Pulaski shuts down the port of Savannah for good. Basically, once Union gunboats blow away the low-morale Confederate fort unit there this event will fire at some point.

DE 520.jpg (22.15 KiB) Viewed 793 times

[DarkHorse2]

OK, so it is considered occupied as long as that Fort Unit exists?

[Platoonist]

OK, so it is considered occupied as long as that Fort Unit exists?

Yes. And since the Confederacy cannot build any amphibious transports by default unless they bother to research it, they'll likely never get it back once occupied.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Fort Pulaski is in a particularly bad location. On an island with no port. After it falls when the Union gets the free brigade it can put on the island due to a decision event it can't move or upgrade the brigade ever.

That sounds bad as well.

Wasn't there some kind of beta testing on this? Balthazor?

Yes there was and these remote forts with poor supply (especially Pulaski) is by design from what I understand. I do like Platoonist's idea about river supply, but I don't think the game engine can be tweaked for that.
Best to bring this up with BiteNibbleChomp.

I just drive these sports cars, not build them. Though, like you, I like to suggest design changes to the manufacturer

[DarkHorse2]

"is by design"

as in it would take too much effort to change the code to correct?

- or -

if we fixed that, it would require an improvement to the AI to deal with it, which in-turn would take too much effort?

Fort Pulaski, a state of the art coast fortification, took 18 years to complete and required a 50 day siege to defeat. I do not believe that leaving it unable to supply itself at supply level 3 was any deliberate "is by design".

[Platoonist]

It looks weird but if you edit the map so that there is only a major river hex between the island on which Pulaski sits and the mainland it receives good land supply.

Fort Pulaski supplied.jpg (44.22 KiB) Viewed 741 times

Historically, the only thing separating Cockspur Island on which Pulaski was sited from the mainland was the Savannah River South Channel with Savannah itself just up the river. Assuming no major Union naval forces about, it should be a cinch to re-supply. Historically to keep open a line of communications and supply, all side channels leading into the Savannah River above the fort were barred by obstructions. These obstructions, in turn, were protected by floating mines activated by galvanic batteries.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

This discussion about Pulaski came up before in the Beta and I seem to remember that the fort was intentionally left as it is with poor supply (even without the aid of an Hq boost because its an island) so that the Union can take it easily.
I'm not arguing here for or against as the above ideas and suggestions have merit.
Again BNC should chime in.

[Bo Rearguard]

About two years ago a poster named Pocus tried to find a way to edit a land connection to Pulaski and got kinda frustrated. The map edit tools are kind of awkward unless you really use them a lot.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... i#p5031844

This discussion about Pulaski came up before in the Beta and I seem to remember that the fort was intentionally left as it is with poor supply (even without the aid of an Hq boost because its an island) so that the Union can take it easily.

I always had the feeling Pulaski was meant to be a bit of a redshirt Star Trek actor. Sacrificed to advance the plot.

[DarkHorse2]

I can edit the scenario fairly easily and add that location as a Secondary Supply source.

Which brings it inline with various other Forts and solves the issue entirely.

---

FortPulaski2.jpg (63.76 KiB) Viewed 685 times

[DarkHorse2]

Which would be the same Supply Level as both Savannah Georgia, Savannah Georgia (Port), as well as Beaufort SC (Port).

Savannah (Port) Supply Level 10 (1 hex away)
Savannah Supply Level 10 (2 hexes away)
Beaufort SC (Port) Supply Level 10 (3 hexes away)

However, leaving Fort Pulaski at Supply Level 3 would just be absurd.

---

Beaufort.jpg (162.7 KiB) Viewed 680 times

[Platoonist]

However, leaving Fort Pulaski at Supply Level 3 would just be absurd.

Well, it might be intentional as OCB stated. It's certainly been noted and discussed before on this forum. I guess we will have to see if the designer wants to add anything.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

About two years ago a poster named Pocus tried to find a way to edit a land connection to Pulaski and got kinda frustrated. The map edit tools are kind of awkward unless you really use them a lot.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... i#p5031844

This discussion about Pulaski came up before in the Beta and I seem to remember that the fort was intentionally left as it is with poor supply (even without the aid of an Hq boost because its an island) so that the Union can take it easily.

I always had the feeling Pulaski was meant to be a bit of a redshirt Star Trek actor. Sacrificed to advance the plot.

Haha... Fort Pulaski a Red Shirt!
Yep this was intended I believe...like those poor suckers that got a bit part on Star Trek.

Phone rings in Paduka....
"Hey Mom! Guess what? I'm in Hollywood and just got a part on a new TV Show.........."