Naval Bombardment & Heavy Guns?

[mike1962]

Playing as CSA, my Heavy Artillery Units don't stand a chance against Naval Bombardment.
I am curious as to how other players are doing against the Union naval bombardments.
Could be me, I usually have at most 3 heavy units when they bombard, but they get knocked out as quick as I can get them there. Any insights? Thanks, Mike

[Joel Billings]

The comments I've seen about HA and forts are true. Never position HA next to a river without them being in a fort. HA in a fort level 1 will not stand up to a very large Union naval force, but if you feel you have to do it, be sure to have at least 4 artillery units and a great artillery leader in the area (more artillery is good if you've got it. Level 2 forts can do very well against even very large Union naval forces, but you'll need to station at least 3-4 HA if you expect a large naval force to bombard your position.

[mike1962]

Thanks Joel, makes good sense and I think I under estimated the importance of having a great artillery leader in the area.

[satisfaction]

As USA I can vouch for Joel's comments. Foote (random leader rankings, he was my ace) had a fleet of 9 very experienced gunboats who smashed all they came across....until Vicksburg. Took me several months, many fresh boats coming in and several lost forever to put that place out of action (the fleets that did not have a least one star experience were nearly useless...only my 1-3 star vets did any good). By that time in the war I had a large river fleet in production so replacements were not a big deal, but a level 2 fort with 4 batteries is a real beast.

[mike1962]

Yep, it works! I have a level 2 fort in Mobile now. Damn the torpedos now Faragut!
Love this game!!!

[davekinva]

The good news is, this is accurate:
-- Need 3-4 guns minimum
-- Level 1 fort minimum, but in practice, only Level 2 works
-- Artillery leaders are necessary, work wonders (as CSA, Pemberton might as well be the artillerist Guderian, he's outstanding for this).

The bad news:
-- Regular artillery does nothing against ships under any circumstances (ahistorical).
-- Heavy artillery in a Level 1 fort won't do a single thing against ground forces (ahistorical).  Found that out last night after an overland attack against Pemberton's six heavy guns in a Level 1 fort at Memphis easily knocked them all out. . . so much for the challenge of charging a fort! (BTW, I fear the same applies to heavy artillery in a Level 2 or 3 fort as well-- they're useless against ground forces. Ummm, these aren't the guns of Singapore, are they?)
-- Out West, you can only build Level 2 forts at Mobile and Vicksburg.

As an aside/observation: I don't understand the restriction on Level 2 forts.  If Level 2 is supposed to represent the presence of some form of pre-existing and defensible terrain, that makes sense for areas that had pre-war forts (like Mobile, Charleston, Wilmington, etc.)  But if that's the rule, it's true for other areas as well (Fort Donelson/Dickson, Pensacola, etc.).

AND if that's true, than how do Vicksburg and Petersburg get Level 2 forts?  There was nothing inherently special about those areas before the war-- all the fortifications there were constructed during the war.  Which means that there's no reason why we should be restricted from building Level 2 forts at other locations such as Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, etc.  (Okay, I will grant that the terrain at Vicksburg lends itself to fortification-- but Petersburg is as flat as can be). 

To my view, the reason this is so in the game is because that's how history turned out, that both Vicksburg and Petersburg got heavily fortified.  But in the game we're making up history as we go, which means that other regions could turn out to be what required greater fortification.

Anyway, possible solution-- allow Level 2 fortifications elsewhere, but make them more expensive to construct.  And/or conversely, add in a minimum turn delay between building a Level 1 fort and a Level 2 fort.