Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Strategic Command: American Civil War gives you the opportunity to battle for the future of the United States in this grand strategy game. Command the Confederacy in a desperate struggle for independence, or lead the Union armies in a march on Richmond.

Moderator: Fury Software

Post Reply
Duedman
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2021 4:36 pm

Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Post by Duedman »

To my horror I had to witness the Blue Man Group disembark, oneshot the Fort and capture Savannah in the same turn.
Not that the landing was a surprise but that one unit was able to do it in one turn.
I am pretty sure that at least in War in Europe a units turn was over after they attacked.
Was this change neccessary? Maybe an ingame warning at the start would be nice.

I'd also love beeing able to disband or even demolish forts. Its frustrating to have the weakest possible defense and no means of changing that.

Fun game nonetheless!
Alter Native
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:55 am

Re: Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Post by Alter Native »

Imo, a totally unnecessary change, we have debated this exact problem in this thread.

It's seems to be there to encourage more landings, even though it completely trivializes enforcing the blockade (by capturing all harbor cities) and preventing Europe from entering the war.
Best part of it all is, that as the CSA you can't even position troops inside the cities that are the most endangered because of the stationary forts.
All of this to "encourage" more landings and make it intentionally hard to defend cities, so the union has a chance.
Look forward to having your economy wrecked in 1862.
User avatar
battlevonwar
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am

Re: Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Post by battlevonwar »

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wa ... atsea.html

Here will give you the idea of the practicality of Naval Invasion during the Civil War. Norfolk and New Orleans in 1862 the rest were not until 1864. . .

If the Union really wants a Port that has a Fort on it you're trouble since you can't station units in forts which would make historical sense. The Forts in Tennessee nearly held out and could of with proper forces. Some of the other forts took long sieges.(if I went into deep description how Grant tunneled around Vicksburg which was a Fortress City to capture it you would be amazed at the amount of insanity that went into that adventure before it succeeded. It a feat of engineering that would have it's own novel dedicated to it) If you want to any fort in the game can be reduced and destroyed in 1 turn and likely occupied on the same turn making them actually mostly useless if they're over an objective and even harmful.

The only answer for the CSA is to place strong units around to recapture the location immediately but you would be in danger of losing the game elsewhere to place several units around a Coastal City. Plus the South has to really protect her two major objectives Tennessee and Virginia so defending Coastal Cities aside 2 or 3 is not really practical.

Fortresses would be better off with units on them to make them redoubts. Most of the forts that fell easy weren't defended or were surrounded starved or bombarded into submission.


The issue is what is a Fort and what isn't and in real life a lot of the best Forts were Geographically Isolated locations like Vicksburg, Charleston, etc... Some of the other were outdated or not worth garrison.(Richmond was really well fortified by the time the Union got there)
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Post by PvtBenjamin »

Doesn't Fort Modernization improve Fort Strength?
User avatar
Bo Rearguard
Posts: 623
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Basement of the Alamo

Re: Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Post by Bo Rearguard »

PvtBenjamin wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 3:46 pm Doesn't Fort Modernization improve Fort Strength?
If you can afford the research. The Confederacy gets roughly 600 MPP at the start of hostilities. Most of that needs to go to teching up the land army, improving leadership and buying/improving units. It can be difficult to spare that 100 MPP research cost when you consider the multifarious demands already being made on the feeble southern economy. And then you have to wait for it to actually happen which can be months. Meanwhile, the Union already has very advanced amphibious capability. They don't have to wait for the Marines to arrive to start invasions.
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Post by PvtBenjamin »

Yeah in MP once the North gets Marines with that high of a starting amphibious ability and naval superiority they are going to take every fort down the coast out starting with Norfolk & its 25 FS points :o . Marines don't need a port to re launch correct?
User avatar
Bo Rearguard
Posts: 623
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Basement of the Alamo

Re: Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Post by Bo Rearguard »

PvtBenjamin wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:24 pm Yeah in MP once the North gets Marines with that high of a starting amphibious ability and naval superiority they are going to take every fort down the coast out starting with Norfolk & its 25 FS points :o . Marines don't need a port to re launch correct?
Marines can embark from any coastal hex if they start their turn there. If you build all four as the Union that gets pretty powerful. Then you have all those Federal gunboats which are pretty good at reducing forts even before the boys in blue show up.
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Post by PvtBenjamin »

Then the South has to send troops that are in short supply to block and Virginia opens up? Just guessing. I'm new at this but very old at SC seems the South needs some more ammo in MP to make it fair. The devs are very focused on making a competitive product sure they are on top of it.
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems

Re: Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Post by Platoonist »

Bo Rearguard wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:37 pm
PvtBenjamin wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:24 pm Yeah in MP once the North gets Marines with that high of a starting amphibious ability and naval superiority they are going to take every fort down the coast out starting with Norfolk & its 25 FS points :o . Marines don't need a port to re launch correct?
Then you have all those Federal gunboats which are pretty good at reducing forts even before the boys in blue show up.
I dunno about that. I just sent a fair portion of the Union Navy to blast Fort Macon in North Carolina and only managed to shave a point off. :mrgreen:

Fort Macon.jpg
Fort Macon.jpg (237.28 KiB) Viewed 506 times
Image
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Post by PvtBenjamin »

A Marine LRAT doesn't take it out?
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems

Re: Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Post by Platoonist »

PvtBenjamin wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:12 pm A Marine LRAT doesn't take it out?
I don't have any marines in the area at the moment. They're all enjoying Mardi Gras in newly captured New Orleans.
Image
Duedman
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2021 4:36 pm

Re: Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Post by Duedman »

Alter Native wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:46 pm Imo, a totally unnecessary change, we have debated this exact problem in this thread.

It's seems to be there to encourage more landings, even though it completely trivializes enforcing the blockade (by capturing all harbor cities) and preventing Europe from entering the war.
Best part of it all is, that as the CSA you can't even position troops inside the cities that are the most endangered because of the stationary forts.
All of this to "encourage" more landings and make it intentionally hard to defend cities, so the union has a chance.
Look forward to having your economy wrecked in 1862.
Thanks for the heads up - was not aware that the big thread is already about this.
One argument I read is rather weak imho:

"Historically, those forts were gone in a matter of days - so 1 ingame turn fits very well"

Well.... no. SC simply does not work that way. All ACW Battles were over in days. None of them are in SC as one can clearly observe from the WW1-style frontlines in Virginia.


I see no reason why I'am a) not allowed to garrison those cities (impossible to do all of them anyway with the North pushing) AND b) the Marines got even stronger.
User avatar
battlevonwar
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am

Re: Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Post by battlevonwar »

In my first PBEM game I lost 11 forts to my enemies Naval Actions in return I didn't kill any ships. Which is historical these were meant to stop the British not fight a modern war against armored ships with very accurate artillery. To a point... Charleston/Vicksburg were quite entrenched fortifications. Petersburg as well, but hard to envision placing the fortifications there in place and in time to matter and Vicksburg isn't all that key. Since you aren't railing any resources from Texas or can you even.
User avatar
Bo Rearguard
Posts: 623
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Basement of the Alamo

Re: Marines land, attack and move in the same turn?

Post by Bo Rearguard »

battlevonwar wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:30 pm Petersburg as well, but hard to envision placing the fortifications there in place and in time to matter and Vicksburg isn't all that key. Since you aren't railing any resources from Texas or can you even.
True on resources, but if you want to rail (operate) a unit/leader from the eastern Confederacy to west of the Mississippi river, Vicksburg is pretty much your only ticket to the Trans-Mississippi Department since Memphis usually doesn't hold out for long. It's often the sole nail holding the two halves of the Confederacy together.
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command: American Civil War”