Issues with Forts (vs Marines)

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
DarkHorse2
Posts: 1070
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2022 12:08 pm

Issues with Forts (vs Marines)

Post by DarkHorse2 »

Recently played vs the AI where I felt like I had New Orleans adaquately defended, yet in one turn the Union AI was able to land Marines, zoom around my defenders, attack and destroy the Fort Unit (in New Orleans) and subjugate it all in one turn.

:shock:

This has occured before in other cities where I had no defenders and rightfully deserved losing the city due to my negligence.

But not the case with New Orleans.

The way Forts are implemented as a unit, it prevents the player from placing other ground units in the same hex. Whereas this is not normally an issue, but if the Fort is in a city, it further prevents the city from being properly garrisoned.

:cry:

Also, would probably not be as much of an issue if Forts were a bit more durable than they currently are. In practice it seems they have the staying power of wet tissue when attacked.
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems

Re: Issues with Forts (vs Marines)

Post by Platoonist »

Sounds familiar. There were a number of threads about the weaknesses of coastal forts in this game when it was first released two summers ago. The ability of the Union to produce Marines from day one was toned down a bit but much remains the same.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 8&t=385979
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 8&t=386352
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 8&t=386137

You can disband forts if their supply level is above five but receive no MPP for doing so. This ability was added in a patch after players argued they would rather defend those spots with an infantry unit.
Image
User avatar
ElvisJJonesRambo
Posts: 2408
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:48 pm
Location: Kingdom of God

Re: Issues with Forts (vs Marines)

Post by ElvisJJonesRambo »

This is a tough to deal with historically.
Union took New Oreleans quite easily, only 1 year into the war.

https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by- ... leans.html
Slaps issued: Patton: 9, Dana White: 2, Batman 3, Samson 1, Medals awarded out: 5, warnings received: 9, suspensions served: 3, riots: 2.
DarkHorse2
Posts: 1070
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2022 12:08 pm

Re: Issues with Forts (vs Marines)

Post by DarkHorse2 »

ElvisJJonesRambo wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 10:12 pm This is a tough to deal with historically.
Union took New Oreleans quite easily, only 1 year into the war.

https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by- ... leans.html
I am sure it was due to the Fort Mechanics not allowing the Confederacy to Garrison New Orleans.
Welles placed a force of 17 warships and 20 mortar boats under the able command of Farragut.
It wasn't taken quite easily if it required a Naval force of this size. Additionally, it was against an ill-prepared, poorly organized New Orleans.
Confederate leaders had made a tardy, ill-coordinated effort to muster at the river barrier. Fortunately for the Union, both the naval and military auxiliaries were weak. In all their work of defense, the Southerners had been hampered by poverty, disorganization, lack of skilled engineers and craftsmen, friction between State authorities and Richmond, and want of foresight.
The inner ring of fortifications at Chalmette was intended only to resist ground troops and few of the gun batteries were aimed toward the river. Most of the artillery, ammunition, troops, and vessels in the area were committed to the Jackson/St. Phillips position. Once this defense was breached, only three thousand militiamen with sundry military supplies and armed with shotguns remained to face Union troops and warships.
In contrast, Strategic Command allows the Confederates to more heavily defend and fortify New Orleans than what was done historically.

So, using the historic time table for the occupation of New Orleans when the conditions are completely different is inappropriate.
User avatar
BiteNibbleChomp
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:52 am
Location: Australia

Re: Issues with Forts (vs Marines)

Post by BiteNibbleChomp »

I've written at length on this topic multiple times, but the TLDR of all this is that the stats are what they are because that's what I've found is needed to make the historical landings possible within a relatively historic timeframe, and that I find the ACW forts historically to have been quite overhyped compared to what they actually achieved.

The Confederates historically didn't defend the coast well because, in short, they couldn't. In game, to some degree at least, they can, which means players almost certainly will given the coast is important. However, for the game to reflect history (and more to the point, allow historical strategies to work in a way that makes sense), the Union still needs to be able to do these landings with a fair degree of success. Hence the weak forts and strong marines.

Historically, in 1940, France was on paper the stronger of itself and Germany. Yes, they had some glaring weaknesses, which were exploited very well by the Germans, but despite these most impartial observers believed that France would win. Certainly if you simulated the battle a hundred times between two equally skilled opponents, France would be expected to win more often than not. Yet because France did fall historically, and the fall of France was very important to how the rest of WW2 played out, just about every WW2 game that has ever been made, has been made in such a way that France is expected to lose in 1940, and to do so nearly every time the game is played. Usually by making the French army ahistorically weak.
There's a fair criticism to be made against all of these games that the French are too weak, but my experience is that the strength of the French army is rarely considered an issue in these games (indeed, I have seen more than a few posts through the years where people have said France is too strong!) - precisely because a weak French army makes the rest of the war play out more historically than it otherwise would.

I tend to think of the forts in a similar light.

- BNC
Ryan O'Shea - Strategic Command Designer
DarkHorse2
Posts: 1070
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2022 12:08 pm

Re: Issues with Forts (vs Marines)

Post by DarkHorse2 »

Platoonist wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:28 pm
You can disband forts if their supply level is above five but receive no MPP for doing so. This ability was added in a patch after players argued they would rather defend those spots with an infantry unit.
I know you are right, but deleting a Fort is so hard to do. You only get so many of them.
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems

Re: Issues with Forts (vs Marines)

Post by Platoonist »

DarkHorse2 wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2024 6:11 pm I know you are right, but deleting a Fort is so hard to do. You only get so many of them.
I've often wondered why you receive no MPPs for de-commissioning a fort. True you're emptying out the fort, but you're also freeing up the garrison, guns, stores and ammo to be used elsewhere as well as the funds for its upkeep.
Image
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5080
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

Re: Issues with Forts (vs Marines)

Post by Tanaka »

BiteNibbleChomp wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 12:35 pm I've written at length on this topic multiple times, but the TLDR of all this is that the stats are what they are because that's what I've found is needed to make the historical landings possible within a relatively historic timeframe, and that I find the ACW forts historically to have been quite overhyped compared to what they actually achieved.

The Confederates historically didn't defend the coast well because, in short, they couldn't. In game, to some degree at least, they can, which means players almost certainly will given the coast is important. However, for the game to reflect history (and more to the point, allow historical strategies to work in a way that makes sense), the Union still needs to be able to do these landings with a fair degree of success. Hence the weak forts and strong marines.

Historically, in 1940, France was on paper the stronger of itself and Germany. Yes, they had some glaring weaknesses, which were exploited very well by the Germans, but despite these most impartial observers believed that France would win. Certainly if you simulated the battle a hundred times between two equally skilled opponents, France would be expected to win more often than not. Yet because France did fall historically, and the fall of France was very important to how the rest of WW2 played out, just about every WW2 game that has ever been made, has been made in such a way that France is expected to lose in 1940, and to do so nearly every time the game is played. Usually by making the French army ahistorically weak.
There's a fair criticism to be made against all of these games that the French are too weak, but my experience is that the strength of the French army is rarely considered an issue in these games (indeed, I have seen more than a few posts through the years where people have said France is too strong!) - precisely because a weak French army makes the rest of the war play out more historically than it otherwise would.

I tend to think of the forts in a similar light.

- BNC
Thanks for always explaining in detail. I assume this is why you chose to not let units in the forts themselves like in the other games? Because it would be more difficult to take the objective?
Image
User avatar
BiteNibbleChomp
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:52 am
Location: Australia

Re: Issues with Forts (vs Marines)

Post by BiteNibbleChomp »

Platoonist wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2024 11:30 pm
DarkHorse2 wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2024 6:11 pm I know you are right, but deleting a Fort is so hard to do. You only get so many of them.
I've often wondered why you receive no MPPs for de-commissioning a fort. True you're emptying out the fort, but you're also freeing up the garrison, guns, stores and ammo to be used elsewhere as well as the funds for its upkeep.
This rule is in place to remove the incentive for doing this. There's a fair few forts on the map that are basically worthless in the game (think the forts that guard the Northeastern coast as an example). Historically the idea of tearing these down during wartime would have been poorly received by those communities, but in game, the Union player knows that Boston is never going to be attacked - if they can get 30 MPPs from scrapping a fort, it's virtually a no-brainer to do so.

For a while I had the game set up so that forts could not be disbanded at all. After I got a bunch of "let me disband my forts" posts, this was the compromise :D
Tanaka wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2024 5:38 am Thanks for always explaining in detail. I assume this is why you chose to not let units in the forts themselves like in the other games? Because it would be more difficult to take the objective?
Partly. Having fort units rather than fortified towns also removes a bit of micro-management, as the forts can double as a (weak) garrison without a need for a separate unit.

- BNC
Ryan O'Shea - Strategic Command Designer
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems

Re: Issues with Forts (vs Marines)

Post by Platoonist »

BiteNibbleChomp wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2024 7:44 am
Platoonist wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2024 11:30 pm
I've often wondered why you receive no MPPs for de-commissioning a fort. True you're emptying out the fort, but you're also freeing up the garrison, guns, stores and ammo to be used elsewhere as well as the funds for its upkeep.
This rule is in place to remove the incentive for doing this. There's a fair few forts on the map that are basically worthless in the game (think the forts that guard the Northeastern coast as an example). Historically the idea of tearing these down during wartime would have been poorly received by those communities, but in game, the Union player knows that Boston is never going to be attacked - if they can get 30 MPPs from scrapping a fort, it's virtually a no-brainer to do so.

For a while I had the game set up so that forts could not be disbanded at all. After I got a bunch of "let me disband my forts" posts, this was the compromise :D
I can see your point. When it comes to its ports and coastal areas the Union still had possible European enemies to worry about no matter how the Civil War ends, so long term they shouldn't be inclined to shutter their coastal forts. If the British intervene, such a player would probably be regretting it. I don't know if it's possible code-wise for one nation to have this ability and restrict the other. I know historically, the Confederates did abandon a few as untenable or unnecessary like Forts Clark and Clinch and moved the resources elsewhere. 30 MPPs for disbanding seems a bit generous too. Maybe a more token figure like 15 for freeing up the garrison but not sure if possible since MPP refund seems to be tied to unit cost.
Image
DarkHorse2
Posts: 1070
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2022 12:08 pm

Re: Issues with Forts (vs Marines)

Post by DarkHorse2 »

I think I would like the option of being able to right-click on a fort and convert them to entrenchments.

But honestly, there is just too much ahistorical weirdness in this title to keep my attention for long and I do not play anymore - especially after devs have no desire to address.

Throwing a bunch of useless forts on the map, many of them nothing but gimmies for the Union, is just not fun.

Was there truly one historical example during the ACW of any fort being destroyed by a rampaging gunboat? Not that I can recall. At a minimum, it took a concerted effort and the coordination of naval + ground forces.

Yes, once the Union achieved that threshold of required forces, many of them were not that difficult to overcome. But there is a big difference between the historic forces that Farragut used vs Fort Jackson compared to maybe 1 squadron of Gunboats as used in this title.
First section, Captain Theodorus Bailey: USS Cayuga, Pensacola (ship), USS Mississippi, Oneida, Varuna, Katahdin, Kineo, and Wissahickon.

Second section (ships), Flag Officer Farragut: USS Hartford, Brooklyn, and Richmond.

Third section, Captain Henry H. Bell: USS Sciota, Iroquois, Kennebec, Pinola, Itasca, and Winona.
Even then, Fort Jackson was not destroyed, simply bypassed and still exists to this day!
Even factoring in the relentless enemy fire, the most serious attacks against Fort Jackson came in the last few decades. Not from cannonballs, but from Mother Nature.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4014f.cw0 ... 52,0.206,0

The damage to the fort was largely superficial, with a more objective assessment given by a Union military engineer expressing amazement at how little structural damage there was to the fort.

The fact that the occupying Union had it repaired and functioning several months later attests to the fact.

It is worth noting that the best armaments and best troops had already been stripped of the New Orleans area and redeployed to other Civil War theaters - leaving only a motly crew not otherwise fit for the real combat elsewhere.
He had but one company of regular troops, all others having been ordered north in March to form part of Beauregard’s army. Within the city of New Orleans, there were just 3,000 elderly homeguards, armed with old muskets and shotguns. The solitary defenses between the city and the forts were the weak batteries at English Turn.
These craft were to have been joined by at least two armored floating batteries. Louisiana, which somewhat resembled CSS Virginia was almost completed, the construction of the floating battery Mississippi, well under way. The two vessels would have been truly formidable had they been battle ready.
The second contingent of the Confederate fleet consisted of two gunboats, converted merchantmen, of the Louisiana State Navy. And the third group was the River Defense Fleet of six small gunboats, officered and crewed by local pilots and rivermen, undisciplined and unreliable.
The bypassing of the Confederate forts at New Orleans was not planned but a result of the frustration of being unable to subdue them from shear naval gunfire alone.
The bombardment was more impressive than effective. All night long the big shells could be traced by their pinwheeling fuses as they arched against the dark sky, and the rate of fire was increased during daylight hours until over 16,000 shells had been lobbed at the Confederates. Farragut was deeply concerned with the possibility that the Confederate ironclad floating batteries might soon be added to the defenses and that the mortar flotilla in the meantime could not achieve any decisive results.
User avatar
sokulsky
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2023 11:06 pm

Re: Issues with Forts (vs Marines)

Post by sokulsky »

DarkHorse2 wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:09 pm Recently played vs the AI where I felt like I had New Orleans adaquately defended, yet in one turn the Union AI was able to land Marines, zoom around my defenders, attack and destroy the Fort Unit (in New Orleans) and subjugate it all in one turn.

:shock:

This has occured before in other cities where I had no defenders and rightfully deserved losing the city due to my negligence.

But not the case with New Orleans.

The way Forts are implemented as a unit, it prevents the player from placing other ground units in the same hex. Whereas this is not normally an issue, but if the Fort is in a city, it further prevents the city from being properly garrisoned.

:cry:

Also, would probably not be as much of an issue if Forts were a bit more durable than they currently are. In practice it seems they have the staying power of wet tissue when attacked.
Historically, New Orlean was in difficult spot to be defended - post war it was assessed that once Federal troops reached the city outskirts, it was undefendable due to the terrain conditions and lack of proper force around to stop the federals. Therefore, only viable option was to keep significant force to protect the city around it (which is also possible in this game). Historically, it was US fleet that defeated the CS river fleet and reached the New Orlean (which is also possible to observe here). CSA player may protect the city with strong force, but it will keep the remaining locations on the map more vulnerable to US attack.
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command: American Civil War”