Coastal fortess and the patch

[benn]

As mentionned in the thread about the upcoming patch, coastal fortresses are not broken. It is just that their bombard strength and success rate is low.
I have seen frigates bombard my city and DESTROY the coastal fortess without loss!
I suggest that:
1. The coastal fortess should be more effective against attackers than ships that just pass by.
2. Once you reach a certain modern/industrial tech level (like radio) that does not give units, that the ability of the coastal fortess improves. I think that Corrigidor (?sp) was much stronger than old Fort McHenry from the war of 1812 was.

 

[bakant]

Is this a similar thing with fortresses on land built by workers. These are meant to attack passing units if there are units stationed in them but they do not seem to. Do they work just not very well or do they not work at all?

 

[VoodooAce]

Well, I guess they are saying it works fine, they're just not that powerfull. Actually, I prefer the word 'useful' there.

Coastal fortresses can have a big impact on strategy. Look at Gibralter.

If you possess land squares adjacent to a straight, it should be a costly endeavor to 'run' the straight with your naval group. Simple as that. I think this is also very applicable to modern times.

Coastal fortresses at least, should be much more powerful.

 

[Peteus]

Originally posted by benn
As mentionned in the thread about the upcoming patch, coastal fortresses are not broken. It is just that their bombard strength and success rate is low.
I have seen frigates bombard my city and DESTROY the coastal fortess without loss!
I suggest that:
1. The coastal fortess should be more effective against attackers than ships that just pass by.
2. Once you reach a certain modern/industrial tech level (like radio) that does not give units, that the ability of the coastal fortess improves. I think that Corrigidor (?sp) was much stronger than old Fort McHenry from the war of 1812 was.

I assume you're confusing Fort Henry (down the street from me, at the point where Lake Ontario flows in to the St. Lawrence river) with Sir John A MacDonald, our first Prime Minister? Point taken anyway. I thought I heard that costal forts had an attack value of 8, which would certainly be daunting to a frigate, but not so much to a battleship...maybe that's as it should be. In any case, the enemy doesn't sail up to my ports much!
WRT bombardment, since there is no counter-battery fire modeled in the game, it would be a shock if it worked any other way. The coastal fort is just another city improvement, and can be destroyed by artillery or bombing.
I don't know if costal forts actually give a bonus against attacking, i.e. by marines off a transport. Anyone?

 

[PaulNAdhe]

I don't know if costal forts actually give a bonus against attacking, i.e. by marines off a transport. Anyone?

After examining Coastal Forts in the BIC pretty closely last night, I'm sure there is no defensive bonus against anything buy Naval bombardment.

Of course they could be further modified to provide a D bonus, but then it would apply to both land and water attacks, not really an ideal representation.

 

[benn]

Originally posted by Peteus

I assume you're confusing Fort Henry (down the street from me, at the point where Lake Ontario flows in to the St. Lawrence river) with Sir John A MacDonald, our first Prime Minister?

No, I was talking about Fort McHenry, which guards Baltimore harbor.
If coastal fortresses can't even protect themselves from naval bombardment, then they are useless. For example, they supposedly have a bombard str of 8, while artillery is 12. However, I am a lot happier with my artillery shooting at those frigates and ironclads. They hit much more frequently and do more damage.