Fortifications
I've been trying to make fortifications more interesting, adding critical hits like the ships have, and other stuff.
One question I've come up with but don't have an answer for is; was the landward face of forts typically built as strong as the seaward face? It seems unlikely that the landward side would be subject to artillery of the size found on ships, so I could see a case for not building as strong.
Anyone got an opinion on this, or even better, genuine facts?
As with so many things "it depends", but from what I've seen visiting coastal fortifications around the world the general trend was to design against an infantry assault (so lighter structures, firing ports, interlocking fields of fire, ditches etc.) or nothing if a landward attack wasn't expected (particularly smaller batteries). That said, looking at coastal forts in Spain I got the impression that they simply designed and built to a common standard all round, it was in the placement of artillery that differences were seen.
Thanks for the reply, David. That is pretty much what I was thinking. The only physical example I have is San Marcos, in Florida, which is pretty darned symmetrical, but with very little artillery in place. In looking at the land side, which looks the same, I was thinking, who would waste the heavy guns against infantry?
As I recall, in Ares' fortifications rules, there's no real allowance for critical hits like sail, leak, rudder, and mast hits. Also, fire doesn't seem like it would be as much of a threat to forts.
I'm working out how to repurpose these to create fortifications with depth. Instead of just wearing a fort down numerically, the critical hits will alter the fort's effectiveness in other ways.
We have a house rule for forts Dobbs. If they get a fire token more than once in an action it may get to the magazine. We then draw for explosion as you do for a ship. Other than that we just assume damage is to the structure, guns and troops within the works. I also do cards for my own forts.
Rob.
The Business of the commander-in-chief is first to bring an enemy fleet to battle on the most advantageous terms to himself, (I mean that of laying his ships close on board the enemy, as expeditiously as possible); and secondly to continue them there until the business is decided.
What are your magazine/ship explosions like?
One of my ideas is that in addition to the overall gun strength, a fort has a Battery number. The number of batteries that compromises a fort is the number of targets at which the fort may choose to fire, unless that number is higher than the fort's overall gunnery strength.
If you look at that modified card I posted Dobbs you will see that that fort has three slots for battery fire with three aspects covered by the fire angles. I did not understand what you mean by magazine/ship explosions like? Did you mean the rules, or the markers?
Rob.
The Business of the commander-in-chief is first to bring an enemy fleet to battle on the most advantageous terms to himself, (I mean that of laying his ships close on board the enemy, as expeditiously as possible); and secondly to continue them there until the business is decided.
What I meant was, what happens when a fort's magazine explodes? How is the damage generated?
I see your slots now. Do you divide the firepower between the batteries, or can any given side fire up to 7?
I treat the firepower like a ship each side has the same and it falls with the attrition.
For explosion, that is the magazine and the fort ceases to exist as a fighting unit.
Rob.
The Business of the commander-in-chief is first to bring an enemy fleet to battle on the most advantageous terms to himself, (I mean that of laying his ships close on board the enemy, as expeditiously as possible); and secondly to continue them there until the business is decided.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks