Artillery fire from fortifications?

Whilst I was designing my card for Tripoli castle, it flagged up a few niggles which our players here in Notts have been discussing for some time. One was why the Fort cards with double aspect firing angles only have one loading box unlike the ships which can fire on either side at once, and the other concerned the firepower of the larger forts. Tripoli for instance fields over 150 large guns. A 100 gun ship has a firepower much greater than the larger forts. It would seem that some forts are under gunned. (Raffer please take note!)
The reports and comments from Captains and commanding Admirals of the time showed a great respect for the power of these fortifications.
To remedy this anomaly I designed this new board. Any comments on this aspect of the rules would be appreciated.

Rob.

Whilst I was at it I also did one for Tripoli waterfront.

I think you're onto something here, Rob. I also like giving different fortifications defending an area their own logs rather than trying to overload a single.

I expect El Morro would need at least three fire arcs, ditto at least one of the Danish sites.

I will be looking at my El Morro next, now I have learned to fiddle those pictures on the card to get an approximation of Tripoli. Then just need to try and figure out an average for what number and calibre of guns were there. To fit in the whole of Tunis as you see I devided it into three cards each with 50 guns. That also coinsides with a broadside from one side of a 100 gun ship so I could use the stats for that to get a rough estimate of the fort stats. I ignored the steady platform for the fort as I felt this could be cancelled out by the old decrepit guns available and the probable lack of live training of the gunners.

Rob.

I have been knocking around the idea of the fort Burden representing the strength of the walls. For mortar attacks, the vitals of the fort are hit instead. I started compiling interesting fort guts but got distracted. Magazine, enlisted barracks, officers barracks, etc. But each one needs to change the way the fort is played when damaged.

For mortar fire I have just been using the chits as the rules dictate Dobbs, but have not yet had cause to employ them on a fortification. When we eventually get to recreate second Tripoli next year, all that will change. However I'm thinking that the main targets will be men on the walls in the open and the Magazine. I don't want to get bogged down too much with details as the main object of the game will still be the fight between ships. Nevertheless, any observations will be welcomed as they may well influence my approach to the subject, and get me to change my mind on some aspects of the matter, as my idea is still very much in embryonic form.
Rob.

Interesting enough the only thing stopping the naval forces leveling Tripoli was that the Pasha threatened to kill his hostages.
I think their guns were probably quite a bit worse than the major powers.

Even French forts was somewhat ineffective when British forces boarded French ships “safely” anchored under the guns.

I’m not sure why most forts were so ineffective but they surely were compared with what I feel the data tells they should be.

That is one of the reasons I make my forts fire only every three moves Jonas. Also if yo look at my upgrade the forts guns on each quadrant are only the same as one 100 gun ship. We also precloded double shotting as it was felt that old guns could not take the force of the detonation. In theory the combined firepower of the squadron should more than account for the fortifications, especially as those facing seaward rather than into the Harbour and its approaches will probably not even figure in an attack.

Rob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexaS

Interesting enough the only thing stopping the naval forces leveling Tripoli was that the Pasha threatened to kill his hostages.
I think their guns were probably quite a bit worse than the major powers.

Even French forts was somewhat ineffective when British forces boarded French ships “safely” anchored under the guns.

I’m not sure why most forts were so ineffective but they surely were compared with what I feel the data tells they should be.

---

Something to consider might be battery density. Forts of the period had a lot more space between guns than ships and in a sport where focused broadsides was the game, that could have an impact. :takecover:

A first rate has 50+ decent sized guns in less than two hundred feet. A fort with the same spread over 200 yards perhaps would be less than a 1/3rd effective?

Good point Dobbs.
Rob.

It's an interesting thought to consider broadsides as broadsides were mainly fired by turning the ship and only at longer ranges actually aiming the guns, while the forts had to train their guns all the time to even follow a ship's movement in its arc.

Come to think of it, most ships were surrendered as their moral fell. Ships fired broadsides "easily" coordinated in the cramped space of a ship. They had massive effects at short distances and were probably quite horrible even at longer distances. Did forts fire as quickly as they could or did they fire in coordinated salvos. I'm thinking the former, but can't remember any historical accounts at the moment. Perhaps they were more like army artillery?

As I have read it Jonas, all aspects of what you say are true to some extent. As we say here in England, "like the curates' egg it is good in parts." Some gunners were highly trained army artillerists, some disgruntled civilian volunteers, or Army pensioners, convict units etc.

Guns varied from modern, captured, or abandoned ones from retreating armies or captured ships, to old 100 year old ones hardly ever used in their lifetimes. Not a lot of accurate information exists, except that live firing was not frequently practiced because of the expense, whereas some keen battery commanders even set out markers to estimate the correct ranges, hard to estimate over water.
And then most gunners even when trained were used to firing with more manoeuvrable smaller guns at targets heading straight toward them or static, not traversing. That is the main reason I have upgraded the hitting power, but placed several handicaps on the range, speed of loading and inability to use double shot. I may well now need to vector in the spread of weapons along the waterfront to account for the ripple effect of the guns firing as the ship sailed past.

Rob.

Rob, interesting thread.

Perhaps one aspect might be that ship to fort engagements are condensed for game play. Considering sieges , effectively bombarding fortifications took time.

Factors to consider:

1) Ships have limited ammunition which might mean a need to replenish for a long duration bombardment

2) Elevation - forts are higher up (at least some) and shot might be more plunging shot while ship guns would be firing up at a fort. How would that affect ship or fort vulnerability?

I do factor in plunging shot Paul. It was notoriously inaccurate because it effectively had a smaller target and no skip effect, but if it did land it caused severe damage and often penetrated all the decks even sometimes the keel. Often Forts capitulated because of the effect of bombarding the town rather than damage to the fort. As for duration, I will have to look at that further. I only really have Gibraltar and Tripoli on my radar at present. Guns on high elevation also get an extra cannister length of range added on to the end of the range ruler.
Thanks for starting the cannon ball rolling.
Rob.

Even better, Rob. I got the next campaign game played. AAR shouldn’t be too long - I hope. :pray:

I look forward to seeing it Paul.
I am hoping to pull in a game myself before we go to Doncaster.
Rob.

More thoughts on Forts. We have played some games but always fairly basic rules with some optional ones thrown in such as wind changes. I want to play Batter the Tower next Tuesday night which is a scenario by Jonas Emmett https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/245...rio-13-players

As we will have 3 players this seems like a good scenario that also introduces more advanced rules to us. I was wondering about fire damage if the fort uses hot shot. The bit about the French player seems a bit ambiguous to my mind. "Additionally, when the tower fires ball ammunition or double shot and deals damage that does not include any fire special damage, draw one E damage counter. If it has a Crew Loss symbol, the target must place a fire damage marker in their Special Damage section. Reshuffle the E counter together with the unused E counters." Does anyone have any thoughts on this hot shot stuff? :question:

We have special amendments for hot shot in our games as follows Gary:-

If heated shot is used it may not be double shotted because of the danger to crews. However, if any 0 cards drawn, one of them may indicate a misfire rather than a miss at the receiving end and the guns then draw a single E damage counter for that broadside, just as the ships do for fire damage. If a crewman symbol comes up the gun explodes and the crewman goes into the crew damage box closing one box. With regards ship damage, we are a bit kinder with the rules and damage for fire is only drawn if the damage indicated is hull, rudder or masts. If a card indicates flooding no fire is caused for obvious reasons. Also, guns firing heated shot take twice as long to load as do normal ones because of the tricky handling of hot shot.
If the scenario dictates a covert attack by the ship the furnaces will not start heating shot until the alarm is raised. It will then take five moves to heat the shot, even before loading can begin. This does not preclude firing normally until the hot shot is ready.

Rob.

Heated shot requires a broadly appropriately tuned gun system, to the target range and consistency. If the shot passes through and through it does nothing additional. If it hits rigging or spars it will nearly always pass through with no additional damage. Heated shot lodged in timbers can cause a localised heating and fire - maybe - if it can be got at the fire can be prevented by driving the shot out and applying water. Heated shot which passes into the gun deck can cause problems - it isn't localised heat, so fires to structure are unlikely (IMO), but the issues of injury to crew are increased by the high temperature of the shot - generally shot rolling on the deck are dangerous anyway (even just 'rolling' can break feet and ankles, with 'spent shot' amputating the feet of soldiers trying to stop it with a foot being a known phenomena in land warfare with 3-12pdr shot) - but the greatest risk it to the small supply of powder on the gundeck. I would treat each hit with heated shot on the gun deck as a test for "bursting a gun" or some similar rule, but at a 1 in 'some' chance ~ 1 in 6 or 2 in 6.

Lodging in timber, or worse passing into the Hold &/or Magazine can cause a fire or explosion. Frigates at (iirc) Tripoli were not harmed by hot shot, because the gunners were using distance charges from 18-24pdr guns, which passed through and through at close ranges. Had the charges been moderated the risk to the ships could have been more serious.

You are quite right with your information Dave. Thanks for taking the trouble to explain all these extra details to help in expanding my answer to Gary. :thumbsup:

The through pass of heated shot is why we use the rule of only in the hull or ships innards as a basis for that type of damage.
Our system is always tailored to add a bit of interest to what is a fast and simple game system. We always employ the Kiss method of decisions on this sort of expansion of the rules as written. Most of the chaps I play with took to Sails for the very reason that it gave them a quick game without the application of a plethora of miniscule sub rules and modifications which made most games so slow and boring. We also abhor the death by a thousand dice with which some rules seem to be obsessed. Consequently, whilst being aware of many of the details of the era, we try to emulate Andrea's ideal of distilling the bones of an idea into a quick and easily remembered system of game play.
We have tried to pick up and include the nuisances of the heated shot in our simplistic way, and I am sure that the details you have mentioned will help Gary find some way of including these extras into his game, even if he only uses them to explain why a certain rule is as it is.

Rob.

Soo... If damage contains a 1 or 2 draw an E chit. If a crew, the ship is set on fire. Add to that Rob's misfire rule and reloading time.

That is even more simple than our idea.
Thanks Jonas.

Rob.

Thanks guys I am thinking I will delete that double shot bit from the scenario as it has been said here no double shotted guns with hot shot. I am also tempted to use the if on fire take a B at beginning of the next 3 turns as per Wings of Glory rather than mess about with damage control etc. We always play dead simple in Wings of War/Glory and have done so for the last 11 or 12 years now. No altitude, no blind spots and boom card damage discussed and agreed upon before the game. That way it is just a matter of picking 3 cards and going for it. This game and Wings of Glory WW2 is a bit painful for us old reprobates with the continuous 2 card planning etc., and not very popular on my table. Anyway I will keep simplifying the scenario looking at your comments and see how we go on Tuesday night.

Interesting remark on the two card planning Gary. Although we stick to it in WW11 games, we often play one card games in Sails. It prevents ships sailing off into the blue yonder and missing out on their enjoyment whilst striving to get back into the game. Our take is that captains watched the action on other ships decks, and often prepared to counter enemy moves by being ready for a tack or shortening of sails etc. Sometimes it was a feint, but the one card having already been selected still delays any reaction to the enemy move but not irrevocably. On the guns firing double shotted I should have been more explicit. The cannon on a fortress can fire double shotted, but not when using heated shot.
Hope this helps.
You will also find on here somewhere my take on fire from forts on high elevations and plunging fire.

Rob.