Can the navy attack coastal cities?

[GDQuirm]

Simple question looking for a simple answer. This happened extremely frequently in this time period. It’s almost the entire reason Gunboat Diplomacy existed. At the moment, it looks like the navy can raid supply routes, stop naval invasions… and that’s it.

I want my 1800s simulator to have gunboats threatening shores with only the crew onboard, and coastal defenses to protect against that. Coastal defenses weren't built to stop armies walking off boats; they were built to stop ships attacking the port, something that happened endlessly in the 1800s. Endlessly. It happened in every corner of the globe, and entire wars were fought with only ships attacking ports. This is central to the time period. It is not a minor note in the history books, it isn't a quirky mechanic to represent some niche circumstances. It's the reason Japan folded when the US knocked on their door, and the reason the US sent 19 ships down to threaten Paraguay. It's the Anglo-Zanzibar War and the Anglo-Satsuma War. It's the very first engagement of the Spanish-American War, and most of the Pastry War. It's the overthrow of Hawaii, conducted entirely by the sailors on the ships, not by a group of soldiers supplied out of a barracks in Virginia. It wasn't just a threat, it actually happened, and it happened a lot, and it happened in a lot of critical conflicts of the age.

I can get why other strategy games don't let you bombard cities- because other strategy games are based almost entirely in land warfare, and so it feels bad for a player if the AI shows up with a fleet and you don't have one. But to put it simply:

It's acceptable that if the AI shows up with an army, and you don't have an army, you get walked over.

Treating the navy differently is treating the army as a necessary primary function in a country, and the navy as an optional add-on. The navy shouldn't take a backseat. You should have to have one, or have to be able to defend against one with forts and batteries. If you don't have to defend against a threatening navy, if you don't have to build defenses to protect your cities, then the navy is, I think, objectively dramatically less important than the army, which simply shouldn't be the case in this game.

 

[Nibbes]

Simple question looking for a simple answer. This happened extremely frequently in this time period. It’s almost the entire reason Gunboat Diplomacy existed. At the moment, it looks like the navy can raid supply routes, stop naval invasions… and that’s it.

I want my 1800s simulator to have gunboats threatening shores with only the crew onboard, and coastal defenses to protect against that. Coastal defenses weren't built to stop armies walking off boats; they were built to stop ships attacking the port, something that happened endlessly in the 1800s. Endlessly. It happened in every corner of the globe, and entire wars were fought with only ships attacking ports. This is central to the time period. It is not a minor note in the history books, it isn't a quirky mechanic to represent some niche circumstances. It's the reason Japan folded when the US knocked on their door, and the reason the US sent 19 ships down to threaten Paraguay. It's the Anglo-Zanzibar War and the Anglo-Satsuma War. It's the very first engagement of the Spanish-American War, and most of the Pastry War. It's the overthrow of Hawaii, conducted entirely by the sailors on the ships, not by a group of soldiers supplied out of a barracks in Virginia. It wasn't just a threat, it actually happened, and it happened a lot, and it happened in a lot of critical conflicts of the age.

I can get why other strategy game don't let you bombard cities- because other strategy games are based almost entirely in land warfare, and so it feels bad for a player if the AI shows up with a fleet and you don't have one. But to put it simply:

It's acceptable that if the AI shows up with an army, and you don't have an army, you get walked over.

Treating the navy differently is treating the army as a necessary primary function in a country, and the navy as an optional add-on. The navy shouldn't take a backseat. You should have to have one, or have to be able to defend against one with forts and batteries. If you don't have to defend against a threatening navy, if you don't have to build defenses to protect your cities, then the navy is, I think, objectively dramatically less important than the army, which simply shouldn't be the case in this game.

Hope so. Evens playing field a lot between British and late game US especially since that’s where many of our industrial and urban centers are.
Plus it like “Air Force” of that era or US navy even now. It can kill a lot of people on opposing side and have a lot of destruction(both intentional and unintentional especially back then given accuracy of weapons) but compared to army for your side human life/pop lost is minimum. You do have to worry about your ships getting sunk to close to their weapon range/artillery. But that’s more economics costly then human life. You have to retrain admirals(losing admiral is big especially then) and lose trained crew but nowhere near death numbers of army.

The last dev dairy actually makes me a little more reassuring about direction of combat but my question is why can’t I draft people into navy like US marines. Help invade after bombing city if need be.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Pastry War? were the Soldiers of the Croissant involved?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA i'll just see myself out...

 

[GDQuirm]

Pastry War? were the Soldiers of the Croissant involved?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA i'll just see myself out...

Funnily enough, the croissant was actually invented in the same year as the Pastry War.

1839. True story.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Pastry War? were the Soldiers of the Croissant involved?

Yes.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

ok, i'm off to have a google...


...well!...how about that!!!

 

[Mr. Wiggles]

...honestly I do not think it was as common as you make it to be...

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

...honestly I do not think it was as common as you make it to be...

I'd say on basis of general impression that it was more common than battles between armoured warships. Probably more common than oceanic commerce raiding (In manner of Confederates, Russian Vladivostok Squadron, Imperial Germany during WW1) too actually, at least on basis on number of conflicts it was employed in. Beyond that it was something navies in general were interested in. E.g. Britain threw major exercise in 1880s simulating attack on fortified port (with Kronstadt in particular in mind). Good deal of major wars featured ones too (e.g. Crimean, US Civil, Spanish-American, Russo-Japanese).

 

[Darsara]

...honestly I do not think it was as common as you make it to be...

I feel confident that it was war more common during this period than fights between battleships or dreadnoughts. Adding to the ones mentioned already readily find-able; the Bombardment of Madras (1914), Reduction of Lagos (1851), bombardment of Alexandria (1882), Punta Sombrero (1947), several bombardments of Tourane/Da Nang (mid 19th century).

 

[Lord Canterbury]

Simple question looking for a simple answer. This happened extremely frequently in this time period. It’s almost the entire reason Gunboat Diplomacy existed. At the moment, it looks like the navy can raid supply routes, stop naval invasions… and that’s it.

I want my 1800s simulator to have gunboats threatening shores with only the crew onboard, and coastal defenses to protect against that. Coastal defenses weren't built to stop armies walking off boats; they were built to stop ships attacking the port, something that happened endlessly in the 1800s. Endlessly. It happened in every corner of the globe, and entire wars were fought with only ships attacking ports. This is central to the time period. It is not a minor note in the history books, it isn't a quirky mechanic to represent some niche circumstances. It's the reason Japan folded when the US knocked on their door, and the reason the US sent 19 ships down to threaten Paraguay. It's the Anglo-Zanzibar War and the Anglo-Satsuma War. It's the very first engagement of the Spanish-American War, and most of the Pastry War. It's the overthrow of Hawaii, conducted entirely by the sailors on the ships, not by a group of soldiers supplied out of a barracks in Virginia. It wasn't just a threat, it actually happened, and it happened a lot, and it happened in a lot of critical conflicts of the age.

I can get why other strategy game don't let you bombard cities- because other strategy games are based almost entirely in land warfare, and so it feels bad for a player if the AI shows up with a fleet and you don't have one. But to put it simply:

It's acceptable that if the AI shows up with an army, and you don't have an army, you get walked over.

Treating the navy differently is treating the army as a necessary primary function in a country, and the navy as an optional add-on. The navy shouldn't take a backseat. You should have to have one, or have to be able to defend against one with forts and batteries. If you don't have to defend against a threatening navy, if you don't have to build defenses to protect your cities, then the navy is, I think, objectively dramatically less important than the army, which simply shouldn't be the case in this game.

This is a pretty interesting suggestion. It is something to be implemented as a Diplomatic Manoeuvre rather than as an Andmiral's Order. Gunboat diplomacy happened to force an opponent to capitulate without the need for a full blow war.

In Vicky3 that might look something like:

• Add Diplomatic Play 'Bombard City'. Only available if a fleet of certain power is currently Ordered to an adjacent sea zone.
• Diplomatically, this would need to escalate the situation. Which in Vicky3 terms means polarizing Potential Participants, forcing them to one side or the other. This would tend to make the sides more defined, leading to either an more obvious outbreak of war, or a greater likelihood of backing down if one nation was significantly weaker (and Gunboat Diplomacy only worked against weak opponents)
• The gunboater would take a fairly serious hit to both relations and infamy.
• The hardest part, mechanically, is there would also need to be a reason for the defending country to capitulate early. In the real work it was because their people were dying, buildings getting destroyed and the emotional shock on the local populace was politically untenable. In Vicky3 there is a way to represent the emotionality of getting shelled. It would instead need to be represented by some form of malus to the defender, either in the war or during the diplomatic manoeuvring.
• That malus, in war, might be a penalty to national morale (or whatever mechanic PDS are going to announce next week) to make peacing out happen earlier.
• That malus, during diplomatic manoeuvring, might be similar to blockaded trade routes, making it painful for the defender to extend the Diplomatic Play longer.
• And of course, because the only player who is ever going to be the successful subject of gunboat diplomacy will be the AI, the AI needs to be able to capitulate if shelled.

 

[Kazanov]

...honestly I do not think it was as common as you make it to be...

It was common, i mean, when the enemy did not had a fortified position near the ports. Most of the time strategic ports had forts that made coastal bombardment very costly.

 

[Nibbes]

This is a pretty interesting suggestion. It is something to be implemented as a Diplomatic Manoeuvre rather than as an Andmiral's Order. Gunboat diplomacy happened to force an opponent to capitulate without the need for a full blow war.

In Vicky3 that might look something like:

• Add Diplomatic Play 'Bombard City'. Only available if a fleet of certain power is currently Ordered to an adjacent sea zone.
• Diplomatically, this would need to escalate the situation. Which in Vicky3 terms means polarizing Potential Participants, forcing them to one side or the other. This would tend to make the sides more defined, leading to either an more obvious outbreak of war, or a greater likelihood of backing down if one nation was significantly weaker (and Gunboat Diplomacy only worked against weak opponents)
• The gunboater would take a fairly serious hit to both relations and infamy.
• The hardest part, mechanically, is there would also need to be a reason for the defending country to capitulate early. In the real work it was because their people were dying, buildings getting destroyed and the emotional shock on the local populace was politically untenable. In Vicky3 there is a way to represent the emotionality of getting shelled. It would instead need to be represented by some form of malus to the defender, either in the war or during the diplomatic manoeuvring.
• That malus, in war, might be a penalty to national morale (or whatever mechanic PDS are going to announce next week) to make peacing out happen earlier.
• That malus, during diplomatic manoeuvring, might be similar to blockaded trade routes, making it painful for the defender to extend the Diplomatic Play longer.
• And of course, because the only player who is ever going to be the successful subject of gunboat diplomacy will be the AI, the AI needs to be able to capitulate if shelled.

It should have infamy cost or diplomatic one. Doing this to Zanzibar is a lot different in international reaction then Amsterdam or New York

 

[Mr. Wiggles]

It was common, i mean, when the enemy did not had a fortified position near the ports. Most of the time strategic ports had forts that made coastal bombardment very costly.

Yes, a far cry from the overly zealous tones used..."endless" "extremely common"

 

[Kazanov]

Yes, a far cry from the overly zealous tones used..."endless" "extremely common"

"Extremely common against poor countries"

During the Spanish - South American war of 1865-6 , the Spanish fleet destroyed most of Valparaiso (Chile) using a naval bombardment, then they went to Callao (Perú) and tried to do the same thing but they failed, as Callao was one of the most important ports in the Pacific at the time, was heavily fortified.

The defenses of Callao were impressive even 30 years later. But Valparaiso never had good defenses.

In a crazy thing that happened. The German Empire destroyed a Venezuelan port in 1902, im sure that there are more examples

 

[GDQuirm]

"Extremely common against poor countries"

During the Spanish - South American war of 1865-6 , the Spanish fleet destroyed most of Valparaiso (Chile) using a naval bombardment, then they went to Callao (Perú) and tried to do the same thing but they failed, as Callao was one of the most important ports in the Pacific at the time, was heavily fortified.

The defenses of Callao were impressive even 30 years later. But Valparaiso never had good defenses.

In a crazy thing that happened. The German Empire destroyed a Venezuelan port in 1902, im sure that there are more examples

Exactly. Coastal defences should be highly effective at stopping it, as long as they’re advanced enough defences. It shouldn’t be necessary to have a navy capable of defeating the British if the British knock on your door with a couple steam ships, but you should need fortifications, or deal with getting bombarded.

 

[Axe99]

Very much agree OP - the game would add a significant extra level of strategy and historical plausibility if naval forces were able to attack coastal cities and ports, as they did historically. The threat of attack could be something in diplomatic plays as well.

It was common, i mean, when the enemy did not had a fortified position near the ports. Most of the time strategic ports had forts that made coastal bombardment very costly.

Keep in mind that plenty of fortified positions were attacked as well - and sometimes (Kinburn, for example, during the Crimean War, which was well fortified with many guns) surrendered to attack by naval bombardment alone. Fortifications help, but are primarily of use against raiding forces - a massed fleet attack is likely to overwhelm fortifications (it did on every occasions during the Crimean War, and during WW1 ships did better than forts at least during the Dardanelles - just don't ask them about the mines ). Fortifications mean a greater effort is needed, but ships turned out to be quite effective at attacking forts in the period.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

"Extremely common against poor countries"

During the Spanish - South American war of 1865-6 , the Spanish fleet destroyed most of Valparaiso (Chile) using a naval bombardment, then they went to Callao (Perú) and tried to do the same thing but they failed, as Callao was one of the most important ports in the Pacific at the time, was heavily fortified.

The defenses of Callao were impressive even 30 years later. But Valparaiso never had good defenses.

In a crazy thing that happened. The German Empire destroyed a Venezuelan port in 1902, im sure that there are more examples

Another failed port attack would be the one by US monitors on Charleston harbor. Afterwards Union landed ground forces and artillery on an outlying island and started to reduce the defenses, a long process that eventually resulted in it's capture towards the very end of the war. Similar tactic had been used, much more successfully, against Fort Pulaski that shielded Savannah. In that light, it seems likely that a determined naval-land force could have reduced Callao by capturing and fortifying the San Lorenzo island, with ground forces unable to intervene properly due to it being an island.

That being said it should be noted that the 1860s were very favorable time for such attacks. The effectiveness of iron armor was high as there were no effective armor piercing projectiles, while masonry forts (as used in US) had becomes significantly more vulnerable due to introduction of rifled artillery.

(Edit) Or, if these gun numbers off Wiki are correct, I'd dare say reducing Callao would be far easier than reducing Charleston:

Fort Pulaski: 48 guns
Callao: 52 guns
Charleston harbor: 385 guns

To put it in perspective during US Civil War a good artillery-to-manpower ratio for field armies was held to be 2,5-4 guns per 1000 men. So the shore defenses at Charleston are sufficient to equip 100-150 battalions adequately with artillery. Not cheap. And not as mobile as ships.

 

[Nibbes]

Exactly. Coastal defences should be highly effective at stopping it, as long as they’re advanced enough defences. It shouldn’t be necessary to have a navy capable of defeating the British if the British knock on your door with a couple steam ships, but you should need fortifications, or deal with getting bombarded.

Bombing country especially indiscriminately should make government and/or local pops incredibly pissed too. That something they would remember. This is little ahead but think of bombing of London. Targeting civilians and non military/economic targets like palace or monument(as “morale” blow or just cause) that could increase in game war attrition the enemy can take even if damaging their industry and population.

Also neutral powers might now be more willing to join war against you now. Did the British navy ever try to bomb a German city in ww1?

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Also neutral powers might now be more willing to join war against you now. Did the British navy ever try to bomb a German city in ww1?

Not as far as I know, though there was IIRC a carrier raid (featuring Argus?) late in the war. British fundamentally adopted the strategy that the German coast was too dangerous so the Germans could keep it, and instead focused on sealing the North Sea. Much the same with WW2.

(Edit) Correction, Furious. And the target was Zeppelin base: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tondern_raid

 

[Waplo]

Totally agree, many small wars were fought exclusively through gunboat diplomacy, especially regarding debt repayment.
Coastal bombardment is even in EU4.
The mechanics is historically widespread and also small enough to be in the game without needing to be part of a future dlc.