Missiles ashore and guns offshore

Would sea-based forts make more sense if missiles stayed ashore and the offshore positions carried only guns?

An offshore gun belt would need more positions, all of which still require resupply and suitable locations.

Restricting offshore forts to guns increases the number needed to cover the coast. Each position still needs ammunition and continuing support, even when longer-range missiles remain ashore. The required firing positions also have to fit the actual coastline and offshore infrastructure. A useful location could coincide with a wind farm, leaving a siting problem that the weapons choice alone cannot solve.