Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

The work analyses the interaction between the shape of the coastline (convex/concave) and the trajectories of the cyclones in determining the exacerbation of the related storm surges. The modelling approach followed is robust and well conceived, first with idealized test cases (regualr coastline shapes) and straight cyclon traks, then with real coastline and idealized cyclone tracks. Last a real case. My major remark is about this real case. I would suggest the author to move this case in the section 4 or at the beginning of section 5 to serve as validation of model setup which is then used for the idealized test cases and their discussion.

In the Results and Discussion I would suggest to summarize the vakues of the MPS in tables, in order to make easier the reading of the text. The figures in my opinion need some small adjustments, which are suggested along the manuscript. Several other comments are highlighted along the text, in the attached PDF.

The manuscript is well referenced, well written and mostly easy to read and understand. For this reasons I recommend the manuscript to be eligible for publication after minor revision.

This paper discusses the effects of coastline shape and approach angle of a storm on peak storm surge, first using an idealised model, then expanding the analysis to the context of the coastline of India, and finally validates the model using Storm Michaung, a recent cyclone in the region. Previous literature on this topic analyses the effects of concave and convex coastlines on storm surge, while other papers in the field analyse the approach angle of the storm on the peak storm surge. This manuscript takes these analyses further by also considering the sharpness of the curvature of the coastline and combining this with varying the approach angle. 

In general, this manuscript addresses some interesting questions regarding the effects of coastal geometry on storm surges, using both idealised and “real world” models, and presents some novel results, along with results that corroborate with those in the aforementioned literature. It should be improved in its discussion of the results, with a more in-depth analysis in the text highlighting how the results fit into the context of the field. The presentation of some of the results also needs improvement.

Overall, I recommend that this manuscript undergoes major revisions regarding the text in the results and discussion sections. Although the results are generally satisfactory and I do not suggest new analysis, the writing needs some significant improvements, which are detailed in the attached file. I hope this is not disheartening since I believe that there are some really interesting results in the paper which are worthy of publication, but I feel that the work needed on the text in some sections will likely require more time than the deadline for minor revisions would allow.