Some idea's

[Rich Mac]

I believe that Winslow's Battery reported the loss of 10 horses in the Wheatfield. An artillery battery of 6 guns would theoretically have 72 horses (six per cannon and caisson), but in reality he probably entered the battle with less than a full complement. However, that probably meant he lost anywhere from 1/5th to 1/6th his complement. I also gave a wrong number for his casualties. There were 10 wounded and 8 missing (presumably dead).

Most of you guys can probably school me on the details of the Wheatfield, and since it was such a chaotic and confusing section of the battle I probably chose a poor example . However, from my understanding, Winslow held the Wheatfield even after the 17th pulled back from the stone wall. There were a couple of failed charges by the 115th Pennsylvania that took place while the battery held its ground and after the 17th had withdrawn. The Confederates didn't even attempt to cross over the stone wall until AFTER they managed to get infantry in on the battery's flank and then force the withdraw.

Also, to my understanding of how events transpired, Winslow was too far from the stone wall to effectively employ canister. Instead, the battery used a combination of solid and case shot. The solid shot was fired into the woods immediately behind the wall. The solid balls would rip into the trees sending a shower of wood splinters and large branches down into the infantry using those same trees as cover.

I think that most of us fail to recognize the sheer terror that artillery caused. It's one thing to see a demonstration of these awesome guns, but to be on the receiving end of their fire was often enough to put even veteran troops face down in the dirt. Of course they would not be able to make a casualty of every man in a regiment, but their capability to wipe out large swaths of men in one fiery burst was enough to make even large numbers weary of assaulting an artillery battery. I can only imagine how horrific it must have been to see a discharge of canister on a line of infantry. It was probably as much a psychological weapon as a physical one.

Here is another, more general, way to explain it. Artillery pieces were extremely valuable. Both the USA and CSA committed large numbers of men, material and money so that these 2 ton pieces of bronze and iron could be hauled all over the countryside. This wasn't done just to get some random, long-range shots in on the enemy. This was done because artillery was damned effective.

I suppose my whole point is, please don't reduce the capabilities of the artillery just because some people misunderstand its effectiveness.

[Amish John]

I think the Pickett's Charge accounts of a red mist in the air resulting from men being practically vaporized by being on the receiving end of double canister says a lot about the effectiveness of the guns on the Union line.

[Joshua l.Chamberlain]

Oops I got the names mixed up. I was thinking of Bigelow's 9th Massachusetts Battery that held off Barksdale's Mississippi Brigade at the Trostle farm. My mistake I always get the two mixed up.

[Hancock the Superb]

Rich Mac - you may be correct, I have yet to choreographed each regiment in the fight for the wheatfield. (Already have for Devils Den and LRT). However, I disagree with your idea about the idea of cannon not being for long range firing. If you have ever read a little bit of an artillery manual, or had a teacher that lectures on West Point as the 1st engineering school, you'll understand why Americans like dragging cannon along with their armies - because the gunners are so good. Listen to this:

"With their specialized training, the gunners loved the bloodiest profession the most, and would string up any cavalryman who man a crack at their cannon" - Henry Hunt

Artillery was a fine piece of engineering - a huge amount of triganomatry. Ever wonder why almost every officer in the Union Army was originally in the Artillery (Gibbon, Sykes, Hunt, and many more.)

There would rarely be inaccurate shots, gunner was an art of precision. This was made easier by shrapnel and shell, which as long as they could get it to burst near the rebel battery, they would ensure a hit or two. In well drilled batteries, it was well known that in clear conditions at the beginning of combat, one gun could take down an officer on horseback at 1700 yards.

All this means that cannister is used as a definisive mechanism. Sure, it was highly effective, but the real reason artillery is out on the battlefield, as Henry Hunt liked: To blast the enemy infantry forming up for an attack.

Malvern Hill: Hunt's gunners almost entirely were engaged in giving charging brigades hell - through shrapnel, shell, solid shot, and for close guns, cannister.

Every gunner recognized cannister as their best weapon, but with the increase in range of a rifled musket, it was worthless when officers decided to halt farther out from guns and pick off gunners outside cannister range (remember, you can open fire more than 160 yards out in the Civil War).

I hope that this is informative, though not picking on Rich Mac

[IronBMike]

I think this is a really good debate we have going on. I still feel, though that there should be some balancing mechanism to prevent cannon from dominating the line. Even in attack, you can bring up your infantry to engage and then roll up four batteries to quickly unlimber and blast the defenders. In my opinion, that is not realistic. Maybe if cannister range was reduced to 160-170 yards or rifle range increased to 200 yds? I'm gonna go mess around in TC2M and see what different it makes.

[Rich Mac]

Hancock the Superb wrote:

I hope that this is informative, though not picking on Rich Mac

Hancock,

I may be missing something here, but it sure as hell sounds like you have the exact same ideas about artillery as me. In fact, I don't think you're picking on me at all.

I wholeheartedly agree that Civil War artillery gunners were amazingly accurate, and effective, at long range. I'm just trying to also state that the artillery was effective at shorter ranges as well. Canister may not have been a thing of mathematical beauty - more like taking a sledgehammer to fine china - but it was brutally effective.

What got me all riled up in the beginning was a post implying that canister should be tuned down a notch. It was followed by a post by Norb that sort of left the idea open to re-think canister. This was just my way of stepping in and yelling out loud to Norb that he (and the rest of the MadMinute Team) got it right in the first place. So, please don't change it.

I went back and re-read my last post. If I gave the impression that cannons were just taking long range pot shots at the enemy, that was not my intention at all.

Guys - Have a Merry Christmas!

[Hancock the Superb]

I misunderstood your post, sorry.

IronBMike - why not increase infantry range to 200? Reducing cannister range is realistically inaccurate, but increasing infantry range increases the historical accuratness.

[Armchair General]

Hancock the Superb wrote:

I misunderstood your post, sorry.

IronBMike - why not increase infantry range to 200? Reducing cannister range is realistically inaccurate, but increasing infantry range increases the historical accuratness.

Both ranges are kinda inaccurate in TC2M. For a Springfield or Enfield rifle, 160 yards isn't terribly hard of a shot, and it wasn't unheard of batteries firing canister at say, three, four-hundred yards.

[Kerflumoxed]

Rich Mac wrote:

Hancock the Superb wrote:

I hope that this is informative, though not picking on Rich Mac

Hancock,

I may be missing something here, but it sure as hell sounds like you have the exact same ideas about artillery as me. In fact, I don't think you're picking on me at all.

I wholeheartedly agree that Civil War artillery gunners were amazingly accurate, and effective, at long range. I'm just trying to also state that the artillery was effective at shorter ranges as well. Canister may not have been a thing of mathematical beauty - more like taking a sledgehammer to fine china - but it was brutally effective.

What got me all riled up in the beginning was a post implying that canister should be tuned down a notch. It was followed by a post by Norb that sort of left the idea open to re-think canister. This was just my way of stepping in and yelling out loud to Norb that he (and the rest of the MadMinute Team) got it right in the first place. So, please don't change it.

I went back and re-read my last post. If I gave the impression that cannons were just taking long range pot shots at the enemy, that was not my intention at all.

Guys - Have a Merry Christmas!

And no one has discussed the effects of DOUBLE cannister!

J. wishing all a Merry Christmas! :woohoo:

[norb]

Rich Mac wrote:

What got me all riled up in the beginning was a post implying that canister should be tuned down a notch. It was followed by a post by Norb that sort of left the idea open to re-think canister. This was just my way of stepping in and yelling out loud to Norb that he (and the rest of the MadMinute Team) got it right in the first place. So, please don't change it.

I designed most of the game the same ways I designed the first games. Hopefully I didn't get anything wrong, but the odds of that are impossible. I just hope that I didn't mess anything up too bad My coding is a result of the developers and testers. I will change the game in ways that they suggest. These guys played the old games and they've played this and from what I've heard, this plays much better. Cannister is still an option that is spec'ed out in the csv files, just like previously. So it's completely moddable as before.