Re-visiting Artillery's Effectiveness During the CW.

[KG_Soldier]

I was all for the 200 yard muskets, but now I'm not so sure. The 250 yard muskets do a pretty good job of keeping guns back, but I'm afraid the 200 yard muskets will not do as well and we'll see even more guns rolled up.

Best solution: give infantry the ability to choose specific targets like artillery does now.

Quite agree, Mr. Soldier....with the proviso that musket ranges remain at the standard 160 yard range! :ohmy:

J

Jack,

You always harp on making the game more "historically accurate," yet you often suggest changes which encourage the "canister defense."

[Kerflumoxed]

I was all for the 200 yard muskets, but now I'm not so sure. The 250 yard muskets do a pretty good job of keeping guns back, but I'm afraid the 200 yard muskets will not do as well and we'll see even more guns rolled up.

Best solution: give infantry the ability to choose specific targets like artillery does now.

Quite agree, Mr. Soldier....with the proviso that musket ranges remain at the standard 160 yard range! :ohmy:

J

Jack,

You always harp on making the game more "historically accurate," yet you always suggest changes which encourage the "canister defense."

Oh, my, Mark...I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, any changes to canister or any other aspect of the game other than what is proven historically correct....just as I am currently suggesting we adhere to the norm for battle lines and musket fire as the game designers established (160 yards) and which has been proven to be accurate based upon independent research conducted by professional historians. Plus, "canister defense" (your term, not mine) can be documented in almost every instance in which it is employed in the game, albeit often in rare circumstances. Perhaps the term "canister defense" should be changed to "canister offense" which would more accurately reflect the "rolling up" of artillery into the front lines as opposed to having infantry falling back on established gun positions.

Ideally, there should be a high penalty for those who roll their guns into the front line. Under the present game circumstances, if I place my guns in an advanced position 400-500 yards away from the enemy while waiting for my infantry support to advance, the enemy infantry can advance to within 250 yards and "pepper" the cannoneers. This, in itself, represents as great an inaccuracy in infantry firings as the rolling of guns into the front lines. There was no systematic system of target practice during the war and if you have ever fired a CW rifle-musket at a human target at 250 yards with open sight, you would recognize the fallacy being practiced now to provide the "extra edge" for infantry. I am sure that there are many on this site who can verify the problems with hitting a target at 2 and one-half football field away!

J

[Kerflumoxed]

I've seen canister fired INTO my regiment while it was engaged in melee! Garnier and Rich Mac saw it too.

Magic canister, hit only my guys.

As far as the stacking goes, it seems to me this is mostly a problem in woods. I know in the woods just across from the seminary and railroad cut on the McPherson map you can "stack" your infantry and then move them a little and find lines of sight real easy (that's why many always attack those woods). I don't think stacking infantry is much of a problem on open ground.

No question about it! Only thing I can attribute it to is the Government issue "plate" vests my troops wear! That may be one problem that even the wizards at NorbSoftDev can only solve by not allowing canister to fired at a melee.

WOW! Mark, we found complete agreement on at least one thing!:woohoo:

J

[KG_Soldier]

Well. . . you've suggested numerous times that canister should fire 400 yards or more. And you often ask that musket ranges go back to 160 yards.

How fun would that be? No one would close for infantry firefights and we'd have hour-and-a-half-long artillery duels.

When I first started playing this game, it was a race to the high ground, followed by guns being put in front of infantry lines -- not very much fun. I only want the battles to stay as they are now, great big infantry slugfests with artillery playing a secondary, though important role.

Going to 160 yard muskets and 200 yard canister is a receipe for stagnation -- in my opinion.

[Garnier]

I have noticed infantry lines overlapping with both lines firing. I think this should be definitely looked at. I think TC2M was good about this. Some overlapping is understandable, but not entire lengths of a regiment.

With stacked infantry, as far as I know, only those that make smoke are actually shooting. You can have lines overlapped where half of each regiment is firing and the other half of each regiment does the loading animation but only gets tired without shooting. So I *think* this isn't actually a problem.

I have seen canister fire right through infantry lines when the artillery and infantry are mixed. Players should on their own not allow this, but I have seen it happen. I have seen canister fired into opposing regiments during and immediately after melee (charging). The friendly side takes no casualties while the opposing side gets the hot lead.

There are problems here, but it can be pretty hard to do when you want to. It's true though, that cannons behind the line deter an enemy infantry charge, because of the possibility of stuff like this. I don't mind it quite as much with 250 yard muskets, because the infantry can draw off to more than 200 yards if necessary and then the guns can't do this. We have enough close quarters assaulting already that I don't think it needs to be made more effective.

[Kerflumoxed]

Well. . . you've suggested numerous times that canister should fire 400 yards or more. And you often ask that musket ranges go back to 160 yards.

How fun would that be? No one would close for infantry firefights and we'd have hour-and-a-half-long artillery duels.

When I first started playing this game, it was a race to the high ground, followed by guns being put in front of infantry lines -- not very much fun. I only want the battles to stay as they are now, great big infantry slugfests with artillery playing a secondary, though important role.

Going to 160 yard muskets and 200 yard canister is a receipe for stagnation -- in my opinion.

Yes, indeed, correct on both counts and I plead guilty to "as charged", based upon historical accounts and even the U.S. Army's Artillery Tables, which states that 500 feet was acceptable for canister fire! Obviously, the CW artillery had a greater and more effective range than it does in the game, but should it be relegated to a "secondary, though important role" as you advocate? I may be in a minority, but I think not!!! At the minimal, it should be an equal partner...at the ideal, it should reflect "what was", not what I want!

Stagnation? Perhaps it might be cause to develop more contemporary tactics...don't know...just a thought.

J

[General P R Cleburne]

Gentlemen i humbly submit my five cents...
To be perfectly honest i see BOTH sides of this debate.There is obviously some problems here that need to be addressed,however to address it you also have to make concessions in other areas.The concept that is being proposed to have infantry unable to effectively counter batteries at more than 160 yds is in fact in my opinion quite wrong.Yes it is true that musketry wasnt accurate beyond these ranges but in the examples that are given im not sure if the real facts are being taken into account.Talk of a single man not being able to hit a barn door at 250 yards is very realistic,however, an ACW unit that is in the battle RARELY consisted of one man reloading and firing his musket alone at a target 250 yds away...although if you bring up a point about a "sniper" then i cant argue,but that is a lone exception.Relity gentlemen is im afraid that a unit would consist of alot more than 1 man firing his musket.The unit as a whole might well be hitting a battery at 250 yds with great effect purely because of the mass of fire being put in.Yes 85% of the balls would probrably miss and fly high or short or wide,BUT the other 15% hits its mark, plain and simply.Yes you can say its luck and not judgement , but it is luck created by volume of numbers and not by marksmanship itself.Is this being considered at all?
I have to agree that things need to change but if they do lets please not turn the simulation into a battle of the "19th century tanks".
I know full well that some of you love to hear the sound of cannister and see the infantry taking a battering and im sure you glean alot of fun and mischief out of it,BUT really,are you considering the playability for the players you are so willingly running up your tanks at and blowing to kingdon come?
How many generals will return to recreate this sort of farce on a daily/weekly basis?
Is the sacrifice of the community worth the amusement of a small percentage of said community?
The trade off is simple in my humble opinion.I would like the simulation to be a success enjoyed by all and continually supported by all because it is FUN and enjoyable for ALL, and not just those that know the so called "edges" to be gleaned against cannon fodder new guys......
Having said this i do understand the historical argument and i thoroughly support it,BUT only if the trade off is a fair one and not one that puts the ball firmly into the hands of the "tank" commanders.
YOS
Cleburne

[KG_Soldier]

"For many, winning comes first at any cost, and so shortcuts to gain an advantage are welcomed by them."

Really? Many? How many?

"If you have noticed our discussions, gentlemen's agreements are a complete farce owing to the disposition of certain members of the community."

Last I checked, there are no "gentlemen's agreements" in place for Garnier's campaign. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

I think Garnier's campaign punishes those who roll their guns up to the line enough so that it's really no big deal. I keep my guns several hundred yards behind my lines 90% of the time. But I really don't care where players put their guns, as long as we keep 250 yard muskets, that is. I jacked with you the other night because right off the bat you started complaining about Ellis' guns being too close to the line, and then you put yours right behind your lines.

Hypocrisy bugs me, where you or anyone else puts their guns, not so much.

[Kerflumoxed]

Questions about which I should know the answer: Isn't the 250 yard range designed in the game for Sharpshooters? If so, aren't all regiments then currently Sharpshooters? If so, doesn't this cause unbalance in the game between the infantry and the artillery?

Thanks

J

[KG_Soldier]

IMHO. . . 250 yard musket and 200 yard canister ranges cause less imbalance than do 200 yard canister and 160 yard musket ranges.