Changing rifle and cannister ranges

[Jack ONeill]

All,

My conversation on other pages with KG_Soldier got me thinking - Garnier, (He of Sainted-ness), increased the range of rifle-muskets to roughly equal the range of cannister to help the Infantry not get chewed up as they advanced and to keep the precious guns from being run up to the infantry lines like mini-tanks. I find this to be an excellent compromise as far as it goes, but, what if we went the other way a bit?

Follow me here - Why not REDUCE the effective range of cannister to 160 yards, (or somewhere in there)? The effect would still be brutal and the Infantry Muskets could still do damage to the gunners.
Based on my research I have found the following information for consideration -
A variety of scholars, (specifically Paddy Griffith), had discovered the average range for an Infantry firefight was 40 yards. (Yes, really - 40 yards.) Granted, this was a compilation of stats from all theatoers of the war so I'd throw in a 20 yard gain for the eastern armies as there was marginally more open field area then in the West. This short range action is supported by various Diaries of some participants in the War and some personal observations on my part.
1) Having tramped around the eastern seaboard and the western theater of the CW areas for the better part of 4 years it is fairly obvious to me there are few places the average infantryman could SEE 200+ yards, let alone open fire. Hence, Norb/Team has chosen a solid average for the infantry to open fire.
2) I own an '53 pattern Enfield and a '63 pattern Springfield rifle-musket. On a windless day, shooting from a rest with a carefully loaded weapon, I can hit a 12" square target at 500 yards. Remember, I was/am a professional soldier. This is my job. Now, add in the following for the guys back then - SOMEONE IS SHOOTING BACK AT YOU, there is smoke and flames all over the place, trees, etc. blocking your line of sight, your best friend just took one and is thrashing around on the ground in agony, people are screaming whatever in your ear, massive amonuts of noise in general AND you've had precious little time on the firing range anyway to get used to really aiming in on a target, much less hitting it. Realistically, 160 yards is about right as an average to open fire.

Transfer this to the Artillery - More training by default, (I've been a reenactor gunner - talk about work!), but still hampered by the noise, smoke, trees, etc. as far as hitting the target. 200 yards is actually 100 yards less then the manuels' call for in real life for cannister, but Norb/Team's call of 200 yards is a good compromise for game purposes. Reducing the range for cannister to 160 yards, would, I believe, add the additional issue for the gunners as far a line-of-sight goes. They have the same visual issues the Infantry does. This would allow the Poor Bloody Infantry to actually be able to get to the guns without being completely chewed up in the process.

So, to finish up, I'd like to mod the guns for cannister at 160 yards. Who can tell me which file or files I need to change to accomplish this so I can test it?

Thoughts?

Jack "relentlessly in pursuit of something..." O'Neill B)

[Davinci]

J – guessing here due to the fact that I don’t play with the artillery or cavalry in my games!

Try the munitions.csv first, this one seems to have the distance listed at the bottom of the file.

You can also check out the artillery and the artytables, files also.

You know the drill - move the files from the SDK \ Logistics - into a mod before altering them!

davinci

[Jack ONeill]

DaV,

Roger that and thanks.

Jack B)

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Jack O'Neill wrote:

So, to finish up, I'd like to mod the guns for cannister at 160 yards. Who can tell me which file or files I need to change to accomplish this so I can test it?

Munitions.csv is the correct file to mod. Canister info is at the bottom of the file. But to be historic, you would change the value to 3-400 yd. Fifty years earlier on a continent to the east, canister was used out to 600 yd. I don't agree with the notion that castrating the arty makes for a better/ fair game. War was not fair. Some weapons, namely the artillery, were much more 'productive' in generating casualties than others. Napoleon didn't call it the queen of the battlefield for no reason. Cannons in the front line were a fact of 'life' in the 19th century. Cemetery Ridge & Hill were bristling with them. As you well know, during the European war, the arty was often placed 50-100 yd. in front of the line.

The real problem in SOW is that concentrated rifle fire on a small target, i.e. the arty crew is ineffective. A gun crew should not survive long when under fire from a regiment. Norb made a very welcome change by forcing undefended arty batteries to retreat when the enemy approached. That got rid of the "artillery islands" that cropped-up on the battlefield when a brigade of infantry would be decimated while trying to shoot down an isolated battery. He now needs to take the next step and increase the casualty rate when fire is directed on a compact target like a gun, or a large one like a mounted regiment.

[Jack ONeill]

MTG,

Completely agree with you on everything. My point is to move away from the theory and go with what actually would happen on the ground. Back to my original statement - Being able to hit a 12" target at 500 hundred yards. I can do it. They could not, for reasons I gave. Again, there is almost no field of battle, baring parts of Gettysburg and parts of Antietam, where you can see 500 yards plus. Also, the Infantry commanders should not be so stupid as to let their men fire off into the brown as it were and waste ammo.
Also, as far as cannister ranges go, yes, a cannister ball could carry out to 400, 500, even 600 yards. However, given the non-rifled effect, and the inefficient black powder of the day, at the longer ranges a one ounce ball would not have the penetration power to kill a man. Maybe knock him down. How many times have we read in diaries of some soldier being "...saved by his pocketwatch or his bible..." Low muzzle velocity weapons here. Either they were hit by a ricochet or a spent round. If I could find the book, I have the information on cannister muzzle velocity fall-off at different distances AND different types of Guns, rifled, smoothbore, etc.
Norb's change is actually a good deal for the infantry, as they really could drop gunners and force them to move off. One of the items which could be effective is strengthening the role of skirmishers when firing on Batteries. We do read of how annoying it was for the gunners to be hit by something they really couldn't hit back. The quote that comes to mind is "swatting flies with a hammer" or something to that effect, trying to hit well spread out troops with either roundshot or cannister.
Jumping back to my original thesis, if you can't see the target, you generally won't shoot at it. Oh, and yes, artillery was in the infantry lines. That is what has kind of bothered me about G's restructuring. You cite just one historical example, and I another in my earlier post. I don't see an issue with it. Given the opportunity as a commander, I would do it, given favorable terrain. AND again, Batteries can be, (and were), taken if you were willing to accept the casualties. It's not easy, but it can be done. I work VERY hard to get my men into position before I charge, so they at least will take as minimal amount of casualties as possible.

Jack B)

[Jack ONeill]

Oh, and yes, the Munitions.CSV file is the one. Thanks.

Jack B)

[NY Cavalry]

l

[Armchair General]

I'm finding that canister if anything, isn't doing enough. I was playing a scenario, and I had three batteries with infantry support. An enemy regiment came up and stood at 160 yards while all three batteries blasted away. The regiment took about two salvos from each gun in each battery before it finally broke. Then another came up, and another, and my line was overrun. The idea of a regiment just standing there while 12 guns fired two rounds of canister each is ludicrous.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Jack,
I certainly agree with your assessment of the limited ranges involved in ACW battles. If anything, SOW troops are too visible when in the woods, although Norb made some very nice LOS adjustments in the last patch. I believe that SOW take into account the spread of canister as a function of range. So a hit at 200 yd. should result in fewer casualties than a hit at 160yd. I haven't actually tested this, but now that you bring it up, I'll set up a small scenario this evening and try ranges in excess of 160 yd. If it works as advertised, setting the canister range to 3-400 yd. might actually benefit the infantry. The AI would start using canister as soon as a target comes in range but generate very few casualties. By the time the infantry got to within 160 yd. the gun might well be out of ammo and be compelled to retire.

I also agree with need to improve skirmisher behavior. They seem to take casualties at the same rate as closely formed units, but their morale is less. The result is that they break before they do any damage. Effective skirmishers would also go a long way in addressing the issue with artillery.

[Jack ONeill]

MTG,

Yes, thank Norb for making the LOS changes. That used to drive me crazy. Yes, the spread is the key. As velocity and gravity take hold, the number of balls doing damage should fall off quickly after a certain distance. See, this is where the experience and training would take over, as Battery Commanders, (even new ones), would know to wait until the enemy was within a certain range before opening up with cannister. Ammo resupply under fire and all that. The late Charles Grant, in his book The Wargame, developed what he called the "cannister cone" for artillery. 3 sections, the farthest one away from the gun causing almost no damage, the closest causing massive casualties.
I have run several small engagement since changing the cannister range. The jury is still out. I like it but am not quite sure its ready for primetime. Will be interested in you conclusions.
Also, yes, Napoleanic and earlier batteries deployed forward of the infantry lines, primarily because the effective infantry musket range were less then 100 yards, on a good day. The advent of the rifled infantry weapon changed all that, forcing the guns father back. Kinda of like what we are talking about now. A Note - Even had the terrain been favorable during the ACW, a general like Senarmont at Freidland could never have pulled off his "rolling Batteries" attack against the Russian Army due to the infantry possesiong rifled weapons.

Armchair,

Yes, that can be really annoying. However, I believe you can adjust the amount of damage inflicted by each round within the same Munitions.CSV file we are talking about.

Jack B)