Canister Reaction, Artillery Improvements Request

[KG_Soldier]

Because the AI always moves up to musket range then stops to fire, so in every game you'd always get 200 yard musketry duels, thus 200 yards becomes the average range and not extreme range. Its a common error by writers of wargame rules across many historical periods to give a weapon its paper capabilities when in the field it was actually used, more often than not, in a different way or at a different range.

Give a weapon its average battlefield range and then players must use that range, and no more, meaning most of your battles will be mostly accurate, instead of none of them, or a tiny percentage of them.

For the average ACW battlefield even 160 yards is very generous. 120 to 140 yards is more like the most common range at which opposing infantry lines engaged each other, far below the theoretical range of the weapon and far below the ranges at which Mr Enfield's testers, calmly firing at paper targets in the peaceful grounds behind the factory, would claim were practical.

GCM games rarely have firefights at more than 150 yards or so. . . at least once the battle gets tough. We don't use ai troops so that's not a problem.

[Willard]

Artillery fire is nerfed until NSD releases the tables for both the guns and the ordanance.
Until that can be modded appropriately there is nothing that can be done to fix the problem.
200 yard rifles will eliminate alot of the problems in MP in the absence of effective counterbattery fire.
The additional problem of stacking guns and regiments cannot be fixed until NSD changes the LOS problem with units/arty firing through other units.

As for ranges for artillery, canister could be used from 400 yards in. The fact of the matter is that long range arty fire was generally not effective and the Rebs actually held their fire as a matter of practice for targets way under a 1000 yards. Just because a target can be hit on the proving ground doesn't mean that the effective range translates on the battlefield. A cursory review of Bradley Gottfried's The Artillery of Gettysburg and Paddy Griffith's Battle Tactics of the Civil War demonstrates ample proof of this point.

The same goes with effective range of rifle fire. Most CW engagements were in that 100-150 yard range. Sure there examples of some below and and above that range but the majority were in that band. The need for 200 yard rifles is to compensate for the absence of effective counter-battery fire. That can't be modeled accurately because we cannot mod the morale and fatigue malus to simulate batteries being driven off by the "weight of fire." Most batteries in the CW did not take high casaulties except for those heavy arty units converted to infantry during the Overland Campaign. Batteries were driven off due to enemy CB fire getting to hot - that is best modeled not by increasing casualties but by increasing the morale and fatigue malus which should impact ROF and accuracy forcing the battery to retire.

Batteries could and often did stand up to sustained fire by infantry - less so when they were isolated and more so when they were supported by infantry. It was not uncommon for batteries to engage infantry for 30-45 minutes before the action was decided. The problem in stock SOW is that 3-inch guns are way over-powered ahistorically. The fact of the matter is that 3-inch rounds didnt have the weight to be an infantry killer like they are in stock SOW. You routinely see 10/20/30+ casualties by one 3-inch round. In reality the rifled grooves would get wrecked at canister range and the 3-inch rounds would sink in the ground at longer range if they didn't actually hit the target. The guns were designed for accurate CB fire - which they were good at. They weren't designed to be a defensive infantry killer which is why Hunt went to great lengths to send the 3-inch batteries back to DC when Grant let him reorganize the artillery in 1864.

The fact remains that from about 500 yards in, arty should be pretty lethal casualty wise and morale wise as a defensive weapon. For CB fire, it should have an impact with a morale/fatigue malus on artillery. It isn't modeled well and this is a problem that needs to be fixed to better balance the game. As an FYI, Paddy Griffith actually argues that "rolling the guns" should have been done more often and that guns should have been on the line firing line vice back further.

[NY Cavalry]

NY Cavalry wrote:

200 yard rifles..........................fixed.

I disagree. Introducing an ahistoric change to try to fix another shortcoming is a poor solution. Much better is RebBugler's suggestion of fixing the problem. Until it is fixed, just refrain from operating artillery in an unrealistic manner.

Counter battery at present is ahistoric. The artillery can be run historically, but until effective counter battery fire can be modeled what is to be done. We will just accept different ways to compensate. I see no problem with 200 yard rifles and may write up something to state my case.

[RebBugler]

Yeah, 200 yard musket range is the fix, but I'm glad other folks explained why it's not the solution here. Besides, 160 is etched in stone, I'd have a better chance of requesting purple and green to replace the blue and gray.

The folks that say they've never seen this are either micro managers, everything constantly TC'd and controlled, or strictly MP players. Otherwise, unsupervised units will almost always be drawn into canister range...then it happens, canister blow. If they are moving they've got a chance as they will immediately doubletime, sometimes directly at the incoming, and as MTG puts it, accidentally capture the beast, er, gun. However, if they are stopped, usually to engage, and then engagement ends, one canister blast will make them lie down...then they're doomed. So, it's a series of circumstances that causes this ultimate demise of the unit, but it occurs all too frequently, and, really makes the game appear stupid because it is so unrealistic. Units in battle never laid down and opted for mass suicide. They either addressed the threat, or got the Hell outta there.

So, these are my suggested solutions, address the threat or get outta there. How do we do it folks?

[RebBugler]

Good stuff Willard as always, you are - The Arty Man. B) However, I messed up since this thread got redirected, and the title should be Canister Reaction, I'm going to change it now. I'm sure you'll have some thoughts there...and I'm listening.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

RebBugler wrote:

How do we do it folks?

Simple, put it on Mantis and keep squawking about it.

[RebBugler]

RebBugler wrote:

How do we do it folks?

Simple, put it on Mantis and keep squawking about it.

[Jack ONeill]

All,

Tank is right about the AI. I had changed the Rifle/Musket ranges to 195 yards. This puts the infantry just inside cannister range but allows the infantry to bring the gunners under fire. The side affect has been exactly what Tank described - depending on the terrain, the AI controlled infantry open up at 195 yards and pretty much stay there, unless they are being manouvered on a flank or something. Sort of annoying, but I did it just before the NAp Mod came out and haven't played alot of ACW lately so I haven't enough data to know if I want to change it back or not.

Jack B)

Note - Yes, more excellance from Willard re: artillery.

[NY Cavalry]

200 yard rifles..... unrealistic, so not a fix. We need a fix that is historical.

I hate to point out facts, but here is a big one.......canister at 200 yards is not historic. The range for canister was up to 600 yards. To say every canister round fired between 200 yards to 600 yards missed is not being honest. In HITS games do canoneers ever take casualties from beyond 160 yards? Except the rare counter battery hits do they? If they do not how is that rectified with actual battlefield reported loses? I have read plenty of books and batteries are not on an isolated island that somehow never takes casualties. Even losing horses effects a batteries effectiveness.

Also from reading books, I can determine that artillery didn't like being 200 yards from the enemy. They usually pulled out before that could happen. Why would these immortals be so squeamish? Counter battery fire was a reality and also minie balls didn't just drop out of the sky at 160 yards, but continued on. A battlefield was a very dangerous place.

Sniping at artillery was common and sharpshooters were a battlefield reality also.

I am not trying to be argumentative and I just hope that we are looking at all things and being honest. Put yourself in the position of a cannoneer what were they thinking and why? I think you will find that they were not immortals. Just a few loses on a canon from indiscriminate fire had an effect. The largest effect being moral as losing one or two positions were easily replaceable.

[gunship24]

In addition to things to think about, how about bounce-through? I dont think this is implemented and would be an honest addition to the game. A roundshot would normaly bounced 2-3 times with distance between hits reduced each time. Therefore a regiment behind one that is hit could also be hit.

I cant say for artillery in 1860's but around 1825 the effective range for use of artillery was between 800-500m. This was due to many variables but most of all accuracy and the identification of the target unit (enemy of otherwise) as no one wanted to fire on their own side by accident.

I think canister is fired to easily when in close proximity to friendly units. There should be a clearer line of site.

Canister was fired at 400m but only about 20% of the canister balls hit anything and it was very slow, for a 12-pdr no more then 10 rounds in 30mins and that doesnt include battle field conditions, this is all pre ACW of course.