Tactics against the cannons ?

[KG_Soldier]

This game doesn't work well with canister range being greater than musket range. As NY Cav noted, "Who would ever launch an attack if their troops have no possibility of success."

We've had tons of offensive action in Garnier's Campaign, and some canister is fired in almost every game.

No doubt the change to 250 muskets weakened cannon. But goodness the infantry battles we've had lately. Movement galore, flanks turned, cold-steel charges. And cannon still score quite well.

200 yard muskets should make the battles even better.

http://www.philipmcg.com/w3d/campaign/p ... battle=592

Union: Boles, Parker, Robinson, Willard, Vectren

Confederates: Kester, kg soldier, Rich Mac, GFran, Seal

37,944 Men
12,733 Casualties

Epic struggle

Heavyweights collide

Check out Parker's (Sven) and Kester's stats

[Neal]

"Who would ever launch an attack if their troops have no possibility of success."

Seriously, this was asked? LOL

N

[SouthernSteel]

Check out Parker's (Sven) and Kester's stats

Alas for my poor Union Division :unsure:

I think if we had Neal and/or Gordon, we could count on even higher casualty rates :laugh: As you can tell, they seek to defy NYCav's question at every chance.

[Willard]

Harmon -

You neglect to talk about some of the advantages that infantry do enjoy.

-They take an almost neglible fatigue hit for moving cross country. This negates the need to make large troop movements on the road network.

-They can double-time with very little adverse affect to fatigue and recover quite quickly.

-Units under fire can be TC'd and moved quickly into/out of formations.

-Units can virtually uber-charge at will with minimal adverse effect on fatigue and morale - and certainly can do so without any fatigue/morale check prior to the charge.

Anyway, my point is that the subsequent posts to my original response all have an undertone of "Willard wants artillery to rule supreme." That is not the case: I want a well balanced game and with some minor tweaking by extending artillery ranges, improving long range and counter-battery fire and extending rifle ranges to 200 yards will give good results. As it stands now, the Garnier mod has made great efforts towards that, but artillery is virtually useless as a deterrent for assaults. This has the adverse effect of not allowing either player to mass more troops at the point of attack and flanking movements by economizing troops in defensive positions with strong artillery support.

*S*

Willard

[Gfran64]

I think to 200yds muskets is a nice compromise. Kind of like if they are in range, then you are in range. Not sure how the tables are set up on the artillery accuracy but I would think that a stationary infantry unit at 250yds would be having a fair amount of metal placed on it by a the artillery battery and vice versa.

Regards,

Greg B)

[KG_Soldier]

"Who would ever launch an attack if their troops have no possibility of success."

Seriously, this was asked? LOL

N

You've been so long absent from the battlefield I forgot your love of the offensive à outrance.

Rumor has it that Ferdinand Foch took a tactics class from the retired Father General in England long after the war. In his post war memoirs, Foch credits (more like blames) the Father General for Plan 17:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/plans.htm

Even the Father General's most ardent follower (Matt Adler) has backed away from the Providence Theory of Warefare.

[SouthernSteel]

Units can virtually uber-charge at will with minimal adverse effect on fatigue and morale - and certainly can do so without any fatigue/morale check prior to the charge.

This absolutely needs to be changed, in my opinion. Units that charge up in column, deploy, and go to melee really without firing a shot ought to suffer some heavy penalties in morale (and some in fatigue as well). As is, not only is melee occurring too often (at least in some instances), but it is being used as a solitary tactic, with players massing entire brigades to even whole divisions in column formation, charging up and into the enemy line with almost zero consequence. Sure, they might suffer a little fatigue from the actual fight, but when you bring 4-5 regiments of 3-400 men plus up in a block and just melee the day away, you might as well just be playing punch-out.

As it stands now, the Garnier mod has made great efforts towards that, but artillery is virtually useless as a deterrent for assaults. This has the adverse effect of not allowing either player to mass more troops at the point of attack and flanking movements by economizing troops in defensive positions with strong artillery support.

Garnier has actually done quite a bit of work to make the artillery more effective. This is why batteries are now scoring dozens of hits/kills per battle instead of maybe 10 cumulatively. Howitzers have been removed completely as they are useless save for cannister. Napoleons too (which I was somewhat surprised about but even at maxed stats a battery of 4 guns was scoring fewer than 10 hits in a 90 minute battle firing constantly). 3 in ordinance are working amazingly well, ask anyone and they will tell you. I think overall (save for Robinson's CSA guns) the Union guns are still dominant despite tweaks, but not a terribly big deal.

It is true that even massed artillery cannot break up an assault in the game on its own. It can take a toll, but most casualties are dealt when both sides are maneuvering or sitting and waiting for the enemy to move. Cannister remains the only ultimate deterrent for a massed assault. The 250 yd rifles were put in place to counteract abuse of cannister, and have done that job admirably although, as noted, there is still cannister fired in nearly every game, just not in the ridiculous amounts we had seen previously. Is it perfect? Not at all; but better than it was? Definitely.

And I'm honestly still confused about your last sentence there :huh: If a massed attack/flanking movement cannot be broken up by artillery fire, why would players shy away from making those moves? Why would they mass around defensive positions backed by artllery if, as you say, that artillery is highly ineffective? Honestly I think I see all of these things every game we play.

[Willard]

I think to 200yds muskets is a nice compromise. Kind of like if they are in range, then you are in range. Not sure how the tables are set up on the artillery accuracy but I would think that a stationary infantry unit at 250yds would be having a fair amount of metal placed on it by a the artillery battery and vice versa.

Regards,

Greg B)

I would have thought so to, but that isn't the case. In last night's campaign game I was assigned a defensive position on Cemetary Hill. I placed 2 batteries on Cemetary Hill facing NE where the main union line was positioned. A single Union regiment sneaked up to just inside 250 yards range. Now both my batteries had the high ground bonus and defensive terrain bonus so they were in good positions. However, my batteries scored no hits and I started losing gunners - 4 in total - after just a few minutes of fire. I had 10 guns in great position firing approximately 30 rounds and not 1 hit at less than 250 yards? Something is wrong there - I actually rang up more hits earlier in the game from over 500 yards (about 40 total) than I did in that scenario. At that point it would have been more effective had i just lit the rounds and rolled them down hill at the yanks.

[Kerflumoxed]

Guys, I completely concur that the artillery is "out-of-balance" in the game and have argued for a more historical representation until "I am blue in the face"! There are literally hundreds of contemporary accounts that document the effectiveness of artillery during the war including accounts of cannister, counter-battery fire and long-range bombardments as well as hit-ratio of KIA/WIA of the artillery. Unfortuntately, for whatever unexplained reason (at least explanations that hold as much water as the proverbial sieve) these records were apparently not taken into account by the design team.

Please note that I can only compliment Norb and his design...it is far superior to anything else currently available. It does appear that those advising Norb on the historical perspectives of the game, particularly artillery and rifle ranges, relied too heavily on modern anecdotal evidence as opposed to the participant's accounts. An extremely large amount of evidence contradicting the current scheme has been offered ... and reliable, documented research provided ... on this forum to warrant a reexamination and subsequent corrective action implemented! But, alas, to quote General Beauregard, "I fear" it will not happen. As Lee said, "Too bad, too bad...."

Still, it is the best "in town" (THANKS, Norb) and I will continue to play while I lament the artillery shortcomings.

J

[Gfran64]

I think to 200yds muskets is a nice compromise. Kind of like if they are in range, then you are in range. Not sure how the tables are set up on the artillery accuracy but I would think that a stationary infantry unit at 250yds would be having a fair amount of metal placed on it by a the artillery battery and vice versa.

Regards,

Greg B)

I would have thought so to, but that isn't the case. In last night's campaign game I was assigned a defensive position on Cemetary Hill. I placed 2 batteries on Cemetary Hill facing NE where the main union line was positioned. A single Union regiment sneaked up to just inside 250 yards range. Now both my batteries had the high ground bonus and defensive terrain bonus so they were in good positions. However, my batteries scored no hits and I started losing gunners - 4 in total - after just a few minutes of fire. I had 10 guns in great position firing approximately 30 rounds and not 1 hit at less than 250 yards? Something is wrong there - I actually rang up more hits earlier in the game from over 500 yards (about 40 total) than I did in that scenario. At that point it would have been more effective had i just lit the rounds and rolled them down hill at the yanks.

That's my point. If the artillery tables are staying the way they are for now, then a battery vs regiment fight with rifle ranges at 250yds and canister at 200yds, the regiment wins every time. Battery vs regiment fight with the rifle ranges at 170yds and canister at 200yds the battery wins every time. Both at 200yds then it is a fair fight. You should give as good as you get. I believe the pendulum may have swung to far the other direction. But, you would think that a 6 guns battery firing at a stationary infantry target at 250yds would get way more hits than when firing at a moving infantry target 500yds away. That just makes sense.



Just my humble opinion.

Greg B)