Changing rifle and cannister ranges

[Jack ONeill]

KG_SS,

Thank you. When did we change to partial crews? OR is that a GCM MP set-up?

All, Just ran another, full-scale, battle with the changes. This really seems to be the set-up now. Infantry takes casualties, but so do the gunners AND the guns are driven off eventually, generally before the infantry falls apart. Yes, It does make a difference as to the size of the Battalion facing the guns. But, it seems to be working. AND again, the longer ranges do not seem to affect the infantry fire fights.

Jack B)

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Little Powell wrote:

I think it should depend on the experience of the troop. Green troops were liable to break and run when the shells starting falling.. The green troops would call enemy shelling "horrifying".. The veterans would call it "annoying".

Yes, I agree. Fortunately, that is taken care of in the unitsttributes file. Green troops will break long before the veterans. By upping the morale hit due to arty exposure, all troops will break sooner than if they are just subjected to rifle fire, but the quality difference is maintained.

Jack O'Neill wrote:

All, Just ran another, full-scale, battle with the changes. This really seems to be the set-up now. Infantry takes casualties, but so do the gunners AND the guns are driven off eventually, generally before the infantry falls apart. Yes, It does make a difference as to the size of the Battalion facing the guns. But, it seems to be working. AND again, the longer ranges do not seem to affect the infantry fire fights.

Congrats! It sounds as if you've found the solution for which you were searching. That's one of the great features of this game, many things can be modded to taste.

[Jack ONeill]

MTG,

Yes, thank you. Now, time to deal with the skirmishers. Or maybe not. Gonna run with this a while longer and see if it really is the deal.

Jack B)

[KG_Soldier]

KG_SS,

Thank you. When did we change to partial crews? OR is that a GCM MP set-up?

All, Just ran another, full-scale, battle with the changes. This really seems to be the set-up now. Infantry takes casualties, but so do the gunners AND the guns are driven off eventually, generally before the infantry falls apart. Yes, It does make a difference as to the size of the Battalion facing the guns. But, it seems to be working. AND again, the longer ranges do not seem to affect the infantry fire fights.

Jack B)

Garnier went to partial crews in an attempt to make counter-battery fire more effective. At least that's how I remember it.

[Jack ONeill]

KG_S,

Thanks.

Jack B)

[Armchair General]

Although I don't agree with your 1st two recommendations, this one is very good. There is ample documentation of the debilitating effect of arty fire on the receiving troops. Fortunately, this is easily modded in the munitions file.

I think it should depend on the experience of the troop. Green troops were liable to break and run when the shells starting falling.. The green troops would call enemy shelling "horrifying".. The veterans would call it "annoying".

But this isn't always the case, and that's my problem. Canister should have the same effect after so many rounds, and I don't mean a dozen or so. I was just reading about Chancellorsville and two Napoleons posted on the Orange Plank Road near Fairview managed to stop a brigade of Confederate infantry for a few minutes just by firing canister at them. Just the threat of canister stopped the infantry, and these were A.P. Hill's men, far from what you would call 'green.'

[Jack ONeill]

AG,

I agree. I am aware of the situation you recount. However, if they were stopped for a few minutes, they really weren't stopped at all. It would have taken the Company and/or Regimental Officers that long to analize the threat and then deploy to deal with it. The threat - artillery on the road. How many guns? We see two. Are there any more? None firing. Not a Battery then, only a section. Action taken - Charge! Flank them, take them, push on! Especially if Tom Jackson is your commanding officer. You might be forgiven for hesitateing a moment or two, but not much longer.
I hate cannister, but realize sometimes you have to suck it up and take the casualties.

Jack B)

[Armchair General]

AG,

I agree. I am aware of the situation you recount. However, if they were stopped for a few minutes, they really weren't stopped at all. It would have taken the Company and/or Regimental Officers that long to analize the threat and then deploy to deal with it. The threat - artillery on the road. How many guns? We see two. Are there any more? None firing. Not a Battery then, only a section. Action taken - Charge! Flank them, take them, push on! Especially if Tom Jackson is your commanding officer. You might be forgiven for hesitateing a moment or two, but not much longer.
I hate cannister, but realize sometimes you have to suck it up and take the casualties.

Jack B)

I'm aware of that also. Just in the game canister seems watered down. I was playing, and as a test, I put my unit, a cavalry unit in front of a rebel cannon. I TC'd them so they wouldn't run, and let the rebel cannon fire. Canister was only taking four men down at a time, at a range of 180 or so yards.

[Jack ONeill]

Really? Wow! I'm stunned they weren't just mowed down. I get a random sort of casualties when I play - sometimes 4-5, sometimes 10-12. Of course, at double-cannister range, it tends to get really ugly.

Jack B)

[Olszowy]

Making rifle range and artillery range similiar because you cannot get to the guns is the wrong answer. It is your tactics that are wrong not the mathematics. Gen Hunt was right in his thinking and why men like Longstreet and DH Hill had such a healthy respect for Union artillery. Artillery alone could have stopped Picketts Charge or any other foolish charge against well sited, well trained and drilled, and well commanded artillery. Canister ought to be ripping exposed units dumb enough to advance on a battery without any counterbattery or attempt to silence the guns. 12pd canister, 27 balls, initial muzzle velocity of 1268fps or 1368(can't read the chart in Gibbons Manual. You can also caculate loss of velocity with Gibbons. Crews were clearly trained to fire canister at targets starting around 600yds but knew 300-400 was optimum(for a 12 pndr). Less than that the dispersion of the canister would get tighter although devestating to a narrow path. The sound alone was demoralizing(fatigue inducing)However, this is not as simple matter of rifled musket range versus canister range either. I understand the whole fog of battle arguement, but you missed something very important. A well trained artillery crew did not need to see its target... and a poor crew could miss in full daylight and hit their own guys. Union crews tended to be better at the technical side fo artillery fire. Crew quality should have a direct impact on resulting losses of the target and fatigue and vice versus.
The fool who leads his brigade into an open field to charge well sited, well crewed guns deserves what he is about to receive. Would you lead an infantry squad into a field with machine guns on the other end before trying to supress them with snipers or mortars, etc? M4s won't reach the 7.62mm and be effective.