HistWar
HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Topic started by: Holdit on 15 December 2009, 01:29:32 AM
-
I set up a quick and dirty test this evening, just to get some idea of just how powerful artillery is against infantry. Using the Montebello map and OBs, I set up the following four contests, from north to south:
1. Bavarian battery (6 x 12lb, 2 x hw) vs. Russian line infantry regiment (1920 bayonets/3 battalions).
2. French battery (6 x 12lb, 2 x hw) vs. Austrian line infantry regiment (2460 bayonets/3 battalions)
3. Polish battery (8 x 12lb) vs. Prussian line infantry regiment (1965 bayonets/3 battalions)
4. Wesphalian battery (8 x 8lb, 2 x hw) vs. Swedish line regiment (2055 bayonets/3 battalions)
Results:
1. Artillery opened fire at +/- 1000 metres. By the time the range was 840 metres, the infantry had taken 30 losses, and at range 600 metres the infantry had taken 100 losses in total. Then there was a large jump in losses to 235 (cannister?), at which point the infantry turned and ran. Total losses: 235 (12%)
2. Artillery opened fire at +/- 1250 metres. By the time the range was 680 metres, the infantry had taken 100 losses Losses rose as far as 210 , at which point the infantry turned and ran. Total casualties: 210 (9%)
3. Artillery opened fire at +/- 1500 metres, and the infantry were on the run by the time they were 1300 metres from the battery at which point they had suffered 155 losses (8%).
4. I missed the exciting stuff here, because the infantry advanced agaisnt the guns without waiting for my order. The replay showed that the infantry ran after suffering losses of 190 (9%).
Notes & observations:
(i) I made a point of keeping the infantry regiments as similar in size and composition as possible.
(ii) The Russians took the most losses before bolting. Coincidence, or is the fabled Russian solidity under fire modeled to some degree in the game?
(iii) In the first three examples I had the infantry form line in order to minimise casualties due to penetrating roundshot.
(iv) In the first three examples I ordered the infantry to attack the guns, whereupon they dissolved into a disorderly-looking formations, seeming to advance "en debandade". I would have simply ordered them to advance towards the guns but in my experience they will then ploy back into march column.
(v) It's hard to say from these results whether the artillery is too powerful or whether infantry just rout too easily. Maybe it's a bit of both. While the casualties didn't seem outlandishly high, as far as I can tell no infantry got closer than 500 metres to the guns without breaking. Breaking seems to have been the wise option, though, because I don't doubt that the informations would have been annihilated by the time they had closed the full distance. I don't recall reading of any historical instances where artillery alone was sufficient to defeat an attack, so it can hardly have been a regular occurrence. Here it happened 100% of the time.
(vi) I was interested to see that the retreating infantry on at least two occasions passed a friendly battery that was advancing to take on the enemy artillery. Since I had detached each of the regiments used in the test from its parent corps and moved all uninvolved units close to their own map edges, I can only assume that the regimental commander had sent a message back saying "Send some guns." Nice work, AI.
(vii) One of these supporting batteries opened fire on the Bavarian battery from example #1. From memory, they engaged at about 1400 metres and before too long had destroyed three guns between them. This seems a little too effective, given the range, but I will test artillery vs. artillery separately.
I'm off now to check the above figures against expected historical norms (assuming I can nail these down ha ha). If any wants to chip in with their own research or historical stats, please feel free.
Holdit
-
Those numbers sound correct for the way the game models artillery and morale.
A few things to keep in mind:
The artillery only had one target, so they took the entire damage the artillery inflicted. Additional units might have had better luck with it.
Your infantry was isolated from friendly units. The morale would have been lower because of this. Their commander was probably nowhere around either, which also lowers morale. However, as far as I know, once the infantry has taken a certain percentage of casualties, it will break and run.
Morale is affected both by casualties and how fast they occur. If the infantry takes a lot of casualties in one shot, they'll run. Since canister is modeled, when they get close enough they'll take lot of casualties.
I'm assuming you made sure all the infantry was the same quality. JMM has mentioned in the past that nationality modifiers are not used.
Artillery has to take a few ranging shots before it will hit the target. You probably saw this if you were watching from the 3D view of the advancing infantry. Once the infantry is within canister range, I doubt this applies.
Hook
-
I don't recall reading of any historical instances where artillery alone was sufficient to defeat an attack...
Mercer at Waterloo. If you want to bring up walls of corpses, remember where those came from.
Mercer also got shot up pretty badly by another artillery unit but never mentions being overrun by cavalry.
Hook
-
Perhaps a similar study can be used for cavalry instead of infantry. The solo battles that I have played, the cavalry seems to bridge the gap between the defender's artillery and the attacking artillery quicker than infantry (which makes sense) and the artillery gets snuffed out before the cavalry's moral fails.
Perhaps artillery is not too powerful given artillery's weakness to cavalry. I have always viewed this era tactics as rock-paper-scissors because of the strengths and weaknesses of the different formations and types when faced with a different formation and/or type.
From what I have seen: artillery can chew up infantry if an infantry formation is alone, but if the infantry formation is supported by a second infantry formation, then that artillery formation will route or become destroyed. If the artillery formation is charged by cavalry then the cav almost always wins. When playing both sides, I have been able to simulate artillery at a higher level and behind friendly infantry and I have found it better for the enemy to avoid this strong point, especially if there is supporting defender cav in the area.
Bottom line: I think that each arm of an army in this era is strong and weak and I see it as being balanced. If my memory serves me correctly Napoleon, towards the end of the wars, tried to push more artillery to the field because of its power effect against infantry and to make of for under trained French infantry.
-
I don't recall reading of any historical instances where artillery alone was sufficient to defeat an attack, so it can hardly have been a regular occurrence. Here it happened 100% of the time.
Well, yours wasn't really an attack, more a suicide advance from a single regiment against a deployed battery.
Artillery was really powerful, and it won battles alone. Valmy, for example, is the most known, but many small battles were won by artillery barrage. There is a nice chapter about this in "Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies" by Nosworthy: try to read it, you can change your mind on how artillery worked at that time.
-
Good work, Holdit, it is helpful to have some solid statistics to back up what many players have been saying.
Leaving aside the question of how powerful artillery is, I find it very interesting that the tipping point for infantry to rout is when casualties reach, or are about to reach, 10%. I wonder if this is one of the basic rules in LG - take 10% casualties without inflicting any in a single attack and your morale drops below the point at which you wlll continue to obey orders. This seems to be a sensible rule but I wonder how realistic it is? My studies of the English Civil War suggest that troops would break well before getting to 10%, but then both the level of training and the practical combat experience of the troops (at least in the early stages of the war) was way lower than in Napoleonic times. What do historians of other periods think?
-
I don't recall reading of any historical instances where artillery alone was sufficient to defeat an attack, so it can hardly have been a regular occurrence.
- Eylau 1807 : Augereau's 7th corps attack against Russian army center defeated by russian artillery
- Friedland 1807: Russian Imperial Guard attack defeated by Senarmont's artillery
- Wagram 1809 : Austrian center in Wagram defeated by french artillery
- Uvorova 1812 : Young Guard defeated by russian artillery,
for example.
-
During the battle of Borodino, the 30th Regiment (French) led by General Bonnamy stormed Raevski’s redoubt. Before they closed a dozen 12pdrs fired at least 2 salvos of grapeshot at them. They entered the redoubt only to be counter attacked by Raevski’s infantry and chasseurs. The chasseurs guns also fired a salvo of grapeshot at the French. After that the 30th regiment ceased to exist. 1500 dead or wounded.
So it is possible to close with and melee artillery, though costly. I’m sure there were other factors that allowed them to close such as the smoke obscured the advance and dead ground etc.
But it also shows some regiments will fight till the end.
Also at Borodino I read a lot that smoke made it difficult to see during the battle. This would lessen the effect of long range artillery.
-
It sounds like the 30th regiment was a forlorn hope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forlorn_hope
You could possibly simulate this using a galvanized unit. The manual says galvanized units act as if they were guard quality units.
Visibility is taken into account for the artillery. Look at the bottom of the unit card where it says V100. These guys could see everything. As the V number decreases, the effectiveness of the artillery goes down.
Hook
-
Yes good point about forlorn hope.
-
Those numbers sound correct for the way the game models artillery and morale.
Ah...but sounds correct when compared to...what? I'm trying to avoid subjectivity in this thread.
A few things to keep in mind:
The artillery only had one target, so they took the entire damage the artillery inflicted. Additional units might have had better luck with it.
Probably - I haven't noticed yet if a battery will split its fire between multiple targets. I deliberately set up the test with the batteries far enough apart not to fire on each others attackers.
Your infantry was isolated from friendly units. The morale would have been lower because of this. Their commander was probably nowhere around either, which also lowers morale.
All very good points.
However, as far as I know, once the infantry has taken a certain percentage of casualties, it will break and run.
So it would seem - and although it seems they break too easily, I also think that after taking +/- 10% losses with such a long way to go to the objective, turning 180 degrees is probably the right decision.
Morale is affected both by casualties and how fast they occur. If the infantry takes a lot of casualties in one shot, they'll run. Since canister is modeled, when they get close enough they'll take lot of casualties.
That makes sense. B.P. Hughes in "Firepower" gives heavy cannister as having a range of up to 600 yards, but acknowledges that the French used it at longer ranges.
I'm assuming you made sure all the infantry was the same quality. JMM has mentioned in the past that nationality modifiers are not used.
All line infantry. I deliberately avoiding using elite, light or landwehr troops.
I think I need to review the video and check the ranges at which the various events occurred. Is it possible to measure distance in a replay?
Holdit
-
Mercer at Waterloo. If you want to bring up walls of corpses, remember where those came from.
Mercer also got shot up pretty badly by another artillery unit but never mentions being overrun by cavalry.
True enough but since Mercer was under attack by cavalry, we're not really comparing like with like.
Holdit
-
- Eylau 1807 : Augereau's 7th corps attack against Russian army center defeated by russian artillery
- Friedland 1807: Russian Imperial Guard attack defeated by Senarmont's artillery
- Wagram 1809 : Austrian center in Wagram defeated by french artillery
- Uvorova 1812 : Young Guard defeated by russian artillery,
for example.
Excellent. This is precisely the kind of feedback I'm looking for. I'd forgotten about Eylau and Senarmont, although my understanding was that Senarmont was doing the attacking. Wagram I don't know much about and Uvorova even less. I'll read up on these.
Holdit
-
Well, yours wasn't really an attack, more a suicide advance from a single regiment against a deployed battery.
Artillery was really powerful, and it won battles alone. Valmy, for example, is the most known, but many small battles were won by artillery barrage. There is a nice chapter about this in "Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies" by Nosworthy: try to read it, you can change your mind on how artillery worked at that time.
It's a few years since I read Nosworthy and I had already planned to revisit his writings on artillery between now and the weekend. I'll check up on Valmy too, but my understanding of that battle was that the Prussians weren't really up for a fight to begin with.
Holdit
-
I think the tests were useful, and the results were what we'd expect from the way the code is written. We didn't know how close the infantry could get in a simple frontal assault, and you've found out.
I'm assuming that a frontal assault the way you've set it up is impossible. But that's not new. Your results do tell us HOW impossible it is, which is something we needed to know.
Is there any way to get that lone infantry regiment to advance all the way to the guns and possibly attack them? I don't know, but it's a good next test.
Consider the limitations of the cannons. They have a fixed amount of ammunition. They have a fixed arc they can fire to each side, and don't turn the battery to fire at units outside that arc, far as I know. After they've fired for a while, their visibility goes down, and they lose effectiveness. They may even move if this happens. They have their own morale issues. Can you exploit any of these? Is there anything I've missed in this list? What is the difference in the effectiveness of the various gun sizes?
Does the formation of the attacking infantry have any effect at all? We need to try them all. Does sending out skirmishers make any difference? If line infantry can't do the job, can guards handle it? Does it help to have the corps commander or the army commander nearby? Does it help to have other infantry deployed nearby behind the attacking regiment?
Can you give the artillery something else to shoot at while your infantry moves close enough to be a threat?
Once you've determined that one regiment can't do the job, if that's the case, what happens if you send two? Using the best case tactics from the tests above, can you get a second regiment out of the arc of fire and close enough to the guns to attack them? If two doesn't work, can you do it with three?
Once you've figured out how to defeat that artillery battery, we can analyze the results and decide if artillery is too powerful or not, and if it's too powerful, how much too powerful it is, and figure out what can be done from there.
Hook
-
Very interesting...
Generally speaking, the first phase of battle is a duel between the 2 ART...
First of all : I am ready to modify the model if you can give me several examples about behaviours which are wrong in the game.
I don't recall reading of any historical instances where artillery alone was sufficient to defeat an attack, so it can hardly have been a regular occurrence. Here it happened 100% of the time.
Did you read an instance where an Infantry unit tried to attack in front of a company of ART?
Question to Holdit : could you give us the duration of attack.
Leaving aside the question of how powerful artillery is, I find it very interesting that the tipping point for infantry to rout is when casualties reach, or are about to reach, 10%. I wonder if this is one of the basic rules in LG - take 10% casualties without inflicting any in a single attack and your morale drops below the point at which you wlll continue to obey orders. This seems to be a sensible rule but I wonder how realistic it is? My studies of the English Civil War suggest that troops would break well before getting to 10%, but then both the level of training and the practical combat experience of the troops (at least in the early stages of the war) was way lower than in Napoleonic times. What do historians of other periods think?
In the game, a unit routs when the casualties are 3% to 7% during an attack... so I think in the very interesting tests made by Holdit, the casualties continues during the flight.
After several shoots, the visibility decreases and the guns must halt the fire during some minutes.
Each gun chooses its target..
JMM
-
Hmm... some time back JasonC produced some tutorials for playing Russians vs Germans in Combat Mission. I remember the difference between approaching a machine gun nest with a single platoon vs a company of 3 platoons. You see the flexibility & power of the larger formation. It will be interesting to watch the difference between a regimental advance, a brigade advance and a divisional advance.
-
I think the tests were useful, and the results were what we'd expect from the way the code is written. We didn't know how close the infantry could get in a simple frontal assault, and you've found out.
I'm assuming that a frontal assault the way you've set it up is impossible. But that's not new. Your results do tell us HOW impossible it is, which is something we needed to know.
Is there any way to get that lone infantry regiment to advance all the way to the guns and possibly attack them? I don't know, but it's a good next test.
Consider the limitations of the cannons. They have a fixed amount of ammunition. They have a fixed arc they can fire to each side, and don't turn the battery to fire at units outside that arc, far as I know. After they've fired for a while, their visibility goes down, and they lose effectiveness. They may even move if this happens. They have their own morale issues. Can you exploit any of these? Is there anything I've missed in this list? What is the difference in the effectiveness of the various gun sizes?
Does the formation of the attacking infantry have any effect at all? We need to try them all. Does sending out skirmishers make any difference? If line infantry can't do the job, can guards handle it? Does it help to have the corps commander or the army commander nearby? Does it help to have other infantry deployed nearby behind the attacking regiment?
Can you give the artillery something else to shoot at while your infantry moves close enough to be a threat?
Once you've determined that one regiment can't do the job, if that's the case, what happens if you send two? Using the best case tactics from the tests above, can you get a second regiment out of the arc of fire and close enough to the guns to attack them? If two doesn't work, can you do it with three?
Once you've figured out how to defeat that artillery battery, we can analyze the results and decide if artillery is too powerful or not, and if it's too powerful, how much too powerful it is, and figure out what can be done from there.
Hook
All good points, some of which had already occurred to me. I have some homework to do on this, so I'll (try to) refrain from further comment until I have completed it.
Holdit
-
After several shoots, the visibility decreases and the guns must halt the fire during some minutes.
Each gun chooses its target..
Excellent... these may be the key to defeating artillery with infantry. I wasn't aware that each gun chose a target individually. That's great news.
All good points, some of which had already occurred to me. I have some homework to do on this, so I'll (try to) refrain from further comment until I have completed it.
Ok. I'm keeping an open mind for now, which I hope my post showed. Once we've got more information we can figure out where we need to go.
BTW, I'd expect cavalry to be a harder to stop than infantry, if for no other reason than you'll get off fewer shots at them as they advance.
Hook
-
Very interesting...
Generally speaking, the first phase of battle is a duel between the 2 ART...
First of all : I am ready to modify the model if you can give me several examples about behaviours which are wrong in the game.
Thank you JMM - and if I can't provide examples then I wouldn't expect you to change anything. As I've said before, I have no objection to being proved wrong. I may even prove myself wrong. No problem.
Did you read an instance where an Infantry unit tried to attack in front of a company of ART?
So far, no. And I'm not convinced that I will. Not 1 v 1 anyway.
In the game, a unit routs when the casualties are 3% to 7% during an attack... so I think in the very interesting tests made by Holdit, the casualties continues during the flight.
Yes they do, but I ignored losses inflicted after the unit began to run away. I did notice that these retreats did start off as "unit flight", but continued artillery fire into the backs of the infantry turned that into a straighforward "rout".
Each gun chooses its target..
Excellent.
Straight away that suggests that attacking with two regiments side-by-side, with their junction centred on the centre of the battery, should halve the fire against each regiment.
Holdit
-
As I spotted this thread I decided to have another go at the demo with a third pc that actually managed to work.
Using the Polish 8x12pounder battery I got similar results as Holdit posted:
-Line Infantry sent to attack the artillery re-deployed into a massed loose ordered formation and advanced at about 45(49?) meters/minute
-It routed at around the 5% as expected at a distance of about 1200 meters and after the battery had spent 7 ammo of roundshot
-Artillery then started using canister and spent about 5 ammo and produced considerable losses (must be a bug and did not see such behavior when I tried sending multiple units against the artillery)
-On average it seems 12 pounders manage about two casualties per round fired.
I also tried a big artillery v artillery fight at about 1200 meters distance. Within an hour it was over with near 100% loss for one side and the winning side had spent an average of about 30 ammo.
So what to conclude from that?
The best possible test that I know of gave about 50% hits with ricochet rounds at 1500 paces. Other tests I know of were about 20%. If we assume that each hit would cut down 3 men, as the target is a 3 rank line, then real life tests done under perfect conditions would give 0.6 to 1.5 casualties per round and in LG it is about 2.
For counter battery effect then IIRC a gun would on average take out 0.1 to 0.2 enemy guns per hour (something like that as I have not written the stuff down) and in LG is seems more like .7 to 1.0 per hour if I look at that single test I did.
So overall I'd say LG long range artillery fire is at least 5 times better than it should be.
CBR
-
So overall I'd say LG long range artillery fire is at least 5 times better than it should be.
I will leave it to others to say if that's right or wrong, I have no clue, but I hope it's wrong !.
I'm sure I remember reading that on AVERAGE Napoleonic Artillery killed (or killed and wounded) 1.5 men per round.
-
Very interesting...
Generally speaking, the first phase of battle is a duel between the 2 ART...
First of all : I am ready to modify the model if you can give me several examples about behaviours which are wrong in the game.
Did you read an instance where an Infantry unit tried to attack in front of a company of ART?
Question to Holdit : could you give us the duration of attack.
In the game, a unit routs when the casualties are 3% to 7% during an attack... so I think in the very interesting tests made by Holdit, the casualties continues during the flight.
After several shoots, the visibility decreases and the guns must halt the fire during some minutes.
Each gun chooses its target..
JMM
Actually all of Morand’s 1st Division advance during the battle of Borodino was against Raievski’s redoubt under heavy artillery fire but closed with the guns.
Another example although I know from another period was Pickett’s Charge during the battle of Gettysburg. This was an advance of 12,500 men against roundshot, shell, canister and musket fire. They still managed to close with and melee the union position.
Of course this assault failed, but they didn’t withdraw after 3% to 7% casualties.
-
I will leave it to others to say if that's right or wrong, I have no clue, but I hope it's wrong !.
I'm sure I remember reading that on AVERAGE Napoleonic Artillery killed (or killed and wounded) 1.5 men per round.
That average is not correct. We have stats for ammo consumption from several battles and they are below that average.
It obviously depends on target, distance and formation. It would be something like cavalry, infantry and artillery from highest to lowest kills per round (although cavalry would be in 2 rank formation only it is a higher target and therefore easier to hit) Column, line and skirmisher in same order and obliviously shorter range better than longer range
-
Of course this assault failed, but they didn’t withdraw after 3% to 7% casualties.
Units in general did not rout when taking only 5% losses. I do not understand where such a low number should come from as there is little historical justification for it. If it was say 25% +/- for situational modifiers it would be a lot closer.
-
Ops, I got it the wrong way around :
Contemporay and modern analysis has concluded for every one and a half artillery rounds fired on a Napoleonic battlefield, about one casualty would result.
Page 269, The Waterloo Companion : Mark Adkin
So that means 15,000 rounds fire = 10,000 casualities.
-
Units in general did not rout when taking only 5% losses. I do not understand where such a low number should come from as there is little historical justification for it. If it was say 25% +/- for situational modifiers it would be a lot closer.
If it were 5%, were there no Officers there !......I would have thought it would be higher than 5%, but a lot lower than 25 %.
-
Units in general did not rout when taking only 5% losses. I do not understand where such a low number should come from as there is little historical justification for it. If it was say 25% +/- for situational modifiers it would be a lot closer.
That's my impression from reading literature on the period, too. And I find the constant routing and rallying (in a short time) to be totally annoying. It doesn't seem possible to attack anything with infantry without routing at least once. Also, the advance on an artillery position should be made a bit faster and in a more open formation. It's a pity that you can't order a higher march pace or put the whole regiment of light infantry into open order.
-
Unfortunately Mark Adkin does not provide a source for that statement. Also bear in mind that it includes canister fire, short range fire as well as fire against columns, yes even overshooting of ricochets hitting formations in the rear of the target. The grand battery were located IIRC 800 meters from the Anglo-Allied line.
The casualties I saw in my tests were done against line formations (although they changed into that loose formation instead when rounds started hitting them) and at 1200 meters or more.
-
So overall I'd say LG long range artillery fire is at least 5 times better than it should be.
If you dropped long range artillery fire by 80%, the result would be that it would be pretty much totally ineffective. Halting for artillery preparation would be the height of folly. Regimental guns would be detrimental, as they wouldn't have enough effect to bother with and they'd slow down the regiment.
Small changes here have large results on the battlefield. You could still ignore enemy artillery with a 50% reduction. 20% would be more reasonable.
However, I don't believe it's the strength that's the problem here. Long range fire seems quite accurate to me, especially against moving troops. I'm not sure how accuracy is calculated, but I know individual guns are tracked as well as individual cannonballs, and we see dirt sprayed up where the balls hit. Even the smallest change to the accuracy of the individual guns here would have major effects, so caution is needed. If the accuracy is adjusted, the strength doesn't need to be, especially if every round doesn't result on a hit on a stationary target after it's gotten the first hit.
The other part of this equation is the morale effects on the target and what actions they should take under various conditions.
Long range counter-battery fire hits more than just the physical cannons. It also takes out crew and support troops. You can render a cannon hors-de-combat just as easily by killing the crews as destroying the physical cannon, although the only effect we see is destroyed cannons, which I would consider an acceptable abstraction. An accuracy reduction would make a difference here as well.
Hook
-
Well I'm just crap. i marched two russian brigades against the horse 4 pdrs (which initially said there were only 4x4pdrs, then deployed at a 6+ gun battery, then (later) registered as 4x4pdr + 2 Hows). The final regiment took out the guns but only after the other three regiments had variously panicked and wot not. Even the victors had the hebee geebees and ran away for a bit before rallying. Perhaps it was a post Friedland brigade with bad memories of the French artillery.
How is it that a gun takes 2 casualties per round. what? Does the third rank sh&$kicker dodge? Goddam his eyes I'll have him flayed!!
-
If you dropped long range artillery fire by 80%, the result would be that it would be pretty much totally ineffective. Halting for artillery preparation would be the height of folly. Regimental guns would be detrimental, as they wouldn't have enough effect to bother with and they'd slow down the regiment.
Or do what they did historically: move closer and/or use more guns. This is supposed to be a simulation and distances of 1200+ meters are to be considered extreme range. Regimental guns are not meant for long range fire anyway so has little to do with the effect I saw in the tests.
You can render a cannon hors-de-combat just as easily by killing the crews as destroying the physical cannon, although the only effect we see is destroyed cannons, which I would consider an acceptable abstraction.
Abstracted or not is besides the point. The effect is that guns were finished in way too short a time and with way too little ammo used. It bears little resemblance to what I have read of the battles of 1809 or 1812-13. If LG had been about the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 it would be fine I guess.
-
Regimental guns are not meant for long range fire
Long range for a 4 pounder regimental gun isn't very long. Look where they deploy in the game.
The effect is that guns were finished in way too short a time and with way too little ammo used.
That's why I mentioned adjusting accuracy.
Hook
-
Long range for a 4 pounder regimental gun isn't very long. Look where they deploy in the game.
I have not noticed use of regimental guns (not played much anyway) I take it they deploy at max distance?
That's why I mentioned adjusting accuracy
Actually I'm not sure what you mean by lowering the accuracy but not their strength? If you lower the accuracy fewer shots will hit which means fewer casualties on average per shot fired.
-
Erm I just realise some numbers got messed up. All the individual regiments attacking the single battery routed when the battery had fired off 7 rounds of ammo (assuming the ammo counter is correct) so that would be a total of 56 shots fired from the battery. Losses were generally 150+ so thats actually 2.5 to 3.0 casualties per round fired.
The 2 casualties per round fired came from the test where I send in 5 regiments and at one point checked the score and then ammo count. I'm quite sure I remembered it as about 2 per round fired. Maybe more rounds needed when switching targets? or I'm just not remembering it correctly. Overall the battery managed to produce 1000+ casualties and only used 1 canister ammo but I did not get to see the remaining ammo before the battery was destroyed :|
-
I have not noticed use of regimental guns (not played much anyway) I take it they deploy at max distance?
There're no regimental guns in the demo.
4lb foot or horse need to deploy closer to the enemy than 8 or 12lbs. I suppose at their max firing distance.
-
Ah ok thx. Yeah they got shorter range (manual says 1250 meters)
-
Could you send me your xxx.sav (histwar@histwar.com) (folder save/battle)
I have to understand this figures...
THX
JMM
-
There're no regimental guns in the demo.
Ah, you're right! In the beta they deploy to the side and slightly behind the regiment.
Hook
-
Ah, you're right! In the beta they deploy to the side and slightly behind the regiment.
Hook
I wonder how long a regiment fights when faced with an enemy regiment with regimental guns?
-
Actually I'm not sure what you mean by lowering the accuracy but not their strength? If you lower the accuracy fewer shots will hit which means fewer casualties on average per shot fired.
Which is the effect you're looking for, isn't it? Some shots will hit, some will miss, and the rate at which the target takes casualties (and therefore the morale effect) is reduced. Occasionally all shots will hit within a short time and you'll get some stronger morale effects.
Intentionally hitting a point target like an individual gun with roundshot at any range beyond a few tens of meters is virtually impossible, but it should happen occasionally. Mercer was hit by flanking fire from what he claims was 400-500 yards, but the enemy used only shell and roundshot; no canister fire was mentioned, even for that relatively short range. He lost no guns, but did lose most of his horses and had only enough men at the end to crew 3 of his 6 guns. While no guns were destroyed, there was considerable effect to his battery.
It's a little late in the development process to try to model things to that level, but perhaps it could be added in a future version of the game.
Hook
-
Yeah that is pretty much it. Although it is AFAIK deterministic so there won't be any occasionally good salvoes, just a gradually increasing hit rate.
It was indeed impossible to ensure a hit at longer ranges. As long as one got the accurate range it was all about firing enough stuff at the enemy and some of it was bound to hit something. For counter battery the French did IIRC prefer 6 or 8 pounders because of their higher ROF. Scharnhorst did believe that smaller guns were best in flat terrain where ricochet fire was at its best. In more undulating terrain the 12 pounders were better at direct firing.
CBR
-
Yeah that is pretty much it. Although it is AFAIK deterministic so there won't be any occasionally good salvoes, just a gradually increasing hit rate.
I know accuracy is already modeled, and you can see balls hitting in front of your troops occasionally, probably other places as well. If the code is already sophisticated enough, adding a random factor to the "on target" rounds should be simple. I suspect this is the case.
If accuracy were not modeled then the only thing we could adjust is the strength. By adjusting accuracy instead, we get a larger range of target effects from a battery firing, from nothing at all to what we currently see, if what I'm seeing in the game is correct.
The final artillery effect on a target is a sort of emergent behavior resulting from a number of interrelated factors calculated in the game. We need to figure out which factor is causing any apparent overeffectiveness of the artillery, and make sure whatever gets adjusted doesn't throw several other things off. Actually, it's JMM who needs to decide about any adjustments, as he's the only one who knows how the game internals work. :)
I've only seen a few cases in many battles where I thought artillery was doing too good a job. I expected artillery to be a tough opponent. I also expected it to be a strong ally. Maybe JMM can record the number of casualties from artillery and other sources and we can compare these numbers against actual battles. This doesn't have to be displayed in the game, just output to a file that JMM can show us.
Hook
-
I am going to modify the code.. because I believe there is an issue about the distance.
In fact, the distance is used
a) to unlimber the cannon if necessary.
b) to compute the casualties.
And there is a fuzzy code on the b) part.
So, I'll modify the parameters to only work with the efficiency distance, not the maximum one with a parameter for the percentage. More clear!
JMM
[EDIT] I am just findng a bug during the flight... Problem with the distances so the cannons use the canister whatever the distance.. and the casualties are multiplied by 3 at least...
If you want, wait for the next demo before checking some new configurations...
THX Christian for your files.. I'll try to report the casualties during a march for one of your file.. (ie the first one : 8 cannons 12£ vs 2055 infantrymen)..
-
Nice one.
-
Well I'm just crap. i marched two russian brigades against the horse 4 pdrs (which initially said there were only 4x4pdrs, then deployed at a 6+ gun battery, then (later) registered as 4x4pdr + 2 Hows). The final regiment took out the guns but only after the other three regiments had variously panicked and wot not. Even the victors had the hebee geebees and ran away for a bit before rallying. Perhaps it was a post Friedland brigade with bad memories of the French artillery.
How is it that a gun takes 2 casualties per round. what? Does the third rank sh&$kicker dodge? Goddam his eyes I'll have him flayed!!
Permission to tie the cowardly swine to the wheel sahhh!!!
;)
-
Well it looks like events have overtaken me, but that's great news - thanks JMM.
Holdit
-
So if I have understood JMM's post correctly, the demo is greatly overstating casualties inflicted by artillery, and when this is fixed, we should see units advance and overrun artillery when it is reasonable for them to do so, and perhaps also we will not see units 1500m from the nearest enemy guns go directly into rout mode after the first few rounds are lobbed in their general direction. This will greatly improve the feel of LG.
-
Wow, this is the best news since the demo was released, it will make a massive difference, I had thought something was wrong with so many units routing so FAR away from the cannons, I could understand the routs better at short range, but when they were so far away......0.5 to 1k away !!!!!, it did feel wrong.
-
Hold on there. Put the champers away. You realise this makes the gunners smarter! Now they let to walk well into canister before they let rip, rout you, and get to give you a couple of extra rounds as you run (rather than slapping you in the face at extreme range where your troops, rather sensibly, would rather only briefly visit).
-
If the cavalry continue to do their current, suicidal, unescorted sallies deep into enemy territory then the days of the unsupported battery blazing away with impunity must be numbered. Or to borrow from a different war "There, there are your guns Lord Cardigan"
-
I'm sure the findings made by JMM will improve things a lot when they are corrected.