Artillery tests

[Holdit]

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

[Hook]

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

[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

[trw2264]

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.

[FranzVonG]

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.

[Uxbridge]

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?

[lodi57]

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.

[Sean E]

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.

[Hook]

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

[Sean E]

Yes good point about forlorn hope.

[Holdit]

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

[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

[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

[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

[Hook]

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