Scourge of War Boards

I think it is correct. The biggest factor is experience.

Small example for solid shots:
3in Ordinance, experience 1, range 800, shots fired 48, 1 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 2, range 800, shots fired 48, 3 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 3, range 800, shots fired 48, 4 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 4, range 800, shots fired 48, 5 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 5, range 800, shots fired 48, 7 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 6, range 800, shots fired 48, 8 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 7, range 800, shots fired 48, 13 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 8, range 800, shots fired 48, 19 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 9, range 800, shots fired 48, 22 kills

ADukes wrote:

I think it is correct. The biggest factor is experience.

Small example for solid shots:
3in Ordinance, experience 1, range 800, shots fired 48, 1 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 2, range 800, shots fired 48, 3 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 3, range 800, shots fired 48, 4 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 4, range 800, shots fired 48, 5 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 5, range 800, shots fired 48, 7 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 6, range 800, shots fired 48, 8 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 7, range 800, shots fired 48, 13 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 8, range 800, shots fired 48, 19 kills
3in Ordinance, experience 9, range 800, shots fired 48, 22 kills

Hey! Those numbers are from the testing I did!

It must be remembered that for any type of shell with a fuse these numbers don't apply. Having to use fused shells greatly decreased the chance of getting a hit. Factors effecting this are as follows:

1 Correctly estimate the range to the target so the fuse could be cut to the correct length. Any smoke or haze on the battlefield could and would make this hard.

2 The fact that the fuses more often then not didn't burn at a consistant rate causing them to either burn too fast or too slow. And to add insult to injury for the Confederate's was the fact that their fuses were made at many different places so the quality varied widely while the Union fuses were all made at the Frankfort Arsenal so were much more consistant in their burn rate.

3 The experience of the gun crew.

It's another interesting techni-historical observation, Shirkon. You really never cease learning about history.

The solid shot really is the best option for accuracy tests and that's because no other factors are involved. You either hit or miss. In case of shrapnel there's the fuse to consider but i HOPE that if the fuse works the fact the shrapnel is an area effect weapon would take into account there's much less need for real accuracy when compared to solid shots.

I already mentioned it but I think an extra table taking into account the type of target would help a lot. A modifier to hit/miss generals, supply, couriers, regiments (according to size for example) would make things a bit more reliable, especially for tests.

Also, what modifiers are in place at this stage? Target stationary/moving, flank/rear/front, terrain? Could you explain a bit the mechanics? Not only with artillery fire of course.

GShock wrote:

It's another interesting techni-historical observation, Shirkon. You really never cease learning about history.

The solid shot really is the best option for accuracy tests and that's because no other factors are involved. You either hit or miss. In case of shrapnel there's the fuse to consider but i HOPE that if the fuse works the fact the shrapnel is an area effect weapon would take into account there's much less need for real accuracy when compared to solid shots.

I already mentioned it but I think an extra table taking into account the type of target would help a lot. A modifier to hit/miss generals, supply, couriers, regiments (according to size for example) would make things a bit more reliable, especially for tests.

Also, what modifiers are in place at this stage? Target stationary/moving, flank/rear/front, terrain? Could you explain a bit the mechanics? Not only with artillery fire of course.

I tested on a flat map at stationary 200 man regiments facing the guns firing. The tests were every 100 yds from 300 yds out to 800 yds then at 890 yds since you can't target beyond that. Each experience level from 1 through 9 were tested at each range. 2 types of round were tested from 2 types of gun. Solid shot and shrapnel from 3 inch Ordinance Rifles and 12 lb Napoleons. The tests were conducted using both Union and Confederate to take into account the known Confederate fuse issue and all results were compared to calculated results for each range, exp level, gun type and side (Union or Confederate).

Using this test we discovered that there was a column shift in the artillery.csv that swapped solid shot and shrapnel. Because of this shift when you thought you were firing solid shot you were in fact firing shrapnel so hit percentage was effected because of the use of fuses. When you thought you were firing shrapnel you were actually firing solid shot. This column shift effected both Union and Confederate guns since they both use the same artillery.csv. This has been corrected and was in the latest beta patch.

Data for the calculations to determine hits was derived from results of the North-South Skirmish Association (N-SSA), who have performed many competitions using Civil War cannon for many years.

I understand but how do you explain the fact that arty is STILL not working?

And my second question: What factors are involved in the calculation for hit/miss ? Can you list them one by one? I mean how exactly the mechanics involved in hitting and missing works.

GShock wrote:

I understand but how do you explain the fact that arty is STILL not working?

And my second question: What factors are involved in the calculation for hit/miss ? Can you list them one by one? I mean how exactly the mechanics involved in hitting and missing works.

Artillery is working, it's just not working as you think it should.

Since you don't have any of the .csv files used to make the calculations it's useless to give them to you.

Most civil war casualties were caused by small arms fire and canister. Long range artillery was largely ineffective (of course it did cause casualties). Lee could not blast a hole through the union center at Gettysburg and Grant couldn’t blast his way into Richmond. It always took the infantry to decide battles.
I played a sandbox game McLaws division of 4 brigades attacking union held objective. Union had 2 infantry brigades and a lot of artillery. The only way of success is flank, but against a human player that wouldn’t even work. To see what would happen, I ordered frontal attack. Brigades in line with their own reserves. By the time I got to 550 yards, I already had 120 casualties from long range artillery fire. The enemy wisely placed artillery in line 50 yards ahead of infantry. When within canister range the real mess began. One brigade attacked front of line, the other brigades worked to the flanks (on their own , I was just watching this one). I ended the battle early (it was really over anyway) I took over 2300 casualties to the unions 144. It played out exactly as it should have. Maybe, it needed more artillerists casualties.
In another sandbox game, I commanded Longstreets day 3 corp. Union artillery set up on my right flank as close as 400 yards. I would normally attack them before they could finish, but wanted to see what would happen. I brought Laws Division and all of Henry’s batteries in line facing union artillery. In a short time I had 66 infantry casualties and 35 artillery casualties. I put McLaws Division on the flank of the enemy artillery and attacked. McLaws became wrecked with only 1000 men left (Barksdale’s Brigade actually drifted off into the infantry fight Law was having). McLaws got to maybe 1/3 of the guns. Should he had reached or shot down more? Artillery was completely without infantry support.
I am taking long range artillery casualties. I like the idea of infantry fire having more effect on artillery. Artillery was a small target yes and the smoke made it hard to see. The smoke always made it hard to see even in infantry vs infantry. When the infantry came in the artillerist would limber up and pull back. If they were ordered to hold they took casualties. When the fighting got close no one escaped casualties.
I know everyone has an idea about what damage artillery should be able to dish out and at what ranges. Here is mine. If artillery becomes more powerful in relation to the infantry, then what is left is a shooting range. Infantry keeping their heads down and artillery blasting away with a supply wagon 15 yards away. In real battles a reserve of artillery was kept. When the artillery exhausted its ammo it pulled back and maybe was replaced out of the reserve. It had to go to the rear to refit. We are talking about a game and players in this game should get all their artillery in the fight with the supply wagon close. The key is massed artillery is very dangerous. When they are massed shouldn’t it be easier to get hits?

One more thing, if I was an artillerist and an infantry regiment came within 100 yds of my gun. I wouldn't say "you know we are really a small target here". I would think that was close enough and would want to pullback 100 yds.

Shirkon wrote:

Artillery is working, it's just not working as you think it should.

If Lee had had this artillery, beyond cannister range he should have started bombing the Union between 6 and 12 months before the battle of Gettysburg.

4 guns shooting for 1 hour, 0 kills... at this point I am wondering if it wasn't working what the results would have been.

Shirkon wrote:

Artillery is working, it's just not working as you think it should.

I'm not sure that's the case. Long randge artillery fire does not seem to take into account the facing or formation of the enemy.

For instance, a solid shot hitting an enemy in double line formation should do 1 but usually 2 casualties to that line with a good possibility of inflicting casualties to any formation directly behind it. If the shot falls short, it should bounce, (at least on dry ground, although even at Waterloo they bounced and rolled quite well), and still inflict damage. If solid shot strikes a formation in column or enfilading a line formation it would do much more damage, perhaps 6-10 casualties. A direct hit on an opposing artillery piece although not highly probable, but certainly not 0, would disable that cannon. This is not modelled.

Exploding shells are an area effect weapon. They have a killing radius. If anyone is in that radius there should be a probability of casualties. However, the game requires a direct hit for casualties to occur. Close doesn't count. And again, a hit on an opposing cannon is not modelled.

Why did Pickett's Charge take place in line formation instead of the much quicker column formation? It was to minimize artillery casualties. In napoleonic battles, the French used column formations when charging the enemy. The charge was very often preceeded by a cavalry charge to not only force the enemy infantry out of line formation and into squares, so the French artillery could go to work on them, but also to run off any opposing artillerists thereby minimizing French casualties from arty fire. Pickett didn't have that option.

GShock wrote:

Shirkon wrote:

Artillery is working, it's just not working as you think it should.

If Lee had had this artillery, beyond cannister range he should have started bombing the Union between 6 and 12 months before the battle of Gettysburg.

4 guns shooting for 1 hour, 0 kills... at this point I am wondering if it wasn't working what the results would have been.

Sir, the artillery effectiveness has been tested meticulously as per historic standards, and works as advertised. Also, the new targeting command appears to be working well (more testing still needed here), so you can make your artillery more effective using this command.

When the logistics files are released to alter artillery effectiveness, you may mod to your heart's content, I do. Then you can enable your artillery to blow the crap out of the enemy forces at long range,:laugh: and them you. :woohoo: