Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

[IMPORTANT] Artillery discussion


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

I didn't even know the different types of guns were modelled in this game until I just read it here.....maybe there needs to be an easier way so we can say "oh that artillery brigade has longer range and accuracy, that other one has better canister, I'll use them accordingly"

 

Other than that, I find artillery targeting is better now. They generally fire when I think they should and it's usually obvious why they're not firing when they don't. It makes proper artillery tactics important and not over simplified. It makes it really satisfying to get a battery in a great position and unleash hell on an enemy brigade to break a charge.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think David's suggestions above would be a great addition to the game and solve many artillery-based problems.

What I have a problem with in version 0.9 is that artillery on hold do not necessarily target enemies that are close, in open plain sight and trying to attack the artillery. Instead they'll blithely keep lobbing solid rounds at some brigade 3 miles away. Sometimes you can force it to change its mind by manually targeting the enemy and hitting hold again, but I'd have to ask whether this additional micromanagement is a good idea seeing the on-hold unit should be sensible enough to see the danger and switch of its own accord.

This has a huge impact of the effectiveness of an array of batteries set in place to deter infantry charges, and I don't recall it being like this in 0.8.5.

In addition, an on-hold artillery unit will not under any circumstances adjust its facing. Often I'll wonder why a unit isn't firing, and click on it to see that its selected a valid target with clear line of sight but slightly outside the firing cone. The same happens when I tell an artillery unit to fire at a target behind it - its not smart enough on its own to realize that it needs to point the opposite direction. I'd suggest the game would be greatly improved by making units, especially artillery, a little more self-sufficient.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to Harnis…

 

 

VERY SIMPLE Suggestion to Improve UGG Artillery:

 

The "easier way" to identify how to use artillery would be go make the canister pattern for smoothbores align with history and give them a pattern that is both distinguishable and more effective (broader and longer pattern - like the 3 inch ordnance rifles currently).  

 

Rifled guns should have a shorter and more narrow canister pattern.  Then players will immediately see which guns will be most effective in their historical role.

 

Making the guns easy to identify could be as simple as changing the font on the artillery battery, or changing the color of the font on the artillery battery, or highlighting the word "canister" in red for smoothbores to show this is the most effective type of ammunition for that particular battery.  The same could be done for rifled guns to show that longer range ammunition is more effective.

 

The 12 lb Napoleon should have all three ammunition types highlighted to represent the versatility, and preference for, this model of gun during the ACW.

 

While the CSA had mixed batteries the CSA artillery brigade commanders often deployed guns by section to ensure that each battery's pieces were effectively deployed for the optimal characteristics of the gun type.  The battle for the Peach Orchard is an excellent example where Alexander positioned his pieces according to gun type - effectively fighting the CSA artillery by homogeneous gun types.  This did degrade the command and control of the CSA batteries because battery commanders had to choose which of their guns they would lead.  Usually this meant the guns placed in the most forward position - but this varied based on the confidence these officers had in the battery section leaders.

 

 

ACW Artillery Summary:

 

Smoothbores a large bore and shorter barrels were the most effective at delivering canister (e.g., 24 lb howitzer).

 

Rifled pieces with smaller bores provided more accurate - but less lethal effect at range (e.g., 3 inch ordnance rifle).

 

The best multipurpose gun was the 12 lb Napoleon model 1857 - which was the most numerous field gun in both armies during the ACW and at Gettysburg.  

 

Historical note - McClellan advocated that the AoP use only 12 lb Napoleons - but the defense contractors who produced rifled steel guns intervened with the war department to ensure his preference did not become policy. 

 

In UGG the 3 inch ordnance guns have the most effective canister range - which gives the Union a boost in artillery effectiveness at canister range - because they have more of these guns.  While I've suggested that getting the artillery canister pattern altered in favor of smoothbores this has not happened - to the detriment of the game balance IMO.

 

 

Artillery in Historical Context:

 

The ACW artillery technology resulted in cannons being a suboptimal combat arm - inflicting only about 8% of battlefield casualties.  The invention of the rifled musket had dramatically changed the battlefield equation in favor of small arms.  Artillery during the Napoleonic Wars had a more significant role to play as canister range was greater than the range of the smoothbore muskets.  This allowed artillery to be safely dragged forward to slaughter infantry (particularly infantry squares) with guns.  The introduction of rifled muskets prevented artillery from advancing on infantry (horses were large targets - and once a battery lost its horses it was effectively immobilized).  Artillery effectiveness took a giant step forward immediately after the invention of the percussion fuze in 1870.  These fuzes included a direct action firing pin, detonator, and magazine to trigger the artillery round's main charge - significant improvements over the ACW Borman fuze that was cut to length for a "best guess" for detonation.  Highly unreliable system.  By WWI 72% of battlefield casualties were inflicted by artillery.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My issue with Artillery is that they seem to be better at melee combat than my cavalry.  3 minutes gametime and out of 117 CAV and 42 CSA Art the CSA has fallen back and lost 2 men...  btw how the hell is CSA art able to basically outrun my CAV unit that I've sent into melee combat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think some kind of coloring system would be very helpful with the terrain map.

 

I also think that they seem a bit underpowered.  I do understand the moving/targetting bit, but even when constantly firing I never really feel like they're doing all that much to help me.  Doubly so when they're dishing out Enfilade fire.  It seems like I should get some large bonus for this, but I noticed no discernable difference. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RoverGrover,

 

If you are looking for history in this game - then the artillery is still roughly 2X+ overpowered.  Artillery inflicted roughly 6% to 8% of ACW battlefield casualties.  Generals Gibbon and Hunt compared a battery of 6 guns to roughly equivalent to a 200 man regiment.  In UGG it is not unusual to see a battery inflict as many casualties as a brigade.

 

Note that the Union artillery fired 32,781 rounds at Gettysburg and the CSA another 22,000.  If artillery inflicted 10% of the casualties then 5,000 casualties were inflicted by artillery at Gettysburg.  This equates to 1 casualty per 10 rounds of artillery ammunition fired - and these are very optimistic numbers and don't take into effect canister - which could cause multiple casualties per round.  

 

While the artillery fired about 55,000 round the infantry by comparison fired somewhere between 5,000,000 and 8,000,000 rounds.  While it is true that artillery rounds had multiple projectiles per round - the artillery in the ACW was primarily employed for its "moral rather than physical" effect according to General Gibbon and many of the officers serving in the artillery branch during the ACW.

 

 

If you are making a comment about the game as you'd like to play it, regardless of history, and are a fan of super-artillery, then I respect your opinion.

 

I'm not a fan of fictional artillery prowess. The ACW was primarily an infantry war and if you make the artillery too powerful you give an unrealistic edge to the Union in this game - because they have just shy of 100 more guns.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Fair,

 

I understand what you are saying but I disagree.  Artillery is something that does not lend itself well to overly broad statistics.  The reason, in my opinion, is that it varies so sharply between firing aimlessly at hard to hit targets, and doing a lot in a short amount of time.  General Wilcox seemed to think that the artillery was an issue during day 3.  During other phases of the battle it did not do much at all despite being in action.  You seem to be under the impression that I want artillery to be horribly overpowered and steamroll everything.  This is simply not true.  However, I would love to see my opponent forced to at least consider my artillery and have to consider it an obstacle to blindly advancing and then stopping in the middle of a field with no regard to it at all. 

 

I really would not mind the artillery doing very little at all against a target that was in cover or difficult to hit.  What frustrates me are targets that are in the open, blatently not moving and my artillery doing one or two casualties while the combat resolves itself.  I'd probably argue for increasing damage to low cover targets, and decreasing it further for any target in significant cover. 

 

 

These things being said, the artillery at close range does seem to be quite a different story.  I've had a chance to play a bit more now and you just can't seem to do a lot of damage to artillery with any kind of ranged infantry attack.   Where infantry would be dropping like flies, the artillery pieces seem to have brought along bullet proof vests. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RoverGrover,

 

I respect that you disagree; and your right to disagree.  Good on ya mate!

 

I'd suggest you double check your logic that artillery does not lend itself to statistics.  

There is a whole field of science dedicate to this exact proposition - ballistics.

 

As always - argue enthusiastically for what you believe - this is a game.

Your opinion may make a "better" game.

 

 

Just a couple of data points...

 

ACW artillery was a black powder weapon.  

 

Today we have the association of artillery with pinpoint accuracy, high explosives, percussion fuzes, proximity fuzes, etc, etc, etc...

 

The rifled musket was a tremendous innovation that changed the equation between infantry and artillery balance on the battlefield.  

During the ACW it was difficult see targets clearly.  But the artillery had the distinct requirement to guess where to cut a Boreman fuze.  Additionally, the most frequently used cannon by both sides was the smoothbore 12 lb Napoleon model 1857 which was not as accurate as a rifled musket.  All of this conspired to make artillery more of a "moral rather than physical" weapon according to General Gibbon, author of the U.S. Army Artillerists Manual 1861 & 1864.  

 

We know the Union fired precisely 32,781 artillery rounds.

We know the Union infantry fired between 4 million and 5 million rounds.

We know the number of casualties inflicted at Gettysburg.  

We have the statistical data from the hospitals on the casualties inflicted.

You are welcome to disregard the data.

 

Artillery was increasingly lethal at close range.  This was both due to ammunition types as well as proximity to the target.

 

As for the casualties inflicted on the various artillery batteries - it is written in stone at Gettysburg - see www.gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/

 

Artillery casualties for both armies at Gettysburg were 10%.

 

The Aberdeen proving grounds suggest statistically that 1 artillery round in 25 to 35 actually inflicted a single casualty beyond 350 yards during the ACW.

 

It just a game and doesn't really matter.

 

Enjoy.

 

 

Final thought - if you total the "estimates of casualties" inflicted on the enemy it is usually at least 2.5 times the number of enemy troops involved.  This is a statistical reality to AAR's.  For example during the Battle of Britain the RAF estimated they shot down over 7,000 aircraft.  The Luftwaffe had a serviceable strength of just over 2,500.

 

Statistics have proved to be much more reliable in war data than first hand accounts - no slight on General Wilcox implied or intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah.....first hand data is always going to be subjective. You can have one general say artillery was almost useless, and another general say it was the key to a battle. The only hard evidence to look at is the actual results and statistics. Artillery achieved X amount of kills per Y amount of shots fired. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RoverGrover,

 

Below is a typical report from an ACW hospital.  The bold in the text is the author's not mine.

 

Cheers,

 

 

Medical/Surgical History--Part I, Volume I
LXVI. Extract from a Narrative of his Services in the Medical Staff,
from April 24th, 1861, to June 17th, 1863.
By Assistant Surgeon H. E. BROWN, U. S. Army.

 

On May 31st, occurred the battle of the Seven Pines....

 

The medical stores of our regiment furnished a sufficiency of whiskey and other stimulants, and I believe this was the case with the other regiments. The only articles deficient were chloroform and ether; and this, I think, was not due to any neglect, but to the fact of the unusually large number of wounded, we having to attend not only to those of our own division, but to all of those wounded in the battle of May 31st, the ground of which was occupied by the enemy until Saturday afternoon. Nearly all of our men brought in were wounded with the conoidal or minié ball; I saw but one by cannon or round balls. There was one case of bayonet wound, and this man had two wounds from gunshot and five bayonet wounds; and these last, he asserted, he received while lying on the field, after, being wounded. The rebels captured by us were wounded with the bayonet, with round ball and buckshot, and with the conoidal ball, and some few had shell wounds, the conoidal ball, however, preponderating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I would echo what others are saying about the artillery in that it doesn’t respond when you select another target for it to shoot at it, that is in line of sight. They just keep firing at whatever unit they think is worth their time.

Placing it not so much, just put them on a hill facing the enemy. Usually works for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darth, there must be a way to clarify what can or cannot be hit by the arty unit.  Many times even when you see your target unit in LOS some times the arty doesn't fire and you dont have a clue why,  trees?,  a unit in front?, maybe the main body of your target can't be seen from that spot, but the info you got from the interface doesn't tell you that ?   

 

I think the best way to solve this problem with arty units is to change the way arty attacks,  right know arty works by selecting a unit and firing at it. Why  arty can't work like in shogun 2, where you select a zone to fire  and if that unit can't fire from that spot i'll move to the nearest spot where it can shot the ordered zone.  that way you could made a really nice way to reduce micromanagement imagine selecting a group or arty units. move to a desired hilltop then you order to fire a promp appears and ask for the target zone , you draw a circle using that nice arrow mechanic your team implemented   the zone highlighs with a red color for a bit, after that arty units start firing if they can or movement arrows appears telling the player the nearest spot to fire at that zone. or maybe instead of that when you pick a place to shot with one arty, you receive feedback of why you cant shot at that spot and highligh a nearby zones where you can place that arty unit to futfill you order. I can get mad when my units don't follow orders for some reason, but  I can get really frustated, to the point of stop playing, when that happens over and overand you don't know why even after trying to move my units to several spots .  

Feedback to the player (like some sort of icon on top of a unit that says line of sight blocked or partially blocked or something,  TOOLTIPS when paused someone said?) is critical for enjoyment and  I dont see a way, in the current state, that all these posts about arty problems will stop.

 

I hope you read this and give it a thought.  as a fan of games about this era and all your mods I wish you luck in fixing this arty mess xD.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick, 

 

I'm sure your sick of hearing this for the last 10 months of testing - but an artillery spotting target would really help resolve the artillery problem.

 

Click on an artillery unit.

All units that can be fired upon have a red target over them.

Player selects target.

 

All units that can be seen but not fired upon have a pink target over them.

Player selects a unit.

Explanation appears for why this unit cannot be fired upon - blocked by friendly troops, structures, etc...

 

It would really help make the artillery comprehensible.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

So far i wasnt unpleased with ari, but iam not playing that long.

All I already read about the battle says that bombardment at short range was a really terrifying and bloody thing.

All history books especially mention, picketts losses became extreme high through the canisterbombardment.

Iam cool so far with ari.

 

Who cares what exactly is blocking ? We just need a sign if the ari is idle that we bring them back to firing. Everything else (check units or terrain blocking)is your job.

 

As well unit info should also show amount of aris, not only amount of men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

in the gaming industry, there is an old saying.  do you want accuracy or playability?  skip differentiating between smoothbores and rifled canon.  next thing you know you'll differentiate between .69 and .57 caliber rifles for infantry.

 

in the spirit of playability, i would suggest for artillery that when you click on the battery's icon that you get an overlay that describes the field of fire, and within that field of fire it's either red (for being within the line of sight and elevations, etc) or it's black (showing areas where you cannot fire).

 

that would help to determine whether a battery can fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key to artillery in my opinion is to simply set it on shell and manually move to canister in an emergency and move them in to position just inside of shell range.  I always position them where there is the most amount of coverage available.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Personally I'm finding the union canister to be hugely effective at the moment. My poor confederates are always getting shredded. It seems that if they put three batteries together then i may as well look elsewhere.... Having loads of problems constantly having to attack infantry and arty mixed positions. My shooting wont drive off the batteries who along with their infantry shred me time after time......

Love the game though. Guess i just have to learn how to attack better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, i think more ammo types should be added, for example, there is no shrapnell round in the game, which was the main anti-infantry round at medium range. I think it would be not that bad to remove ammo selection from player and let the battery itself to decide what to use based on target, terrain and distance. Battery itself would then chose based on type of guns in the battery what ammo it will use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game has a number of anachronistic naming convention anomalies - for example "run" for "double quick".  

 

The artillery ammunition for medium range is called "shell" but the performance is much more associated with Case (or as you anachronistically state "shrapnell" [sp]).  

 

For the 12 lber Napoleon Case was 72 steel balls packed in sawdust and detonated by a fuze.  

 

The effects of artillery in UGG are dramatically overstated.  Hunt and the upper echelon of the army agree that a battery was roughly equal in firepower to a 200 man regiment.  In UGG it is not uncommon for a battery to inflict as many casualtiesas an entire brigade (sometimes more).

 

So if you want to keep the game simple then a misnamed abstraction is a reasonable approach - as UGG has taken.  

 

If you want to burden the game with irrelevant minutia then this might be a great idea.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...