Splash Damage Necessary?

[icefenix]

So I was trying to break the game yesterday and I came up with an old SMA tactic where I used a human wave to overwhelm a small section of the line by using three brigades as the primary bullet sponges for the primary core of my force. Inspired by reading about Napoleon's use of 'Column', note I'm not ACW or Napoleonic tactics historian so I'm just approaching this from a game perspective......

 

So I tried the column formation again on  Day 3 Pickett's charge (see image)

 

On walk speed I was able to have my line contact theirs with only one of the three bullet sponges routing, though I was under artillery and rifle fire the entire time. The AI counter charged with all their forces but I was able to hold my ground and defeat all counter attacks. The battle ended 20k Union dead to 10k Confederates. This is not a post about Confed/Union balance, rather I'd like to bring up the battle mechanics.

 

Having ~15k men charging a small section of a battle line is a pretty daunting sight, I would assume that the sheer mass of this force would break any first line of defense and split an opposing army. Watching volleys, shell, canister, and ball only effect individual units, even though, I had many men overlap was immersion breaking. With that many men tightly packed I assume aiming was hardly needed as guns only needed to point at large, deeply packed mass, to rapidly bring down troops. If someone just saw hundreds of men die feet from them, I would assume they would start being a little scared as well.

 

As it stands even after being shot at for the entire advance I had ~70% fully effective/moral'd units right in the middle of the Union line. On another note I've been the Union and seen this mass charge used by the AI to route my lines even though I had superior position and focused firepower on their overlapping units.

 

So some thoughts...

1. Implement splash damage on artillery and rifles - May be difficult if the bullets we see are cosmetic and do not actually take into account landing point, therefore splash damage would look very very weird.

 

2. Apply morale de-buffs on surrounding units when a unit hits certain morale conditions - Could throw off game balance because of Union troops being of lesser quality, therefore making it much harder to hold a line with morale de-buffs going off everywhere.

 

3. Apply negative cover de-buff when moving and when overstacked with troops - could help simulate too many troops in one area, but sometimes the individual unit AI will move on its own causing itself to get in more trouble then just sitting still

 

Just wanted to share.

[TheRomanRuler]

Yes good point, often when center or flank was broken entire army routed/retreated. 

Also, i am not sure, but i think column formation Napoleon used was like this

The other column below, and what you used, was only used for moving from A to C.

 

Also, columns in lower picture should have had more depth- but oh well, it is paint picture and i think you understand it. 

[Nick Thomadis]

So some thoughts...

1. Implement splash damage on artillery and rifles - May be difficult if the bullets we see are cosmetic and do not actually take into account landing point, therefore splash damage would look very very weird.

2. Apply morale de-buffs on surrounding units when a unit hits certain morale conditions - Could throw off game balance because of Union troops being of lesser quality, therefore making it much harder to hold a line with morale de-buffs going off everywhere.

3. Apply negative cover de-buff when moving and when overstacked with troops - could help simulate too many troops in one area, but sometimes the individual unit AI will move on its own causing itself to get in more trouble then just sitting still

 

1. Collateral damage is already implemented and in next patch will be somewhat increased to make "blob" tactics less fruitful.

2. About morale, well a lot could be said about the zillion things they affect it, but next patch will have even more improvements to it

3. This is a nice idea we can try later but will require heavy rebalance. 

[David Fair]

I'm not certain I know the definition of "splash damage".

In the ACW and UGG there is no column formation similar to Napoleon's attack columns. Napoleon used various "mixed order" tactical formations. Typically this is a unit in line formation flanked by two units formed in attack columns (many combination were used based on the tactical situation). Roman Ruler is in the ballpark if he combines one of his lines from the green check mark flanked by two of his red x columns. The basic idea was the unit in line formation fixed the front of the enemy line with volley fire. Then the column formations closed rapidly with the bayonet. Napoleon's attack columns were distinct tactical formations from his movement columns. Movement columns had a very narrow front with everyone lined up behind like a caterpillar. Movement columns are not a tactical combat formation. It is easier to keep 6 guys in a line than 300 so troops move faster when they move in a column.

The closest ACW came to using Napoleonic column formation was in attacking Ft. Fischer where the beach frontage precluded deployment in line. Others may have additional examples.

In UGG the formation are either line and movement column. So your test really doesn't align well with Napoleonic deployment tactics; but, your point is excellent icefenix.

If you are suggesting a bullet would hit multiple targets the likelihood is not very high in the ACW. According to the AoP hospital reports it was unusual to deal with exit wounds. In most cases the medical records indicate the removal of the flattened or shattered projectiles along with cloth, dirt, etc... The mess these low velocity soft projectiles inflicted all-too-frequent prolonged suffering before death or tended to cause infection resulting in horrific amputations.

Units packed this densely during the ACW would have suffered extremely heavily. Rifled muskets of the ACW shoot straight for hundreds of yards (unlike Napoleon's smoothbore muskets). But you need to remember that the muzzle velocity from a rifled musket was very low and the projectiles were soft lead. These two attributes resulted in horrific wounds as the projectiles flattened when they hit a target.

Artillery solid shot (fired from smoothbore artillery) would have been very effective against your column attack. Basically you would be exposing the length of your divisions to the momentum of an iron ball. A graduate from the U.S. Naval Academy and life-long Gettysburg history fanatic spent 36 years studying this topic. His data suggests that a round that inflicted 5 casualties was unusual - but with the mass you've got assembled in column my guess is it would have been "less unusual".

At about 300 yards canister 27 projectiles/round from a 12 pound Napoleon would also have been deadly against your columns at close-range. Double canister at 10 yards would have unleashed 54 inch-and-a-half balls of fury; or 324 projectiles per battery at point-blank range.

With the mass you've got pictured even shell from rifled artillery would have been effective; unless the fuzes were cut too long or were manufactured defectively. Rifled guns did have not problem hitting the targets; but, these rifled shell projectiles were pointed and frequently buried themselves in the dirt before they exploded; where the ground absorbed the impact. There is a good reason that artillery inflicted only 6% to 8% of casualties in the ACW. The percussion fuze wasn't invented until 1870 in time for the Franco-Prussian War which dramatically increased the effectiveness of artillery. By WWI 72% of casualties were artillery inflicted.

It looks like you have 10 infantry divisions vs. 3 with minimal artillery support. The result is not that surprising. The Union defenses look soft where you've attacked.

[icefenix]

What I meant by splash damage was that in the situation pictured, you don't have to hit what you are aiming for to kill an enemy due to the density (as you mention above). Splash damage is probably a bad term for what I'm trying to describe.... For example in that situation the union shot canister into the formation and it seemed like it only hit one unit. I would imagine in such a tightly packed formation canister would obliterate huge swaths of men on many different regiments. Also it seemed like when units shoot at one another they only score damage against one unit. I gamed this by putting bullet sponges to soak up volleys even though "misses" would probably kill men in the regiment behind the bullet sponge as well. These sponges will retreat but will still be targeted allowing the fresh units to get to hand-to-hand combat unscathed. This is a huge advantage for confed's nullifying Union rifles and artillery.

 

But this seems a moot point since Nick said collateral damage will be in the next patch so I think this blob will be mow'ed down realistically. Your information is also very interesting, do you have sources I could read to learn more?

 

As for trying to setup a historic Napoleonic column... I just had my troops move through the enemy. I believe in marching column they get a speed boost so I wanted to close the gap quickly, and without the collateral damage implemented its not like they were being shot at really. Fun note, even if you try to force column, the units will deploy to line and volley if they have 100% reload. So it takes a little micro to keep them moving.

[David Fair]

icefenix, I spend about half my life on airplanes and hotel rooms so military history is both a hobby and data for writing RFP's and other work. I'd guess 90% of the battlefield casualties of the Napoleonic Wars were "splash damage" by your definition. Hitting the target you are aiming at with a smoothbore musket is a challenge.

Let me know if you have a more specific question and I can offer more precision in my response.

My content is pulled from numerous sources (preferably primary sources) but for the post above here is a quick incomplete list of some references:

Napoleonic Wars:

"The Campaigns of Napoleon" David Chandler

"The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book" Digby Smith

"La Grande Armee" - Georges Blond

"Swords Around the Throne" - John H. Elting

"Anatomy of Glory" - Henry Lachouque

"Memoir of Barron Larrey" - Dominique Jean Larrey

"Atlas for the Wars of Napoleon" - The West Point Military History Series - Thomas Griess

Civil War Medical Data:

"Medical Recollection of the Army of the Potomac" Jonathan Letterman

"Gangrene and Glory: Medical Care During the American Civil War" - Frank Freemon

"Doctors in Gray: The Confederate Medical Service" - H.H. Cunningham

"The Encyclopedia of Civil War Medicine" - Glenna Schroeder-Lein

ACW Information Generally:

Dozens of titles with all the usual suspects...

The Grand Army of the Republic Civil War Library in Philadelphia is an excellent and comprehensive resource. The staff is very helpful in finding information on just about any ACW topic.

The artillery school at Ft. Dix has an excellent library and some of their articles may be online.

Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland is another great resource.

The United States Army Ordnance Museum is excellent and accessible to the public.

"The Artillerists Manual" - John Gibbon

http://www.swcwa.com/links/military_info/gibbon-s_the_atrillerists_manual.pdf

"The Guns at Gettysburg" - Fairfax Downey

Also there about a dozen great artillery sites online.

My favorite:

The Cornell University Library has put "The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies" 50 volumes online at:

http://digital.library.cornell.edu/m/moawar/waro.html

In my post above I referenced, "The Effects of Artillery Fire on Infantry at Gettysburg" - Thomas Elmore