American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Eight is the absolute maximum that can fit in a 125 yard stretch, six is better.


Agreed. Still, I don't know how that can be 'fixed'. When guns are firing at other guns they can 'pick off' individual guns (lately, more). However, there is no distinction between a one-gun unit or an eight-gun unit when infantry fire at guns to decrew them. You decrew one, you decrew them all.


I generally protect guns as best as I'm able but they are still being picked off at a high rate. The only thing that seems to help is stone walls. That seems to reduce gun casualties back to their previous likelihood of loss provided I don't have too many in the hex [most of my games have a six-gun limit so that is not a problem].

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

Eight guns in a hex would be a textbook answer since 15 yards was the spacing for guns. But because we deal with hexes it is difficult to say what the actual size of a hex is beyond that a hexfront is 125 yards. Our batteries have 6-guns while reb batteries have 4-guns. If the number 8 was used then the rebs would have an advantage of stacking two 4-gun units in a hex while our max would be 6-guns unless we had 2-gun sections laying around also to bring the number to 8. The number 12 seems like a good number to use as a way to allow some stacking while not having to hear about the argument of sections vs batteries for games already completed and finished.

_________________
Gen. Mitch Johnson
GENERAL IN CHIEF

I've been following this thread but haven't commented until now as I've been busy. You did some great work figuring this out and sharing it. I've only used the new version once and in hindsight did notice it was easy to destroy guns but I thought I was just getting lucky. It turns out my luck was really just a bug which kind of deflates my bubble.

_________________
Gen. Mitch Johnson
GENERAL IN CHIEF

I'm shocked! I thought that I was taking out fewer guns and uncrewing fewer batteries since the last update. Instead, I guess that I need to cut back the liquor ration for my artillerymen.

_________________
Gen Ned Simms
2/XVI Corps/AotT
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

Another odd thing I've noticed since the 'Artillery Scouts' issue was raised is this:
Unless there is a large unit attacking, it is almost impossible to remove any limbered guns in melees.

It is ridiculous. In a current game we have had line infantry attack limbered artillery in clear terrain. The melee shows that the artillery unit lost some men but almost always that is insufficient to remove a gun. The artillery unit simply moves away. The attacker only receives the dubious benefit of a victorious attack but left with less men and often a disrupted unit.
The same story with cavalry. They charge in upon artillery that are limbered and strung out along a road. The same result as the infantry (although you've suffered a greater loss due to the VP value of cavalry).

Unlimbered artillery are easy pickings when meleed.
Limbered artillery are impervious to destruction when meleed. It seems that you need odds of at least 5:1 to succeed in removing a gun (and the rest of the guns simply move away).

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

And if multiple limbered arty units are stacked together, any loses are divided among the units stacked and it takes a loss of 25 to one individual unit for that unit to lose a gun. So, you could have two or three units stacked and lose 40 artillerists. But this 40 will be divided between the stacked units and since no single unit lost 25 men, no guns are lost. Of course, if the arty is surrounded and cannot retreat, then melee melee melee.

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

My thoughts on the changes to Gun Losses, the User Manuals states both Fire and Melee use the same Combat Results process for determining # men lost.
The difference being that Fire uses the Adjusted Fire Value and Melee uses the adjusted strength of the opposing side.

Regarding the increase in Gun Loss to Fire, if it is happening without the Density Fire Modifier then I have no idea how the change to 80 men/gun stacking value could be causing it.
Gun losses are supposed to be a hard coded value of 25 men, if they are increasing either that has changed or something has to be affecting the Adjusted Fire Value.
There is nothing in the Manual showing Stacking has any effect on that value when the Density Fire Modifier is not used.

As to the decrease in Gun Loss in Melee, from the Manual
"Each defending Artillery gun counts as one third Stacking Point (this depends on Parameter Data Strength Point setting but would normally work out to 8 men per gun)."
Unless this was changed in the code to Gun Loss Value of 25 men/gun Artillery now counts as 26 men/gun for determining Melee.
But that should only affect the Combat Value of the Defending guns thus increasing the Attacker's loss.
It is not supposed to effect the Defender's loss.

I have not done any testing on either of these but unless the Manual is wrong the only thing changing the Stacking Value for guns should affect is the casualties Artillery causes in Melee.

_________________
Gen. Ken Miller

[img]www.acwgc-engineering.com/mug_sm.gif[img]

The McKeesport Union Guard

1/1/I
AotP

I know this has been discussed and I don't recall the reason for not doing it. Most likely, just the expense in time and resources, but it would be more realistic if arty was given a crew strength. And when that crew strength has lost 25 men, then one cannon tube would be lost.

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

The Manual is wrong.

Density Fire Modifier is only part of the explanation. If it was the sole and exclusive reason then the absolute maximum increase in losses should be 50% (and even that should be exceedingly rare due to the random element and other Optional Rules). However, tests were showing 'fired upon' losses up to and above a 70% increase! When the change to artillery was made in v4.05.3 either something in the new coding (or its relationship to other coding) has supercharged the effect. I can only speculate on what it could be, but I know there is something because (as Blake's tests show) Density Fire Modifier is only part of the answer. When that Optional Rule was removed as a factor there was still a substantial (statistically huge) increase in losses from artillery fire.

Rich's answer above helps explain the situation with limbered artillery. Still, I'm not sure that it is the entire answer. Anecdotal evidence only, it does seem harder than before to remove limbered guns through melee. Unfortunately I've had to contend with quite a few of them lately and their abilty to avoid destruction has made them quite the pest.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

I'm curious Blake if you've sent all this work you've done to Rich Hamilton at WDS?

_________________
Loudscott
Lt. Colonel
Army of the Tennessee