J. Ferry wrote:
Gents:
I must tell you that you are under a misconception of what the raw numbers in weapons data in the pdt actually represent:
They are NOT percentages. They are raw numbers expressing the power of a certain weapon.
To be exact (if one can) they are the designers best estimate of what an average regiment of 1000 men could do to an enemy regiment at various ranges over a 20 minute time period with that weapon.
The number adjust for hundreds of variables that the designer had no way to measure. The range attenuation adjust for not just distance but the changing tactical doctrine (do we really shoot and waste ammo at 400 yards type questions).
But the reality is the design pulls a number out of his posterior as an average base. Usually the closeest range number for the main weapon used (rifle) then adjusts everything else relative to that one. They adjust the base number up or down based on real play testing to try to recreate the typical casualties observed in the battle. All other numbers are estimated relative to this base number based on the designer's best guess as to how the various weapons worked relative to the base at different ranges and types.
If the designer is lucky enough to have a huge budget and lots of statistical data (like on modern weapons) his weapon model is extremely accurate. Some WW II games and later get this down to how much armor a weapon can penetrate based on the angle of hit. The Civil War however lacks this kind of information. Just try to find out the angle of spread of canister from a napoleon (which determines how many men it can hit between 0 and 300 yards. So weapons modeling varies all over the map when you look at different games and what the designer thought was most important to the simulation.