Artillery deployment

[Gunner24]

The above 3-4 posts contain a lot of very usefull information, I am keeping the Cav scouting to just ahead of my forces rather than going off to far, this helps.

So, the units behaviour is deeply different when you change these parameters.

This is the conclusion I have come to in the last few days.

It would seem we have a split between those who think artillery is too strong and those that don't, but it's become clear artillery can be beaten, the strenght in it seems to be more on moral than on "killing" power.

A couple of batteries close together, well placed, can help defend a large area of ground while your main Corps advances on a weak sector - this is going be a great MP game, time allowing.

[Hook]

Artillery can indeed be beaten.  You'll never be able to send one regiment in a frontal assault against a battery, but if you send a reasonable number of units against a formation defended by artillery, some of them will get through.

There's a problem with weakening artillery.  If you do, then an unsupported artillery unit will be unable to defend itself.  Sure, you can overwhelm it as above, but you probably need your forces elsewhere. 

We probably need to allow single guns on each end of a battery line to fire to the sides, as Mercer describes in his journal when he was hit by flanking artillery fire.  Something for the wish list.

Hook

[von Döbeln]

I think we can all agree that this horse artillery unit (on the left) has been a bit too bold. That is my main line defending on the right, and the enemy artillery unit marched right up to it and deployed in their face (and the infantry unit didn't fire for some reason). The closest other enemy unit is about 1000 from where this happened. The artillery unit did not survive for long.

If you want the save game I'll send it to you JMM.



LvD

[ezjax]

Thats a Artillery Charge,..ha

[Gunner24]

The infantry unit in the picture looks like it was "under attack", perhaps that's why they never fired as they were not formed up, but in some kind of dis-order due to being hit by artillery ?????.

The horse artillery does appear to be a cause for concern in the demo, but I'm hoping it will be ok in the game when we can set the doctrine for their behaviour......they sure did come into very close range, even if 4 pounders.

[von Döbeln]

Hmm I just lost an artillery unit (that was defending) because they didn't seem to fire a single time at the enemy unit that was closing in. There was no movement and no smoke and I could see no cannon balls flying and no impact smoke on the charging unit and I couldn't see a single loss. Once the artillery unit was overrun (as in enemy unit on all sides) they limbered up and started walking towards the rear and then they disappeared.

LvD

[Holdit]

This needs to be carefully researched, I think. It might not matter if an unsupported artillery battery in the game can't defend itself if that's what tended to happen historically. Then the answer would be, "don't leave your batteries unsupported". If, on the other hand, the expectation would have been that a battery should have been able to defend itself against a regiment, then I can see why weakening it could present a problem, and lead to historically implausible results.

It might not even be a question of weakening or strengthening a battery's base firepower value, rather the answer might be tweaking its effect against certain types of target, if it was determined that artillery is too strong in, say, counterbattery fire only, as might possibly be the case.

Holdit

[Ras]

Hmm I just lost an artillery unit (that was defending) because they didn't seem to fire a single time at the enemy unit that was closing in. There was no movement and no smoke and I could see no cannon balls flying and no impact smoke on the charging unit and I couldn't see a single loss. Once the artillery unit was overrun (as in enemy unit on all sides) they limbered up and started walking towards the rear and then they disappeared.

LvD

Did they have any cannons left?
Sometimes artillery still has a crew but no guns left. Or they weren't even there any more, just a ghost unit.
Check the replay.
Could line of sight be an issue here and in the charge of the horse artillery?

[von Döbeln]

It was a full battery with hardly any losses IIRC. I can take if they get overrun, but it is quite frustrating to see no action whatsoever in the 3d view - no firing, no reloading, no smoke, no losses in the attacking unit etc. It looked as they were just standing there.

LvD

[Hook]

Hmm I just lost an artillery unit (that was defending) because they didn't seem to fire a single time at the enemy unit that was closing in.

My first thought is to check their ammo.  Did they have any cannonballs left?  Look at the unit card in the replay, the amount of ammo is on the right side near the bottom.

If they had ammo, was anyone directly in front of them?  How was their morale?  Did they have any unusual status like "Unit disinclination"?

Hook

[von Döbeln]

4 howitzers and 4 12pdr, plenty of ammo and men, the enemy marches right up to them and don't even fire from what I can see and from one frame in the replay to the nex they are totally gone - no firing at all from the guns from what I can see.

Here is a pic of the situation the frame before they vanish.



If they had been out of ammo one would expect them to retreat and not stay well in front of their own lines with two enemy corps closing in on them. Yes?

LvD

[quartermaster]

One issue mentioned in the Kriegspiel especially in the 1828 supplement is the importance of being able to judge the fall of shot and adjust the fire to achieve the required level of accuracy.  I will look up some figures for casualty rates used in that classic work.

From the v Reisswitz 1824 Kriegsspiel we get the following casualty rates from the dice tables for a TWO minute turn for an artillery battery of 6 guns and 2 howitzers at GOOD EFFECT (good visibility of target and fall of shot and firm ground)

Small Canister – close range – 20-60 casualties average 35
Large Canister – longer range 10-40 average 26
Elevation (ie normal roundshot) 6-18 average 9.5
Random (ricochet) 3-10 average 6.2

BAD EFFECT (wet ground, limited visibility, plunging shot etc.)

Small Canister 12-30 average 20
Large Canister 8-20 average 14
Elevation 4-8 average 5.5
Random 1-4 average 2.3

Howitzers are marginally less effective for canister and more effective at longer range.

Canister and elevation are three rounds per minute whereas Random (Ricochet) is two rounds per minute.

So for the battery firing under elevation for two minutes we have 16 rounds causing 6-18 casualties – average 9.5 for good effect (roughly 1.7 rounds per casualty) but average 5.5 or 3 rounds per casualty bad effect.

JMM, I would be interested to know how many rounds are required to cause a casualty based on your algorithms and results from playtests?

[JMM]

From the v Reisswitz 1824 Kriegsspiel we get the following casualty rates from the dice tables for a TWO minute turn for an artillery battery of 6 guns and 2 howitzers at GOOD EFFECT (good visibility of target and fall of shot and firm ground)

Small Canister – close range – 20-60 casualties average 35
Large Canister – longer range 10-40 average 26
Elevation (ie normal roundshot) 6-18 average 9.5
Random (ricochet) 3-10 average 6.2

BAD EFFECT (wet ground, limited visibility, plunging shot etc.)

Small Canister 12-30 average 20
Large Canister 8-20 average 14
Elevation 4-8 average 5.5
Random 1-4 average 2.3

Howitzers are marginally less effective for canister and more effective at longer range.

Canister and elevation are three rounds per minute whereas Random (Ricochet) is two rounds per minute.

So for the battery firing under elevation for two minutes we have 16 rounds causing 6-18 casualties – average 9.5 for good effect (roughly 1.7 rounds per casualty) but average 5.5 or 3 rounds per casualty bad effect.

JMM, I would be interested to know how many rounds are required to cause a casualty based on your algorithms and results from playtests?

Right.. I'll make a sheet giving the casualties during a temporal sequence... There are 3 steps
a) adjustments, several shot to hit the target (figure increases with the distance)
b) shots on the target
c) visibility becomes low, so the cannon must halt the fire
d) again a new sequence b) c)

However, the speed of the target is used to increase the a) process.

So, it's not really easy to compare.. but I think the model is not very bad...

JMM

[Holdit]

From the v Reisswitz 1824 Kriegsspiel we get the following casualty rates from the dice tables for a TWO minute turn for an artillery battery of 6 guns and 2 howitzers at GOOD EFFECT (good visibility of target and fall of shot and firm ground)

(etc)

Excellent post.

Holdit

[quartermaster]

JMM I am sure the model is not bad.  

Having a benchmark for effectiveness is always useful.

On a wargame table it is rare to admit less than perfect visibility unless there is a hill or trees in the way.  Observing fall of shot (as I think you model in a) and b) and c) ) should make a difference.