Counter Battery fire.

[Uhlanen]

Counter battery fire was only considered a waste of ammo when it wasn't ordered bye some fellow with a lot of braid on his hat . As an example Ney deployed French Horse artillery batteries at Waterloo in precisely that role. When employed in an organized manner it was extremely affective however when it was a knee-jerk reaction to being shot at....not nearly as much. The English were especially proficient at it courtesy of a nasty bit of ordnance known as  spherical case shot or shrapnel. I would say that the game is rite on the money with arty set for counter battery fire as the first priority.

[Gunner24]

There are still many cannons being lost to counter battery fire, if you start with 200 you may only have 20 left at the end, not all lost to counter battery fire of course, but also to Inf and Cav attacks.

[Hook]

The 180 lost guns in that case also include the number that have routed off the field, retreated off the field because the corps they belonged to was retreating, and guns that have left the field because they were out of ammo. 

At the end of the day at Waterloo, Mercer had barely enough crew for 2 of his 6 guns, and no effective limbers to move the guns.  He was only under effective couterbattery fire by one battery, although was shot at by other batteries before that without much effect.

Hook

[Gunner24]

Right, I re-opened this topic because a couple of NBC members have commented that artillery loses appear very high, but if 90% artillery loses were common in Napoleonic battles then I guess it's about right.

I have still not been able to find any facts and figures to confirm or deny this "fact"........but as with most things, it is the same for both sides playing, so no big deal, only that it looks too high to me.

[Hook]

I've never seen anything to indicate what actual battlefield losses were either.  I have no idea if we're even in the ball park.

However, if you include all the artillery that retired because of running out of ammunition or any other reason not related to actual loss, then the numbers don't seem so inflated.  I think there's a lot of abstraction in the cannon loss mechanism in the game as well, so the actual destroyed guns is probably larger than it should be while guns that have left the field is lower.  Yeah, at the end a lot of guns aren't available in the game, but I don't have a problem with the numbers.

Actual battles may have had more cannons at the end because they kept some back as a reserve.  You probably have to adjust the doctrines to achieve this in the game, as artillery likes to move forward to support the front lines.  Real commanders probably used their artillery a bit differently than we use ours too.

Hook

[Gunner24]

Hook, your last post sounds very sensisble, I would agree that is the likely cause of what we see in game.

[Hook]

Sometimes an artillery unit that is no longer combat effective will simply disappear from the map, so it's hard to keep track of what's actually happened to all the artillery.  I'm not going to say that this is the best possible way to handle artillery;  we can just hope that the overall effect is within reasonable limits.  As far as I can tell, it is.  I just don't have time during a battle to keep track of every artillery unit on the map.  The units that I have watched closely act the way I'd expect, so I'm going to trust the game to do it right.

Hook

[oho]

Even the victorious side has often a big loss of artillery. In my last battle for example it was 40% compared to 20% inf or cavalary.  The losing allies lost 80% of their artillery compared to 40% inf cav.
I still think, artillery is too "cavalerish" when on the deployment move.
Perhaps AI should always make a cavallary unit scout ahead, so that artillery don't bounce into each other.
Also when a threat is there, they should retreat into the infantry line/ squares.

[Count von Csollich]

Even the victorious side has often a big loss of artillery. In my last battle for example it was 40% compared to 20% inf or cavalary.  The losing allies lost 80% of their artillery compared to 40% inf cav.
I still think, artillery is too "cavalerish" when on the deployment move.
Perhaps AI should always make a cavallary unit scout ahead, so that artillery don't bounce into each other.
Also when a threat is there, they should retreat into the infantry line/ squares.

it is true that artillery would never deploy that far ahead without serious protection - and if it did it would have only been horse artillery - as seen by Bagration in Austerlitz, who  deployed one HA-Battery with an entire Hussar REgiment - the Mariupol-hussars-  in support
JMM said that he's working on the wondering artillery - so we'll probably see that foot artillery will stay closer to the main corps - yet we will keep seeing that the losses remain high, as the losses included everything Hook mentioned above!

CvC

[DominiqueT]

Let me remind that, historically, artillery losses were only very high when the loosing side couldn't retire his artillery due to external circumstances, e.g. the mud preventing from taking the guns to the back.

This was particularly true in the 1814 campaign, as well for the French at La Rothière (losing (i.e. leaving behind) 73 guns) or for the Allies at Montmirail (26 guns) or Château-Thierry (14 guns).

Guns were rarely destroyed by counter-battery fire, since this was only used in particular circumstances.

[Marquês de Alorna]

Anyway, the doctrine editor allows you to establish priorities, right?

[Hook]

Guns were rarely destroyed by counter-battery fire, since this was only used in particular circumstances.

Let me remind that not all losses are destroyed guns.  I keep bringing up Mercer, but it's the only good example that I've seen of an artillery commander who got under some severe counterbattery fire.

When it was over, he had barely enough crew to man 2 of his 6 guns, and the limbers and horses were pretty much destroyed.  The guns were not reported as damaged.  This is still a loss of 4 guns no matter how you count it, and any time a battery comes under effective counterbattery fire this kind of thing is going to happen.  When there are enough losses to a battery in the game, the battery is removed from the map and counted as destroyed.

As for destroying guns, it's virtually impossible given that the guns are such a tiny target.  The crews are a much larger target, and the limbers and horses even larger.   A gun put out of action because the crew are casualties or rendered immobile because the limbers or horses are destroyed is still out of action.

Hook

[Marquês de Alorna]

As for destroying guns, it's virtually impossible given that the guns are such a tiny target.  The crews are a much larger target, and the limbers and horses even larger.   A gun put out of action because the crew are casualties or rendered immobile because the limbers or horses are destroyed is still out of action.

Well, when artillery was used to directly support infantry, it was pulled by hand. It moved slowly, but moved.

[DominiqueT]

This is still a loss of 4 guns no matter how you count it, and any time a battery comes under effective counterbattery fire this kind of thing is going to happen.  When there are enough losses to a battery in the game, the battery is removed from the map and counted as destroyed.
As for destroying guns, it's virtually impossible given that the guns are such a tiny target.  The crews are a much larger target, and the limbers and horses even larger.   A gun put out of action because the crew are casualties or rendered immobile because the limbers or horses are destroyed is still out of action.
Hook

You are right, Hook. Out of action is not the same as destoyed.
But the effect, on the short run, is the same.
But here also, the one who keeps the battleground is at an advantage. Mercer's gun would have been again in action after a few day...

[Hook]

Guns can be moved by prolonge over reasonably flat ground.  I don't think I'd want to try to move them very far, or over hilly terrain, especially 12 pounders.  You can probably find references to crews doing exactly that, however.  The movement rate couldn't have been very fast with larger guns.

I think I'm making a mistake by referring to guns being destroyed.  I can imagine starting with 200 guns and only having 20 effective guns at the end of a battle.  I cannot imagine 180 of those guns being actually destroyed.

I'd have to look it up again, but I think Mercer was able to gather enough horses and spare parts to move in a day or so.  This probably required recruiting some infantry to help, although I don't think Mercer mentions it.

Hook