User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

Artillery Divisions

Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:04 pm

Two recent events have caused us to begin rethinking the ideal composition of a division, especially in regards to artillery. The first event was when Pocus stated that the "limit of four" was a myth. (For newcomers: for a long time, the AACW community believed that any artillery in excess of four wasn't used in engagements, and was consequently wasted.) The second event was Jabberwock's presentation of frontage limits, which showed us that there was a lot more room to line 'em up than many of us had supposed.

With the sudden apparent elimination of "artillery limits", the result was that many of us began to consider the idea of Divisions that had lots and lots and lots of artillery: enormously powerful "Doomsday Divisions" that would bring "shock and awe" to any who dared to confront them! :w00t: Even so, early experiments with Artillery Divisions led to surprising failures.

In the following posts, I've attempted to present my understanding of issues and my conclusions in a way that enables you to draw your own conclusions. I'm going to present the pros and cons of maximizing artillery in a division, using a hypothetical "Artillery Divison" consisting of 1 Sharpshooter, 1 Cav element, and 15 Rodmans :thumbsup: as an extreme to be compared to the "Standard" Division of 1 SS + 1 Cav + 4 Arty + 11 Infantry.
[SIZE="3"]Regards,[/size]
Dixicrat

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Basic Training for AACW newcomers

User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

Pros and Cons of Divisional Artillery

Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:05 pm

Here are the pros and cons of Divisional Artillery, as I see them.


The pros:

  1. Artillery has higher hit probabilities
  2. Artillery units have greater range
  3. Artillery inflicts higher cohesion damage
  4. Artillery gives the enemy a lower VP value when destroyed


The cons:

  1. Lower hit capacity
  2. Lower troop quality
  3. Lower evasion values
  4. No police value: cannot take or hold ground
  5. High Maintenance

User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

Discussion of Pros and Cons

Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:06 pm

Pros
Higher hit probabilities
Maybe you already know that for any given single hit, the "hit damage" done by FA (Field Artillery) is the same as is done by a Line of Battle unit. So, an Infantry regiment does exactly the same damage as a 20 lb Parrot, hit for hit. The reason that Artillery seems to do more damage is because it hits more often. Offensive Fire for USA 10 lb Parrot is 19; for USA Infantry, 10. Defensive fire for the USA 10 lb is 22; for the USA Infantry, 16.


Greater range
The maximum range of engagement by Line of Battle units is 4. On the other hand, all artillery elements have a range of 5 or greater. However, the maximum possible range of engagement in the vast majority of engagements is going to be four. The exceptions are clear/prarie/desert terrain, and woods... and even then, only in fair weather. The implication is that Infantry will immediately return fire in most engagements.


Higher cohesion damage
One of the big differences between Artillery and Line units is the amount of cohension damage done. Four or five hits by artillery are enough to reduce any unit's cohesion to virtually nothing, and such units are almost assured of routing. For example, a typical Line Infantry unit inflicts 11 cohesion damage with a hit; but a 10 lb Parrot does 18.


Lower VP when destroyed
Athena just loves to see units destroyed! So much so, that she rewards you with VPs whenever a unit is annihilated. For each Line Infantry unit which you destroy, you receive 4 VPs. But with Artillery units, you only receive 1. Columbiad or 6 lbr, its all the same: you only receive 1 VP for its destruction or capture.


Cons
Lower hit capacity
A Line Infantry unit has a hit capacity of 20. Most FA has a hit capacity of 12. The "standard" division of 11 Inf + 1 SS + 1 Cav + 4 Arty has a hit capacity of 298. A division with 1 SS + 1 Cav + 15 Arty has a hit capacity of 210. Since most hits inflict 2 damage, that means that the standard division can theoretically absorb 44 more strikes. (Of course, units will route long before this threshold is reached. See the next topic.)


Lower TQ
The TQ (or "troop quality") of an element reflects its discipline. From the AACW Manual, pg. 48:


Every hour each sub-unit must check its discipline unless it's intact. If the test fails, the unit becomes shaken and has its rate of fire decreased for the current round.


The TQ of Line Infantry units is generally 8 or 9. For field artillery, the TQ is 7. In other words, there is a 30% chance that an artillery unit which has taken damage is going to be "shaken", each round. For Infantry, that chance is only 20%, and in many cases, only 10%. Since the ROF for most Artillery and Line units is two, firepower is cut in half, when shaken. Three notable exceptions are Union Heavy Cav (ROF 3), Sharpshooters (ROF 3), and Siege Artillery (ROF 1).


Lower Evasion values
Maybe you already know that "evasion" is the factor used in determining whether you can move into an enemy ZOC. From the manual:
You cannot enter a land region if the enemy’s Patrol Value divided by your Evasion Value is greater than your Military Control of the region.
The "Artillery Division" which has 1 SS + 1 Cav + 15 Arty is going to have an evasion value of 7 + 12 + (15*1), or 34, and a patrol value of 3 + 9 + (15*0)... or 12. The "Standard Division" which has 1 SS + 1 Cav + 4 Arty + 11 Infantry is going to have an evasion value of 52, and a patrol value of 3 + 9 + (4*0) + (11*3)... or 45.


Of course, at the divisional level, this tends to be inconsequential. But once you start considering Corp level operations, the differences start to mount up. You can do the math if you want to, or you can take my word for it: the "Artillery Division" is not going to be very good at preventing incursions, and its likelihood of being blocked is greater than a "standard division"... especially so after the SS and Cav are decimated in the first engagement. :)


No police value
Artillery units are support units. Consequently, Artillery cannot take or hold ground. In other words, Artillery has no effect on loyalty or military control. The "Artillery Division" of 1 SS + 1 Cav + 15 Arty has a police value of four. On the other hand, the "Standard Division" of 1 SS + 1 Cav + 4 Arty + 11 Infantry is going to have a police value of 15. Looking further, if we use Pocus's recommendation of 4 Cav per division, then the "Pocus Division" of 1 SS + 4 Cav + 4(?) Arty + 8 Infantry is going to have a police value of 18.

[Edit 28Sep11: I misunderstood Pocus, when I said that he recommended that a Division have 4 Cav. Instead, a stack must have 4 Cav if it has more than 15 elements. If it doesn't, there are penalties to the stack's Hide Bonus, and other penalties as well. Dixicrat]

High Maintenance
The rate of ammo usage in battle for all Artillery (except Gatling guns) is 4, as opposed to 2 for Line units. Thus, the Artillery Division will require 63 ammo per battle; the Standard Division will require 41; and the Pocus Division will require 41, also. I'll leave it to you to calculate the difference in replacement costs. (I'll get you started with a gentle hint: it's rather significant. :D )

[Edit 28Sep11: I want to make it clear that I am not and never have suggested that players attempt to create an actual Artillery Division. My references to a hypothetical Artillery Division are for comparative purposes only!]
[SIZE="3"]Regards,[/size]

Dixicrat



[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



Basic Training for AACW newcomers

User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

Conclusions

Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:06 pm

Conclusions
One of the fundamental maxims of combat operations in any of the world's Armies is "shoot, move, and communicate". In AACW game terms, I think that means "power, mobility, and supply".

By "power", I mean just that: the "power" number that you see on the Division Commander. By "mobility", I mean a gestalt of movement rate, detection, evasion, policing, and blocking. By "supply", I mean both 1) the demand on general and ammunition supply, and 2) the cost of keeping the unit supplied with replacements.

In the fictitious "Artillery Division" I've presented, the power is awesome, but the mobility is weak, and the supply demand is huge. On the other hand, the Pocus Division has good mobility, and a reasonable supply demand.

Hopefully, what I've presented here has given you some "food for thought" in designing your own Divisions. :) Within the next few days, I'll be updating my "Artillery Analysis" spreadsheet and commentary to include Union heavy ordnance, too.
[SIZE="3"]Regards,[/size]

Dixicrat



[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



Basic Training for AACW newcomers

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:16 pm

Very interesting, Dixicrat! :thumbsup:
But, hey! where are the dozens of tests done pitching a normal against an artillery division in combat to see how things fare and the subsequent statistical analysis of the results?? :wacko: ;)

In any case, even if all artillery division resulted in being the optimal setup i could never force myself to use it on game. It woudl completely destroy the historical feeling of the game and as a consequence the interest of the game for me :bonk:

Cheers!

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:20 pm

deleted

User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:07 pm

Good analysis Dixicrat!

However, if you plug in the numbers for an "Independent Division" such as I have been advocating (1 SS, 1 cav, 7-8 inf, 0-1 pontoneer, 7 artillery), you will notice it will get the best of both :) It can enter any areas, it's WEI cost is very affordable and has a decent police value to boot :)

However, if the artillery division is intended for Corps/Army level, then I wonder it's effectiveness compared to artilelry under direct command of the army commander. Artillery attached to a division supports its own attack; if there are no line units, who is the artillery supporting? While artillery attached directly to an army or corps commander fire (as far as I have understood) at the strongest enemy formation; it *is* the strongest formation you want to break first, right?


Personally, based on my testings, I would consider an artillery division (as outlined in the OP) pure madness. Who is the artillery in the division supporting? Who is protecting the artillery? Artillery is the King of Battle, but it needs pawns to protect it :)
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:11 pm

Purely humorous side comment...

Dixicrat vs Jarkko = Cat Fight (almost)... :D



Havely should appreciate the humor here.

User avatar
Eugene Carr
Colonel
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:58 pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:33 pm

verrrry interestink!

Especially the bit about range - given that effective range was often considered to be 100yards or even less are the infantry settings of 3 and 4 too high particularly when they depend on damage rather than disruption.Same for cavalry.

Would increasing the gap between rifled muskets and artillery give the cannons a chance to soften things up before the infantry get to grips?

S! EC

User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:33 pm

I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I am not advocating Divisions consisting primarily of Artillery! The reason that I named the thread as I did was because I've seen a few posts here and there in various threads that have speculated on the inclusion of ten, eleven, even twelve artillery in a Division, and I wanted to present the arguments against such a TO&E without coming right out and saying, "you're wrong, buster!" :D

I didn't want to come right out and say that, because I try to keep my personal opinions out of my analysis. I do this for three reasons:
1) different playing styles naturally involve different approaches to building divisions.
2) I don't think that I have enough experience with the game yet to be offering advice to players in anything other than basic game mechanics, and
3) AACW is such a richly detailed game with so many variables that it just seems too simplistic (IMHO) to have a "one size fits all" approach to building Divisions.

This next bit is a bit off topic, but I want to say it anyway: I think it would be very useful to have an AACW "sandbox" scenario. In the sandbox, a player would have access to all units of a given side, an enormous amount of resources to start with, and absolutely no victory conditions. (OK, so you took Washington DC. Big deal! :D ) The entire map would be available, and you'd start with a "clean slate": no units on the map, at all. No events, none of that stuff. Just a place to assemble and test unit combinations in various terrain and weather conditions.

Back on topic. I'm no "prophet of heavy weapons"; I do my analytical stuff because its fun, and in my opinion, Artillery is the core of any division; thus, its with Artillery that I began my analysis. After I've completed my Artillery analysis, I intend to move on to "Divisional Analysis", using the "modules" of artillery that I've developed.

As I said, I try to avoid presenting my personal opinions in my analysis and instead try to present "facts"... but sometimes, my opinion shows, I suppose. If people have opinions which differ from mine... great! Constructive debate can lead to new insights. And if we can't agree on the fundamentals...? That's cool, too! Let's have a PBEM slugfest, in the sandbox! We can specify a given amount of WEI to be spent for a force in department "x", and then see who's the last man standing... or cannon rolliing, or horse pouncing, or whatever.

'Nuff said!
[SIZE="3"]Regards,[/size]

Dixicrat



[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



Basic Training for AACW newcomers

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:52 pm

A wonderfully interesting thread but to this poor soul (and I know I'm in the minority) whats the point?

Would it that real life could tell us what the optimum division given circumstance X or Y should be. I've yet to see it perfected in Iran, Afganistan, Korea, WW2.. must I go on....so why on earth should it ever be possible in ACW?

I know its not possible but if I could have one wish granted in respect of wargames it would be that variables changed to such an extent that you could not second guess them. Am I the only one genuinely tired of trying to discover the 'optimum' division so as to inflict the most damage on my opponent.....I just want to play the game and enjoy it. I dont want it to be like 'chess' where everything is known to the n'th degree....if I did I'd play chess :coeurs:

With kind thoughts to one and all who have contributed to this debate :thumbsup:

User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:53 pm

Jarkko wrote:...an "Independent Division" such as I have been advocating (1 SS, 1 cav, 7-8 inf, 0-1 pontoneer, 7 artillery)...


My personal preference would be to include more Cav at the expense of Artillery, but that just means we have different playing styles. :)

Jarkko wrote:...Personally, based on my testings, I would consider an artillery division (as outlined in the OP) pure madness....


I agree. Too brittle, too difficult to supply, and so on.

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:56 pm

And before anyone points out the obvious...yes I will ignore this thread..and go on serenely in my own sweet way leaving the rest of you to ponder on the best combination of this or that or the other.

Think I'll get my head down again :thumbsup:

User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: Portugal

Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:06 pm

soundoff wrote:And before anyone points out the obvious...yes I will ignore this thread..and go on serenely in my own sweet way leaving the rest of you to ponder on the best combination of this or that or the other.

Think I'll get my head down again :thumbsup:


+1 ;) :mdr:

User avatar
Daxil
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:55 pm
Location: Somewhere in the Alleghenies

Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:47 pm

Artillery is the King of Battle, but it needs pawns to protect it


Isn't it called the "queen" of the battlefield? Err, nm the Brits called it a queen, the Americans king. Obscure fact of the day!
"We shall give them the bayonet." -Stonewall at Fredericksburg.

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:15 am

Daxil wrote:Isn't it called the "queen" of the battlefield? Err, nm the Brits called it a queen, the Americans king. Obscure fact of the day!



Ah difference is we know when to 'respect' a Lady and artillery needs respect.

Slightly off topic but much the same its rather like our American cousins calling it 'friendly fire'.....so shudderingly inaccurate.....much better that its our 'blue on blue' :(

User avatar
Daxil
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:55 pm
Location: Somewhere in the Alleghenies

Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:45 am

Not to knock it even more off topiuc, but Shaun Connery, is that you? :D
"We shall give them the bayonet." -Stonewall at Fredericksburg.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:51 am

deleted

maqwyn
Conscript
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:14 am

Queen of Battle.

Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:26 am

Queen of Battle has always been the infantry. From an old light infantryman.
Maqwyn
Invested all my money in wine women and fast horses, then just wasted the rest.

"It is a good thing war is so terrible or we should love it too much" Master Robert E Lee.

I also play as Murat.

Return to “AACW Strategy discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests