Gray_Lensman wrote:Current Historical Accuracy MOD work has reworked the 6 lbers to upgrade to 12 lbers instead of 10 lbers. This change has been made to work in both the model upgrades and the specific event upgrades. The 12 lbers no longer upgrade at all, either by model upgrade or by specific event upgrade. This means if you want 10 or 20 pounders, you have to specifically build them and for now there is no upgrade from the 10 lbers to the 20 lbers.
Dixicrat wrote:I've been working diligently to create a PDF document containing my full analysis of AACW artillery. The document is rather technical; It's intended to not only present my theory of AACW artillery and its usage, but also to enable readers to conduct their own analysis, since many of my conclusions are admittedly subjective. The discussion in the document involves a bit of probability, spreadsheets, and one or two references to modding files as a data source.
My wife, Aphrodite Mae, has suggested that it may be that forumites are more interested in the conclusions of my analysis, rather than the method.
I think this is a good point: why wear myself out crafting a lengthy document, if it will only be of interest to a few?
Consequently, it seems like it might be a good idea to get a feel for how the community feels, before I continue. (There's still a lot to be done.) Should I keep working on documenting a presentation of my "artillery theory", or would y'all just as soon prefer that I skip the geeky stuff, and just list my conclusions?
nilam wrote:If the optimum is 4 per Division in most terrain then so be it.
Dixicrat wrote:I've been working diligently to create a PDF document containing my full analysis of AACW artillery. The document is rather technical; It's intended to not only present my theory of AACW artillery and its usage, but also to enable readers to conduct their own analysis, since many of my conclusions are admittedly subjective. The discussion in the document involves a bit of probability, spreadsheets, and one or two references to modding files as a data source.
My wife, Aphrodite Mae, has suggested that it may be that forumites are more interested in the conclusions of my analysis, rather than the method.
I think this is a good point: why wear myself out crafting a lengthy document, if it will only be of interest to a few?
Consequently, it seems like it might be a good idea to get a feel for how the community feels, before I continue. (There's still a lot to be done.) Should I keep working on documenting a presentation of my "artillery theory", or would y'all just as soon prefer that I skip the geeky stuff, and just list my conclusions?
aryaman wrote:Did you notice any difference between having artillery units within a division in a corps or with the corps, out of the division? (a sort of corps artillery reserve). I think there is some advantage to the second distribution but I am not sure.
Major Dilemma wrote:Hey, Dixie, if I got three pounds of snot in a bucket and my mule kicks the bucket what's my assault value?
Banks6060 wrote:Just a note to the OP, Dixicrat. I want to say thanks for your hard work on this. It was very helpful and informative to me. I shall point out a few things about it in my AAR vs. Soundoff.
Great work man.
Le Ricain wrote:Artillery within a division support that division's attack/defence. Artillery with the corps fire at the strongest enemy unit.
mikee64 wrote:So, what am I missing here? I see no target, engagement or to-hit bonus for the Corps level batteries. Perhaps this only comes into play when we get to the assault round of combat? But if so, the cannons should already have done most of their work.
[The extension txt has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]
Return to “AACW Strategy discussions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest