Artillery Analysis

[aryaman]

A couple of questions
1) How good are mortars bombarding ships?
2) How good is coastal artillery against land units? (as part of the stack of a corps, for instance)

[Jabberwock]

1. Apparently quite good. The ones from Norfolk do pretty well staying in the vicinity of Norfolk, if there is no other need for them. In the real world, they weren't used that way much. The union forces tried lobbing mortar shells at the CSS Arkansas while she was anchored at Vicksburg. They never managed to hit her. If they had, it would have been serious.
2. They're not supposed to be able to attack land units at all, but I haven't run tests with them in a division. They don't have any affect outside of one.

[Jabberwock]

As Gray points out here, there are events which create additional chances of upgrades.

Therefore, my little mod is ineffective. I can either remove those events from that file, or I can change the mod to upgrade from 6lbs to 12lbs. I'd like some input from the people using it.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Dixicrat]

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 and statistics, the usage of 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?

If I don't develop a sense of how I should proceed from response to this post, I'll create a poll and take it from there.

[Dixicrat]

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.

Excellent, Gray! IMHO, you've got it exactly right! Thanks for your dedication and hard work.

Dixicrat

PS Aphrodite Mae is standing behind me while I'm typing this, and wants to "+1" what I just said.

[Dixicrat]

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]

Hi Dixie,

From my point of view all i want to know is the most advantageous set-up
for CSA divisions with our limited resources.

Most of the discussions seem to be going under the hood (so to speak)of
the game and i can"t see Lee saying to his men "right men we are entering a
wooded area so you can leave all your arty at home"....

If the optimum is 4 per Division in most terrain then so be it.

Most of the union Armies i am coming across in my PBEM games have 300+
Arty (they can afford them)so i keep to the woods.

So can you please keep it simple.......and keep up the good work it is much
appreciated.

[aryaman]

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?

As for myself, I am interested in every piece of detail

[Jarkko]

If the optimum is 4 per Division in most terrain then so be it.

The optimum is 4 per division only in very spesific situations. Did some testing during the weekend with corps and armies, altough not quite as extensive as I had hoped for. Anyway, I am pretty certain of the following.

You should aim for having ~40 artillery elements for a battle, as long as you have *at least* 40 infantry elements available.


For example, build up a massive artillery reserve around the *army* commander, and *always* stick him together with a corps with 3 division and with at least 40 infantry elements (sharpshooteres also count for infantry in this, as do marines, sailors etc), so 13-14 infantry elements per divisions. What is massive artillery reserve then? At least 30 artillery elements. Then each divisions should indeed aim for the 4 artillery per division.

Notice however your infantry divisions will not be independently as effective, but you'll have a cost effective army at use. Your (more or less) independent divisions should IMO aim for 7 artillery, 1 cavalry, 1 sharpshooter, 7 infantry, 1 marine/sailor. This will keep them mobile, be able to scout a bit, and able to defend a position vs corps size units using a more "traditional" compostion.

[nilam]

Thanks Jarkko,

I will give it a go once i get some WS to by some arty,i have never bought
Marines before.
I take it even with your set up you wouldnt take on the union in the open
which has 300 plus arty.

If you have had such a Battle i would be interested in seeing the casualty
results.

PS..are you using new patch.

[Jarkko]

Yes, I am playing with 1.12.

300 artillery elements is quite a lot. Especially considering only a fraction of them will be able to fire at any given time. It is what I would term an overkill.

In 1.12 relatively few hits will be distributed. What is more important from the perspective of artillery is that most hits will be soaked up by the meat-shield ("meat-shield" is also known to be called "infantry").

In theory (theory pulled from my ar... errr... hat) : When there are lots and lots and lots of troops present, you would want to have your army commander have 40 artillery elements, and have the infantry divisions with few or none artillery. The army commander will direct the artillery personally, while the hits will be soaked up by the infantry divisions who will rout in turn and be replaced by new infantry divisions valiantly stepping in to take the shrapnel and bullets. The important thing is to not have artillery rout as they are the ones who are the ones dealing the real damage, thus why I would advocate to have the artillery under the direct control of the army commander.


Notice again, I firmly believe, based on my limited testing, that you should have two different type of divisions: The independent division *needs* a heavy artillery contingent, while the Corps division needs much less. In fact, a third type of division (the pure infantry division) might be needed for situations where a *very* strong artillery corps under the direct command of the army commander is supported by massed (200+ elements) of infantry (but notice, I have not tested such fores, this is a pure stetson theory).

[aryaman]

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.

[Dixicrat]

My question has become rather buried in the interesting discussion which followed it, so here it is again.

[lodilefty]

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?

Why, both of course!

Conclusions for 'best use' application in-game.

Details for modders and scenario builders...

[Le Ricain]

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.

Artillery within a division support that division's attack/defence. Artillery with the corps fire at the strongest enemy unit.

[Coregonas]

I must admit only a few ones are interested in any complex / math / rare values... but surely these are waiting for all the stuff.

I believe both are useful for the community...

In my own conclusions, I ve just simplified the question to:

The most elements the best, at the minimum cost posible

So my preferred division could be something like:
$ men WS
10 Rangers cost 50 / 50 / 0
1 Sharpshhoter cost 9 / 6 / 1
6 12 lbs cost 72 / 12 / 18
Total cost 131 $ / 68 consc / 19 WS

Once you could mass 30 of those divisions, then you could go for best troops.

Unfortunately, not enough rangers to build ...

[nilam]

seconded sir..

[Dixicrat]

I've made an astonishing discovery! (At least, its astonishing to me. )

After examining the AACW_DB_Terrains7e file, it appears that the maximum range of engagement for any terrain other than Clear/Prairie/Desert is 4, with the single exception of Woods (range 5). Furthermore, in weather that's anything other than "Fair", the max engagement range is 4 for all terrains... and sometimes even 3!

Thus, the difference in maximum range for all artillery ordnance is inconsequential, except for clear/prairie/desert and naval engagements conducted during "fair" weather.

(Keep in mind that the minimum rated range among all artillery ordnance is 5.)

If I've misinterpreted what I've read in the file, I'd be delighted to be "set straight".

EDIT: There is one exception to the "minimum range of 5" rule, and that's Gatling Guns, which have a max range of "3".

[Awwhegoboom]

An extremely useful thread. Thank you.

Just to revive the topic, does patch 1.12 inlcude the new / proposed changes for the Artillery upgrade path oe is this still within the Historical Accuracy Mod (awaiting the next update patch)?

i.e. for 1.12 do:
6lbrs -> to 10lb parrots, or to 12 lbrs
12 lbrs -> to 20lb parrots or not upgrade at all.

Cheers

[Major Dilemma]

Hey, Dixie, if I got three pounds of snot in a bucket and my mule kicks the bucket what's my assault value?

[Rafiki]

Dunno about the assault value, but I know I'd rate it pretty high on the offensive scale...

[Major Dilemma]

Yes.. that was terribly juvenile of me. I donna know what happened.

[Dixicrat]

Hey, Dixie, if I got three pounds of snot in a bucket and my mule kicks the bucket what's my assault value?

If your mule "kicks the bucket" then it's dead, and the question is moot.

_______________________________________________________________

Anway...
I expect that I'll finally be ready to post "Artillery Analysis 2.0" before Friday, the 16th of January. Thanks, everyone, for your patience up to this point.

AA 2 is an analysis which covers artillery for all nations... even the English, Mexicans and French!

So, as a "teaser": the overall best weapon in the game is...
...French!

Yes, that's right: Artillerie de Siège! (I'll explain in the document. )

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Banks6060]

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.

[Dixicrat]

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.

Your welcome. Thanks for you kind words, Banks!

Maybe we should start a "mutual admiration society". Your AARs are exemplary, and I've enjoyed your thought-provoking responses to many of my posts throughout these forums.

Sometime before the end of the month, I hope to update the OP to reflect changes in both the game and my understanding of its Artillery.

[mikee64]

Artillery within a division support that division's attack/defence. Artillery with the corps fire at the strongest enemy unit.

I've got a question about how this works. I know it has often been repeated, even by Pocus at some point, but I can't seem to verify the details. I noticed in my current PBEM game that embedded Division artillery seemed to have an advantage over Corps level. So I set up some tests:

I started an 1862 campaign game and created a Corps under Longstreet. I placed a Division under Ewell into the Corps. At both the Corps level and inside the Division I placed 2 batteries of Parrotts and attacked Alexandria in clear terrain and fair weather.

The resulting battle log consistently shows all 4 batteries opening fire at range 7, with the batteries inside Ewell's Division firing before the Corps level reserves. All 4 batteries consistently fire at the same target in the same battle round, with the only difference being the Division batteries get a slight to-hit % bonus due to Ewell's added attack rating. This continues to hold true as the range is decreased and the shorter ranged cannon open fire.

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.

Any insight would be appreciated!

thanks.

[77NY]

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.

Supposedly, unattached corps-level artillery will target the strongest element in the enemy group. So if you attacked a garrison with a one- or two-element militia garrison it wouldn't matter, I guess.

I like to use at least one siege arty in my unattached corps-level since it starts at range 8.

[mikee64]

Dixicrat offered to take a look at this, so I'm attaching the battle log here. In this case I attacked in frozen weather to shorten the range to start at 4. What is attached is just the battle report of Longstreet attacking the entire AoP in Alexandria again.

For anyone who is going to look at this: My test units were the James City Art and Hampton Bty, both 20lb Parrotts. The latter is at Corps level and the former is in Ewell's division. In this case both units chose the exact same targets at both range 4 and range 1.

In the meantime different enemy units (in a different Corps) had engaged and inflicted damage on some of the infantry in Ewell's Division (21st Georgia is one example to search for). This apparently did not cause Ewell's arty to return fire at these units, however.

All I have to go on is the log file, but it looks to me like the Corps and Division level assets are using the same targeting logic at all ranges. If you focus just on the units I listed above you can see a small sample of what is going on.

On an unrelated note but pertinent to this thread I guess: I thought that "Artilleryman" was a stack level trait? At least it is according to the tooltip, but in my time away I may have forgotten. Anyway, I've got E. Alexander in the stack with Longstreet, but I don't see his presence reflected in the log. Here is a small excerpt:

"There are 11 SU eligibles to attack at this range (1).
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Picked: CSA J. Longstreet' Corps 1000785 Hampton Bty open fire
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) ... is an army/fleet asset
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Target unit is: United States of America\2nd Corps\1st Division IIC
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Attacker targeting 1001827 52nd, 57th, 64th & 66th New York
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Attacker Hampton Bty health: 8 Cohesion:63
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Defender 52nd, 57th, 64th & 66th New York health: 16 Cohesion:58
3:39:14 PM (Reporting)
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) *** Start of action *** 580
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Attacker belong to a defending group SubType: Artillery Defender belong to a defending group SubType: Regular
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Leader Battle Bonus (attacker): OffFire(%): 120 DefFire(%): 120 Assault(%): 100 TQ Bonus(pts): 0 Prot

Bonus(pts): 0
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Terrain: Clear Weather: Frozen Complete list of values from TEC:
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Hampton Bty (Fire: 100 TQ: 0 )
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) 52nd, 57th, 64th & 66th New York (Prot: 0 TQ: 0 )
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Firer base fire: 16.00
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Firer value with terrain: 16.00
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Hampton Bty - Commander: James Longstreet Cmd Coeff. %: 140
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) 52nd, 57th, 64th & 66th New York - Commander: Edwin Sumner Cmd Coeff. %: 110
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) 52nd, 57th, 64th & 66th New York - Unit Commander: Thomas Meagher Cmd Coeff. %: 103
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Battle effectiveness with leader rating: 130.00%
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Firer value with leader tactical rating: 20.80
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Firer value with leader battle ability: 24.96
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Firer value with TQ correction: 27.46
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Firer value with cohesion: 27.46
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Firer value with Supply Unit presence: 30.21
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Artillery trench bonus, Firer value: 30.21
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Firer value with penalty from losses: 30.21
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Firer final fire value: 30.21
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Receiver base protection: 0.00
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Receiver protection with terrain: 0.00
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Receiver protection with entrenchment: 3.00
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Receiver final Prot value: 3.00
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) ToHitCoeff %: 125 ATK ROE %: 100 DEF ROE %: 100
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Attacker final To Hit (%): 28.00
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Attacker DmgDone: 2 CohDone: 22 AsltDmgDone 3 AsltCohDone: 20
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) Attacker ToHit: 28.00 rolled a 26 scoring a hit Defender remaining Health&Cohesion 14 / 36
3:39:14 PM (Reporting) *** End of action ***"

Any feedback on this one?

Thanks to Dixicrat for offering to look into this.