Whats the point in building light artillery if you have the resources for the 20 lbsomethings.
And what is a Rodman artillery (from the strenght it is better than the 20's)?
Should I have Siege artillery only if I am in a hurry to get breaches in a siege?
Also, Horse artillery, light artillery that can keep up with Cavalry?
"Should I have Siege artillery only if I am in a hurry to get breaches in a siege?"
This raises a very good point. I can see no reason to buy siege artillery at the moment as it would be cheaper and more effective to buy more lighter artillery. I think siege artillery should get an extra bonus in sieges
(in order to do this and not unbalance the game it may be necessary to reduce the impact of regular artillery in a siege?)
In fact maybe all artillery should get a bonus for siege dependent on calibre.
Chris
This raises a very good point. I can see no reason to buy siege artillery at the moment as it would be cheaper and more effective to buy more lighter artillery. I think siege artillery should get an extra bonus in sieges
(in order to do this and not unbalance the game it may be necessary to reduce the impact of regular artillery in a siege?)
In fact maybe all artillery should get a bonus for siege dependent on calibre.
Chris
Hobbes wrote:"Should I have Siege artillery only if I am in a hurry to get breaches in a siege?"
This raises a very good point. I can see no reason to buy siege artillery at the moment as it would be cheaper and more effective to buy more lighter artillery. I think siege artillery should get an extra bonus in sieges
(in order to do this and not unbalance the game it may be necessary to reduce the impact of regular artillery in a siege?)
In fact maybe all artillery should get a bonus for siege dependent on calibre.
Chris
I wish I'd known that about seige artillery. I've bought a bunch of them.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Actually, calibur didn't matter, what did, was rifling.
Reading up on what happened to the pre-war fortifications, and gunnery warfare during the 'static' phases of the war, the use of Rifled weaponry proved to be decisive over that of smoothbore.
Older fortifications were equipped with heavy smoothbore weaponry, which were powerful, when in range. What ended up happening with most fortifications, was that rifled weaponry (even if they were drastically smaller guns) and mortors were used effectively to demolish these pre-war fortifications. They were precise enough to target specific points on a fort to weaken it from range beyond those of the defending, heavier, guns of the fort.
Smoothbore guns were still used in the field (1861-1863) because of the nature of warfare being more fluid, but, when it became static, the 6-lb and 12-lb smoothbores showed that they were not as useful as the 10-lb and 20-lb rifleds.
Beyond the actual statistics are some hidden values. Range, and accuracy are somewhat contained in the 'value' of a gun, but, the ability of certain guns to fire at longer range is extremely important in battle (when battle begins at greater ranges, guns with longer range engage in battle sooner, start inflicting casualties before shorter ranged weaponry).
The 'best' gun is probably the 20-lb Parrott, as its range is superior to all other medium guns, but its cost is not prohibative. Also, since you are buying Medium Artillery replacements (same as 10-lb and 12-lb replacements) you are paying less to repair damage than a Rodman or Columbiad.
The next most valuable weapon is the 12-lb. It costs less than the 10-lb, and is better in virtually all respects.
Buy 6-lb guns if you are planning to create a fortification (they are the cheapest weapons, and it doesn't matter what guns you use to make a fort).
However, these are purely based on 'what is best'. If you want to play historic, do the following.
Union:
45% of your field guns are 12-lb
45% of your field guns are 10-lb
10% of your guns are 20-lb, mortars and Rodmans (rarely used in field battles, but mainly for seige)
Confederate:
20% of your field guns are 6-lb
40% of your field guns are 10-lb
30% of your field guns are 12-lb
10% of your guns are 20-lb, mortars and columbiads (as Federals, rarely used in field battles)
Reading up on what happened to the pre-war fortifications, and gunnery warfare during the 'static' phases of the war, the use of Rifled weaponry proved to be decisive over that of smoothbore.
Older fortifications were equipped with heavy smoothbore weaponry, which were powerful, when in range. What ended up happening with most fortifications, was that rifled weaponry (even if they were drastically smaller guns) and mortors were used effectively to demolish these pre-war fortifications. They were precise enough to target specific points on a fort to weaken it from range beyond those of the defending, heavier, guns of the fort.
Smoothbore guns were still used in the field (1861-1863) because of the nature of warfare being more fluid, but, when it became static, the 6-lb and 12-lb smoothbores showed that they were not as useful as the 10-lb and 20-lb rifleds.
Beyond the actual statistics are some hidden values. Range, and accuracy are somewhat contained in the 'value' of a gun, but, the ability of certain guns to fire at longer range is extremely important in battle (when battle begins at greater ranges, guns with longer range engage in battle sooner, start inflicting casualties before shorter ranged weaponry).
The 'best' gun is probably the 20-lb Parrott, as its range is superior to all other medium guns, but its cost is not prohibative. Also, since you are buying Medium Artillery replacements (same as 10-lb and 12-lb replacements) you are paying less to repair damage than a Rodman or Columbiad.
The next most valuable weapon is the 12-lb. It costs less than the 10-lb, and is better in virtually all respects.
Buy 6-lb guns if you are planning to create a fortification (they are the cheapest weapons, and it doesn't matter what guns you use to make a fort).
However, these are purely based on 'what is best'. If you want to play historic, do the following.
Union:
45% of your field guns are 12-lb
45% of your field guns are 10-lb
10% of your guns are 20-lb, mortars and Rodmans (rarely used in field battles, but mainly for seige)
Confederate:
20% of your field guns are 6-lb
40% of your field guns are 10-lb
30% of your field guns are 12-lb
10% of your guns are 20-lb, mortars and columbiads (as Federals, rarely used in field battles)
Very interesting post McNaughton. I hope Pocus gets to read it.
"Buy 6-lb guns if you are planning to create a fortification (they are the cheapest weapons, and it doesn't matter what guns you use to make a fort)."
Another interesting point. It might be best if only supply wagons were needed to create forts and if no artillery were present in the fort no damage would be done to a besieger.
Chris
"Buy 6-lb guns if you are planning to create a fortification (they are the cheapest weapons, and it doesn't matter what guns you use to make a fort)."
Another interesting point. It might be best if only supply wagons were needed to create forts and if no artillery were present in the fort no damage would be done to a besieger.
Chris
-
mikee64
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:13 am
- Location: Virginia
- Contact: Website
McNaughton wrote:Also, since you are buying Medium Artillery replacements (same as 10-lb and 12-lb replacements) you are paying less to repair damage than a Rodman or Columbiad.
Do Rodmans and Columbiads really suck up heavy artillery replacements? I assumed that only the units listed under the "Heavy Artillery" filter of the "F1" screen did so. The icons of these units and the info screen don't indicate they take different replacements. (I know some of them that are purchased, especially the Rodmans, come with "Hvy Art" in the unit name, but some 20 lb Parrots are named like this as well.)
If this is true I didn't know about it, and it will certainly inhibit the purchase of Columbiads as the south as those heavy arty replacements are $expensive$.
I will buy 6 pounders as the south to garrison important cities so the entrenchment level increases for larger artillery forces that may need to defend there later. The cost difference is not much but sometimes every little bit can help. Using them for forts also makes sense.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
While reading further up on Heavy Artillery, I have noticed a few things.
#1. Columbiads and Rodmans:
These guns were basically the classificaiton of most of the large calibur weaponry used in seige and fortification warfare. You could have a 24-lb Columbiad, ranging up to a 15" Columbiad, whose roles were interchangable between seige and fortress. Their primary heavy use in the Civil War was because they made up the bulk of pre-war artillery in fortresses and military storage. Rodmans were a new way in forging Columbiads, which made for more robust guns.
#2. Rifled Seige Weaponry:
Columbiads and Rodmans (the good pre-war ones) were able to be rifled, which increased their range and accuracy at lower elevations (making them more useful weapons). Also, wartime heavy designs such as Parrots (10" Parrots to the 20-lb Parrots) resulted in a focus on accuracy and range. Their use superseeded the Smootbore pre-war heavy guns, making attacks on pre-war coastal fortifications possible (and very successful).
#3. Mortors:
Ranging up to 13" Mortors, with some smaller weaponry (used for anti-infantry), these weapons were almost exclusively for seige warfare (due to the length of time it takes to set up, and the inflexibility of its mount). They were very useful in attacking static fotification, they had great range, and put their shell behind the walls.
Here's what ACW has in regards to Heavy Artillery
A. Rodman (USA)
B. Columbiad (CSA)
C. Coastal Artillery (CSA and USA)
D. Seige Artillery (CSA and USA)
E. Fortress Guns (CSA and USA)
A & B - Columbiads and Rodmans
Rated in ACW as Medium Artillery, these weapons have the same range as the 20-lb parrott rifle, yet inflict the same amount of damage (more cohesion damage done for Columbiads and Rodmans). The only real difference between the Rodman and Columbiad, is the Rodman is more accurate. Their speed move is the same as all other medium artillery (a Rodman moves at the same speed as the 10-lb parrott).
C - Coastal Artillery
Ranges are shorter than the Rodman, equal to the Columbiad, but damage done is significantly greater (almost 2x the physical damage done). Their initiative is lower, but range is greater than the Rodman/Columbiad. Their speed is half as much as a Columbiad/Rodman.
D - Seige Weaponry
Range is greater than Columbiads/Rodmans, but less than Coastal Artillery. It does the second greatest amount of damage, second only to the Coastal Artillery. Movement is somewhere between that of the Columbiad/Rodman and the Coastal Artillery (slow, yet not prohibitively slow).
E - Fortress Batteries
IMO, these represent medium field artillery positioned in the fortress to repel an attack from the landward part of the fortress. I believe these to be more of an improvised positioning of field guns in fortresses (since their statistics roughly match those of the 10-lb and 12-lb field guns).
This system does work, as each role is represented, but, I think that some thigns are covered twice, and some weaponry is too mobile.
#1. Columbiads and Rodmans:
These guns were basically the classificaiton of most of the large calibur weaponry used in seige and fortification warfare. You could have a 24-lb Columbiad, ranging up to a 15" Columbiad, whose roles were interchangable between seige and fortress. Their primary heavy use in the Civil War was because they made up the bulk of pre-war artillery in fortresses and military storage. Rodmans were a new way in forging Columbiads, which made for more robust guns.
#2. Rifled Seige Weaponry:
Columbiads and Rodmans (the good pre-war ones) were able to be rifled, which increased their range and accuracy at lower elevations (making them more useful weapons). Also, wartime heavy designs such as Parrots (10" Parrots to the 20-lb Parrots) resulted in a focus on accuracy and range. Their use superseeded the Smootbore pre-war heavy guns, making attacks on pre-war coastal fortifications possible (and very successful).
#3. Mortors:
Ranging up to 13" Mortors, with some smaller weaponry (used for anti-infantry), these weapons were almost exclusively for seige warfare (due to the length of time it takes to set up, and the inflexibility of its mount). They were very useful in attacking static fotification, they had great range, and put their shell behind the walls.
Here's what ACW has in regards to Heavy Artillery
A. Rodman (USA)
B. Columbiad (CSA)
C. Coastal Artillery (CSA and USA)
D. Seige Artillery (CSA and USA)
E. Fortress Guns (CSA and USA)
A & B - Columbiads and Rodmans
Rated in ACW as Medium Artillery, these weapons have the same range as the 20-lb parrott rifle, yet inflict the same amount of damage (more cohesion damage done for Columbiads and Rodmans). The only real difference between the Rodman and Columbiad, is the Rodman is more accurate. Their speed move is the same as all other medium artillery (a Rodman moves at the same speed as the 10-lb parrott).
C - Coastal Artillery
Ranges are shorter than the Rodman, equal to the Columbiad, but damage done is significantly greater (almost 2x the physical damage done). Their initiative is lower, but range is greater than the Rodman/Columbiad. Their speed is half as much as a Columbiad/Rodman.
D - Seige Weaponry
Range is greater than Columbiads/Rodmans, but less than Coastal Artillery. It does the second greatest amount of damage, second only to the Coastal Artillery. Movement is somewhere between that of the Columbiad/Rodman and the Coastal Artillery (slow, yet not prohibitively slow).
E - Fortress Batteries
IMO, these represent medium field artillery positioned in the fortress to repel an attack from the landward part of the fortress. I believe these to be more of an improvised positioning of field guns in fortresses (since their statistics roughly match those of the 10-lb and 12-lb field guns).
This system does work, as each role is represented, but, I think that some thigns are covered twice, and some weaponry is too mobile.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
mikee64 wrote:Do Rodmans and Columbiads really suck up heavy artillery replacements? I assumed that only the units listed under the "Heavy Artillery" filter of the "F1" screen did so. The icons of these units and the info screen don't indicate they take different replacements. (I know some of them that are purchased, especially the Rodmans, come with "Hvy Art" in the unit name, but some 20 lb Parrots are named like this as well.)
If this is true I didn't know about it, and it will certainly inhibit the purchase of Columbiads as the south as those heavy arty replacements are $expensive$.
I will buy 6 pounders as the south to garrison important cities so the entrenchment level increases for larger artillery forces that may need to defend there later. The cost difference is not much but sometimes every little bit can help. Using them for forts also makes sense.
Nope, an error on my part. They actually use medium artillery replacements, so they are probably better to buy than 20-lb based on the biggest bang for the least 'cost'. Their range is better, speed is the same, and firepower equal to those of the 20-lb. There isn't much of a better field gun, albiet, cost may be annoying.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Even though the ACW system works, and covers all areas, I think that a little more specialization to represent the historic use and limitations of these weapons might result in players actually making choices, instead of just buying the 'best' gun (as currently there are now good guns, and poor guns).
Coastal Artillery was primarily made up of Columbiads and Rodmans. These weapons were the same guns used in heavy seige batteries as well. No weapon was purely designed for Coastal or Land combat, and often were interchanged from placement to placement (if possible to remove the guns).
The largest guns used in 'field battles' were the 20-lb Parrott Rifles. Even here, they were at the very edge of effectiveness, as they were sometimes too heavy to be quickly positioned in the highly mobile warfare of battles from 1861-1863. All other heavier weaponry were useful primarily for coastal defense, seige warfare, and fortress defense.
A. 32-lb Columbiads/Rodmans
I would merge the Rodmans/Columbiads to the Coastal Artillery weaponry, keeping the range and accuracy of the Rodmans/Columbiads but the firepower, cost and movement speed of the Coastal Artillery. All pre-war fortresses will have Columbiad/Rodman batteries in place of their Coastal Artillery unit (since, realistically, coastal artillery were Rodman and Columbiad guns). I would also place them under the Heavy Artillery category. These were the most common and numerous weapons in fortresses and heavy smoothbore seige weaponry (of all of the captured heavy artillery, the CSA captured well over 400 32-lb guns in forts and arsenals). The larger 8-10" guns were in such small numbers, and so specialized as to be out of the scope of the game.
B. Rifled Heavy Guns (30-lb Parrot Rifles)
Next, I would create (in the place of the Rodman/Columbiad model) a Rifled version of Heavy Artillery. Having the same movement and firepower as the new Columbiad/Rodman, their range, cost and accuracy would be greater. One thing noted by seiges of pre-war Confederate fortresses, was that if the defenders had numbers of Rifled heavy guns, the seige would have gone differently. Like their unrifled relatives, these would be heavy artillery. The 30-lb were the most common of the heavy seige artillery out there, and the most useful (more mobile than the 6.4 - 15" heavier counterparts).
C. Seige Artillery
I would change the seige weaponry unit into Seige Artillery (representing 6.4-15 inch Rodmans/Columbiads/Parrots/Mortors). If possible (don't know if this would work!) add the Ability "Besieger" to the unit, which "Provides a one point siege bonus to the whole stack when attacking forts." This may make the weapon worth while, and to compensate, representing the guns virtual uselessness in field combat, savage it's combat stats (make any damage it does to units in field combat neglegable, useful only for breeching fortifications). I would also slow it down significantly (matching 32-lb Columbiads/Rodmans) representing the specialized transport, good roads needed for moving the unit, and time it takes to deploy represented by even lowered initiative.
D. 24-lb Columbiad/Rodmans
Lastly I would change the 'fortress batteries' unit into a lighter version of the Columbiad/Rodman guns. 24-lb Rodman/Columbiads were used in 'flank batteries' around fortresses in case infantry closed range. They were some of the lightest guns 'officially' emplaced in pre-war fortifications. I would make statistics of these guns similar to the 20-lb Parrott, but with a reduced range (matching close to the 6-lb) and accuracy. These would be Medium Artillery.
--SUMMARY--
So, in the end, the line between heavy and coastal artillery has been removed, but, it also limits the use of heavy artillery to relatively static positions as they historically were used (instead of easily fielding Rodmans and Columbiads in your field armies, as they used medium artillery replacements, and had no speed penalties).
Also, it represents the handicap of older artillery, using smoothbore guns, which had range deficiency comparted to new rifled weapons with the creation of the 200-lb Parrot weapon.
It then makes the Seige Mortor a useful seige weapon, without making it too attractive for use in a field battle (slashing its stats, but giving it the besieger trait). Its heavy cost, and specialized use should make the gun prohibative enough that it would be fielded.
On top of a revision of medium/field artillery (making range and accuracy more distinct for rifled guns, making the 10-lb actually a good purchase) so you buy artillery not because it is the best of the best, but because they are all useful in their own way.
Buy 6-lb in order to get artillery cheaply. Buy 12-lb to get a good punch in battle at a relatively affordable cost. Buy the 10-lb because its range is valuable inflicting casualties for a longer period of time than the 12-lb. Buy the 20-lb because you have the cash to burn to get the top of the line weapon.
Coastal Artillery was primarily made up of Columbiads and Rodmans. These weapons were the same guns used in heavy seige batteries as well. No weapon was purely designed for Coastal or Land combat, and often were interchanged from placement to placement (if possible to remove the guns).
The largest guns used in 'field battles' were the 20-lb Parrott Rifles. Even here, they were at the very edge of effectiveness, as they were sometimes too heavy to be quickly positioned in the highly mobile warfare of battles from 1861-1863. All other heavier weaponry were useful primarily for coastal defense, seige warfare, and fortress defense.
A. 32-lb Columbiads/Rodmans
I would merge the Rodmans/Columbiads to the Coastal Artillery weaponry, keeping the range and accuracy of the Rodmans/Columbiads but the firepower, cost and movement speed of the Coastal Artillery. All pre-war fortresses will have Columbiad/Rodman batteries in place of their Coastal Artillery unit (since, realistically, coastal artillery were Rodman and Columbiad guns). I would also place them under the Heavy Artillery category. These were the most common and numerous weapons in fortresses and heavy smoothbore seige weaponry (of all of the captured heavy artillery, the CSA captured well over 400 32-lb guns in forts and arsenals). The larger 8-10" guns were in such small numbers, and so specialized as to be out of the scope of the game.
B. Rifled Heavy Guns (30-lb Parrot Rifles)
Next, I would create (in the place of the Rodman/Columbiad model) a Rifled version of Heavy Artillery. Having the same movement and firepower as the new Columbiad/Rodman, their range, cost and accuracy would be greater. One thing noted by seiges of pre-war Confederate fortresses, was that if the defenders had numbers of Rifled heavy guns, the seige would have gone differently. Like their unrifled relatives, these would be heavy artillery. The 30-lb were the most common of the heavy seige artillery out there, and the most useful (more mobile than the 6.4 - 15" heavier counterparts).
C. Seige Artillery
I would change the seige weaponry unit into Seige Artillery (representing 6.4-15 inch Rodmans/Columbiads/Parrots/Mortors). If possible (don't know if this would work!) add the Ability "Besieger" to the unit, which "Provides a one point siege bonus to the whole stack when attacking forts." This may make the weapon worth while, and to compensate, representing the guns virtual uselessness in field combat, savage it's combat stats (make any damage it does to units in field combat neglegable, useful only for breeching fortifications). I would also slow it down significantly (matching 32-lb Columbiads/Rodmans) representing the specialized transport, good roads needed for moving the unit, and time it takes to deploy represented by even lowered initiative.
D. 24-lb Columbiad/Rodmans
Lastly I would change the 'fortress batteries' unit into a lighter version of the Columbiad/Rodman guns. 24-lb Rodman/Columbiads were used in 'flank batteries' around fortresses in case infantry closed range. They were some of the lightest guns 'officially' emplaced in pre-war fortifications. I would make statistics of these guns similar to the 20-lb Parrott, but with a reduced range (matching close to the 6-lb) and accuracy. These would be Medium Artillery.
--SUMMARY--
So, in the end, the line between heavy and coastal artillery has been removed, but, it also limits the use of heavy artillery to relatively static positions as they historically were used (instead of easily fielding Rodmans and Columbiads in your field armies, as they used medium artillery replacements, and had no speed penalties).
Also, it represents the handicap of older artillery, using smoothbore guns, which had range deficiency comparted to new rifled weapons with the creation of the 200-lb Parrot weapon.
It then makes the Seige Mortor a useful seige weapon, without making it too attractive for use in a field battle (slashing its stats, but giving it the besieger trait). Its heavy cost, and specialized use should make the gun prohibative enough that it would be fielded.
On top of a revision of medium/field artillery (making range and accuracy more distinct for rifled guns, making the 10-lb actually a good purchase) so you buy artillery not because it is the best of the best, but because they are all useful in their own way.
Buy 6-lb in order to get artillery cheaply. Buy 12-lb to get a good punch in battle at a relatively affordable cost. Buy the 10-lb because its range is valuable inflicting casualties for a longer period of time than the 12-lb. Buy the 20-lb because you have the cash to burn to get the top of the line weapon.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Grotius wrote:So is it worth it for the Union to buy Siege Artillery for sieges? It's expensive and it takes longer to come online.
Only get seige artillery if you are looking for a strong punch. If you are going to be seiging a powerful fort, buy seige artillery as its actual combat stats are second only to coastal artillery. However, if you just are going to seige a city into submission (without assaulting) any artillery will do (in fact, 6-lb does just as good of a job as a Rodman).
For 1 unit of siege artillery you could get 4 of light artillery and the 4 light artillery units would pack twice as much punch in a siege. So I can see absolutely no point in investing in siege artillery. If this is the case there is a good chance that Pocus will change it - so Caesar your investment may be worthwhile after the next patch 
However maybe siege artillery was a bad investment in the ACW - if so the game is just reflecting this.
Chris
P.S. having had a few beers I'm thinking some unusual thoughts. I went to an airshow yesterday and there is no denying the morale impact that the sound of a Eurofighter or an F-16 would have on an opponent - also the positive boost it would have on friendly troops. The same would be true for a main battle tank. Maybe heavy siege artillery should have a similar effect and reduce the morale (discipline) of the besieged force?
However maybe siege artillery was a bad investment in the ACW - if so the game is just reflecting this.
Chris
P.S. having had a few beers I'm thinking some unusual thoughts. I went to an airshow yesterday and there is no denying the morale impact that the sound of a Eurofighter or an F-16 would have on an opponent - also the positive boost it would have on friendly troops. The same would be true for a main battle tank. Maybe heavy siege artillery should have a similar effect and reduce the morale (discipline) of the besieged force?
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Hobbes wrote:For 1 unit of siege artillery you could get 4 of light artillery and the 4 light artillery units would pack twice as much punch in a siege. So I can see absolutely no point in investing in siege artillery. If this is the case there is a good chance that Pocus will change it - so Caesar your investment may be worthwhile after the next patch
However maybe siege artillery was a bad investment in the ACW - if so the game is just reflecting this.
Chris
P.S. having had a few beers I'm thinking some unusual thoughts. I went to an airshow yesterday and there is no denying the morale impact that the sound of a Eurofighter or an F-16 would have on an opponent - also the positive boost it would have on friendly troops. The same would be true for a main battle tank. Maybe heavy siege artillery should have a similar effect and reduce the morale (Discipline) of the besieged force?
It is true about seige artillery, the 'bangs' proved to be a very strong psychological effect on those recieving the firepower. However, it is odd enough to note that the Columbiad/Rodman have the greatest effect on enemy morale than any other weapon (at 20 cohesion damage, the next highest is 15), making these guns, hands down, the individually best weapons in the game.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Hobbes has a good idea for siege artillery. The size and power of the guns were a morale boost for those using them, and the troops often gave them names, such as "the dictator" at Petersburg and "whistling dick" at Charleston. Evidence for the morale effects on those on the receiving end is hard to come by, but the whistle of incoming shells was something new to warfare.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Levis wrote:Hobbes has a good idea for siege artillery. The size and power of the guns were a morale boost for those using them, and the troops often gave them names, such as "the dictator" at Petersburg and "whistling dick" at Charleston. Evidence for the morale effects on those on the receiving end is hard to come by, but the whistle of incoming shells was something new to warfare.
It is good, in certain situations, but, having them as a part of your force in the field was a liability (easy to capture, hard to actually target a moving enemy force, etc.). A morale bonus may serve to have the AI and player deploy these guns in various forces never meant to siege an enemy fortress, just to attain this morale bonus (maybe the morale payoff is greater than the speed loss?).
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
I did alright during exams, but found essays to be worth more in the end.
Nothing to fix, baring a major reworking of all artillery classes with McNaughton guidelines 
Siege artillery are good at siege, because you get a +1 siege bonus for 30 pts of firepower, so here size of gun count
Siege artillery are good at siege, because you get a +1 siege bonus for 30 pts of firepower, so here size of gun count
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Pocus wrote:Nothing to fix, baring a major reworking of all artillery classes with McNaughton guidelines
Siege artillery are good at siege, because you get a +1 siege bonus for 30 pts of firepower, so here size of gun count
Yes it counts but costs twice as much to get the same bonus as 6lb.
Cheers, Chris
American guns were classified by weight of shot (12-pounder, 20-pounder) for guns firing solid shot and by diameter of bore (6.4", 8") for guns firing explosive shell (usually rifled cannon but not always - Dahlgren smoothbores, for example). Guns able to fire both were usually designated by their most-commonly-used projectile, but some were named interchangeably (32-pounder and 6.4" could be the same gun; 64-pounder and 8" could be the same gun). Rifled guns are almost always referred to by size of bore (7" Blakely) - rifles 'could' fire solid shot but were intended to be shell guns.
Before the Civil War, major fortifications were made of brick or stone. These were resistant to the large artillery of the day (32-pounder naval gun would be considered very heavy artillery, usually mounted only on a ship-of-the-line). These guns had limited range and power because they had weak metal (compared to later designs) and because the cannon-balls didn't fit the bore very well. Short range, low hitting power and inaccurate aim made it almost impossible to repeatedly hit a small area of a ship or a brick or stone fort. The doctrine of the day tended toward a large number of smaller guns that would produce a smothering fire. This gradually gave way to the idea of fewer, larger, more powerful and more accurate guns that delivered fewer but more powerful shells, hopefully pounding the enemy from beyond the range at which he could reply.
Then science invaded gun design. Men like Rodman, Dahlgren, Parrott, Whitworth and Armstrong revolutionized gun design. Better gunpowder (larger grain and more uniform quality) was needed for bigger guns with thicker walls (better metal, casting and wall design). Paixhans (and others) made explosive shell work reliably. Suddenly - within about twenty years - you had relatively cheap, strong, accurate guns with long range, high penetrating power and fairly fast reloading times. As a Fort Pulaski (Savannah, GA) a small number of rifled guns, placed beyond the range of the fort's big smoothbores, could accurately throw explosive shells into the same small area over and over and over again. Where solid shot would stick in the brick like a raisin in a pudding, explosive shell would bore in and then explode, producing an avalanche of broken brick. Within a short time one corner of the fort was breached and the Union was lobbing shells into the magazine on the opposite side, forcing the fort to surrender.
The 'cure' for explosive shell turned out to be entrenchments and dirt. Digging into the ground and piling dirt in front of vulnerable brick or stone were effective and easy ways to reduce the effects of explosive shell. After the loss of Fort Pulaski (and the closure of Savannah to blockade runners), Robert E Lee withdrew all Confederate forces from the coastline except at the major cities and developed the defense-in-depth system used to the end of the war. Why? Because naval forces (or a small army force as at Pulaski) could overwhelm any isolated fort, and only major cities like Charleston could be defended by a mutually-supporting network of forts.
The effect of ordinance on fortifications varied, but silencing (or destroying) a fort by firepower was easier in the early days of the war when guns were powerful, explosive shell was new and forts were improvised or old-style brick and mortar. By the middle of the war you could not reduce large fortified places without a siege (Vicksburg) or an immense amount of firepower coupled with an assault (Fort Fisher). Using the big frigates with 8" and 9" Dahlgrens, or the river ironclads with their 42-pounder and 8" Dahlgrens, became impossible because the Confederates pulled inland out of range and relied on 'snipe-and-run' tactics, holding major cities with the big forts.
The last lethal blow against the old-style large fortifications was the widespread use of steam propulsion. For the first time a fleet could simply bypass forts if necessary. At New Orleans, Mobile, Vicksburg and elsewhere an old truism was re-learned: forts can buy time for a counterstroke but cannot, alone, stop a determined enemy.
Before the Civil War, major fortifications were made of brick or stone. These were resistant to the large artillery of the day (32-pounder naval gun would be considered very heavy artillery, usually mounted only on a ship-of-the-line). These guns had limited range and power because they had weak metal (compared to later designs) and because the cannon-balls didn't fit the bore very well. Short range, low hitting power and inaccurate aim made it almost impossible to repeatedly hit a small area of a ship or a brick or stone fort. The doctrine of the day tended toward a large number of smaller guns that would produce a smothering fire. This gradually gave way to the idea of fewer, larger, more powerful and more accurate guns that delivered fewer but more powerful shells, hopefully pounding the enemy from beyond the range at which he could reply.
Then science invaded gun design. Men like Rodman, Dahlgren, Parrott, Whitworth and Armstrong revolutionized gun design. Better gunpowder (larger grain and more uniform quality) was needed for bigger guns with thicker walls (better metal, casting and wall design). Paixhans (and others) made explosive shell work reliably. Suddenly - within about twenty years - you had relatively cheap, strong, accurate guns with long range, high penetrating power and fairly fast reloading times. As a Fort Pulaski (Savannah, GA) a small number of rifled guns, placed beyond the range of the fort's big smoothbores, could accurately throw explosive shells into the same small area over and over and over again. Where solid shot would stick in the brick like a raisin in a pudding, explosive shell would bore in and then explode, producing an avalanche of broken brick. Within a short time one corner of the fort was breached and the Union was lobbing shells into the magazine on the opposite side, forcing the fort to surrender.
The 'cure' for explosive shell turned out to be entrenchments and dirt. Digging into the ground and piling dirt in front of vulnerable brick or stone were effective and easy ways to reduce the effects of explosive shell. After the loss of Fort Pulaski (and the closure of Savannah to blockade runners), Robert E Lee withdrew all Confederate forces from the coastline except at the major cities and developed the defense-in-depth system used to the end of the war. Why? Because naval forces (or a small army force as at Pulaski) could overwhelm any isolated fort, and only major cities like Charleston could be defended by a mutually-supporting network of forts.
The effect of ordinance on fortifications varied, but silencing (or destroying) a fort by firepower was easier in the early days of the war when guns were powerful, explosive shell was new and forts were improvised or old-style brick and mortar. By the middle of the war you could not reduce large fortified places without a siege (Vicksburg) or an immense amount of firepower coupled with an assault (Fort Fisher). Using the big frigates with 8" and 9" Dahlgrens, or the river ironclads with their 42-pounder and 8" Dahlgrens, became impossible because the Confederates pulled inland out of range and relied on 'snipe-and-run' tactics, holding major cities with the big forts.
The last lethal blow against the old-style large fortifications was the widespread use of steam propulsion. For the first time a fleet could simply bypass forts if necessary. At New Orleans, Mobile, Vicksburg and elsewhere an old truism was re-learned: forts can buy time for a counterstroke but cannot, alone, stop a determined enemy.
Hobbes wrote:Yes it counts but costs twice as much to get the same bonus as 6lb.
Cheers, Chris
Just a newbie question please ?
A siege gun fills one slot in a Division, the six pounders you need to equal it fill 4 slots. Unless you have several Divisions, and/or a General that can command many units within his division, it seems you will be short of Infantry if you fill up on 6 pounders ?
Most of the time, you never lack the generals to make a division. don't worry about command points when 18 elements is just 4. Of course, you could argue that you can have 17 Heavy art vs. 4 divisions of light Art, but if you can afford that many art, you shouldn't worry too much about command points. Just go forth and kill...
I would change the seige weaponry unit into Seige Artillery (representing 6.4-15 inch Rodmans/Columbiads/Parrots/Mortors). If possible (don't know if this would work!) add the Ability "Besieger" to the unit, which "Provides a one point siege bonus to the whole stack when attacking forts." This may make the weapon worth while, and to compensate, representing the guns virtual uselessness in field combat, savage it's combat stats (make any damage it does to units in field combat neglegable, useful only for breeching fortifications). I would also slow it down significantly (matching 32-lb Columbiads/Rodmans) representing the specialized transport, good roads needed for moving the unit, and time it takes to deploy represented by even lowered initiative.
I tried making the skirmisher ability a group ability and then gave it to Indian tribes. However I don't believe it actually worked as I didn't see the skirmisher ability listed in the battle screen summary during battles with those Indian tribes. However some abilities such as transports and pontoons definitely work when given to units. If the skirmisher ability is working with units, it isn't showing in the battle screen summary.
Nothing to fix, baring a major reworking of all artillery classes with McNaughton guidelines
It would be nice!!!!
I tried making the skirmisher ability a group ability and then gave it to Indian tribes. However I don't believe it actually worked as I didn't see the skirmisher ability listed in the battle screen summary during battles with those Indian tribes. However some abilities such as transports and pontoons definitely work when given to units. If the skirmisher ability is working with units, it isn't showing in the battle screen summary.
Nothing to fix, baring a major reworking of all artillery classes with McNaughton guidelines
It would be nice!!!!
-
Uncle Billy
- Private
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:46 pm
One thing related with artillery that I was curious about is if it´s accurate to be able to build art. in almost any state (at least with the Union, haven´t played the CSA yet)
Siege art. and other really heavy pieces seem to be restricted to the norh east, but almost any other piece can be spawn almost anywhere, even in contested border states.
Is this historicaly accurate or a small simplification?
PD: and one question, is it the same to have art. as an element of an inf. brigade as to have it as a separate unit?, aside from flexibility of course.
Siege art. and other really heavy pieces seem to be restricted to the norh east, but almost any other piece can be spawn almost anywhere, even in contested border states.
Is this historicaly accurate or a small simplification?
PD: and one question, is it the same to have art. as an element of an inf. brigade as to have it as a separate unit?, aside from flexibility of course.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
pablius wrote:One thing related with artillery that I was curious about is if it´s accurate to be able to build art. in almost any state (at least with the Union, haven´t played the CSA yet)
Siege art. and other really heavy pieces seem to be restricted to the norh east, but almost any other piece can be spawn almost anywhere, even in contested border states.
Is this historicaly accurate or a small simplification?
PD: and one question, is it the same to have art. as an element of an inf. brigade as to have it as a separate unit?, aside from flexibility of course.
This is based probably on reality, as to where the major weapon forges producing these large guns would be located. It would require a comparatively low-level industrial complex to create a 6-lb gun, vs the infrastructure needed to create a Columbiad.
-
Massattack
- Conscript
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:13 pm
I assumed this meant building a unit in a particular state, rather than manufacturing artillery in that state, if that makes sense. By this I think the game means you to, for example, create a particular type of arty unit in for example Kentucky. The actual manufacture of the arty may take place elsewhere.
Regards
Regards
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests