| American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC) http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/ |
|
| Chickamauga-Rifle vs Musket http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11019 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | mihalik [ Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Chickamauga-Rifle vs Musket |
Hi, Rich, I noticed in the Bridge scenario in the parameter data that a musket at range 1 is a multiplier of 4, whereas the rifle is a multiplier of 4.5. This represents a change in philosophy from previous games, where the musket's sole advantage was range 1 fire. Is there a reason? MG Mike Mihalik 1/III/AoMiss/CSA |
|
| Author: | Rich Walker [ Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry, that's another error. It's fixed now <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i> <br />Hi, Rich, I noticed in the Bridge scenario in the parameter data that a musket at range 1 is a multiplier of 4, whereas the rifle is a multiplier of 4.5. This represents a change in philosophy from previous games, where the musket's sole advantage was range 1 fire. Is there a reason? MG Mike Mihalik 1/III/AoMiss/CSA <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Lt. Col. Richard Walker I Corps Army of the Mississippi 2nd Brigade, 3rd Division "Defenders of Tennessee" |
|
| Author: | mihalik [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi, Rich, I notice the rifle vs musket anomalie probably extends to all scenarios. I also notice Napoleons fire with a 22 modifier at range 1, and 16 at range 2, which seems high, especially compared to 3" rifles. Will there be a Chickamauga patch anytime soon? MG Mike Mihalik 1/III/AoMiss/CSA |
|
| Author: | Rich Walker [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Any day now. Just waiting on HPS to post it. Lt. Col. Richard Walker I Corps Army of the Mississippi 2nd Brigade, 3rd Division "Defenders of Tennessee" |
|
| Author: | ALynn [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i> <br />Hi, Rich, I notice the rifle vs musket anomalie probably extends to all scenarios. I also notice Napoleons fire with a 22 modifier at range 1, and 16 at range 2, which seems high, especially compared to 3" rifles. Will there be a Chickamauga patch anytime soon? MG Mike Mihalik 1/III/AoMiss/CSA <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Shouldn't the Napoleon have a significantly more powerful effect at point blank range compared to a 3" rifle? I didn't think the 3" had as effective a canister round as the Napoleon? Regards, Major Gen. Alan Lynn CSA Chief of Staff 3rd Bgde, 3rd Cav Div, II Corps, AoA God Bless <>< |
|
| Author: | mihalik [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Shouldn't the Napoleon have a significantly more powerful effect at point blank range compared to a 3" rifle? I didn't think the 3" had as effective a canister round as the Napoleon<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Hi, General Lynn, You are correct. But the Napoleon 1 hex modifier is 22 and the 3" rifle is 9. That is about 2.5 times more effective, and I think that is way too much. In Vicksburg it is 8 for 3" rifle and 12 for Napoleon, which makes the Napoleon half again as effective. That makes more sense, as the bore size for a 3" rifle is 3" (doh!)and for the Napoleon 4.62, which is a ratio of 1:1.54. I am no physics expert, though. Maybe they did a study and found a Napoleon cannister round was 2.5 times more effective under 125 yds than the 3". Anybody know? MG Mike Mihalik 1/III/AoMiss/CSA |
|
| Author: | ALynn [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i> <br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Shouldn't the Napoleon have a significantly more powerful effect at point blank range compared to a 3" rifle? I didn't think the 3" had as effective a canister round as the Napoleon<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Hi, General Lynn, You are correct. But the Napoleon 1 hex modifier is 22 and the 3" rifle is 9. That is about 2.5 times more effective, and I think that is way too much. In Vicksburg it is 8 for 3" rifle and 12 for Napoleon, which makes the Napoleon half again as effective. That makes more sense, as the bore size for a 3" rifle is 3" (doh!)and for the Napoleon 4.62, which is a ratio of 1:1.54. I am no physics expert, though. Maybe they did a study and found a Napoleon cannister round was 2.5 times more effective under 125 yds than the 3". Anybody know? MG Mike Mihalik 1/III/AoMiss/CSA <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I believe that is probably the case - I seem to remember reading about the difference between a Napoleon canister round and a 3" canister round - the 3" held a significantly smaller number of projectiles and dispersed them in a much tighter area than the Napoleon. But perhaps you are right about the ratio being a bit too high in comparison in Chick. Regards, Major Gen. Alan Lynn CSA Chief of Staff 3rd Bgde, 3rd Cav Div, II Corps, AoA God Bless <>< |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|