American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Hi, Rich,

In response to your suggestion in the Spiked Guns thread, I figured I would start a new one on artillery crews so folks can weigh in. What I had in mind was a crew of 25 men/gun as in the game. As men become casualties the artillery unit becomes less effective in direct proportion to the loss. You probably ought to give the crew a fanatic bonus like the Russians in the Talonsoft Napoleonic game, although at Shiloh a battery routed away from their guns when their battery commander was the sole casualty. Anyway, that is the basic suggestion. Artillery fire probably needs to inflict crew as well as potential tube casualties. And perhaps some way of augmenting decimated batteries with infantry replacements. I don't much like the idea of crews wandering over the battlefield but I don't see a practical way around it. Maybe at least mark them with red in the 2D images so they are easier to find. And maybe give them pistols but no zone of control. Anybody else have thoughts on this?

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Why so many men per gun? . . . The average in the war was ten or so.

Sincerely,
Brig Gen Dwight McBride
V Corps/AOP/USA

This is getting a lot more detailed then JT is going to want to program. He doesn't want to granularly replicate the ACW...a level of abstraction has always been in the design. Remember, more detail is not always a benefit...and even if a couple of people think it is, there's 100 more who don't think its worth it.



LGen. Hamilton
II Corps
ANV, CSA

I favor keeping it simple.
No orphan crews waiting for a gun to recover and recrew, but they die with their gun. Yeah, they could run and wait for their infantry to recapture their cannons, but these games are messy enough already.
New crews should be taken from infantry units, as is. That reminds me of Hood's attack against Schofield at Franklin with crews recruited from infantry units ready to take over and operate captured union cannons. "Don't count your chickens,...I mean cannons before they're captured." [8D]

Looking for the site of an ACW artillery manual from a previous post, I could not find it. It had detailed information on how many rounds and what types were a standard load for a caisson for various cannon. However, below are two sites almost as good.

Civil War Artillery Organization and Drill
http://www.cwartillery.org/adrill.html

Excerpts:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> It is often stated that the typical Federal battery had six guns, and the typical Confederate battery had four, but the exceptions to this rule are so numerous as to render it suspect. The Atlanta Campaign furnishes a late-War illustration of artillery organization. The Union had 29 four-gun batteries, 22 six-gun batteries, and one very anomolous five-gun battery. The Confederate artillery, nominally made up of 44 four-gun batteries, was actually organized into battalions of three batteries each, with the battalion operating in effect as a single twelve-gun unit.
The battery was commanded by a captain; each section (a pair of guns) was commanded by a lieutenant. A section often operated as an independent unit for small-scale operations. Each gun was under the command of a sergeant, with two corporals, one the gunner and the other in charge of the caisson. Though only seven or eight cannoneers were necessary to serve a piece, it took 25 to 30 men to keep a single gun in the field and in operating condition. The following link provides a detailed description of the personnel of a typical battery.
Especially under combat conditions, a gun crew might need to operate a piece with fewer than a full complement of cannoneers, and in theory a cannon could continue in service with only two men.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This establishes that <font color="yellow">a single gun crew was 7 or 8 gunners</font id="yellow"> although there would be about <font color="yellow">25 men per gun</font id="yellow"> in the organization and <font color="yellow">even 2 men could keep a gun in operation</font id="yellow">.

My preferred site with a Civil War Artillery Manual stated that caissons carried enough rounds for about 30 minutes of continuous firing.
If so, to me that means that a supply wagon should be within resupply range to keep firing more than two turns, or be out of ammo during the second turn.
That would certainly change our artillery and supply unit deployments, as well as cut down casualty rates. It would profoundly diminish and limit the artillery role in our games. Supply wagons would have a greatly enhanced value.

If this information is accurate, I say, "Game designers, let's do it!" Simplest would be to have artillery run out of ammo, if they fire in any two turns without being within resupply range of a supply wagon.

Finally, here is another site with instructions on how to operate a field artillery piece with 9 men per gun.
http://www.geocities.com/generalgreene1 ... piece.html
I think that it is safe to say that there were minor variations of crews, especially considering that there were many variations and sizes of cannons.

BG Ross McDaniel
2nd Bde, 3rd Div, III Corps, AoG, CSA

Great answer, Ross! Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Brig Gen Dwight McBride
V Corps/AOP/USA

JT shot down discrete ammo handling at Tiller Con II last year, so the "having a gun go low on ammo if not in range of a supply wagon" isn't going to happen either.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but don't want to see you guys get all worked up for no reason...

LGen. Hamilton
II Corps
ANV, CSA

Sorry to say this but, ammo handling in this game is the single area I think I'd like to see fixed....I don't like the way random "low ammo" comes up on a dice role....I'd rather see a less abstract system there....and I would definatly like to have seen ammo wagaons for arty....of course I would also like to see crews for the guns....I do like the way the wagons resupply the low ammo troops.....Just my two cents.....Regards, Hank

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Texas Division
Smith's Corp

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Hamilton</i>
<br />This is getting a lot more detailed then JT is going to want to program. He doesn't want to granularly replicate the ACW...a level of abstraction has always been in the design. Remember, more detail is not always a benefit...and even if a couple of people think it is, there's 100 more who don't think its worth it.



LGen. Hamilton
II Corps
ANV, CSA

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

But there are a couple of things that need fixing with artillery:

1. Ammo should be used based on one per gun not one per battery. The current system renders one gun batteries and reduced batteries useless. Worse they are usually useless only for the Confederate making it cause game imbalances as well. As it now stands, Union players start trying to reduce two gun batteries to one gun on sight. Once reduced the batteries are ignored because they represent more a liability to the Rebel alive than dead.

2. The current system uses the stacking factor, 25 men, for the guns to do to many duties. It represents the number of men needed to operate a single gun, the space it takes up in an infantry stack, and its defense factor for fire and melee. It does all these jobs poorly other than the number of men required to man a gun. As a defense factor it makes it vulnerable to fire both artillery counter battery and infantry. I have had games where over a hundred guns were destroyed by counter battery fire. As infantry defense the guns are easily taken out at over 300 yards. As a stacking factor I believe they take up quite a bit more frontage than 25 men. Only if you introduced stacking position rules would this be correct (top unit only can fire).

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

Ammo depletion by the gun will be in the next round of updates.

And your results of gun losses are exceptional, and certainly not the rule. I've been gaming with the series regularly since it came out - playing many large games - and I've never seen results like that. 100+ guns to counter battery fire in a single scenario? Gotta be a modified PDT file, either that or you guys are firing at super close range.

For the record - I want to see ammo changed to by the battery, that's how I know what his answer was...I was aiming to get it implemented in all three series of games (EAW, Nap & ACW). Maybe one day...



LGen. Hamilton
II Corps
ANV, CSA

From Rich Hamilton <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">JT shot down discrete ammo handling at Tiller Con II last year, so the "having a gun go low on ammo if not in range of a supply wagon" isn't going to happen either.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but don't want to see you guys get all worked up for no reason... &

This is getting a lot more detailed then JT is going to want to program. He doesn't want to granularly replicate the ACW...a level of abstraction has always been in the design. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
With all respect and quite a bit of esteem for JT, as I appreciate the hours of my gaming fun that he has made possible, I hope that he will grow and innovate for improvements, because otherwise, the competition will,... and his games will become obsolete. However, JT is entitled to sit on his successful formula.
I and the great majority of the club will migrate to a new designer, if he does a reasonable job that satisfies our desired improvements, other things being equal. JT ain't the only fish in the ACW sea. He may become like Henry Ford losing his car market near monopoly, with cheaper Model Ts, to General Motors which offered innovations on more expensive cars, such as colors. Meanwhile HPS is still my preference for e-mail phased play, even with its unrealistic features that ought to be easily fixed without adding onerous complexity to play.

I have bought and played <u>Total War</u>: Shogun,... and Medieval, and I believe that their basic ammo loads for all ranged units are superior to the random running out of ammo for the TalonSoft and HPS ACW series. Firing is automatic and the ammo "gauge" indicators are not exact, but let the owning player know when a unit is getting low.
Total War games are deficient in that there is no ammo resupply, and all ranged units must avoid the enemy or become weak hand-to-hand combat units. It would be a realistic "fix" for HPS to program basic loads and resupply refinements. However, T/W combat is all "real time," so T/W is no threat to HPS at present.

BG Ross McDaniel
2nd Bde, 3rd Div, III Corps, AoG, CSA

"Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." - Frederich Douglass

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Hamilton</i>
<br />Ammo depletion by the gun will be in the next round of updates.

And your results of gun losses are exceptional, and certainly not the rule. I've been gaming with the series regularly since it came out - playing many large games - and I've never seen results like that. 100+ guns to counter battery fire in a single scenario? Gotta be a modified PDT file, either that or you guys are firing at super close range.

For the record - I want to see ammo changed to by the battery, that's how I know what his answer was...I was aiming to get it implemented in all three series of games (EAW, Nap & ACW). Maybe one day...



LGen. Hamilton
II Corps
ANV, CSA

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The 100+ is an exception but the mere fact that it was possible indicates how bad the problem is. I usually try to minimize confederate guns exposure to the seemingly unlimited supply of ammo fire of the Union. This holds down the loses but keeps Rebel artillery from supporting infantry effectively.

A quick look through my most recent games show the following:

Gettysburg, 157 Turns, 138 Union and 61 Rebel guns lost.
Glendale (Pennisula), 81 turns, 96 Union vs 64 Rebel guns.
Old Tavern (Pennisula), 23 turns, 10 Union vs 15 Rebel guns.
Siege of Richmond (Pennisula), 70 turns, 79 Union vs 48 Rebel guns.
Gaines Mill (Pennisula), 53 turns, 17 Union vs 46 Rebel guns.
Two on going games of Gettysburg under new artiller rules:
Turn 75, 22 Union vs 21 Rebel
Turn 74, 13 Union vs 30 Rebel

The last to because of new rules represents only counter battery fire since the Victory status doesn't report the count for captured guns. It also uses a modified pdt where I changed the stacking factor to "50" to make counterbattery fire more difficult. I also halved most of the guns long range fire. It says much that we are still seeing heavy gun kills.

Counter battery fire was extremely ineffective during the Civil War due to the lack of sights and a recoil mechanism to keep the gun in the same position. It was a random occurance at best. Both armies had orders similar to Gen. Hunts to not engage in counter battery fire.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

One thing the game doesn't take into consideration, are tube malfunctions, breakdowns, etc... And if "real" cannon were used as we use them in the game, many more would malfunction. As Rich H indicated, we must leave somethings to abstractions.

Guns were lost for many reasons, not just counter-battery fire and melee.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

I don't mind some abstractions, but the regularity in which entire battery crews are killed by infantry fire is one thing that desperately needs to be changed. I would be fine losing a gun or two to infantry fire, but losing an entire battery to small arms fire, especially from long distance is absurd. It is another thing that gives an advantage to the Union - larger battery (ie 4 or 6 guns) are harder to kill than 2 gun batteries as is common with the Confederates now. Gun crews weren't all bunched together like line infantry - it should be HARDER to kill artillery crews than regular infantry, especially from five hex distances or behind breastworks, etc. Perhaps a combination of losses by gun intead of by battery to small arms and some reduced fire factor against artillery by infantry would be the best option (an opposite of the stacking factor used when you have a lot of men in a single hex, go the opposite way and give a negative factor when firing on artillery due to their larger spacing).

Regards,

Lt. Gen. Alan Lynn
Interim CSA CoA
CSA Chief of Staff
3rd Bgde, 3rd Cav Div, II Corps, AoA

God Bless <><

It's a game, folks!!! . . . If Tiller okeh'd and actually programed in all the "desperate" and "necessary" and "absolutely essential" changes everyone demands, the game wouldn't be as good as it is now, let alone run very well on the average computer . . . Even now, look how long the "optional rules" list is getting.

I think we should all show a little more patience and understanding.

Sincerely,
Brig Gen Dwight McBride
V Corps/AOP/USA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ALynn</i>
<br />I don't mind some abstractions, but the regularity in which entire battery crews are killed by infantry fire is one thing that desperately needs to be changed. I would be fine losing a gun or two to infantry fire, but losing an entire battery to small arms fire, especially from long distance is absurd. It is another thing that gives an advantage to the Union - larger battery (ie 4 or 6 guns) are harder to kill than 2 gun batteries as is common with the Confederates now. Gun crews weren't all bunched together like line infantry - it should be HARDER to kill artillery crews than regular infantry, especially from five hex distances or behind breastworks, etc. Perhaps a combination of losses by gun intead of by battery to small arms and some reduced fire factor against artillery by infantry would be the best option (an opposite of the stacking factor used when you have a lot of men in a single hex, go the opposite way and give a negative factor when firing on artillery due to their larger spacing).

Regards,

Lt. Gen. Alan Lynn
Interim CSA CoA
CSA Chief of Staff
3rd Bgde, 3rd Cav Div, II Corps, AoA

God Bless <><
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Target wise there is no difference between a one gun battery and a six gun battery. They both are treated for casualty purposes as "25". One of my favorite tactics is kill the gun crews on six gun batteries. It is much easier than getting a 25 man hit against a regiment. When the Union player recrews the calculation is based on 25 per gun or 150 men to recrew. Then I kill them again. How often can a 400-500 man regiment take out 150 men in one volley? Until the Union player gives up trying to save his battery.[:D]

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)