American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

This isn't meant as a criticism only a historical question: how accurate was civil war artillery on the field? I'm fighting Fredericksburg and we are engaging in an artillery duel where up to eight guns can be destroyed on one side in a turn. the minimum might be 3-4 guns. The Union side must use barrages to have any chance of approaching the Rebs. this seems excessive to me but it is alot of fun! but is it realistic? I remember reading Sherman's memoirs where he directed a gunner to aim at some reb officers in the distance-during the approach to Atlanta- and darn if they didn't kill a general. but it was considered an unusual thing.

BG Drex Ringbloom,
Cdr,2nd Div,VIII Corp
Army of the Shenandoah

It appears that the game's artillery accuracy particularly in long range counter battery fire is way off. You have to be careful with participant's reports when not quantified. They tend to report things that were unusual so they will talk about how they hit this or that but wont mention the 100 shots that killed trees and posts but not enemy.

When you consider that a rifled gun had no sights, the gunners had no range finders, and they had no way to insure the gun returned to the same position it fired from to use the previous shot to adjust by, you have a direct fire weapon best used as a big shotgun.

For example, the Washington Artillery on Marye's Height were ordered to fire on the Union columns moving to cross the bridges about 2 PM on the 11th. This caused the Union artillery on Stafford Heights to target them for retaliation. Nosworthy doesn't say how many guns fired at the battery but they kept it up for fifteen minutes. The casualties from this amounted to one badly wounded Sergeant.

Another example but I don't have the passage in front of me was the artillery dual between Cemetery Hill and Benner's Hill. Most books indicate that the Confederate artillery was driven from the hill with heavy loses. But the actual loses were one gun due to the barrel being hit and two guns temporarially disabled due to damage to their wheels.

A gun hit was more an accident than a planned result.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br />It appears that the game's artillery accuracy particularly in long range counter battery fire is way off. You have to be careful with participant's reports when not quantified. They tend to report things that were unusual so they will talk about how they hit this or that but wont mention the 100 shots that killed trees and posts but not enemy.

When you consider that a rifled gun had no sights, the gunners had no range finders, and they had no way to insure the gun returned to the same position it fired from to use the previous shot to adjust by, you have a direct fire weapon best used as a big shotgun.

For example, the Washington Artillery on Marye's Height were ordered to fire on the Union columns moving to cross the bridges about 2 PM on the 11th. This caused the Union artillery on Stafford Heights to target them for retaliation. Nosworthy doesn't say how many guns fired at the battery but they kept it up for fifteen minutes. The casualties from this amounted to one badly wounded Sergeant.

Another example but I don't have the passage in front of me was the artillery dual between Cemetery Hill and Benner's Hill. Most books indicate that the Confederate artillery was driven from the hill with heavy loses. But the actual loses were one gun due to the barrel being hit and two guns temporarially disabled due to damage to their wheels.

A gun hit was more an accident than a planned result.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Gosh darn, by crimminee!! Why does anyone play these so obviously flawed games.

I just do not understand it. Post, after post, after post!

It just boggles the mind. YET, there has been one THOUSAND games played? OH, wait a minute that is about THIRTEEN THOUSAND games played! 13,000 +/- a few.
[:p]

Obviously, there is MORE right with the games than wrong.[:D][^]

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
General, Commanding, Army of Ohio

ACWGC Cabinet Member
ACWGC Records Site Administrator
</b></font id="gold">

Hi, Ernie,
I guess if nobody ever discussed these things we would still be playing the original Talonsoft games. In fact, I believe many still are, but I consider the current generation of HPS games to be greatly superior. I think a number of improvements have been added in the form of options based on feedback here and at Tillercon. I think there is more room for improvement, and I intend to voice my opinions in these areas. I am grateful to the folks involved with HPS for developing and supporting these games, and consider them the best available at this time, but that doesn't mean I'm satisfied.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Remember how these games are played. A human player will fire every piece of artillery, every turn, several times each turn. Not very historical.

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

Right now HPS series is the best there is for simulating tactical Civil War battles on a computer. There are some board games that still do a better job but that requires a physical opponent. Some of the new optional rules will go a long way toward fixing some of the more obvious flaws but many games are still waiting on the updates.

It is obvious there are some problems when I can play a full game of Gettysburg and end the third day with a Draw and a combined casualties of 106,000. A second game with the Union getting a minor victory was achieved at a slightly higher 110,000. What isn't obvious is how to fix it. But that doesn't mean we or HPS should stop trying.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)

Like I asked- there was no criticism of this game intended- I just wanted to know how accurate the real cannons were. I enjoy killing guns and i would gripe if I didn't knock any out. Gen Whitehead answered my question. Others got defensive about some intended slight to the game. They need to read my post.

BG Drex Ringbloom,
Cdr,2nd Div,VIII Corp
Army of the Shenandoah

If someone would be willing to test a better long range fire value for each of the guns, I would be glad to consider it. The problem is that some games use consolidated batteries, and other play with sectional artillery. I would assume the Drex is playing with consolidated batteries. And most likely firing combined batteries as a single stack.

Don't take this as a defensive comment, but rather as an explanation to a complicated question.

Gen Whitehead says "<i>the game's artillery accuracy particularly in long range counter battery fire is way off</i>"

Now, I don't necessarily disagree, BUT, the problem must consider the different ways the game can be played. For example: Consolidated vs. Sectional. I haven't found a good method to reconcile to two. If there was only one way to play, I (and other designers) could create a better pdt fire value. But if I cut the value for consolidated batteries, I will heavily weaken the chance for a sectional kill.

Having said that, I could and probably should create two different pdts. One for each method of play. Not sure why I didn't think of that before.



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

Well Rich, it is not too late to implement your moment of genius! Two pdt's is the perfect solution.

Hi, Rich,

I always thought that the pdt was such that if five napoleons had a 50% chance of a hit at a given range, a single napoleon would have a 10% chance of a hit and a two-gun section a 20% chance. If that is not so, why not?

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

<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 always thought that the pdt was such that if five napoleons had a 50% chance of a hit at a given range, a single napoleon would have a 10% chance of a hit and a two-gun section a 20% chance. If that is not so, why not?

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Mike,

The pdt is not formulated in the way you described. There are many variables that the program considers before rendering a result.

The two pdt solution is too late for the current round of patches. The corrective patches for Chancellorville and Atlanta have already been given to HPS, and should be released any day. I can't stop it, AGAIN. But, I will do for the next round. I promise!

Rich


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

NEW patches for Atlanta and Chancellorsville ARE available on HPS.com.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
General, Commanding, Army of Ohio

ACWGC Cabinet Member
ACWGC Records Site Administrator
</b></font id="gold">

Rich,

Much respect to you for the way you always approach these discussions with a positive and open mind, and then see how and if the games can be further improved. It's because of that basic attitude that the games do keep getting better and better. Thank you[^].


[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acwgc/acwgc_personal_record.htm"]General Antony Barlow[/url]
[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acwgc/western_theater.htm"]Commander, Western Theater, Union Army[/url]

Thanks Rich, I look forward to the next round of patches.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />If someone would be willing to test a better long range fire value for each of the guns, I would be glad to consider it. The problem is that some games use consolidated batteries, and other play with sectional artillery. I would assume the Drex is playing with consolidated batteries. And most likely firing combined batteries as a single stack.

Don't take this as a defensive comment, but rather as an explanation to a complicated question.

Gen Whitehead says "<i>the game's artillery accuracy particularly in long range counter battery fire is way off</i>"

Now, I don't necessarily disagree, BUT, the problem must consider the different ways the game can be played. For example: Consolidated vs. Sectional. I haven't found a good method to reconcile to two. If there was only one way to play, I (and other designers) could create a better pdt fire value. But if I cut the value for consolidated batteries, I will heavily weaken the chance for a sectional kill.

Having said that, I could and probably should create two different pdts. One for each method of play. Not sure why I didn't think of that before.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps Army of the Mississippi 2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actually I tried changing the fire factors for artillery and rifles in the modified 007 scenario posted on the CSAWC site. I reduced the long range fire factors for artillery to about 1/4 to 1/2 their original values as well as shorten their range on some.

The problem with the HPS fire factors isn't so much they are incorrect as they represent a level of fire that could be sustained if the ammo rules worked realisticly. The fire factors in the game represent 20 minutes of sustained fire, probably the equivalent of one shot per minute. If a battery of six guns fired at a target 1000 yards away for that period of time they probably would cause the hits the fire table gives. They would also use 120 solid shots. A caisson holds 32 rounds. There are four caissons per gun for a total of 24 caissons in the battery or 768 loads. I couldn't find what the typical distribution of ammo types was but even assuming a high 50% round one turn of fire has used up a quarter of your ammo supply. I have some references indicating that many batteries preferred not to even use round but filled their caisons with the more versatle shell.

Either way both army's had standing orders not to engage in counter battery fire nor to engage infantry at long ranges. When they did it was usually at a much lower rate of fire since it's intention was to suppress the enemy or force them to cover. My modifications basically assume that at long ranges a lower fire rate would be used. I made a similar assumption on rifle fire and shortened the range to 4 hexes but this was more to help reduce ammo depletions from auto defense fire so the AI wouldn't waste ammo or force you to set it to minimum fire range to conserve.

Our small arms useage in these games are even more out of proportion than the artillery. We as players routinely fire every turn every unit that can see an enemy. In the three day battles or short battles with limited wagons we may cut down some or just complain about the lack of wagons.

Hess's new book, "The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat", throws a completely different view of how the weapon was used. His analysis shows that running out of ammo was rare and only occurred in intense extended fights like the Mule Shoe. The reason was they didn't really fire their weapons that much. Typically the average shots fired per man for a battle was 33 rounds. Well below what they carried to the battle. In our battles this represents less than one turn of fire by each unit. That's why we have these enormous casualty levels in our game.

Probably the best simulation of the situation would be to correct it through the ammo supply and maybe the fire tables. Give the player much more control of fire by the AI so it doesn't waste ammo, implement the one gun one ammo for artillery to all the games, then serverely restrict the ammo supply.

Fire tables could stand some reduction mostly to reflect the lower rate of fire used at long distance. Most fire was made at an average of 120 yards during the Civil War. Here is a possible way to simulate this. Reduce fire factors for all weapons for ranges 2+ hexes but take away the ammo depletion check for these ranges. Increase the odds of ammo depeletion considerably for one hex range fire. Limit the number of wagons available to replentish ammo but give them a map edge or supply source hex that they could return to to refill.

Artillery fire problem would probably be fixed once the new optional rule of one gun one ammo is put in place and realistic ammo levels provided. The one change needed to help in this area is better range of settings for AI Defensive fire. The medium range currently is random and needs to be either broken up into two to three more ranges or threshold driven (odds of causing damage) rather than random.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)