ACWGC Forums
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

New PDT weapon values.
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=20943
Page 1 of 3

Author:  Rich Walker [ Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:05 am ]
Post subject:  New PDT weapon values.

Here are the weapon values. I have compared all the PDTs from all the Designers, Doug, John, Drew and myself. These are the results. They are not necessarily straight up averages, but rather a logically thought out compromise. No doubt they will not please everyone, but if any obvious errors are seen, let me now ASAP. These values, if not changed in the next week or so, will be the values for ALL the games of all the series as the new updates are released. This will create a consistency to the games.

BTW, some of the weapons, with a 1 hex value of zero, are heavy mortars, and these weapons cannot fire nearly straight up for ranges less than 125 yards. So keep that in mind.

A 1 6 2 4 3 2 4 1 -1
B 1 5 2 3 3 1 4 .5 -1
C 1 5 2 3 3 1 -1
D 1 21 2 17 3 12 4 8 6 6 7 5 8 4 9 3 10 2 11 1 -1
E 1 15 2 12 3 10 4 8 5 6 7 5 9 4 11 3 13 2 15 1 -1
F 1 50 2 48 4 46 6 44 8 40 10 36 12 32 14 28 16 24 18 20 20 16 22 12 24 8 26 4 27 2 28 1 -1
G 1 15 2 10 3 7 4 5 5 4 7 3 9 2 11 1 -1
H 1 11 2 8 3 6 5 4 6 3 7 2 8 1 -1
I 1 21 2 18 4 15 6 12 7 10 8 7 9 6 10 5 11 6 12 5 13 4 14 3 15 2 16 1 -1
J 1 14 2 12 3 10 4 8 5 6 6 4 7 3 8 2 9 1 -1
K 1 7 2 5 3 4 4 3 5 2 6 1 -1
L 1 6 2 5 4 3 7 2 10 1 -1
M 1 4 2 1 -1
N 1 11 2 9 3 7 4 6 5 5 7 3 9 2 11 1 13 .5 -1
O 1 10 2 8 4 6 6 5 8 4 10 3 12 2 14 1 -1
P 1 1 -1
Q 1 8 2 6 3 5 5 4 6 3 8 2 10 1 -1
R 1 4 2 3 3 2 4 1 -1
S 1 3 -1
T 1 7 2 6 4 5 6 4 8 3 10 2 12 1 14 .75 16 .50 18 .25 -1
U 1 12 2 10 3 7 5 5 6 4 8 3 10 2 12 1 14 .75 21 .5 -1
V 1 14 2 9 3 6 5 4 7 3 10 2 14 1 21 .5 27 .25 -1
W 1 8 2 7 5 6 8 5 12 4 16 3 19 2 22 1 70 .50 -1
X 1 8 2 6 5 3 10 2 14 1 17 .5 21 .25 -1
Y 1 42 2 38 4 35 6 32 8 27 10 25 12 22 14 20 16 16 18 13 20 11 22 9 24 6 26 4 28 2 30 1 34 .5 -1
Z 1 40 2 38 4 36 5 32 6 30 7 27 8 24 9 20 10 18 11 14 12 10 13 8 15 6 17 5 18 4 21 3 23 2 25 1 28 .50 -1
a 1 51 2 47 3 45 4 42 5 40 7 36 8 32 9 30 10 27 11 25 12 20 13 15 14 10 15 5 16 1 -1
b 1 11 2 9 3 7 4 5 5 4 6 2 7 1 -1
c 1 9 2 7 4 5 6 4 10 3 14 2 18 1 24 .5 -1
d 1 0 4 10 10 7 12 5 15 3 20 2 25 1 -1
e 1 0 2 5 3 3 5 2 7 1 10 .5 -1
f 1 12 2 9 3 6 4 4 9 3 16 2 20 1 22 .5 -1
g 1 15 2 12 3 9 4 7 5 5 6 4 7 3 8 2 9 1 -1
h 1 5 2 4 3 2 6 1 9 .5 -1
i 1 8 2 6 4 5 7 3 10 2 12 1 15 .5 -1
j 1 6 2 4 3 3 4 2 8 1 14 .5 -1
k 1 3 2 1.5 3 .5 -1
l 1 10 -1
m 1 22 2 18 3 16 5 13 6 11 8 8 10 6 12 5 14 4 16 3 18 2 20 1 31 .5 -1
n 1 15 2 12 4 10 6 8 8 6 10 4 12 2 14 1 -1
o 1 15 2 12 3 10 4 8 6 6 8 4 10 3 12 2 14 1 15 .5 -1
p 1 15 2 11 4 6 6 4 8 3 10 2 12 1 15 .5 21 .25 -1
q 1 11 2 8 4 6 6 5 8 4 10 3 12 2 14 1 -1
r 1 10 2 7 4 4 6 3 8 2 10 1 15 .5 21 .5 -1
s 1 8 2 6 3 4 4 3 6 2 8 1 10 .5 -1
t 1 7 2 5 4 4 6 3 8 2 11 1 -1
u 1 7 2 6 4 5 6 4 8 3 10 2 12 1 14 .5 -1
v 1 0 4 15 5 11 6 10 7 8 8 5 9 4 10 3 11 2 12 1 -1
w 1 4 2 3 5 2 6 1 7 .5 8 .25 -1
x 1 18 2 15 4 14 6 12 12 10 17 8 22 5 25 4 28 2 -1
y 1 20 2 16 4 12 6 10 8 8 10 6 12 4 14 2 15 1 -1
z 1 7 2 4 3 1 -1

Author:  C. Hecht [ Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New PDT weapon values.

Looks like a typo in the I line(42lbr Smoothbore).
It has a fire value of 5 at 10 hexes and 5 at 12 hexes but 6 at 11 hexes, seems strange that the fire value goes up there.

Author:  Rich Walker [ Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New PDT weapon values.

C. Hecht wrote:
Looks like a typo in the I line(42lbr Smoothbore).
It has a fire value of 5 at 10 hexes and 5 at 12 hexes but 6 at 11 hexes, seems strange that the fire value goes up there.


Right, hexes 11 and 12 should be eliminated

Author:  mihalik [ Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New PDT weapon values.

Thanks again, Rich!

Can't testify to the overall values, but at least the ratios seem to be reasonable.

Hard to determine accurate values when you have two different systems (turn and phase) as well as extrapolation for fire over twenty minutes, but I'm satisfied.

Author:  C. Hecht [ Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New PDT weapon values.

Thanks, Rich.

This all went off when MG Mihalik found the 6lbr values strange, now I'm the one to find them strange because the rifled version now gets a much shorter range than the smooth version, it is currently the artillery with the shortest range what contradicts why it was rifled at all.
We had talked about them already and I mentioned this:
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/design ... rs.113044/
So you can say a rifled 6lbr could be something close to a 6lbr James, a 3.67Sawyer or a 14lbr James(3.8inch bore), who now all get a range of 14 hexes with the coming PDT. But if it should strictly depict a 6lbr only rifled without enlarging the bore it may at least have the same or a bigger range than the 6lbr Smooth who gets a range of 10 hexes.

Author:  Rich Walker [ Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New PDT weapon values.

C. Hecht wrote:
Thanks, Rich.

This all went off when MG Mihalik found the 6lbr values strange, now I'm the one to find them strange because the rifled version now gets a much shorter range than the smooth version, it is currently the artillery with the shortest range what contradicts why it was rifled at all.
We had talked about them already and I mentioned this:
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/design ... rs.113044/
So you can say a rifled 6lbr could be something close to a 6lbr James, a 3.67Sawyer or a 14lbr James(3.8inch bore), who now all get a range of 14 hexes with the coming PDT. But if it should strictly depict a 6lbr only rifled without enlarging the bore it may at least have the same or a bigger range than the 6lbr Smooth who gets a range of 10 hexes.


Keep proofing:

A 1 6 2 4 3 2 4 1 -1
B 1 5 2 3 3 1 4 .5 -1
C 1 5 2 3 3 1 -1
D 1 21 2 17 3 12 4 8 6 6 7 5 8 4 9 3 10 2 14 1 -1
E 1 15 2 12 3 10 4 8 5 6 7 5 9 4 11 3 13 2 18 1 -1
F 1 50 2 48 4 46 6 44 8 40 10 36 12 32 14 28 16 24 18 20 20 16 22 12 24 8 26 4 27 2 28 1 -1
G 1 15 2 10 3 7 4 5 5 4 7 3 9 2 11 1 14 .5 -1
H 1 11 2 8 3 6 5 4 6 3 7 2 8 1 -1
I 1 21 2 18 4 15 6 12 7 10 8 7 9 6 10 5 13 4 14 3 15 2 16 1 -1
J 1 14 2 12 3 10 4 8 5 6 6 4 7 3 8 2 9 1 13 .5 -1
K 1 6 2 5 4 4 7 3 10 2 13 1 16 .5 -1
L 1 7 2 5 4 3 7 2 10 1 12 .5 -1
M 1 4 2 1 -1
N 1 11 2 9 3 7 4 6 5 5 7 3 9 2 11 1 13 .5 -1
O 1 10 2 8 4 6 6 5 8 4 10 3 12 2 14 1 -1
P 1 1 -1
Q 1 8 2 6 4 5 7 4 9 3 11 2 14 1 18 .5 -1
R 1 4 2 3 3 2 4 1 -1
S 1 3 -1
T 1 7 2 6 4 5 6 4 8 3 10 2 12 1 14 .75 16 .50 18 .25 -1
U 1 12 2 10 3 7 5 5 6 4 8 3 10 2 12 1 14 .75 21 .5 -1
V 1 14 2 9 3 6 5 4 7 3 10 2 14 1 21 .5 27 .25 -1
W 1 8 2 7 5 6 8 5 12 4 16 3 19 2 22 1 50 .50 -1
X 1 8 2 6 5 3 10 2 14 1 17 .5 21 .25 -1
Y 1 42 2 38 4 35 6 32 8 27 10 25 12 22 14 20 16 16 18 13 20 11 22 9 24 6 26 4 28 2 30 1 34 .5 -1
Z 1 30 2 22 4 18 5 16 6 14 7 13 10 12 15 10 21 7 24 4 25 2 28 1 -1
a 1 51 2 47 3 45 4 42 5 40 7 36 8 32 9 30 10 27 11 25 12 20 13 15 14 10 15 5 16 1 -1
b 1 11 2 9 3 7 4 5 5 4 6 2 7 1 -1
c 1 9 2 7 4 5 6 4 10 3 14 2 18 1 24 .5 -1
d 1 0 4 10 10 7 12 5 15 3 20 2 25 1 -1
e 1 0 2 5 3 3 5 2 7 1 10 .5 -1
f 1 12 2 9 3 6 4 4 9 3 16 2 20 1 22 .5 -1
g 1 15 2 12 3 9 4 7 5 5 6 4 7 3 8 2 9 1 -1
h 1 5 2 4 3 2 6 1 9 .5 -1
i 1 8 2 6 4 5 7 3 10 2 12 1 15 .5 -1
j 1 6 2 4 3 3 4 2 8 1 14 .5 -1
k 1 3 2 1.5 3 .5 -1
l 1 10 -1
m 1 22 2 18 3 16 5 13 6 11 8 8 10 6 12 5 14 4 16 3 18 2 20 1 31 .5 -1
n 1 15 2 12 4 10 6 8 8 6 10 4 12 2 14 1 -1
o 1 15 2 12 3 10 4 8 6 6 8 4 10 3 12 2 14 1 15 .5 -1
p 1 15 2 11 4 6 6 4 8 3 10 2 12 1 15 .5 21 .25 -1
q 1 6 2 5 4 4 7 3 10 2 13 1 16 .5 -1
r 1 10 2 7 4 4 6 3 8 2 10 1 15 .5 21 .5 -1
s 1 8 2 6 3 4 4 3 6 2 8 1 10 .5 -1
t 1 7 2 5 4 4 6 3 8 2 11 1 -1
u 1 7 2 6 4 5 6 4 8 3 10 2 12 1 14 .5 -1
v 1 0 4 15 5 11 6 10 7 8 8 5 9 4 10 3 11 2 12 1 -1
w 1 4 2 3 5 2 6 1 7 .5 8 .25 -1
x 1 18 2 15 4 14 6 12 12 10 17 8 22 5 25 4 28 2 -1
y 1 20 2 16 4 12 6 10 8 8 10 6 12 4 14 2 15 1 -1
z 1 7 2 4 3 1 -1

Author:  simovitch [ Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New PDT weapon values.

Would it be possible to also standardize the MP for supply wagons across the board?

Author:  Rich Walker [ Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New PDT weapon values.

simovitch wrote:
Would it be possible to also standardize the MP for supply wagons across the board?


Sure

BTW, any more comments about ranges, etc...? I need to put out a final version tomorrow, if possible

Author:  C. Hecht [ Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New PDT weapon values.

As I checked what pieces are used in Petersburg I already saw that not few of them have a too short range.
I'm currently looking through my sources and I hope you can delay the release of the final version some days, I'm surely done by Sunday.

It would help if some info could be provided for some pieces:
- Blakely can cover guns from 2.9 to 12.75 inches, as I saw them being used by horse batteries some smaller types are obviously meant like the 3.5-inch (12-pounder) but some precise info would be helpful.
- Brooke can be either 6.4 or 7 inches, again some precise info would be helpful.

Author:  Rich Walker [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: New PDT weapon values.

C. Hecht wrote:
As I checked what pieces are used in Petersburg I already saw that not few of them have a too short range.
I'm currently looking through my sources and I hope you can delay the release of the final version some days, I'm surely done by Sunday.

It would help if some info could be provided for some pieces:
- Blakely can cover guns from 2.9 to 12.75 inches, as I saw them being used by horse batteries some smaller types are obviously meant like the 3.5-inch (12-pounder) but some precise info would be helpful.
- Brooke can be either 6.4 or 7 inches, again some precise info would be helpful.


Keep in mind, we should be more interested in effective ranges, not absolute maximums.

Author:  C. Hecht [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: New PDT weapon values.

Problem is that the maximum range is the only more is less solid value, "effective" is a word open to a wide range of interpretations.
For that value to work we would have to make sure that the same "damage" is done to be comparable. Problem is that many sources simply say effective at angle X what only means the gun reaches till there under that angle, that has nothing to do with the max range and still nothing with the range at which the gun is still "effective" in combat. These values were likely just used in tests to make the guns comparable, just like WW1 aviation engines that were measured at certain number of revolutions what has nothing to do with the maximum horse power.
A while ago I was looking through artillery of 1805 and here too one can find many "effective" ranges for classic guns like the 12pdr.

Author:  KWhitehead [ Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: New PDT weapon values.

"Effective" range of most field pieces was probably very short. If you consider they are on wheels in uneven fields with probably soft soil under them, there is no way that a shot could be repeated accurately. At 500 yards most targets, men and guns, represent something of about 6 foot vertical target. That is a shift in elevation of the gun barrel of only 0.23 degrees. Horizontal aiming could be done pretty accurately by eye but vertical was guessing even if you had a previous shot to judge it by. Basically that is throwing balls down a field hoping for a random hop into the target.

Their most effective ammo for either hitting artillery (crews being the more likely target) and a line of men is Shrapnel. While height isn't as critical with this ammo as with shot, it has the problem of correctly setting the fuse. A serious problem for the Confederate artillery.

For Shrapnel and to some degree shot is the depth of the target. Shrapnel works well against artillery targets not because there is any chance of taking out the guns but there is a good chance of taking out crew and horses because the combination of gun, limbers, and caissons give the target a depth of 50 yards.

So artillery hit effectiveness is more of a function of the targets depth than its ability to shoot a long distance. It could also be affected by terrain. Fire into woods could create a lot of secondary damage from splinters.

Author:  C. Hecht [ Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New PDT weapon values.

OK here a collection of sources so far, I have collected them within a table file and it should open with the usual office suits like MS Office, OpenOffice, etc..
https://www103.zippyshare.com/v/ejcR5QDS/file.html
If needed I can do a PDF.

The ranges I found show that the ingame ranges for a lot pieces are considerably too short.
Of course a lot factors determine how effective an certain type is at a specific range and while it's true what General Whitehead posted as long as we have nothing more that a single fire value for a range section we have to consider mainly the range of the gun.
So I can only recommended to use these max ranges and let the limitation come from realistic visibility ranges instead of lowering the artillery ranges right away just because there is the theory of a piece not being "effective" beyond a certain range.
We have to assure that rifled artillery is used in counter battery fire and fire beyond the main battle line and beyond the first line of a siege or the players will relegate them to act side by side with napoleons and other short range smooth bores in defending against assaults or trying to soften the enemies main battle/defense line. In such a case the infantry casualties will surely be higher than any long range fire that one can find as too "effective" against infantry.

Author:  mihalik [ Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New PDT weapon values.

C. Hecht wrote:
We have to assure that rifled artillery is used in counter battery fire and fire beyond the main battle line and beyond the first line of a siege or the players will relegate them to act side by side with napoleons and other short range smooth bores in defending against assaults or trying to soften the enemies main battle/defense line. In such a case the infantry casualties will surely be higher than any long range fire that one can find as too "effective" against infantry.


General,

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. In fact, Confederate batteries often had a mixture of rifled and smooth bore pieces, and rifled gun batteries were often deployed side by side with smooth bore batteries, on both sides. At Antietam, I read there was little or no counter battery fire by the Confederates; every gun they had fired on the infantry. Ca va?

Author:  C. Hecht [ Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New PDT weapon values.

The researched ranges have no impact on the organization of the batteries, but it's up to the player how to employ them.
Besides this there were also uniform batteries, likely more common in the Union but nonetheless.
That rifled pieces were deployed side by side with smoothbores is no reason to somehow shorten their ranges.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/