American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Has anyone tried out my company level scenarios (for Big Bethel & Blackburn ford)? Try getting to grips with the guns head on - especially the Napoleons - and due to the ground scale and pdt fire factors you'll probably get a real bloody nose. Also the EAW style ground scale & 5 minute turns give the guns plenty of time to linber up and retreat, even if using the single phase system.

I'd recommend this scale for all the smaller ACW actions - possibly even for battles involving up to about 20,000-25,000 a side. The tiny Campaign Gettysburg scenarios would work fine redone at this scale and wouldn't take too long to play through.

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

Since the system essentially fires guns as infantry with extended ranges, maybe the proper VP for guns would be 10.

The discussion of guns in the HPS system has gone on ever since Corinth was introduced. If guns did not carry such a high VP value, I would suggest that the "controversy" would have been much muted. The seeming ineffectiveness of the guns is relative to the risk/reward ratio of attacking them. Risk is less than it should be; reward much greater. Civil War soldiers and their immediate officers (not the ones who gave the orders; they seldom were involved in the attack) took a dimmer view.

As to guns needing to be in the line (or forward) to fire canister, that is a reality. No Civil War battery would attempt to fire canister over their own troops. They would kill more of their fellows than the enemy. But, these are games and the issue is somewhat irrelevent.



BG Robert Frost
Army of Cumberland

Okay here are some numbers. I based this off Corinth 1.01a since it reports factors used in combat so I could check my calculations. I used phased system. Due to how the AI works and halving of fire in Turn based (opportunity fire) I would expect it to produce worse results (probably about half the casualties).

Artillery fires with the equivalent of 50 men = 1 gun in both Corinth and Gettysburg. Using their equation this produces the following results for a four gun Napoleon battery with no modifiers at one hex range.

Casualtiy range is 14 - 70 with average kill of 42.

This matches expected kill ratio using a number of other methods for comparing expected casualties from four guns to the equivalent fire power of 200 men.

The problem occurs when you look at how these games handle melee attacks and fire. For example you have a 4 gun section or battery alone in a hex and two regiments of 200 men each advance on the battery to melee it. In phased based system they move adjacent and the battery can fire once in defensive fire. On average it will cause 42 casualties to only one of the attackers. That attacker will have to undergo a moral checks and possibly disorder.

Here is where the problem of melee comes in. When the remaining 200 man regiment (assuming the other did disorder) melees the artillery the artillery defense at one third its stacking points or as if its 8 men. This results in:

Attacker Kill range: 5 - 25
Defenders Kill range: 1 - 4

Since the winner of the melee is the one who kills the most, the attacking infantry always wins. So far these results check out in the test I made on Corinth.

Based on this the problem in the game system isn't with the fire tables but with the melee. Melee is really a simplification in these games. It doesn't represent hand to hand fighting but casualties due to fire at less than 25 yards and the resulting loss of nerve of one side or the other. <font color="red">Artillery should really be using its cannister factors in melee not the ramrod factor.</font id="red">

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

Isn't it possible to treat unlimbered artillery as limbered artillery to capture most of what we're talking about here? If the battery loses the melee, at least some of the guns are considered to have limbered and escaped and are of course disrupted. How many escape is a function of how hard they were melee'd, just as a melee'd limbered battery is now. You can overrun a battery by shooting it's crew dead. This is probably a engine change but it seems it wouldn't be too hard to accomplish. It also shouldn't have a big change to game balance either IMO.



Major General Dirk Gross
CAV DIV/XIV Corps/AoC

Just finished running some artillery tests as Drew suggested

Set up with 3 union two-gun sections, all A quality, set to max range, 4-12lb Nap, 2-6lb'ers.
Attacking with a 400 man D quality confederate infantry unit, starting movement at 7 hexes distance in woods, making 6 hexes of movement through clear level terrain to reach the battery, attacking infantry did not offensive fire.
All units starting with 0 fatigue and only quality fire modifier rule used, auto defense fire, Corinth 1.01a.


Made 16 runs at the guns,
3 times the infantry become disordered due to fire and each were at range 1,
none went disordered due to melee defense fire,
13 times the guns were lost in melee and the attacker suffered light fatigue

There was quite a range of losses per "run" and also how many times the sections fired per "run", from 1 to 6.
Artillery fired 50% of the time melee was initiated.

Average attacking infantry losses were 22.18 ranging from 7 to 52 per run (including melee defense fire)

Average attacking infantry melee losses were 5, defending artillery melee losses were 34.9


Did the same test adding 400 union C quality infantry stacked with the battery....

Some changes were seen with the range of losses per "run" and how many times the infantry/artillery fired per "run", from 1 to 4,
Infantry/guns fired 80% of the time melee was initiated.

Made 16 runs at the guns,
4 times the infantry become disrupted due to fire and 3 were at range 1 due to melee defense fire,
1 was at range 5 due to the loss of 1 man,
3 times the guns were lost in melee and the attacker suffered heavy or max fatigue.

Average attacking infantry losses were 21.8 ranging from 1 to 66 per run (including melee defense fire)

Average attacking infantry melee losses were 70.5, defending artillery/infantry melee losses were 39.

These tests were done with only one attacking unit, I want to try them again with two 400 man attackers and see how many guns are lost even with the infantry supported batteries.(I'm suspecting most if not all will be lost)

After making these tests I would concur with Col. Whitehead's statement;

<font color="blue">"Based on this the problem in the game system isn't with the fire tables but with the melee. Melee is really a simplification in these games. It doesn't represent hand to hand fighting but casualties due to fire at less than 25 yards and the resulting loss of nerve of one side or the other. Artillery should really be using its canister factors in melee not the ramrod factor."</font id="blue">

Also did a couple of runs using "phased" turns and the results are looking dramatically different, greater attacker losses and disruption, need to run more to make a comparison.




<font color="blue"><b>Brig.Gen. R.A.Weir</b></font id="blue">
<font color="yellow">-- CALVERT LINE --</font id="yellow">

<b>First--III--AoA CSA</b>

This has been hinted at or even stated before, but it seems the logical solution is that when a battery is meleed one of two things should happen:

1. If the unlimbered battery (and/or units it is stacked with) win the melee, then the battery remains unlimbered and undergoes a moral check to determine if it is (un)disrupted.

2. If the unlimbered battery loses the melee, then it is limbered and retreated into an adjacent hex and undergoes a moral check for disrupted/rout.

In both cases, losses to the battery are calculated as if the battery were limbered.

This means that losses to a battery during a melee would be EXCEEDINGLY LOW, no matter what the outcome.

Maj. Gen. Beno
Pickett's Division, I Corps, ANV

From my Civil war research I conclude that artillery was vulnerable in
four areas:

-The guns themselves
-crews
-caissons and limbers (ammunition)
-horses (mobility)
I think the games (both Talonsoft and HPS) do a pretty good job of
reflecting the vulnerability (or lack thereof) of the guns to counterbattery fire. I also feel, however, that other areas could be better modelled.

GUNS-As has been mentioned before, guns not destroyed by artillery
fire ought to be left on the battlefield when captured. Of all the
guns overrun by the Rebs on the second day at Gettysburg, only one was still retained at the end of the battle, a rifle brought off by the
Texans from Devil's Den. While spiking sounds good in theory, my
research doesn't indicate that it was often effectively implemented in the heat of combat.

CREWS-currently, crew casualties are an all or nothing affair. In fact, of all the Union batteries at Gettysburg, only two of the crews
suffered 30% casualties or more. I guess fatigue is supposed to
represent crew losses in the system, but I think crew members ought
to be subject to elimination, and the possibility of a form of rout.
I would hate to see a bunch of lost crews wandering around, but
possibly something like the crew taking refuge with a nearby infantry
unit like they did during a cavalry charge in the Napoleonic version.
It would return if the guns were recaptured. Anyway, the prospect of
crew attrition might motivate a battery to limber up and move.
CAISSONS-In the accounts of artillery duels that I have read, ammunition carriers seem to have been more vulnerable than the guns
themselves. And lack of ammunition was often the reason for the guns
to leave. At Fredricksburg, the Washington Artillery, having expended
its ammo, was replaced by another battalion. I suppose they could have
replenished their ammo, but the point is that individual batteries
did run out of ammo. That isn't possible under the universal ammo
system (unless the battery is isolated). I wouldn't want to see a
bunch more wagons, but maybe have the current wagons do double duty.
I would also like to see counterbattery fire have the possibility of
destroying part of a battery's ammunition.

HORSES- I remember reading an account of a battery captured at Murfreesboro because the battery commander sent his horses to be watered at about the time the rebs commenced their attack. I have
also read accounts where infantry targeted horses to keep the guns
from escaping. I wonder if an immobilization result, a la Steel Panthers, might be incorporated into the fire results table to reflect this. It probably ought to be temporary, as eventually horses would have been found somewhere to get the guns off (if they weren't captured).

This is a long thread, and I hope I haven't been recycling somebody
else's comments. I am no computer programmer, but I think these suggestions would add a little more realism to the game without adding much in the way of complication. I know many of you feel artillery is already at a disadvantage, but under the multiphase system using the Gettysburg PDT, I have not found this to be the case.

I think opportunity fire and in-phase formation change are the primary
improvements in the one-phase system. I wonder if both of these features could be incorporated into the multiphase system, so that the
defender gets opportunity fire and also gets defensive fire (at half
strength if it already fired) before the attacker gets to fire and melee. Just a thought.




MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

You know, we have seen a lot of good research here, and a number of thoughtful suggestions as to how the artillery model might be modified. It seems a lot of us would like to see some kind of modification in the way the HPS games handle artillery during melee. I also see that most of the suggestions would require HPS to develop a patch. What I find myself wondering at this point is... Where are we going with this?

I personally would like to see something done. The various ideas about increasing arty fire effectiveness at close range, providing for greater survivability of arty during melee, and increasing the likelihood that attacking units disrupt due to arty defensive fire prior to assaulting all have merit. Which should be pursued though? Should it be some combination of the suggested adjustments? We also need a fix that addresses both the turn and phase based game models.

We have not yet developed a consensus as to what would be the preferred adjustment to the artillery model. Perhaps it is too soon for that, but it is something we should begin to consider. Additionally, even if we in the club do agree on an approach, can we implement it? If we are looking for an adjustment to the game engine, that has to come from HPS. HPS may decline to implement the suggested changes in a patch.

If there is no patch forthcoming, we will have to look at some kind of house rules to achieve the desired results. In that case our options will be rather limited. For my money, I prefer to play the game as it is out of the box (or as patched).

Some game play adjustments, however, can only be implemented as house rules. For example, it would be tough to develop a patch that covers the rule concerning the use of lone “Anonymousâ€

It would be excellent if we could get some engine changes to improve the ADF and help swing the advantage towards the defender - the way the game engine handles melees in general seems to be seriously flawed, so this isn't just an artillery issue.

But what can we, as players, do to improve the game apart from waiting to see what's in the next patch?

Well, first of all we could decide on a club-revised standard pdt to improve the fire factors and perhaps make other adjustments.

For those of us who are scenario designers, I'd also recommend considering using a different map scale. For smaller battles, perhaps using the EAW company level system would provide a number of useful solutions to the ineffective artillery, poor ADF & melee issues. Why not try out my company level Blackburn ford & Big Bethel scenarios? Any feedback would be welcome.

Even for larger battles, switching to a 50yd a hex / 10 minute turn scale but retaining the regimental level structure would double weapon ranges and halve stacking limitations - both certain means of reducing the effectiveness of melee over fire tactics. Unfortunately this wouldn't help guns in heavily wooded terrain, but out in the open it would make a significant difference.

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

Actually, I prefer to play the game the way it was designed, with no house rules and the arty just the way it is. I think changing the pdt is a mistake, it doesn't solve the "problem," just look what happened to Franklin. I know I'm not alone, so a concensus on this is impossible.

Maj. Gen. Beno
Pickett's Division, I Corps, ANV

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> just look what happened to Franklin.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Exactly......its the only HPS game I currently play! (In this series that is)

Maj.Gen. Mike Smith
I Corps, Commanding
Army of Georgia
[url="http://convolutedmuse.blogspot.com//"]Convoluted Muse[/url]

I agree, everything I have found in analyzing the problem indicates that the fire value are correct for ranged fire and the VP value is correct for the relative value of artillery. I think it will be difficult to get a concensus for modifying the pdt value to compensate for a melee problem. The fix will be a kluge that may affect other parts of the game adversely.

That said, if one feels they just have to fix it I would recommend changing only the 1 hex range factor for artillery. This won't stop the gun from being taken by melee but the attacker will suffer more for it and they will have to be sure to commit enough troops to assorb the amount of damage the guns can deal out.

The preferred fix though would be for HPS to make a patch for this. I realize they can't afford a major game modification but there could be some ways to at least improve the situation at minimum cost. My understanding of the contribution of a battery section to melee defense right now is that it is evaluated at one third (an internal value) the stacking factor (set in pdt as 25 right now). We really can't change the stacking factor enough to make a difference without messing up gun stacking limits.

My suggestion for a quick fix is to change the multiplier from one third to a much higher number. Probably on the order of 20x to 40x so that it has a melee factor similar to or higher than its one hex range factor. This is probably doable in a patch if the factor used is a constant in the program.

A better solution since this hasn't bee play tested is to move the factor into the pdt and let the players work it out.

And even better solution but would almost certainly require major changes to the game engine, would be to add a "0" hex range factor to the pdt so each gun could be given its own melee factor. This would solve the problem the above solutions create of one size doesn't fit all.

And, as long as you are rewriting the artillery melee logic, treat the gun losses like you do in limbered melees. That is calculate the number of guns lost by casualties/25 and all remaining guns limber and route.

And, as long as we are wishing for things, please send me one million dollars, preferrably small denominations but electronic tranfer to my checking will be fine[:D].

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

I'm really not convinced that increasing the short range artillery firefactors and melee strength would solve this problem - the high victory point value for guns will still make them a very tempting target -although increasing the short range fire factors and making ADF at 100% probability and full effectiveness prior to melee would certainly be beneficial.

Reducing the victory point value for guns isn't really the solution either, except as a desperate measure if nothing better is available.

I feel that the answer really lies in a patch that would allow unlimbered guns to be captured & recaptured like supply wagons. This will deter players from risking heavy losses in order to "take out" some guns because the next turn their opponent will get the chance to recapture them. Also, since supply wagons can already be captured it shouldn't be too hard to code in.

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

Another solution that I have suggested time and again before is to allow artillery fire to affect all units in a hex instead of only one (as it already does in the Nappy games), and increase the chance for its causing disruption. If guns have a good chance of disrupting most or all of the attacking units with defensive fire, they have a way better chance of survival, even without causing excessive casualties.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

Dierk,

What you suggests sounds good at first sight ... but, unfortunately, that would mean that three small units of say 200 men would suffer a lot more than a single unit of 750 - so a target density modifier would be better. (It makes sense for small arms fire too - if there are more targets then more men are likely to get hit)

The suggestion that firing should be more likely to cause disruption is certainly an excellent idea - but only if the ADF were more reliable. So that would require at least two separate engine modifications.

However, I'm not sure that it would really be an alternative solution, even if the ADF were fixed and units about to be meleed fired automatically (ie. at 100% probability) and at full effect.

I still feel that the gun capture / recapture feature would probably be the most worthwhile single "fix", because that would probably be the best means of deterring players from meleeing guns to get lots of victory points. Besides guns shouldn't just "magically disappear" if successfully meleed, so the gun capture feature really ought to have been a standard part of the game engine from back in the old Battleground days. (It's present in Age of Rifles, along with various other useful features that still haven't been incorporated into the HPS engine)

This isn't to say I wouldn't like to see a variety of other improvements to the game engine - plenty of good ideas have been brought up in this discussion topic - I'd particularly like to see a target density modifier and have the ACW ADF brought into line with the more reliable Nappy system. A proper artillery supply system would also be quite high on my list of new features.

But if we're planning on asking HPS for a single artillery fix that shouldn't be too hard to get coded in (supply wagons already have it)and wouldn't require any other engine modifications to supplement it, then the gun capture feature seems the most viable option. It would also be an extremely useful feature to see carried over into the other series.

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV