American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I'm playing the Carthage scenario on Campaign Ozark and I captured the Yankee's guns by melee on turn 2.

On the next turn, I notice that I can fire with these guns who are still marked as "captured". Is it normal ? Can I fire with them only once or can I use them on future turns ?

I can't find the ruling about this. Thank you.

Col. Harold Lajoie 2/I/AoM, CSA.

On the turn after capture as long as you keep a regiment on them you can fire the guns and change their facing. If you check your artillery ammo level you will also notice you gained some ammo from the capture. But be aware that when your units leave the gun hex the gun reverts to abandoned and you lose the ammo you gained. Also be aware that while you can fire the guns their effectiveness is considerably reduced. I beleive their fire power is halved as well as reduced for being crewed by "F" quality troops. And they use up ammo from your artillery pool.

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

With the new Artillery Capture, it would be nice if one day Artillery was also on a supply basis like infantry. They become Low Ammo, then run out if not supplied by Supply wagon or Ammo dump.

The current system is so skewed to Union advantage it is not really the best.

A percentage for Low Ammo, Out of Ammo would work just as well for Artillery, thus also allowing the designer to change in PDT for all scenarios. The current allocation of Artillery Shots is really just a bad best guess.

Making it a % just like Infantry would essentially make the Supply wagaon all that more important.

With the addition of Supply wagons now counting for points, things are really falling into place.

Not sure if all scenarios are defaulted to Supply Wagons as no points, but really this should be changed for all scenarios. Supply wagons should be worth something for every scenario.

Cheers,

<font color="gold"><b>Brig. Gen. </b></font id="gold">Paul Wakeman, <font color="limegreen">Sharpshooter</font id="limegreen">
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/paw/Wakeman.html"]OBD[/url]
Kansas Dragoons
<font color="beige">2nd Cavalry Division </font id="beige">
<b>XIX Corps, AoS,<font color="gold"> USA</font id="gold"></b>



Cartographer

There's no logical reason why guns shouldn't have ammo wagons, just like small arms. It's actually rather bizarre that this wasn't how artillery ammo was originally handled back in the BG days a decade ago. It's even stranger that this still hasn't been incorporated in one of the many engine enhancements over the last few years.

1./ It's more realistic than the artillery pool

2./ Supply wagons already exist for small arms, so presumably it wouldn't require that much coding to allow artillery to resupply from wagons too.

3./ For a whole range of reasons, supply wagons for artillery would clearly be an improvement to the game engine, both for this series and for the EAW and Nappy games too.

Hopefully this is something that'll be discussed at the forthcoming Tillercon2 and it won't be many months before we see the last of the old artillery pool system.


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

I suspect the reason they weren't considered necessary is that artillery had their own ammo transportation system, caissons, which could be sent back while the gun still fought to obtain additional ammo. So a Low Ammo or No Ammo status really doesn't apply to artillery. They had a means to easily fix the situation before it became critical. And, unlike infantry that had to send men on foot back to the wagons they had horse drawn transportation. Therefore small arms wagons have a very short supply radius. Artillery ammo wagons would have to have a very large radius. Once this is taken into consideration the affect of artillery ammo wagons other than something else to protect or capture would be negligible. So designers probably dropped it under the KISS principle.

What I object to more than anything about the current system is that a one gun batteries uses just as much ammo as a six gun battery. This leads to very gamey tactics of trying to shoot all batteries down to one gun. For the Rebel who usually has ammo problems these guns are useless and must be sent to the rear. In a long battle like Gettysburg I will have over half my batteries withdrawn to the Cashtown area by the middle of the second day due to this.

The most critical need in the ammo system is to change this one ammo/battery consumption to one ammo per gun. Whether that ammo is supplied by global inventory or wagons isn't critical to fixing the games just a nice touch.

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

from LTG Whitehead <font color="yellow">my responses</font id="yellow"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I suspect the reason they weren't considered necessary is that <u>artillery had their own ammo transportation system, caissons, which could be sent back while the gun still fought to obtain additional ammo</u>. So a Low Ammo or No Ammo status really doesn't apply to artillery. They had a means to easily fix the situation before it became critical. And, unlike infantry that had to send men on foot back to the wagons they had horse drawn transportation. Therefore <u>small arms wagons have a very short supply radius</u>. <u>Artillery ammo wagons would have to have a very large radius</u>.
<font color="yellow">I can go along with that. I would suggest that in the interest of keeping it simple, have the supply wagons with a small arms factor and an artillery factor. They can have separate and different supply ranges also; double it for artillery. We don't need to clutter up the map with a new set of supply units. </font id="yellow">
What I object to more than anything about the current system is that a one gun batteries uses just as much ammo as a six gun battery...
The most critical need in the ammo system is to change this one ammo/battery consumption to one ammo per gun.
<font color="yellow">I agree wholeheartedly![:p]That is such a flaw in these games that we need patches for the previously produced games.</font id="yellow">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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

Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.
Winston Churchill

delete repeat

I agree with the concept for the second idea mentioned (this idea is not new), but my concern would be the affect it would have on current scenarios. This would have to be an optional rule and would mostly likely only be used for new scenarios. I doubt Drew, Lee, Doug, or myself would want to go back and adjust every current scenario.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ross McDaniel</i>
<br />from LTG Whitehead <font color="yellow">my responses</font id="yellow"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I suspect the reason they weren't considered necessary is that <u>artillery had their own ammo transportation system, caissons, which could be sent back while the gun still fought to obtain additional ammo</u>. So a Low Ammo or No Ammo status really doesn't apply to artillery. They had a means to easily fix the situation before it became critical. And, unlike infantry that had to send men on foot back to the wagons they had horse drawn transportation. Therefore <u>small arms wagons have a very short supply radius</u>. <u>Artillery ammo wagons would have to have a very large radius</u>.
<font color="yellow">I can go along with that. I would suggest that in the interest of keeping it simple, have the supply wagons with a small arms factor and an artillery factor. They can have separate and different supply ranges also; double it for artillery. We don't need to clutter up the map with a new set of supply units. </font id="yellow">
What I object to more than anything about the current system is that a one gun batteries uses just as much ammo as a six gun battery...
The most critical need in the ammo system is to change this one ammo/battery consumption to one ammo per gun.
<font color="yellow">I agree wholeheartedly![:p]That is such a flaw in these games that we need patches for the previously produced games.</font id="yellow">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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

Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.
Winston Churchill
<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"

It is a problem of how to fix all the old ones although I suspect that 95% of the scenarios could be adjusted to the new system by just doubling their existing ammo supply numbers. This could be done two ways. If there is a way to flag the version of a scenario (even if by default all old versions are 1.0 and all new version actually have a version number assigned to them), then the game engine could just double the number used for ammo supply. In 99% of the games only the Rebel side matters and it is usually calculated based on an average secition size close to two guns. The Union doesn't usually matter since unlimited ammo doubled is still unlimited.

The second method is to write a short program that would run through all the scn files and adjust the number in them to reflect the new system.

I really think the Artillery Ammo system as it pertains to gun sections is so broke that even a kluge fix is an improvement.

In writing this I though of a third fix that might be more acceptable. Put the Ammo Use rule based on per gun in as an option which would include doubling the scenarios Ammo number. Old scenarios you would have to accept what you got or edit the scenario file to fix it. New scenarios could anticipate the option and set up their Ammo and gun section distribution to take the doubling into affect.

Or better yet, have it as an optional rule. If the scenario supported the optional rule it would have an additional entry in the sceanrio file for the ammo per gun. If not then it would double the one used for ammo per section.

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

I think I know the answer to this, but I'm going to ask anyway. With artillery now able to be captured are captured artillery units carried over to the next battle in campaigns?

BG Boyd Denner
"Alabama Brigade"
1/3/III
ANV
"God Bless the Alabamians" Gen. Robert E. Lee - The Wilderness 1864

<font color="beige"><b>I've been doing a little research on artillery supply and the only reference to supply wagons for artillery batteries other than the regular limbers, caissons, battery wagon and forge that I have been able to find so far are 3 supply wagons per battery, these being used for officer's personal baggage, forage, supplies and spar parts etc., not ammunition.

It might be that all available ammo to a battery was carried in the 4 limber chests assigned to each gun, about 100 rounds.</b></font id="beige">

<center><font color="blue"><b>Maj.Gen. R.A.Weir</b></font id="blue">
<font color="yellow">THE CALVERT LINE</font id="yellow">

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

Captured arty is not retained by the capturing side in a campaign. They are considered eliminated, but they will return with a value of 1 for the original owners. I know this isn't a perfect solution, but you can't add captured units because they can't be placed. On the other hand, since they are placed for the original owners, they will appear with a minimal value. This concept is the same as with eliminated infantry. Remember, eliminated infantry will return with a 10% value.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Boyd</i>
<br />I think I know the answer to this, but I'm going to ask anyway. With artillery now able to be captured are captured artillery units carried over to the next battle in campaigns?

BG Boyd Denner
"Alabama Brigade"
1/3/III
ANV
"God Bless the Alabamians" Gen. Robert E. Lee - The Wilderness 1864
<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"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Robert</i>
<br /><font color="beige"><b>I've been doing a little research on artillery supply and the only reference to supply wagons for artillery batteries other than the regular limbers, caissons, battery wagon and forge that I have been able to find so far are 3 supply wagons per battery, these being used for officer's personal baggage, forage, supplies and spar parts etc., not ammunition.

It maybe that all ammo available to a battery was carried in the 4 limber chests assigned to each gun, about 100 rounds.</b></font id="beige">


[center]<font color="blue"><b>Maj.Gen. R.A.Weir</b></font id="blue">
<font color="yellow">THE CALVERT LINE</font id="yellow">

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You are correct that each gun was assigned four limber chests, one on each limber and two on the caisson. It isn't clear how many rounds these would hold since it depended on the caliber of the gun. The only sure reference I have said 100 rounds of 6 pound shot. For the Napoleons this could mean as low as 50 rounds per chest. Either way within a battery that would give 200-400 rounds per gun.

However, U.S. doctrine was to supply each gun with 400 rounds which was expected to last an entire campaign although Nosworthy goes on to state that this could be expended in 7 hours of continuous fighting. Regardless this leaves 200 plus round unaccounted for unless there are additional caisson assigned to the battery or battalion. Hunt in his report on Gettysburg refers to having the remainder of his reserve batteries under Major McGilvery, "together with the ammunition train", leave Tanytown at dawn on the second for Gettysburg. He also brought additional ammo stating that after the battle he still had sufficient ammo to fight another engagement of similar length and severity.

So somewhere there was addition artillery ammo. What I can't determine is how it was organized and carried. Were there additional caissons assigned to batteries or to higher organizations. And, did they use wagons or additional caissons to carry the ammo.

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

Thanks Rich for your very detailed answer.

Maybe we can just view the returned artillery as replacements.

Thanks
BG Boyd Denner
1/3/III ANV

<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 />Captured arty is not retained by the capturing side in a campaign. They are considered eliminated, but they will return with a value of 1 for the original owners. I know this isn't a perfect solution, but you can't add captured units because they can't be placed. On the other hand, since they are placed for the original owners, they will appear with a minimal value. This concept is the same as with eliminated infantry. Remember, eliminated infantry will return with a 10% value.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Boyd</i>
<br />I think I know the answer to this, but I'm going to ask anyway. With artillery now able to be captured are captured artillery units carried over to the next battle in campaigns?

BG Boyd Denner
"Alabama Brigade"
1/3/III
ANV
"God Bless the Alabamians" Gen. Robert E. Lee - The Wilderness 1864
<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"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

BG Boyd Denner
"Alabama Brigade"
1/3/III
ANV
"God Bless the Alabamians" Gen. Robert E. Lee - The Wilderness 1864

"So somewhere there was addition artillery ammo. What I can't determine is how it was organized and carried. Were there additional caissons assigned to batteries or to higher organizations. And, did they use wagons or additional caissons to carry the ammo."

<font color="beige"><b>I would think a full battery would have at least 1 or more caissons (3 limber chests) in addition to the 4 chests each gun would have.

Artillery ammo had to have been packed in some type of wooden cases for shipment from the manufacturer and these cases could have been moved by standard supply wagons. On campaign how much was transported this way is the question.

This seems to support the game mechanics of a general artillery ammo pool, as most if not all of the ammo was distributed to each battery prior to an engagement and any supplemental ammo needed could be transported from rear echelon supply to the guns by way of the gun's own caissons as limber chests were empted.

I do however think the system would be improved with a one gun fires...one ammo point expended rather than the current one unit fire (be it 1 or 3 guns) per ammo expended.</b></font id="beige">


<center><font color="blue"><b>Maj.Gen. R.A.Weir</b></font id="blue">
<font color="yellow">THE CALVERT LINE</font id="yellow">

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