Inverted Artillery Battery Performance

[The Soldier]

10 minutes ago, Wandering1 said:

One last question before this phase of interrogation is satisfied:

11 minutes ago, Wandering1 said:

were all 3 of the batteries on the same type of terrain for all of their guns (as in the models in game)?

Just as there were damage modifiers for cavalry in the trees (you can see on the tooltip damage%), there are likely damage modifiers for artillery as well, just not as severe as the cavalry case.

The 12-gun battery had one or two of it's guns in trees for part of the battle, I noticed because it's Cover value was a bit higher than the other two batteries.  Although in my experience, forest doesn't have too much of an effect on artillery, so I wasn't pressed to move it out.  Once the battle moved shifted more to the left about halfway through, I moved my batteries to be in better positions, and all were in clear ground.

[Wandering1]

10 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

The 12-gun battery had one or two of it's guns in trees for part of the battle, I noticed because it's Cover value was a bit higher than the other two batteries.  Although in my experience, forest doesn't have too much of an effect on artillery, so I wasn't pressed to move it out.  Once the battle moved shifted more to the left about halfway through, I moved my batteries to be in better positions, and all were in clear ground.

At the end of the day, the damage modifier just skews the kill counts downward. Meaning in this case, if your 12 gun battery was hindered whereas the 6 and 24 gun batteries were not, the 12 gun battery should have performed slightly better.

That's all of the questions I have regarding artillery performance; the bigger problem though since I assume the damage calculations do not vary greatly between artillery and the other unit types, is whether the other unit types suffer the same dropoff in terms of marginal performance. I.e. does the 1000 man brigade actually have higher damage per man than the 2000 man brigade?

One just doesn't notice this in general because it's rather hard to check; too many variables to skew the results.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Wandering1

[The Soldier]

1 minute ago, Wandering1 said:

At the end of the day, the damage modifier just skews the kill counts downward. Meaning in this case, if your 12 gun battery was hindered whereas the 6 and 24 gun batteries were not, the 12 gun battery should have performed slightly better.

That's all of the questions I have regarding artillery performance; the bigger problem though since I assume the damage calculations do not vary differently between artillery and the other unit types, is whether the other unit types suffer the same dropoff in terms of marginal performance. I.e. does the 1000 man brigade actually have higher damage per man than the 2000 man brigade?

One just doesn't notice this in general because it's rather hard to check; too many variables to skew the results.

Damage per man, I'm not sure.  But at least I'm certain a 2500-man Infantry Brigade is going to get more kills in a single volley than a 1000-man Infantry Brigade of the same stats and weapons - with artillery that's not even the case.

[Wandering1]

39 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

Damage per man, I'm not sure.  But at least I'm certain a 2500-man Infantry Brigade is going to get more kills in a single volley than a 1000-man Infantry Brigade of the same stats and weapons - with artillery that's not even the case.

Even worse, you're getting punished for bringing more guns by virtue of increased supply consumption. 

[JaM]

yeah, plus, its counter-historical, as batteries were more likely massed than dispersed, due to better fire control..

[veji1]

So at this stage, 12 guns batteries is considered if not the optimal choice pound for pound (ie per gun 6 might be better and actually each gun after the first one probably has decreased marginal efficiency) the most efficient in terms of total casualties/hits inflicted ?

[JaM]

I think game balance should be made around real combat principles of Civil war, therefore dispersing guns into small batteries should be less effective than large ones. Especially when more guns is costlier option.. As i mentioned above, having guns dispersed means problems with arty fire coordination, and i think actual impact of insufficient command structure (lower rank officer commanding the battery) would be actually much smaller than having whole battery divided into sub-batteries and commanded by lower rank officers.. just passing orders to them would be quite challenging, concentrating fire on specific target would be almost impossible.. (each battery commander would chose target he consider important)

 

On similar note, i also think penalties for losing a unit commander should be not given as if such unit didn't had any command.. These units had plenty of officers in, with full command structure. If Brigade General was killed, typically  oldest Colonel would step in, then captains etc..

 

[The Soldier]

2 hours ago, veji1 said:

So at this stage, 12 guns batteries is considered if not the optimal choice pound for pound (ie per gun 6 might be better and actually each gun after the first one probably has decreased marginal efficiency) the most efficient in terms of total casualties/hits inflicted ?

Currently, yes.

1 hour ago, JaM said:

I think game balance should be made around real combat principles of Civil war, therefore dispersing guns into small batteries should be less effective than large ones. Especially when more guns is costlier option.. As i mentioned above, having guns dispersed means problems with arty fire coordination, and i think actual impact of insufficient command structure (lower rank officer commanding the battery) would be actually much smaller than having whole battery divided into sub-batteries and commanded by lower rank officers.

I'm fairly certain larger batteries of artillery being half as effective as a battery half it's size isn't intended.

[Wandering1]

35 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

Currently, yes.

I'm fairly certain larger batteries of artillery being half as effective as a battery half it's size isn't intended.

In some respects though, it actually makes the scaling easier if the computer is using 24+ gun batteries. It doesn't help the computer even more on the higher difficulties they all use 20 lb parrotts. 

[Buford Protege]

6 hours ago, JaM said:

On similar note, i also think penalties for losing a unit commander should be not given as if such unit didn't had any command.. These units had plenty of officers in, with full command structure. If Brigade General was killed, typically  oldest Colonel would step in, then captains etc..

The problem with that is it was generally the most senior officer left in the unit would be required to take command.  That said, it was not always a streamlined situation.  Information in the midst of a battle was not always the easiest to send along.  Also, it is not guaranteed that the officer who would take over is remotely as good as the one he replaces.  Perhaps if it is a multi-day battle the command hit could be lessened as the unit would figure things out to fill the void.

There were many times on both sides that sub-par next in line officers would be sent to other commands or jobs.  For instance a commander may decide his next best commander wasn't the next in line.  So he would send that officer to serve on Courts Martials or other background tasks instead of frontline command which could make for bigger hits to the next in line.  You can see battles later in the war where a brigade would drop all the way to a Major in command until the end of the day before the division/corps command would rectify the issue overnight and send a higher ranked officer.  So maybe a medium hit for a commander lost and regain half of that loss on the next day of the fight?

[Admiral666]

I think the best way to model that would be for the current penalties to take effect immediately, and for a short time thereafter. After this initial period, the penalties should slowly reduce to a less severe level to model that there would indeed be an executive officer, etc, and reorganisation as time goes on. This reduction in penalty could itself be slowed if the unit is still engaged in combat to add a little more depth & realism.

 

In addition, the player should be able to replace KIA/WIA officers between days. I think this is already the case, but just to be thorough.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Admiral666

[Wandering1]

12 minutes ago, Admiral666 said:

I think the best way to model that would be for the current penalties to take effect immediately, and for a short time thereafter. After this initial period, the penalties should slowly reduce to a less severe level to model that there would indeed be an executive officer, etc, and reorganisation as time goes on. This reduction in penalty could itself be slowed if the unit is still engaged in combat to add a little more depth & realism.

 

In addition, the player should be able to replace KIA/WIA officers between days. I think this is already the case, but just to be thorough.

While replacing officers between days is certainly possible at the moment, there is a bug in the game that prevents the kill or wound from counting, so you just have a worthless officer in your inventory indefinitely. So ideally you wouldn't want to try replacing between days at the moment.

[Draluigi]

This is both a major and easy to fix (I think I actually have no idea lol...) problem. At the very least make big batteries have a diminishing return instead of a straight downgrade!

Artillery concentration IMO should carry NO penalty. Its drawbacks would already be simulated by the need for a higher-ranked commanding officer. Their volleys should be tweeked to kill numbers that proportionally increase with the number of guns in a battery, unlike infantry and the rest. As said before grouping artillery together (maybe not at the battery level though) was very much a favored tactics at the time, and as I understand it the chief of artillery in  one army, with the massive artillery reserve played a major role. This should receive some kind of a bonus, an incentive for such a tactic.

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by Draluigi

[veji1]

7 minutes ago, Draluigi said:

This is both a major and easy to fix (I think I actually have no idea lol...) problem. At the very least make big batteries have a diminishing return instead of a straight downgrade!

Artillery concentration IMO should carry NO penalty. Its drawbacks would already be simulated by the need for a higher-ranked commanding officer. Their volleys should be tweeked to kill numbers that proportionally increase with the number of guns in a battery, unlike infantry and the rest. As said before grouping artillery together (maybe not at the battery level though) was very much a favored tactics at the time, and as I understand it the chief of artillery in  one army, with the massive artillery reserve played a major role. This should receive some kind of a bonus, an incentive for such a tactic.

 

Regarding arty grouping there is no need of a specific bonus, the effect is already there : I grouped 6 batteries in a close box of 3 batteries and a line of 3 immediately behind. The wholes it blew in the brigades in front of it werre terrifying, the just routed and parted like the red sea.

[Draluigi]

9 minutes ago, veji1 said:

Regarding arty grouping there is no need of a specific bonus, the effect is already there : I grouped 6 batteries in a close box of 3 batteries and a line of 3 immediately behind. The wholes it blew in the brigades in front of it werre terrifying, the just routed and parted like the red sea.

That's true. To be honest my main issue is that I like having a lot of artillery. I just buy as much of it as possible, even the 6 pounders. I have like 600 guns at gettysburg in major gen difficulty as the csa. Having them have "inverted performances" is actually very annoying now that I know it. I'd be ok i guess with just diminshing returns like the rest. I really don't see any reason for inverted performances.

Also, artillery fire is way too "screen free". It seems to me arty shoots anything anywhere in range. Beyond walls, trees, terrain, units that are RIGHT front of its muzzles. That's pretty annoying too I guess , though I use it to quite good effect myself ^^

Edited March 17, 2017 by Draluigi

[veji1]

yeah maybe fire through obstacles has lower efficiency, but we don't even really know. arty placing in that regard isn't as important as it should be, I usually try to keep my arty as close as my infantry as possible, moving it forward or backwards all the time, whereas in reality most of the time once a good spot was found, arty didn't move much.

[civsully1]

Probably one of the most eye opening discussions I've read here. And all along now I thought more was better. Would really help all understand the game mechanics better if the Developers would add their input from time to time on topics like this. At the very least they will need to do a real good job with this in the rules/strategy of the game when it goes final. A big round of applause to those above that have figured this out!  Going forward....12 gun batteries it would seem for me!

[The Soldier]

5 minutes ago, civsully1 said:

Probably one of the most eye opening discussions I've read here. And all along now I thought more was better. Would really help all understand the game mechanics better if the Developers would add their input from time to time on topics like this. At the very least they will need to do a real good job with this in the rules/strategy of the game when it goes final. A big round of applause to those above that have figured this out!  Going forward....12 gun batteries it would seem for me!

6-12 gun batteries - for the moment.  I want to wait for the next set of patch notes or developer input before seeing if 24-gun batteries are supposed to be so terrible.

[civsully1]

Just now, The Soldier said:

6-12 gun batteries - for the moment.  I want to wait for the next set of patch notes or developer input before seeing if 24-gun batteries are supposed to be so terrible.

Right. So would you say an 8 gun battery of 24 pdrs would be more effective then say a 24 gun battery of Napoleons??

[The Soldier]

13 minutes ago, civsully1 said:

Right. So would you say an 8 gun battery of 24 pdrs would be more effective then say a 24 gun battery of Napoleons??

Definitely.

[civsully1]

3 hours ago, The Soldier said:

Definitely.

All of this is sinking in ever so slowly!  Lots to reconsider as I grasp the nuances my first go around. And as I was patting myself on the back after repulsing the Union's first round at 2nd Bull Run....now Porter's boys have entered the fray. I sure wish I hadn't bought all those damn useless 24 gun 12 pdr Howitzers and spent it on better and SMALLER guns and infantry.

[civsully1]

So what with Soldier has determined and supported by other's trials....if in the middle of a campaign and one had built 24 gun batteries...would it be wise to disband that unit to form smaller more effective ones?  Would there be any penalties involved in doing this?

[Sykes]

12 minutes ago, civsully1 said:

So what with Soldier has determined and supported by other's trials....if in the middle of a campaign and one had built 24 gun batteries...would it be wise to disband that unit to form smaller more effective ones?  Would there be any penalties involved in doing this?

I've actually thought of this too.  I'm tired of two star under performing 24 gun battery brigades. 

At this point, I almost think it would be wise to just re-start the campaign & rebuild your army.  I'll probably end up doing that next time I play knowing what I know now after reading the forums.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Sykes

[The Soldier]

9 minutes ago, civsully1 said:

So what with Soldier has determined and supported by other's trials....if in the middle of a campaign and one had built 24 gun batteries...would it be wise to disband that unit to form smaller more effective ones?  Would there be any penalties involved in doing this?

Well, you're gonna lose the experience from the gun crew (yes, the experience is saved in the Recruit pool, but if you've got 20k recruits, it's not going to change anything) unless you drain the recruit pool first and disband your gun battery to remake it.

[civsully1]

12 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

Well, you're gonna lose the experience from the gun crew (yes, the experience is saved in the Recruit pool, but if you've got 20k recruits, it's not going to change anything) unless you drain the recruit pool first and disband your gun battery to remake it.

Would you say then that the loss of experience would still be worth disbanding a 24 gun unit in gaining more efficient smaller batteries? That is where I'm at with this question as I'm one battle away from Antietam.

And as Sykes notes above that I will go with 6 gun units when I start over again as the Union. In the meantime I still have many lessons to learn continuing to play as the CSA.