Columbiad and Rodman batteries

[Aphrodite Mae]

I was wondering, Columbiad and Rodman guns were large seacoast guns, however in the game there are Columbiad (CSA) and Rodman (Union) batteries of field artillery, so I was wondering what exactly represent those batteries?

I'm not the artillerist that my husband is, but it looks to me like "Fort Batteries" have similar properties to Columbiads. (Range, damage, and all that.) I wonder if that's what the designers were modeling, with the fort batteries.

Havely

[aryaman]

Rats... This was my doing... I found discrepancies listing wrongly named graphics with their associated artillery pieces and changed them to match the correct names, not knowing that the graphics themselves were misnamed. I'll fix this in the next update...

To paraphrase an old expression: "You can't make a good omelette without breaking a few eggs".

edit> below is a Quick fix for the Artillery graphics, could someone (quickly) try them out and let me know if they correct the bronze/steel graphics switch. If confirmed I'll submit them to Pocus for another v1.12a (RC6)? update maybe tomorrow (I hope).

Regards
.

The 10pdr Parrot and 20pdr Parrot use the same graphic (I can´t spot any difference). The 6pdr and 12pdr also use the same graphic, but they can easily be told apart by the Nato light arty simbol of the 6pdr.

So, I wonder, there is an Arty3inch graphic that as far as I see it is not used, can´t it be used for the 20pdr Parrot? In fact the graphic looks like a larger gun.

[aryaman]

BTW I have come across to other, more reasonable, candidate for the Columbiads and Rodmans, the 24lb Howitzer, this is what Wiki says
"As with the corresponding heavy field guns, the heavier howitzers were available in limited quantities early in the war. Both Federal and Confederate contracts list examples of 24-pounders delivered during the war, and surviving examples exist of imported Austrian types of this caliber used by the Confederates. These 24-pounder howitzers found use in the "reserve" batteries of the respective armies, but were gradually replaced over time with heavy rifled guns"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_artillery_in_the_American_Civil_War

[Mangudai]

http://www.nps.gov/frsp/photosmultimedia/leeshill.htm


This is telegraph hill at the Fredericksburg battlefield. The gun in the foreground is a 12 Napoleon, I think. I don't know exactly what the gun in the background is. It's massive, easily 5 times the mass of the Napoleon.

[Jabberwock]

Looks like a US Army 30 lb Parrott.

[Mangudai]

Could be... It belonged to the CSA not the US. I saw it a few years ago, so I can't remember the exact details.

It was definitely a rifled gun that could counter-fire against Stafford heights about 2 miles away. I believe it was brought up from Richmond to fortify Fredericksburg, hence not part of ANV's regular artillery. I also recall it took multiple horses to pull it, don't remember exactly how many.

[Jabberwock]

Army Registry #341 (or possibly #323 a little further south) I believe. Each has a Confederate Napoleon nearby.

[Nial]

So if both North and South used 30lb parrots? Why not just change the Columbiad/ Rodmans to 30lb Parrots?

Nial

[aryaman]

So if both North and South used 30lb parrots? Why not just change the Columbiad/ Rodmans to 30lb Parrots?

Nial

Because they are siege guns, so they should be already represented in the siege gun unit.

[Nial]

Would seem to bolster the case for the Columbiad/ Rodman to become a light siege category instead of a heavy cannon. Though the howitzer idea is intriguing as well. Since alot of arty units had howitzers attached. Either way would seem to fit better than what we have now. JMHO

Nial

[Lew]

I support changing the name of the Rodman gun to "3" ordnance rifle". Cost and combat values currently look pretty good.

According to http://www.cwartillery.org/aguns.html, the 3" ordnance rifle was common, mass-produced, and an artillerist's favorite. I'm almost positive it's actually the gun the developers had in mind.

If we wanted extra fancy guns we could also offer a few Whitworths and/or Armstrongs...

[Dixicrat]

Here are the pros and cons of considering the "Rodman" as modeled in the game to be a 3" Ordnance Rifle.

Pros
1) The WEI of the Rodman model is quite high, which suggests either a large gun of the siege/garrison/coastal sort, or a FA weapon more expensive than most to produce... much like the 3" Ordnance Rifle.

2) Because the game build time for the "Rodman" is that of FA rather than Siege/Coastal, this would seem to imply that the "Rodman" was considered as FA by the original model designer.

3) The "OffFire" (in other words, "to hit") value for the Rodman is the highest of any other FA in the game. This is in keeping with the accuracy of the 3".

Cons
1) The range of the "Rodman" model is greater than the model of the 10 lb Parrott. My understanding is that the range of the historic 3" OrdRfl was almost identical to the 10 lb Parrott.

2) The initiative of the Rodman as modeled is similar to other modeled smooth-bore weapons, rather than modeled rifled weapons. In particular, it seems to me that the 3" OrdRfl would have an initiative at least equal to, and likely greater than, that of a 10 lb Parrott.

3) The damage done by the Rodman model is 150% that of other FA. In other words, it's consistant with Siege/Coastal weapons, rather than FA.

[Lew]

Here are the pros and cons of considering the "Rodman" as modeled in the game to be a 3" Ordnance Rifle.

(snippity)

Cons
1) The range of the "Rodman" model is greater than the model of the 10 lb Parrott. My understanding is that the range of the historic 3" OrdRfl was almost identical to the 10 lb Parrott.

Consider effective range. What range can you fire off a gun and have a reasonable expectation of not just wasting your ammo? Accuracy is key here.

2) The initiative of the Rodman as modeled is similar to other modeled smooth-bore weapons, rather than modeled rifled weapons. In particular, it seems to me that the 3" OrdRfl would have an initiative at least equal to, and likely greater than, that of a 10 lb Parrott.

If the "Rodman" is given a higher range, it will be able to fire first ... but only in situations that allow greater range. No special need for an unusual initiative rating (either high or low) unless the gun had quicker setup or greater maneuverability - which seems unlikely for the 3" Ordinance rifle.

3) The damage done by the Rodman model is 150% that of other FA. In other words, it's consistant with Siege/Coastal weapons, rather than FA.

This point I have no response to; it's a definite CON.


Consider another point, one that's pretty well definitive for me: This model's speed. It's the same speed as other field artillery, which means the player and the AI can and will use it as field artillery. Given the choice of the developers mistaking the speed, or their making a trifling error on the name, the latter is vastly the more probable.

[Comtedemeighan]

Well the Rodman is a siege gun is my understanding its pretty big heres a picture

[Comtedemeighan]

Its my understanding that the Rodman is just a siege gun heres a picture

[aryaman]

Consider another point, one that's pretty well definitive for me: This model's speed. It's the same speed as other field artillery, which means the player and the AI can and will use it as field artillery. Given the choice of the developers mistaking the speed, or their making a trifling error on the name, the latter is vastly the more probable.

There are additional important cons

1) The defensive values of Rodman/Columbiad units are higher than their offensive values, more like an smoothbore than a rifle gun

2) The force pool is very limited, only 7 units for the CSA for instance

3) The 3inch Ordnance was used in many units during the war, however in the Historical scenarios Rodman/Columbiad units are absent, clearly the designers didn´t feel they represented 3 inch Ordnance.

4) The Union Horse Arty is explicitely said to be composed of 3 inch Ordnance guns, however their statistics are very different from Rodman.

[Dixicrat]

...The Union Horse Arty is explicitly said to be composed of 3 inch Ordnance guns...

In AACW game literature? Where?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[aryaman]

Sorry, this is not in either release of the game manual, so I would have to rule out the term "explicitly"...

I'm betting you might be confused with either the information about the contents of Clovis' SVF mod, or by having seen a discussion elsewhere on this issue.

No, I didn´t say it is in the game manual.The artillery data used in the game now is not the original one, it is the work of an artillery mod made by Jagger and included in a patch, v.107 I think.
In the notes on his mode Jagger, in this thread http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5348&highlight=Artillery+Mod
although he says that Union Horse artillery represents 10lb Parrot, but then in the discussion it is clear he sees them as really representing 3" ordnance when discussing with McNaughton, that regularly uses 3" instead of 10lb for the unit, he says I like adding the 3" rifle, primarily for flavor reasons, but they were also slightly superior to the 10pdr Parrott. I definitely think the CSA needs a 3" rifle horse artillery battery-so a second model

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[aryaman]

Interesting read. Back then they were somewhat limited by the capability to replace models and units and hence tended to reuse other original artillery models to implement changes. This has resulted in some of the artillery models being confusing as to what their actual intent is vs the name given to them.

Now we have the capability to design new models with the correct appropriate name and place them into the models/units database files, being careful to preserve original aliases for game reference. The entire models/units folders along with the associated aliases are contained in each patch and have been for quite some time now, meaning we can do this type of work without impacting the patches much at all.

Basically, you guys can think along the lines of newly designed models and units instead of continuing to try to figure out how to reuse older models. Once we have some definitive models, we'll have to figure out how to place them in the various reinforcement pools and in what numbers.

edit> It's late and rereading this sounds like like it might be confusing. Here's what I'm trying to say:

If the current Columbiad/Rodman models as they are named have some inappropriate characteristics pertaining to their usage as their names portray, we should make the characteristics match the names and determine the game usage according to that combination.

We can now add additional brand new artillery models with the appropriate names and then introduce them into the game in the appropriate pools. I can easily do this database work itself but getting together workable characteristics and then determining how many should be available where and in what numbers will have to be provided by you guys with some sort of historical basis. In this case, it does not have to be perfectly historical numbers just reasonable as this is a player choice to produce more or less of these artillery pieces than historically available.

Hope this is a little clearer than the first 2 paragraphs... LOL. I'll be up later if you need any more information. Time to get a little snooze first.

So, you mean we can list a number of models with their historical data and then you can translate those in the database game, is that right?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[aryaman]

Kinda yes. The problem will be translating the historical availability into the reinforcement units for the various states, but we'll work on that when we get to it. First we need valid models to build units off of.

Ok, do you want me to post the data I find in a different thread?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ShovelHead]

Was this issue resolved? I couldn't find any thread in the mods, section concerning this. The Columbiad and Rodman names do not match the unit parameters. Columbiad and Rodman units were not medium artillery.

[Dixicrat]

Was this issue resolved? I couldn't find any thread in the mods, section concerning this. The Columbiad and Rodman names do not match the unit parameters. Columbiad and Rodman units were not medium artillery.

I am a member of a subgroup of the AACW beta team which has been formed to examine this and similar issues related to ordnance. The delay of any progress on the issue can be directly attributed to me, since I've taken something of a vacation from my responsibilities to the forum for over a month, and have done nothing in the way of research or design.

I apologize for "dropping the ball" so to speak, and accept full responsibility for the lack of progress in artillery matters over the past month or so. I got burnt out, and needed to spend some time away from the game. However, as of now, I'm "back on the job".

So, we'll see what happens.

[ShovelHead]

I'm "back on the job".

Glad to hear that Dixicrat. The current Coastal Artillery units in the game model Columbiad and Rodman cannons much better than the model parameters current in use. This area needs some work.

[Comtedemeighan]

Glad to hear that Dixicrat. The current Coastal Artillery units in the game model Columbiad and Rodman cannons much better than the model parameters current in use. This area needs some work.

I agree with you there Shovelhead

[Dixicrat]

I wanted to take a moment to provide a status report of the progress of the AACW Beta team in evaluating the Columbiad/Rodman issue.

The current Coastal Artillery units in the game model Columbiad and Rodman cannons much better than the model parameters current in use. This area needs some work.

We tend to agree with ShovelHead's assessment, and have agreed that Columbiads and Rodmans will be removed from being categorized as Field Artillery. Instead, they will be reassigned to Heavy Artillery. To fill their place, new models are being developed for the role of "Heavy Field Artillery". To cite one example, I'm currently developing a preliminary model for a 30 lb Parrott Rifle.

One of our goals is to realign the models of Columbiads and Rodmans to reflect the historic usage of such ordnance: "Coastal Defense", and as the heaviest category of "Siege and Garrison" weapons. This will undoubtedly entail many changes in the current C/R models. While most of the particular changes haven't been agreed upon yet, there is at least one thing which is definite: mobility will be drastically curtailed.

I'll post updates, as we move closer toward our goals.

[ShovelHead]

Instead, they will be reassigned to Heavy Artillery. To fill their place, new models are being developed for the role of "Heavy Field Artillery". To cite one example, I'm currently developing a preliminary model for a 30 lb Parrott Rifle.

One of our goals is to realign the models of Columbiads and Rodmans to reflect the historic usage of such ordnance: "Coastal Defense", and as the heaviest category of "Siege and Garrison" weapons. This will undoubtedly entail many changes in the current C/R models. While most of the particular changes haven't been agreed upon yet, there is at least one thing which is definite: mobility will be drastically curtailed.

Has any thought been given to modeling the 12-,24- and 32-pound Howitzers? Their use in the field was much more prevelent than the 'heavies'. The main difference between the howitzers and guns is the howitzers had a shorter range, but were just as effective (if not more) than guns at short range.
I agree with your decision to roll the Columbiads and Rodmans into the Siege and seacoast units. This was their main use during the war.

I assume the 3-inch Ordnance rifle (Wrought Iron Rifle) is modeled as the 10-lb Parrott. It was the most widely used rifled cannon during the war.