Artillery Analysis 2.0

[Dixicrat]

New and Improved!

This package consists of two files: "Artillery Analysis 2.0", which is the discussion; and "AA2", which is a spreadsheet. Both files use Open Office, which I strongly recommend using to open them, although they can be opened with MS Office too.

[aryaman]

Great! I will start studying that in depth inmediately
Edit: I can´t open the file with Microsoft Office Excel, any suggestion?

[Jarkko]

Can't open it with Excel, not even when using the open-source converter.

Could you please save the data in .csv as it can then be opened in any office program (Microsoft Office, Lotus Office, Open Office etc)? You know it is equally bad to use Microsoft spesific file-formats as it is to use some other program-spesific file-formats when there are the generic formats (.csv and .rtf) available too

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Dixicrat]

Could you please save the data in .csv as it can then be opened in any office program (Microsoft Office, Lotus Office, Open Office etc)? You know it is equally bad to use Microsoft specific file-formats as it is to use some other program-specific file-formats when there are the generic formats (.csv and .rtf) available too

I wish I could, Jarkko. The CSV format only enables a single sheet, and there are four sheets in the workbook. Also, formatting isn't preserved in CSV formats, and some tables in my workbook use color and other formatting as a visual aid.

Generic formats are great for presenting raw data, but those formats are limited in functionality and scope. Aside from the visual elements of color and formatting enabled in non-generic file formats, there is a much more significant aspect: they can be programmed, and include ActiveX controls. Later (think "months"), I'll be releasing stuff which include controls and routines. If you want to be able to use that "stuff", generic formats just won't do.

I use Open Office rather than Excel because Open Office is free and readily availible online, while Excel requires the MS Office Suite which costs $249. I remember being poor, and the frustration and anger that I felt when I was unable to afford expensive software that was the de facto standard for my profession. So, I use Open Source software for three reasons: its free, and it has all of the features I need.

[lodilefty]

Try a save as Excel/97 from OO:

[ATTACH]5733[/ATTACH]

{I almost never use the OO format to save}

[Coregonas]

Just a couple things for your calculations.

I Consider 1.13 patch, now, with the new improvement rules. The values were somewhat different under 1.12 but roughly the same.

1.- You should value 6 lbs as 12 lbs, ignore their own values . At least, add a new line for your analysis considering the 12 lbs with a WEI cost (as you say) as a 6 lbs. This TURNS in FACT 6 lbs as THE BEST BEST BEST gun in the GAME regarding WEI cost.

Conversion ratio is fast enough to make this, specially considering this is a 120 turn game, not a 10 turn game, and the analyisis seems to me a WAR PRODUCTION EFFORT.

By Mid 62, 80% of 6 lbs are surely upgraded to 12lbs.

2.- WEI should not have into account MONEY, IMHO, as far as 1.13 is involved. ONLY War Supply must be taken into account. Just try, and observe results.

This even adds more to the previous 6 lbs best gun available. In fact, it raises 12 lbs to a very good gun, just 50% costly than 6 lbs for same effect.

3.- Lone Artillery can not be built in quantities enough. Once ALL LONE "profitable" artillery is purchased, you must start building the artillery searching for them in the BRIGADES.

So... A collateral evaluation should be done about the most "profitable brigades"... This is my simple method -> Buy the brigades with the most Artillery / Infantry Proportion, then select those with the most profitable artillery type.

4.- WEI should be NEUTRAL regarding CONSCRIPT points... CSA costs 2 conscript, the same as USA. This adds 4 extra hits and EXTRA FIREPOWER for NO CONSCRIPT cost. USA batteries should cost 3 conscript points

Oh Im not asking for more changes in the game, just easy talk about artillery maths...

Ohh... You could add a simple RATIO formula POWER / WEI for readers to see clearly the best Battery!

[Coregonas]

Just lost a few minuts with your table. I added a POWER/WIE RATIO to the party, the a RELATIVE value to the BEST gun (6lbs) in %, the higher the better.



Duplicated the table with WIE = WS value only (no money),,, values are similar, just a bit more favouring 6 % 12 lbs. Horse Arty seems good to me in relative power.

Of course the best gun is the BIGGER Columbiads, just it is not the most "productive" in industrial terms.

[Major Tom]

This is all great info.

But, I'm confused about the 6 lbr. issue. I was under the impression that these guns were next to worthless, but now everyone seems to love them because they upgrade to 12 lbr.

I'm skeptical because the price difference betwwen 6 lbr and 12 isn't that great - just 1 WS (I ignore money because WS is always the limiting factor).

At what point do 6 lbr's start upgrading? I ask this because I have never noticed it in the game. But then I've never played beyond late 1862. If the upgrades don't happen in the first year or even 2, then wouldn't it make more sense to load up on the 12's early on and only start buying 6's when they are about to become obsolete? Or is upgrade timing based on the age of the unit? (it would be kind of stupid to be able to buy a 6 lbr. and have it upgrade to a 12 just a few turns later).

It just seems to me that as the CSA you're crippling your early war fighting ability if you load up mainly on 6 lbr's instead of 12's.

[dooya]

[...] So, I use Open Source software for [color="Red"]three [/color]reasons:

[color="Red"](1)[/color] its free,
[color="Red"](2)[/color] and it has all of the features I need.

[color="Red"](3) ???[/color]

And it helps you counting. Hopefully.

[Redeemer]

Per the changes for v1.13.

[color="Red"]5.) Reworked the 6 lb Artillery to "TechUpg"rade to the 12 lb Artillery. Also removed the "TechUpg"rade for 12 lb Artillery. (They should remain 12 lbers throughout the war).[/color]

How does this effect you analysis? and what does "reworked" mean. Are they harder or easier now?

[Coregonas]

In 1.12 was:
6 lbs to 10 lbs
12 lbs to 20 lbs

Dixicrat Values are made considering 1.13 (well i believe so)

----

Militia and all types of infantry start upgrading around August 61.
Artillery start upgrading January 62

----

only 1 WS less is 50% less!!!

You can buy 10 12 lbs or 15 6 lbs.

-----

I personally buy 12lbs, some Horse Art for speed, then 6 lbs, then columbiads, ... now artillery brigades if manpower available,.... then 20 lbs then 10 lbs.

----
It is hard to optimum purchase, but, the ideal would be have all 6 lbs AVAILABLE for purchase by December 61

[Major Tom]

Artillery start upgrading January 62
----
It is hard to optimum purchase, but, the ideal would be have all 6 lbs AVAILABLE for purchase by December 61

Thanks for the info. I guess I've had 6 lbr's upgrading on me without noticing!

I've definitely seen militia upgrading to conscript, though -- it's a lot more noticeable (and an interesting thing about that is that static garrison units seem to unlock when they upgrade.

[Dixicrat]

And it helps you counting. Hopefully.

This was my attempt at subtle humor. That post was in response to Jarkko, who's signature says something along the lines of "there are three kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't".

[Coregonas]

I vote this Jarkko quote as one of the best quotes ever read! perhaps a poll should be done.

Just remember we non-english natives (30%-40% of the people here?) can not understand easily your Jokes.... such as that Jabberwock said regarding corpses HQs.

[Big Ideas]

In version 1.12 all the USA field and horse artillery cost three CCs.
and the coastal and mortars cost two CC each.
Their replacement chits cost:
light $13 CC 3 WS 3
field $23 CC 2 WS 7
heavy$47 CC 2 WS 15

I haven't upgraded to version 1.13 though so these might have changed.

BI

[Big Ideas]

also you can tell if an artillery element has upgraded by the changed colour of its barrel. The 2nd NC has a bronze barrel in the roster but a steel one on the unit detail info. so it has upgraded. the other artilleries have the steel barrel colour so were not upgradable.

[Dixicrat]

Dixicrat Values are made considering 1.13 (well i believe so)

The database I used was 1.11g. Henceforth, I'll make a point of making it clear which database I've used.
[EDIT 24Feb09: the database that I used was AACW_DB_Models44g. I mixed the patch number up with the db version number when I made the original post.]

I must respectfully disagree with your assessment that a battery of four 6 lbrs is the optimal design, Coregonas, for three reasons:
1) The hit probability of four CSA six pounders is only 39% for achieving a single hit, per round.
2) The range of 6 lbrs is suitable only for short range engagements; If you're caught in the open with only 6 lbrs, you're toast.
3) You make an excellent point about the cost efficiency of 6 lbrs, given that they upgrade to 12 lbrs. However, 12 lbrs also have a very low hit probability for offensive fire: 10%. While it's true that a battery of four 12 lbrs have a 57% chance of inflicting one hit group of damage per round, this is insignificant because 2 damage every other round just isn't going to have a significant effect on the enemy.

So: I believe that 6 lbrs have their usefulness, but that should definitely not be the core of a division's artillery. I maintain that 6 lbrs (and 12 lbrs) should augment long range weapons, for purposes of Fire and Maneuver.

That being said, I do think that there is a limited role for batteries consisting of four or more 6 and 12 lbrs: Point Defense, in non-open terrain.

[Jarkko]

That being said, I do think that there is a limited role for batteries consisting of four or more 6 and 12 lbrs: Point Defense, in non-open terrain.

They are what I use for independent divisions. They have a shorter range, yes, but for an independent division, in big enough numbers, they are the killers.

Corps and armies should IMO pack the rifled artillery. Divisions in corps should not bother carrying along artillery, but the corps should pack a mean punch. 30+ rifled guns, under the command of the corps commander, will make quite an impact.



Btw, thanks for the nice comments of my signature It is actually there to remind me to always check if I still can count to three, it is suprising how often I fail in that

[Major Tom]

Divisions in corps should not bother carrying along artillery, but the corps should pack a mean punch. 30+ rifled guns, under the command of the corps commander, will make quite an impact.

Jarkko - this may be a stupid question (I'm still learning the game), but how can you afford the CP cost of massed artillery in a Corps or Army stack without assigning them to Divisions? Every artillery element costs one CP, so adding 4 of them at the stack level reduces by 1 the number of Divisions you can have in the stack without a CP penalty. Wouldn't it always be better to have an extra full 18-element Division instead of 4 unassigned elements of artillery?

I can see that by reducing the number of Divisions per Corps and augmenting the stack with artillery, you can increase your number of Corps stacks relative to available Divisions. But, that would result in stacks with lower power.

I've been operating under the assumption that it's always better to mass as much power into a stack as you can, even if it means using fewer stacks. So I try to max out the number of Divisions in a stack and only add add stack-level artillery if I have a few extra CP available, or not enough Divisions to fill up.

Am I doing it wrong?

[Dixicrat]

Per the changes for v1.13.

5.) Reworked the 6 lb Artillery to "TechUpg"rade to the 12 lb Artillery. Also removed the "TechUpg"rade for 12 lb Artillery. (They should remain 12 lbers throughout the war).

How does this effect you analysis? and what does "reworked" mean. Are they harder or easier now?

This has no effect on my analysis.

By "reworked", the AACW coordinator, Gray Lensman, means that the model has been redefined. One of the database properties of the model is "TechUpg", which specifies a) whether the model is subject to a tech upgrade, and b) what the unit becomes after such an upgrade. He's saying that the 6 lbr will now upgrade to a 12 lbr, and the 12 lbr will no longer upgrade at all. (In earlier versions of AACW, 6 lbrs upgraded to 10 lb Parrotts, and 12 lbrs upgraded to 20 lb Parrotts.)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "harder" or "easier", but if you're asking whether the upgrade chances have changed, the answer is "no" for the 6 lbr.

[Jarkko]

Jarkko - this may be a stupid question (I'm still learning the game), but how can you afford the CP cost of massed artillery in a Corps or Army stack without assigning them to Divisions? Every artillery element costs one CP, so adding 4 of them at the stack level reduces by 1 the number of Divisions you can have in the stack without a CP penalty. Wouldn't it always be better to have an extra full 18-element Division instead of 4 unassigned elements of artillery?

Use more corps

Yes, I started during 1.12 to use just *two* infantry divisions per corps in the east, and then pack the corps with artillery. Two divisions worth of infantry pretty neatly fill the frontage in all but clear terrain during good weather (and even then it is not a big gap to full cover, that can be covered by cavalry and/or specialists).

Notice that (if I have understood right) artillery at the corps level shoot at the strongest enemy division. Massed rifled artillery will decimate the divisions long before they have the chance to return fire. If the enemy divisions carry 4 elements artillery, they have routed already before getting a chance to shoot.

I have yet to upgrade to 1.13 where this may be different though. Perhaps there are not enough 2-star leaders available for corps now, and there for sure are no corps available in 61. But I want to first finish an on-going game before updating the game

[Major Tom]

Very interesting strategy. I'll have to try it!

Are you able to use this strategy with both sides, or only with USA? I would think that limited war supply for CSA would make this difficult.

[BigDuke66]

Sorry to dig up such an old thread but I'm very interests in this sheet.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work under Excel 2007 at all.
It opens fine but it doesn't make any calculations and I guess that's not the way it's supposed to be.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[BigDuke66]

Thanks.
I just looked a bit around and found this:
OpenXML/ODF Translator Add-in for Office

Works fine.
Just to be sure I checked all values, except power as I don't know how he calculated it, and they fit with 1.15.

[Brochgale]

New and Improved!

This package consists of two files: "Artillery Analysis 2.0", which is the discussion; and "AA2", which is a spreadsheet. Both files use Open Office, which I strongly recommend using to open them, although they can be opened with MS Office too.

Good to see that the community is still as fanatical about the game as ever. Yours from a very busy and harrassed married and family man.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Brochgale]

Unfortunately, Dixicrat's last forum visit was Sept 10, 2009.

I wonder if the same fate befell as did me - the acquisition of a bawling pink bundle of future poverty? i.e a baby daughter!

[Sarkus]

I wonder if the same fate befell as did me - the acquisition of a bawling pink bundle of future poverty? i.e a baby daughter!

Unfortunately, none of the (relatively) recent ACW strategy games seems to have particularly active communities anymore. I'm not sure why, since all three were well received at the time. When I get my periodic jonesing for ACW strategy, I check them all out (though I own only two of the three) and there are very few new posts.