Jagger
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Artillery Mod available for download

Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:31 pm

(Also posted in the Mod subforum)

Here is an artillery mod for ACW. I primarily wanted to reflect the differences between rifled and smoothbore guns. Rifles were more effective at range than smoothbore guns. However smoothbore guns had major advantages in terms of close range defensive fire. I also wanted to model the differences in battery size between CSA and US artillery units. US batteries typically contained 6 pieces vs a CSA battery with 4 pieces. Finally I wanted siege artillery restricted to their primary role of siege as they simply were too big and clumsy for use in field battles.

12 artillery model files have been modded. Those 12 artillery models are the US/CSA horse artillery, 6lb, 12lb, 10lb Parrott, 20lb Parrott and the Siege Artillery. The Rodman and Columbiad need to be modded as well. So perhaps in the near future.

To install the mod, simply download the zipped file at the bottom of this post into your model folder within the gamedata folder of your ACW folder. Then use copy/paste to make a copy of your model folder. Finally unzip the 12 files in your original model folder and overwrite the original 12 files. Your original files will still be preserved in your copied model folder. The artillery mod can be introduced into any current game at any time.

Hopefully this mod will produce a more historical and realistic representation of artillery within an ACW game. I look forward to any feedback or suggestions. I know others are also working on artillery mods as well and I eagerly anticipate seeing their versions.

Here is a list of the major changes:

1. Rifled guns such as the 10lb/20lb Parott have a higher OFFFire value than smoothbore guns such as 6 and 12lbs. Rifled artillery inflicts greater cohesion damage at range. Rifled artillery also have longer range than smoothbores. Note that the 20lb Parott is a superior gun to the 10lb Parrott but the 10lb Parrott is more efficient in terms of money and war supplies cost vs battlefield effectiveness.

2. Smoothbore artillery is more effective when a formation is in defensive mode. They also have stronger assault values than rifled guns. They inflict more casualties and cohesion damage at assault range than rifled. They are also more likely to participate in close range assault fire than rifled artillery. Smoothbores have shorter range and less accuracy than rifles.

3. US horse artillery batteries are composed of six 10lb Parrott rifles. CSA horse artillery are composed of four 6lb smoothbores. Horse artillery batteries have high assault values and are more likely to participate in 0 range combat.

4. US batteries are composed of 6 guns. CSA batteries are composed of 4 guns. Thus OFFFire and DEFFire reflects the larger batteries of US vs CSA batteries. However all CSA batteries, except siege, now cost less in both money and war supplies to reflect the smaller number of guns in a battery. CSA will be able to afford more artillery batteries but each will be a bit weaker than the original version.

5. Siege Artillery has a ROF of 1 and produces extremely low damdone and cohesiondone with hits. So siege Artillery is almost useless in field battles. However with their high power of 40 and their siege-engineer special ability, they will be very useful in sieges.

6. I have not adjusted the values of Rodman and Columbiad artillery. I see them as basically static coastal artillery depending on which version of gun is represented. I will work on them later.

In terms of game play, 6lb and 12lb smoothbore batteries are most useful in defense. The 10lb and 20lb Parrotts are most useful when attacking. Siege guns are basically useless in field battles but very useful in sieges. Horse artillery is expensive but can provide some badly needed ranged firepower for cavalry. In terms of cost, the 12lb smoothbore and the 10lb Parrotts provide the best bang per dollar. A balance of different types of artillery is always best. However if you intend to attack often with an army, I would build more rifled artillery. And if I expect an army to defend primarily, I would supply that army with a bit more smoothbore artillery.

Below are the major stat changes.

OFFFire determines whether a unit achieves a hit when in offensive stance. Note that CSA Horse Artillery is composed of 6lb guns while US Horse Artillery is composed of 10Lb Parrott guns.

Off Fire per battery CSA(4guns) USA(6guns)
Horse Art 7(6lb) 19(10lb)
6lb 6 9
12lb 10 15
10lb Parrott 13 19
20lb Parrott 15 23
Siege Artillery 35 35

DEFFire determines whether a unit achieves a hit when in defensive stance.

Def Fire CSA(4guns) USA(6guns)
Horse Art 13 23
6lb 12 18
12lb 20 30
10lb Parrott 14 22
20lb Parrott 16 24
Siege Artillery 35 35

Range is the maximum range a unit may fire.

Range:
CSA Horse Art 5
US Horse Art 6
6lb 5
12lb 5
10lb Parrott 6
20lb Parrott 7
Siege Artillery 8

Rate of Fire for Siege Artillery reduced to 1. ROF for all other artillery is 2.

Assault value determines whether a unit will fight at 0 range. The higher the number, the more likely a unit will fight at assault range.

Assault Values:
CSA Horse Art 8
US Horse Art 8
6lb 7
12lb 7
10lb Parrott 5
20lb Parrott 4
Siege Artillery 3

Damage is the number of hits against a enemy elements at all ranges except 0. Cohesion damaged is subtracted from the unit cohesion.

Damage Done/CohesionDamageDone:
CSA Horse Art 2/10
US Horse Art 2/18
6lb 2/8
12lb 2/12
10lb Parrott 2/18
20lb Parrott 2/20
Siege Artillery 1/10

Same as normal damage but inflicted at 0 range.

AssaultDmgDone/AssltCohDmgDone
CSA Horse Art 3/16
US Horse Art 3/15
6lb 3/14
12lb 4/25
10lb Parrott 3/15
20lb Parrott 3/15
Siege Artillery 1/10

Siege Artillery has Siege Expert special ability. Which adds a 1 to the siege factor. Full strength siege artillery has a power of 40. Due to ROF and DamDone factors, siege artillery is basically useless in field battles but very valuable in seiges.

Because CSA batteries now consist of 4 guns instead of 6, their cost in money and war supplies has been reduced.

CSA costs in Money/WarSupplies:
CSA Horse Art 12/3
6lb 9/2
12lb 12/3
10lb Parrott 18/5
20lb Parrott 25/6
Siege Artillery 38/12

NOTE THE LATEST VERSION OF THE ARTILLERY MOD IS THE 21 AUG VERSION. Slight adjustments to cohesion damage done in assaults.

This version cannot be used in an ongoing game. Needs to be installed prior to the start of a new game.
Attachments
ACWArtMod21Aug.zip
(30.93 KiB) Downloaded 270 times

User avatar
bloodybucket
Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:41 am
Location: Shoreline, WA

Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:24 am

Superb work. Has there been any talk of making this standard via an Ageod patch?

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:08 pm

bloodybucket wrote:Superb work. Has there been any talk of making this standard via an Ageod patch?


There are several I hope get integrated, including this, weather and the leaders.

User avatar
Prussian Prince
Captain
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:34 am
Location: Maumelle, Ar
Contact: Yahoo Messenger

Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:18 pm

AndrewKurtz wrote:There are several I hope get integrated, including this, weather and the leaders.


Seconded :D

User avatar
Chamberlain
Captain
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: New York

Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:51 pm

Thirded :nuts:

Sounds real good AndrewKurtz

Chamberlain

User avatar
Woody
Sergeant
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Lorraine (France)

Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:57 pm

Nice job Jagger ;)

But if I mod my game with this file, is it still possible to PBEM with somebody who doesn't mod his game ?

PBBoeye
General
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:59 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:22 pm

Probably possible - maybe not. But doubtful they'd go for it.

Jagger
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:38 pm

Thank everybody!

Woody, the host of a PBEM game must have the mod installed for the effects to appear in the PBEM results. Of course, it is best if both have it installed.

However not everyone is going to want to use the mod. So I am doing the same thing I did with my modded BOA game. I had two copies of BOA on my computer. One was the original BOA for non-modded BOA games. The second copy contained modded data files for modded games. I know some people use directories to switch between non- and modded games but I have never used that process. A third alternative is to have two copies of your gamedata folder-one modded and one non-modded. Then switch between the two by renaming the folder dependent on the game played. But it is very easy to forget to switch between folders. For me, the easiest has been to have two copies of BOA.

I also hope to see Mikes Weather mod in an official patch. His mod does a good job of producing realistic weather. I haven't tried the leader mod yet.

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:12 pm

Jagger wrote:Thank everybody!

Woody, the host of a PBEM game must have the mod installed for the effects to appear in the PBEM results. Of course, it is best if both have it installed.

However not everyone is going to want to use the mod. So I am doing the same thing I did with my modded BOA game. I had two copies of BOA on my computer. One was the original BOA for non-modded BOA games. The second copy contained modded data files for modded games. I know some people use directories to switch between non- and modded games but I have never used that process. A third alternative is to have two copies of your gamedata folder-one modded and one non-modded. Then switch between the two by renaming the folder dependent on the game played. But it is very easy to forget to switch between folders. For me, the easiest has been to have two copies of BOA.

I also hope to see Mikes Weather mod in an official patch. His mod does a good job of producing realistic weather. I haven't tried the leader mod yet.


Instead of two copies of the game, just create scenarios that just use these new files, so players can play a modded scenario, and then play a vanilla PBEM game using the same install.

Jagger
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:45 pm

McNaughton wrote:Instead of two copies of the game, just create scenarios that just use these new files, so players can play a modded scenario, and then play a vanilla PBEM game using the same install.


The problem is that I modified the original models which means all scenarios, old and new, would use the modded models if they use any of the modded artillery.

I could create brand new models instead of replacing the old models. But then I would have to reference the new models from all the unit files using artillery. Unfortunately, the unit files are also used by all scenarios. So again, all scenarios using the same unit files would have the modded data unless I created brand new unit files as well as the new model files. There are a lot of unit files that use artillery.

To create new scenarios, I would have to create totally new unit and model files completely unused by other scenarios. Monster job considering the number of artillery unit and model files used within a scenario---vs either the relatively simple task of switching out gamedata folders or even simpler choice of just having a second copy of ACW.

Sadly, I think the best choice is the second copy of ACW purely for modded games. The second easiest choice is swapping out gamedata folders between modded and non-modded games. I don't know how easy it is to implement the directory method.

If somebody has a shortage of space on their harddrive, I would recommend simply having two copies of their gamedata folder and switching out between modded and non-modded games. If someone has plenty of harddrive space, I would just make a second copy of the game for modded games.

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:10 pm

Jagger wrote:The problem is that I modified the original models which means all scenarios, old and new, would use the modded models if they use any of the modded artillery.

I could create brand new models instead of replacing the old models. But then I would have to reference the new models from all the unit files using artillery. Unfortunately, the unit files are also used by all scenarios. So again, all scenarios using the same unit files would have the modded data unless I created brand new unit files as well as the new model files. There are a lot of unit files that use artillery.

To create new scenarios, I would have to create totally new unit and model files completely unused by other scenarios. Monster job considering the number of artillery unit and model files used within a scenario---vs either the relatively simple task of switching out gamedata folders or even simpler choice of just having a second copy of ACW.

Sadly, I think the best choice is the second copy of ACW purely for modded games. The second easiest choice is swapping out gamedata folders between modded and non-modded games. I don't know how easy it is to implement the directory method.

If somebody has a shortage of space on their harddrive, I would recommend simply having two copies of their gamedata folder and switching out between modded and non-modded games. If someone has plenty of harddrive space, I would just make a second copy of the game for modded games.


True, using the Excel files was daunting to begin with, but, I am amazed at how quickly the game files can be tracked down and updated once the system gets figured out.

What I did to speed things up, to help me figure what goes where, is to slightly modify the unit tags.

Instead of...

uni_USA_Bde10MO
uni_USA_Bde1NY

I used...

uni_USA_Bde110MO
uni_USA_Bde101NY

(in every case, numbers are factors of 100)

It makes editing scenarios and event files easy, as all I need to do is to make the number 3 digits (I know that every "uni_USA_Bde10MO" needs to be changed to "uni_USA_Bde110MO") Using the excel files, they are all in one column, and easy to spot and change (you can use the find/replace option in excel to speed up file changes too).

You could do countless things, like add a letter (uni_USA_BdeA10MO) or any other combination of characters that are recognizable and distinct for your mod.

It will take a long time to do the first time, but, once you have done it, you never have to do it again. This is why it is taking me some time to get my mod out, because I am creating new models, units, scenarios and events (mainly just copying, editing and adding).

Jagger
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:13 pm

McNaughton wrote:True, using the Excel files was daunting to begin with, but, I am amazed at how quickly the game files can be tracked down and updated once the system gets figured out.

What I did to speed things up, to help me figure what goes where, is to slightly modify the unit tags.

Instead of...

uni_USA_Bde10MO
uni_USA_Bde1NY

I used...

uni_USA_Bde110MO
uni_USA_Bde101NY

(in every case, numbers are factors of 100)

It makes editing scenarios and event files easy, as all I need to do is to make the number 3 digits (I know that every "uni_USA_Bde10MO" needs to be changed to "uni_USA_Bde110MO") Using the excel files, they are all in one column, and easy to spot and change (you can use the find/replace option in excel to speed up file changes too).

You could do countless things, like add a letter (uni_USA_BdeA10MO) or any other combination of characters that are recognizable and distinct for your mod.

It will take a long time to do the first time, but, once you have done it, you never have to do it again. This is why it is taking me some time to get my mod out, because I am creating new models, units, scenarios and events (mainly just copying, editing and adding).


I like that idea!! :)

Also I agree the Xcel spreadsheets is the best way to mod. When I first started modding BOA, I worked directly with the files. Takes far longer and much more prone to errors vs using the spreadsheets.

PBBoeye
General
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:59 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:02 pm

I need some help here (btw, I use OpenOffice as I don't have Excel)...

Anyhow, after altering the data in the .xls files, how does one get them printed out into separate files?

Understanding this will really help me in the map adjustment work I am doing!

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:54 pm

PBBoeye wrote:I need some help here (btw, I use OpenOffice as I don't have Excel)...

Anyhow, after altering the data in the .xls files, how does one get them printed out into separate files?

Understanding this will really help me in the map adjustment work I am doing!


This is where I figured everything out.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=3974

Chances are, using a North American version of Windows you have to edit some of your default settings (notably how breaks are made in conversions). I had this problem myself, and after changing my settings it worked fine.

Just go through the test described on that screen, and you will learn a lot about creating a new scenario.

nerod
Conscript
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:33 am

Horse Artillery

Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:47 pm

Is Horse artillery able to go as fast as the calvary they are attached to or do they slow the calvary down some. And if horse artillery slows them down by how much?

Jagger
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:06 pm

nerod wrote:Is Horse artillery able to go as fast as the calvary they are attached to or do they slow the calvary down some. And if horse artillery slows them down by how much?


The answer is no. Horse artillery is slower than cavalry.

However other artillery is in the wheeled category of movement costs within the terrain files. Horse artillery falls within the medium foot movement category. Most regular infantry is heavy foot movement category. So horse artillery is faster than regular artillery especially in rougher terrain and most infantry but slower than pure cavalry.

So adding a horse artillery battery to a cavalry organization slows the formation. However it is still faster than most infantry formations.

Horse artillery adds some ranged firepower which is substantial in a cavalry formation considering they are pretty weak in firepower in the first place.

Tactically I find horse artillery very useful in strong cavalry divisions backing up my smaller single/double cavalry regiments doing reconnaisance advances. The cavalry division can also attack and capture weakly garrisoned towns much easier with horse artillery than without. I have am using cavalry for my exploratory advances. They push till stopped while my regular infantry corps stay rested and safe in cities/towns until the last moment when they are needed to take on the real opposition. So my cavalry divisions need the range and firepower of several batteries of horse artillery.

Jagger
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:38 pm

PS: I am going to be adding a 10pdr/3" battery model for
Confederate Horse Artillery. The CSA got rid of their early 6pdrs as quickly as they could and made a transition to 3" rifles.

Sheytan
Lieutenant
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:00 pm

Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:54 pm

Does the mod influence the number of artillery units available to the confeds overall? If not, althought I salute your efforts with the mod, the mod in effect reduces the overall pool of artillery available as a whole to the confeds. This would be the only reason I would'nt consider using it. What you have proposed with the mod is logical and gives each type of artillery a specialized function.

IF!!! you can increase the overall pool then yes why not use it.

Jagger
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:23 am

Sheytan wrote:Does the mod influence the number of artillery units available to the confeds overall? If not, althought I salute your efforts with the mod, the mod in effect reduces the overall pool of artillery available as a whole to the confeds. This would be the only reason I would'nt consider using it. What you have proposed with the mod is logical and gives each type of artillery a specialized function.

IF!!! you can increase the overall pool then yes why not use it.


Wow, are you buying every single available artillery unit in the CSA order of battle? There are a lot of artillery units available to the CSA player.

Although it would be easy enough to add additional names for more units to the OOB if someone provides artillery names.

Thinking about it, the proportion of artillery batteries that can be effectively used with CSA formations would remain the same. It is just that artillery batteries would reflect the historical 4 gun batteries rather than 6 gun batteries. But because they cost less in money and war supplies, more resources would be spent in other areas outside of artillery.

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:08 am

Jagger wrote:Wow, are you buying every single available artillery unit in the CSA order of battle? There are a lot of artillery units available to the CSA player.

Although it would be easy enough to add additional names for more units to the OOB if someone provides artillery names.

Thinking about it, the proportion of artillery batteries that can be effectively used with CSA formations would remain the same. It is just that artillery batteries would reflect the historical 4 gun batteries rather than 6 gun batteries. But because they cost less in money and war supplies, more resources would be spent in other areas outside of artillery.


Actually, if you are to do anything, it would be to completely change the ratio between CSA and USA artillery. In the USA favour...

Historically, here are the ratios of batteries, USA : CSA
3 : 1

Currently, in the game, the ratio of batteries, USA : CSA
481 : 249 (just did a quick count)
2 : 1

When it comes to total numbers of guns, the ratio further moves towards the USA (due to the fact that the CS batteries had 2/3 the number of guns).

It seems like the CSA has a substantial unhistoric lead on total number of artillery batteries than what they should actually have. With the original system, of both sides having 6 guns per battery, the CSA advantage was even greater!

So, it seems like the reduction to 4 guns helped limit the CSA advantage, but, I think that increasing the number of batteries they can produce will do further to skew the real situation, where regardless on influx of resources and money, the Confederate industrial base could not keep up with that of the North.

tagwyn
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:09 pm

Custom Mods?

Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:05 am

I have several I would consider adding to my game. However, I will wait for AGEOD to put them into a patch form. Hint, Hint, Anyone there? L3 :cwboy:

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:29 am

McNaughton wrote:Actually, if you are to do anything, it would be to completely change the ratio between CSA and USA artillery. In the USA favour...

Historically, here are the ratios of batteries, USA : CSA
3 : 1

Currently, in the game, the ratio of batteries, USA : CSA
481 : 249 (just did a quick count)
2 : 1

When it comes to total numbers of guns, the ratio further moves towards the USA (due to the fact that the CS batteries had 2/3 the number of guns).

It seems like the CSA has a substantial unhistoric lead on total number of artillery batteries than what they should actually have. With the original system, of both sides having 6 guns per battery, the CSA advantage was even greater!

So, it seems like the reduction to 4 guns helped limit the CSA advantage, but, I think that increasing the number of batteries they can produce will do further to skew the real situation, where regardless on influx of resources and money, the Confederate industrial base could not keep up with that of the North.


I kind of disagree with your proposal. This is very similar to the limit in number of divisions. I am not a big fan of limiting the number of batteries the CSA can buy to 1/3 of what the US can because this is what happened in history. I think it is important to leave significant margin to the players and let the game decide.

As a player I find that I hardly buy all possible arty when playing the CSA, except when continuing to play after victory just for the sake of it. With the number of batteries available right now, there is margin, which is important to me.

And instead of limiting the number of batteries that can be built, the limiting factor should be ammo expenditure : A CSA force shouldn't have infinite ammo supplies... But I guess this is another point.

The CSA "potentially" having 1/2 the batteries the Union can have, and weaker batteries with that, seems OK to me.

my 2 cents.

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:01 pm

veji1 wrote:I kind of disagree with your proposal. This is very similar to the limit in number of divisions. I am not a big fan of limiting the number of batteries the CSA can buy to 1/3 of what the US can because this is what happened in history. I think it is important to leave significant margin to the players and let the game decide.

As a player I find that I hardly buy all possible arty when playing the CSA, except when continuing to play after victory just for the sake of it. With the number of batteries available right now, there is margin, which is important to me.

And instead of limiting the number of batteries that can be built, the limiting factor should be ammo expenditure : A CSA force shouldn't have infinite ammo supplies... But I guess this is another point.

The CSA "potentially" having 1/2 the batteries the Union can have, and weaker batteries with that, seems OK to me.

my 2 cents.


The problem is, the CSA was already stretched at their maximum ability at producing artillery weaponry. Regardless on how many resources they managed to get (money and materials), they had a finite limit on their ability to produce weaponry.

Historically, the CSA had 1/3 of the USA using weaker batteries. The game had the CSA using 1/2 of the USA using equal batteries, with this mod they are balanced down, but still financially profitable.

It simply wasn't a matter of saying "instead of 10 000 rifles I am going to produce 100 artillery". When you have limited facilities that could possibly produce weaponry, you don't have much flexibility.

I fear that increasing the numbers of artillery units one can build will just give Confederates too much in the way of hypothetical economic freedom. The south's problem wasn't an acute shortage of raw materials, but a poor industrial base (one that could not have been remedied in 5 years time).

I personally just think it is an unfair balance to give the CSA so much in a field where the USA dominated not only in quality, but quantity.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:24 pm

Actually (if my memory serves me, which is not 100% sure), I think that the Tredegar IW was not functionnating at 100% capacity. The major problem was in transporting iron and the various ores needed to the works by train, not a limit in the production capacity of the facility.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

Sheytan
Lieutenant
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:00 pm

Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:05 pm

yes :} I won last night playing confeds in august 1864, 181 NM WOOT! and yes I had bought virtually all the artillery available to me by then.

Jagger wrote:Wow, are you buying every single available artillery unit in the CSA order of battle? There are a lot of artillery units available to the CSA player.

Although it would be easy enough to add additional names for more units to the OOB if someone provides artillery names.

Thinking about it, the proportion of artillery batteries that can be effectively used with CSA formations would remain the same. It is just that artillery batteries would reflect the historical 4 gun batteries rather than 6 gun batteries. But because they cost less in money and war supplies, more resources would be spent in other areas outside of artillery.

PBBoeye
General
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:59 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:08 pm

Pocus wrote:Actually (if my memory serves me, which is not 100% sure), I think that the Tredegar IW was not functionnating at 100% capacity. The major problem was in transporting iron and the various ores needed to the works by train, not a limit in the production capacity of the facility.


So I will comment here upon my previous comments (in another thread) about industrial capacity for the CSA. The point was really about infrastructure (transport and factories) than just raw materials, but the CSA can produce way more WS and quickly use them (since transporting them to a facility isn't a part of the game) than is historic. So the only way we have to [color="Blue"]mimic[/color] the production, transportation and utilization of such materials is the industrial capacity rating for each state.

McNaughton wrote:I fear that increasing the numbers of artillery units one can build will just give Confederates too much in the way of hypothetical economic freedom. The south's problem wasn't an acute shortage of raw materials, but a poor industrial base (one that could not have been remedied in 5 years time).

I personally just think it is an unfair balance to give the CSA so much in a field where the USA dominated not only in quality, but quantity.


Agreed, as stated above. Already the CSA can do more than it could have dreamed of historically. CSA players run all over the Union AI, in part because of ahistorical production. I am all for being able to press the outer bounds of history in a historical game such as AACW; however, such pressing or achievement should be [color="Sienna"]exponentially difficult, with serious possible consequences.[/color] For the CSA, manpower would be that issue, which it was in reality. More industry, transportation usage, and raw materials production, the more manpower required for that.

Pocus, I think being able to adjust the industrial capacity rating of each state would be a good thing to make available in an .opt file. We could individually test it in our own games and probably reach a consensus on what are the best ratings, as well as allow players to run ahistorical as they may wish.

Jagger
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:37 am

McNaughton wrote:Actually, if you are to do anything, it would be to completely change the ratio between CSA and USA artillery. In the USA favour...

Historically, here are the ratios of batteries, USA : CSA
3 : 1

Currently, in the game, the ratio of batteries, USA : CSA
481 : 249 (just did a quick count)
2 : 1

When it comes to total numbers of guns, the ratio further moves towards the USA (due to the fact that the CS batteries had 2/3 the number of guns).

It seems like the CSA has a substantial unhistoric lead on total number of artillery batteries than what they should actually have. With the original system, of both sides having 6 guns per battery, the CSA advantage was even greater!

So, it seems like the reduction to 4 guns helped limit the CSA advantage, but, I think that increasing the number of batteries they can produce will do further to skew the real situation, where regardless on influx of resources and money, the Confederate industrial base could not keep up with that of the North.


Very good point. I didn't realize the mismatch between the historical and game ratios between US and CSA batteries. So I agree the change to 4 gun batteries without increasing the total number of CSA batteries actually produces a more historical balance.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:39 pm

PBBoye: yes, can be done, the question is when...
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

Jagger
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:08 pm

I just added the latest version of the artillery mod. Slight adjustments to cohesion damage done in assaults.

Download available in first post at top of thread. Zipped file dated 21 Aug.

Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests