Kaunitz Project [moved over to NTW engine!]

[JaM]

Kaunitz - recomend you to use dispersion values for solid shots too. I'm using them to distinguish between obsolete 17.century artillery pieces and more modern 18.century guns.. even small values have quite an impact - sakers unit in my game has same stats as standard 6pdr artillery,but because sakers have higher dispersion, they are not as accurate at range as those 6pdr guns. most of the time out of 4 rounds only one hits the target, sometimes they miss it completly, while 6pdrs would hit the same target at the same distance pretty regularly.

[Didz]

Kaunitz - recomend you to use dispersion values for solid shots too. I'm using them to distinguish between obsolete 17.century artillery pieces and more modern 18.century guns.. even small values have quite an impact - sakers unit in my game has same stats as standard 6pdr artillery,but because sakers have higher dispersion, they are not as accurate at range as those 6pdr guns. most of the time out of 4 rounds only one hits the target, sometimes they miss it completly, while 6pdrs would hit the same target at the same distance pretty regularly.

Presumably, because lighter shot are more easily deflected by terrain and other obstical's in their path. e.g. walls, tree's, mud etc.

[Kaunitz]

But the problem there is not the effect of the shot, but the lack of syncronisation in the figure scales. I think if you're going to go with the figure scale of 1:4 for soldiers, then the same scale needs to be applied to guns. That way it you don't have the problem of one shot hitting 3 men represented 12 men, but one shote respresenting 4 shots hitting 3 men each.

Having said that, a shot passing directly along a line of infantry would indeed take out all of them, that was the whole principle of enfilade fire. There are stories of a single ball taking out a dozen or more men when passing along a line from the flank.

The real issue at 800-1,000 yards would be whether the shot hit, not whether it would pass through the bodies of those men it did hit.

In the same battle where one shot killed eleven Austrian infantry, that same battalion stood for a further hour under artillery fire without suffering another casualty. If artillery in the game is regularly killing three figures per shot at extreme range then there is something wrong with the way terrain is affecting the bounce of shot.

As for the artillery scale: I set it to 1:2 in order to get battalion pieces which should be deployed in twos rather than fours. But I'm not sure anymore if this is worth all the trouble I'm having with the different scales of inf&cav and artillery. Another question is whether the size occupied by a single gun-model is large enough for 4 guns. But this is also a comparatively minor issue.

I also agree with you that the problem of overpowered artillery is rooted in a mixture of terrain/bouncing behaviour and accuracy, and - if we want to have it realistic - "not" in damage and penetration. Solving this problem sounds a bit easier than it is though, since nothing in this game has been made for the 4:1 scale. For example I have to use rather big "hitboxes" (unit height: 1,7) for infantry because if I make them smaller, then all ranks (and not only the first three) will be able to fire. Bigger hitboxes mean that it will be much easier for artillery to hit infantry. What I can do, however, is to decreasw the "depth" of the colision-boxes so that enfilades will be more difficult to achieve, especially if the target is moving.

Moreover, I don't know if the terrain of ETW's maps resembles any terrain that one would find in the real world. I guess the usual centre-european battlefield would have much move small hills and woods, obstructing the path for artillery.

Last but not least, there is the accuracy issue. I will check Nafziger to find some information. Maybe my artillery is really too accurate. Indeed dispersion would be an option here, JaM, but I think that even a dispersion of 1 is too inaccurate. I'll rather fiddle around with the ordinary factors (artillery calibration target area, half chance hit, accuracy in units stats land). ... reminds me of a part in McGuires Philadelphia campaign in which some British gunners discovered Washington and his staff on the other side of the Brandywine and tried to "sniper" him. *g* I'll start with a 100%/95%/90% chance for 12pdr/6pdr/3pdr to hit a target of 3 square-ingameyards at 100=400 yards. At least CAs explanations tell me that this should be how those factors are supposed to work (I don't know how much accuracy drops after the 100 ig-yards...). And I will make the ball itself a bit smaller (if that's what "colision radius" in "projectiles table" does...), so that it will be a bit less dangerous in enfilades.

[JaM]

This is not about terrain. smothbore ballistics was never perfect, roundshot will get its deflection from the last bounce in the barrel therefore higher windage is, less acurate roundshot will become due to that last bounce.

[Kaunitz]

Oh, Didz, I forgot to mention the most important argument against an artillery scale of 4:1:

The reloading time really is a problem. With a scale of 4:1, we have to presume that all four guns fire at exactly the same moment. Artillery will be totally defenseless while reloading.

What is even worse: as gun model still fires a single ball, we will see either all four imaginative cannon balls hitting a formation at exactly the very same moment (causing a "recent casualties" morale malus - likely to cause a rout, even at very long distances) or none of the four balls hitting at all. The problem also affects other ammunition types. Shall I give one canister discharge the "power" of four simultaneous discharges? How could I do that? By giving the canister more bullets and increasing its spread, thereby increasing its "zone of death"? I could also make reloading time twice as fast (here we're reaching the limits of the reloading animation, which takes some time...) so that a gun model can shoot 4-6 rounds of canister per minute*, with each charge simulating the fire of two guns.

And another minor argument against it: immersion . We will hear 1/2 less cannon thunder with this scale. Okay, its still a matter of the small amount of slots per army as well, but still: we would only see batteries of 1 gun model, whereas with a scale of 2:1, I'd also allow batteries of 2 gun models. I mean: I could add artillery "volley"-sounds of four pieces firing off in 1-2 seconds but that would be odd. I don't think the game allows for longer sound files which would allow me to make the sounds a bit more staggered - without synchronisation to the firing animation anyway.

* Thanks to my experience=fatigue system, the rate of fire will drop if the artillery keeps firing for a longer time (the artillery unit inflicts casualties, gains experience which will in turn increase reloading time)! This also works nice in combination with cavalry pursuits. If you let your cavalry pursue infantry, you'll inflict heavy casualties, but in turn, your horses will be blown and your unit will not be ready for further combat (morale malus for experienced units). So, depending on the situation, a pursuit might be a very bad decision if you still want your cavalry to take part in the battle.

PS: I really like how the bayonet charges play out now. The idea to give attacking units a "certain" amount of momentum (by giving the "charge" a negative fatigue value) so that it can withstand a "certain" amount of fire works fine, and the defender can't exploit the system by simply countercharging in the last moment. If the attacker reaches the defenders, the battle will be over in a matter of perhaps 5 seconds and leads to ca. 20-30 casualties for the defender (I can't prevent that) and none for the attacker, who will take the position. As I haven't set the fatigue recovery too high, the status of the attacking unit still matters. If it starts its charge with cohesion already very low, it will break - firing on the advance is also dangerous in this respect, as it will lower your cohesion instantly. Also, greandiers are well suited for bayonet attacks because they have the "good stamina"-ability and are shock-resistant. They will gain more momentum on the charge (enhanced fatigue recovery rate) and won't be stopped by defensive fire so easily. The question remains though how it will play out against human playes. Up to now, I've only charged already exhausted AI-units, with mixed success. Such an exhausted AI unit usually takes out 20-30 attackers with its fire if the attackers come swiftly and over open terrain.

[Kaunitz]

To make these technical posts a bit less monotonous, I thought I could put up this small extract of a letter of Count Montazet (a French maréchal de campe and military observer) in which he refers to a misunderstanding during the battle of Hochkirch, from which he saved himself in a quite interesting (and couragoeus!) manner :

“I wanted to ride towards our cavalry and tell them not to attack us. But as we were in a melee with the enemy at that time, and as there was a lot of firing and a lot of smoke, the cavalry took me for a Prussian officer. Without doubt this misunderstanding was caused by the blue coat that I was wearing, and it was a miracle that I escaped from the fury of our own troops. Fortunately I had the idea to move into the bulk instead of trying to escape. By this I prevented being hit by even more violent strokes than those that struck me, because my pursuers got confused/perplexed and were afraid they could hurt each other."

Original:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

“Je voullois accourir à notre cavalerie pour la rallier et l’empêcher de nous culbuter, mais comme nous étions aux prises avec l’ennemi, que le feu étoit vif, et qu’il y avait beaucoup de fume, cette cavalerie me prit pour un officier prussien. Je dois cette méprise sans doute à l’habit bleu que je portoit, et c’est véritablement un miracle que j’aye échappé à l’acharnement de nos propres troupes. Heureusement j’eus le bon esprit de m’enfoncer dans la foule au lieu de chercher à m’échapper. J’ay évité par là des coups encore plus violents que ceux qi’on m’a porté, car mes prosécuteurs s’embarassoient entre eux, et craignoient de se frapper eux meme.”

I quoted this from a german article by Sven Externbrink (“Que l’homme est cruel et méchant!” Wahrnehmung von Krieg und Gewalt durch französische Offiziere im Siebenjährigen Krieg) about the experience of war and violence in the eyes of French officers during the Seven Years War. I really wonder how he finally convinced his "enemies" that he was on their side.


And here is a translation of Ernst von Barsewitsch, who was a standard-bearer (a position that attracted enemy fire like a magnet) in one of regiments Meyernicks battalions which was involved in the initial attack of the prussian right wing during the battle of Leuthen. One must add that he wrote down his memories a long time after the battle though, and Duffy (by comparison with the parallel account of Colonel Nicolai) has pointed out that the account probably mixes up a lot of things (the württemberg grenadiers were ordinary fusiliers, there was no abattis). Nevertheless, I thought it was an interesting read:

„As soon as we've been ordered to march, I advanced directly towards the abatis. [according to Barsewisch, he had been instructed and oriented by the King in person for this advance. And obviously, at that time, he was walking in front of the battalion] It was half past 12. The enemy stood still and didn’t disturb us until we were about 200 paces away. It is noteworthy that while we were advancing, his Majesty sent Aides de Camp to us several times which ordered us not to advance so quickly. Our soldiers would have preferred to dash at the enemy, so colonel-lieutenant von Bock and the other officers were busy to keep the troops from advancing too quickly, resorting to gentle and violent means. When we had approached to within 200 paces of the enemy abatis, we came across a small ditch which was lined with willows. Now our commander shouted: “Gunners, unlimber and fire!” As our gunners, who couldn’t pass the ditch with their guns anyway, started to fire, the enemy welcomed us with seven shots, which our gunners instantly replied, so that both sides opened fire almost at the same moment. Their seven shots cost us dearly, for all of them were directed at the ditch (?). The defensive position was held by württemberg grenadiers, who wore a white coating over their caps. They started to fire their muskets almost simultaneously with their guns. But either their cartridges were too weak or they had levelled their muskets too low, for their first (musket-)fire caused us little damage. As soon as we had jumped over the ditch, we replied this fire with a volley of our own which wounded many brave Württembergers. Our artillery had dismounted two enemy guns with their first discharges [this is indeed confirmed in Nicolais account, who mentions two destroyed batallion guns]. Now our valiant soldiers lost their temper and run with great bravery and lowered muskets/bayonets at the enemy so that by the time of the second discharge (“Salve”) we were already below his guns. [maybe there was a dead ground?]

The grenadiers courageously continued to fire at us and had kneeled down behind the abatis and didn’t give way. But because our soldiers were running at them with a roar and lowered muskets/bayonets, they either had to give in or die. Now that they [the württembergers] had jumped up to retreat across the dam behind the abatis, our soldiers bid them goodbye with musket fire so that at some bays (openings) of the wood [around the "Kiefernberg"], where they had crowded, 10 to 12 men, officers, NCOs and privates alike, were laying dead on top of each other. [The attacking regiment was now supported by a battery of 10 heavy pieces] which still reached/fired on the routing enemies even though they had reached the second line (of the army). Even there they were not secure enough to rally and they had to leave behind many more dead on their retreat.

Meanwhile we conquered the whole abatis and the dam that lay between us and the second enemy line. We had a few minutes to get our storming/charging soldiers back into order, reload the muskets and let the guns close up to us. In order not to let the soldiers “behind the bushes” linger for too long, I and Unruh raised/held up the colours. The call “Fellows, follow the colours!” reminded many a tardy soldier of his duty. As soon as a good number had gathered around the colours and the rest were stopped from looting the dead and were led back from the wood by the officers, the ranks were formed as well as in any way possible, facing the enemy. As soon as we had crossed the wood, we discovered the second line of the enemy, which we had not seen hitherto, only 200 paces away and marching directly at us in battle array.

As soon as our ranks were dressed, the officers ordered: „Fire! Fire!”. Our fire was instantly replied by the enemy who had been forced to halt by our fire. With the banner in my hand, I fell, hit by a musket ball into the left side of my neck. The ball shot through between the throat and the arteria carotis, penetrating the flesh as far as between the shoulder blades."

Möbius has it that even though the battalion had fired against the order of the king (who had instructed his troops to advance with the bayonet without firing at all), the soldiers were not punished. On the contrary: the surviving soldiers received 1500 Taler as a reward and 14 orders/medals of honour were distributed among the officers.

Original:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

„Sobald als „Marsch“ comandiret war, avancirte ich gerade auf den Verhack zu. Es war soeben halb 1 Uhr. (…) Der Feind stand ganz ruhig und störte uns in unserer militairischen Ordnung nicht ehender, bis wir etwa 200 Schritt weit von ihm entfernt waren. Hierbei ist noch zu bemerken, daß Se. Majestät uns während dem Avanciren einige Male einen Adjudanten schickten mit dem Befehl, wir sollten nicht so stark, sondern langsam avanciren. Unsere Soldaten hätten aber lieber den Feind im vollen Lauf sogleich angegriffen, so daß der Obrist Lieutenant von Bock und die übrigen Commandeurs derer Bataillons genug zu tun hatten, die Trouppen von dem allzu starken Avanciren zurückzuhalten, welches teils mit Güte und teils mit Gewalt geschehen mußte. (…) Da wir nun bis auf eine Entfernung von 200 Schritten an die feindliche Verschanzung vorgerückt waren, so trafen wir dort einen kleinen Feldgraben mit Weiden besetzt an. Nun schrie unser Commandeur: „Canonier, protzt ab und gebt Feuer!“ Indem nun unsere Canoniere im Werk waren, an dem Graben, den sie ohnedem nicht so mit geraden Schritten und denen Canons passieren konnten, dieselben abzufeuern, so fing der Feind an, uns mit sieben Canonen Schüssen zu begrüßen, was unsere Cannoniere sogleich erwiderten, so daß wir also fast mit ihnen zugleich anfingen zu feuern. Ihre sieben Schüsse taten uns beträchtlichen Schaden, indem selbige alle auf diese Gräben gerichtet waren. Der Verhack war mit württembergischen Grenadier besetzet, welche über ihren blanken Mützen weiße Überzüge hatten. Solche fingen mit ihren kleinen Gewehren mit denen Canonen beinahe zugleich zu feuern an. Entweder waren aber ihre Patronen zu schwach oder sie hatten ihre Gewehre zu niedrig gerichtet, kurz, wir hatten von ihrem ersten Kleingewehrfeuer wenig Schaden. Wir erwiderten dises Feuer, sobald wir über den Graben gesprungen waren, sogleich mit einer Salve vom Kleingewehr und blessierten dabei viele tapfere Württemberger. Unsere Artillerie hatte bei dem ersten Schuß zugleich zwei feindliche Canonen demoliret. Unsere beherzten Soldaten hatten nun keine Geduld mehr, sondern liefen mit der größten Bravour und dem gefällten Gewehr auf den Feind zu, so daß wir bei der zweiten Salve bereits unter seinen Canonen waren.

“Die Grenadiere feuerten tapfer auf uns und hatten sich alle hinter ihrer Verschanzung und das Verhack auf die Knie gelegt und wollten nicht weichen. Da aber unsere Soldaten mit einem heftigen Geschrei und gefälltem Gewehr auf sie zu stürtzen, so mussten sie entweder weichen oder sterben. Da sie nun zum Weichen aufgesprungen und sich über den Damm hinter der Schanze retten wollten, gaben unsere Soldaten ihnen das Geleite mit dem Kleingewehrfeuer dergestalt, daß sie an einigen Oeffnungen des Waldes, wo sie sich durchdrängten, zehn bis zwölf Mann übereinander, Officiers, Unter Officiers und Gemeine, erschossen lagen. [Nun wird das angreifende Regiment durch eine Batterie von zehn schweren Kanonen unterstützt,] so daß die fliehenden Feinde von dem groben Geschütz bis in das zweite Treffen erreicht wurden. Auch dort fanden sie keine Sicherheit, sich festzusetzen und mussten noch viele Tote auf ihrer Flucht zurücklassen.“

“Unterdessen gewannen wir den ganzen Verhack und den Damm, der sich zwischen uns und dem zweiten feindlichen Treffen befand. Wir hatten einige Minuten Zeit, unsere stürmenden Soldaten wieder in Ordnung zu stellen, die Gewehre laden zu lassen und unsere Feldstücke an uns zu ziehen. Damit sich die Leute hinter dem Busch nicht zu lange verweilten, so hielten wir, ich und der von Unruh, unsere fliegenden Fahnen in die Höhe. Der Ruf „Bursche, folget Euren Fahnen“ erinnerte manchen Säumenden an seine Pflicht. Als sich nun eine beträchtliche Anzahl bei den Fahnen versammelt hatte und die übrigen durch die Officiers von der Plünderung der feindlichen Toten abgehalten und durch den Wald gebracht worden waren, wurden sie so gut als möglich in die Glieder angesichts des Feindes gestellt. Wir trafen, sobald wir aus dem Walde waren, die feindliche zweite Linie in einer Distance von 200 Schritten in Schlachtordnung an, so wir vorhero gar nicht gesehen, welche aber im vollen Marsch waren, gegen uns zu avancieren.“

“Da nun unsere Linien sich geordnet hatten, wurde von den Officiers “Feuer! Feuer!“ commandiret. Unser Feuer wurde aber sogleich vom Feinde beantwortet, da er dadurch zum Stehen gebracht worden war. Mit der Fahne in der Hand fiel ich durch eine Musqueten Kugel in der linken Halsseite, die neben der Gurgel und der großen Kopfader – arteria Carotis – durch das Fleisch bis zwischen die Schulterblätter in den Rücken gefahren war, für tot zur Erde.

[Didz]

This is not about terrain. smothbore ballistics was never perfect, roundshot will get its deflection from the last bounce in the barrel therefore higher windage is, less acurate roundshot will become due to that last bounce.

Windage would only explain an initial inaccuracy in the flight path of the shot, and if that was the only influence on the accuracy of an artillery piece then the inaccuracy degradation would remain consistent for the entire flight of the protectile as it did for a musket ball.

However, artillery tests show that as soon as a roundshot makes its initial contact with the ground the rate of inaccuracy changes, and at each subsequent bounce there is a further change. This can only be explained if contact with the ground was affecting the path of the shot, either by deflecting it, or stopping some of the shot from travelling further. Thus reducing the lethality of the gun beyond that range.

Kaunitz and I found least one source which attests to the fact that artillery could be rendered completely impotent by the existence of soft ground or water in the area where shot fired at zero elevation would make their first graze.

See: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...85#post8292485

In this instance the River Huebra and the marshy ground along its banks prevented the French artillery from harrassing the Allied rearguard defending the crossing point.

There is also ample evidence that uneven ground, sharp inclines and sudden drops in ground level would result in a number of shot being deflected or buried thus reducing the overall effect of a battery.

Likewise obstructions such as tree's, walls or buildings anywhere in the path of a round shot would substantially affect it lethality beyond that point, as would the relative height of the gun to the target and/or the point that a shot would first graze with the ground.

Oh, Didz, I forgot to mention the most important argument against an artillery scale of 4:1:

The reloading time really is a problem. With a scale of 4:1, we have to presume that all four guns fire at exactly the same moment. Artillery will be totally defenseless while reloading.

Thats not really a problem which is caused or affected by the figure scale used for the guns.

On the one hand if we are talking about a battery in imminent danger of being overrun then historically it would be functioning in 'mad-minute' mode and firing cannister to maximise the impact it would have on its attackers, and would be calling forward it's supporting infantry and cavalry to protect it. Therefore, the real issue is that ETW doesn't model the potential for rapid defensive fire with cannister, nor does it correctly model the morale effect of close supporting troops on attacking units.

On the other hand even assuming we adopted a figure scale of 1:1 for artillery, it makes no difference to the issue you have highlighted. As all the guns in an Artillery battery in ETW fire in unison, there is no concpet of mutual supporting fire in the game and so the only difference is that instead of having one gun model unable to defend itself, you now have eight gun models unable to defend themselves.

The idea that having more gun models somehow improves the likehood of a battery protecting itself is therefore inaccurate, particularly if the price to be paid for the additional models is an artificial reduction in the effect of their fire, as even if by chance one or more models were ready to fire during the final stages of a charge the effect would have less impact on the attackers and therefore be proportionately less helpful.

What is even worse: as gun model still fires a single ball, we will see either all four imaginative cannon balls hitting a formation at exactly the very same moment (causing a "recent casualties" morale malus - likely to cause a rout, even at very long distances) or none of the four balls hitting at all.

In the greater scheme of things this is not a serious issue. By the law of averages the reverse is equally possible and all four virtual shot could miss inflicting no "recent casualities" malus at all. But, over the course of a battle the end result would still be accurate, and is no different to the idea that one infantryman representing 4 real men either hits or doesn't hit. If he hits four virtual shots hit and four virtual men die, if he misses than all four virtual shot miss and nobody dies.

The problem you currently have with artillery is that one artillery hit is inflicting the same damage as multiple artillery hits, and the logical solution is to syncronize the scale of the gun and its target.

The problem also affects other ammunition types. Shall I give one canister discharge the "power" of four simultaneous discharges?

No you should give each cannister discharge the same effect as one real canister discharge. It merely represents the fire of four guns and will inflict casualites on its target on the same scale. So, cannister should have the right number of bullets and the correct beaten zone for the type of gun.

And another minor argument against it: immersion . We will hear 1/2 less cannon thunder with this scale.

The same arguement can be made of the fact that 120 muskets firing a volley hardly sound like a battalion of 600 firing a volley. The point is that the one army slot used by an artillery battery now contains the right number of guns, to be in scale with a slot occupied by an infantry battalion and cavalry regiment. Therefore, there is no need to introduce artificial adjustments to its fire that would result in the much more odd effect of have solid shot passing harmlessly through targets. At least with a 1:4 scale players watching the fall of shot would see something that made perfect sense.

[Kaunitz]

Hm, you really took the wind out of my sails here, Didz. I think I've started to suffer from tunnel vision a bit. Thank you for pointing that out to me!

The argument that also in a battery of two guns both guns fire simulataneously is true to some extent. The fire usually gets a little bit staggered as each gun needs to adjust differently whenever you give them new targets. But that is really a matter of accidence rather than game-design and mutual support of the guns.

All means I have to represent the "mad minute" is that I can set the canister reloading time very short. But as soon as the gun has taken out enough enemies and gained enough experience (which will happen very quickly, given the deadliness of canister), the rate of fire and accuracy will drop. Its a very bad workaround, but I think it's better than nothing. You won't be able to unleash canister hell for too long a time.

As for the effect of all 4 "imaginative" balls hitting at the same time: true, the end result will be the same. But the game takes into account the time in which casualties have been inflicted. If it is a very short time (the single ball causes casualties in a split second), there will be a different, higher morale penalty than for casualties inflicted during a longer time-span.

Last but not least, your remarks about canister are totally correct. I have problems to find out the correct "effectiveness" of canister. I wonder how large a canister cone/death zone would be in real life. Contemporaries give an "effective" range of (small) canister of up to about 500 yards for a 12pdr. I wonder where the 500 yards-mark would be located in your diagram (my illiterate guess would be somewhere between the lines B-C and D-E), and how far the bullets would have spread (distance beteen B and C, D and E) at that range. Do you have any information on that (for canister and grape)?

The vast bulk of the balls tended to follow the line of fire producing a quite small spread of high velocity rounds directly ahead of the gun (D to E on the diagram). However, a smaller percentage of the balls in inhibited in some way during firing would leave the barrel at a lower velocity and usually a wider angle flying out in all directions around the gun muzzle like a spray. The lower velocity meant they did not travel as far as those which left the barrle uninhibited but nevertheless they were capable of lethal dammge if you were hit by one. (B to C on the diagram). Finally those balls which flew high would eventually fall back to earth providing another scattering of balls along the entire path of the killing area.

So I need to calibrate:
1) the spread-angle: a smaller angle makes canister more dangerous at longer distances and less dangerous at smaller distances; ideally this would be affected by "velocity", but in ETW, the two things are seperated
2) Damage: I have to work with damage as I have no means to simulate the shape of the canister-cone, especially the shots with lower velocity that would fall short on the outer fringes of the cone. In ETW, all the canister-bullets (also those on the outer fringes) would continue to spread and kill after the B-C-line. They don't fall short. So what I plan to do is to decrease the "damage" of the canister bullets over distance, so that all bullets still "pass" and fly by the B-C-line but their chance to kill a soldier-model will be reduced. Does this sound reasonable?

So basically, there must be some kind of "perfect" canister range in my mod, where "optimum spread" and "optimum damage" meet.

The immersion-difference between muskets and guns is that I do have musket-volley-sounds, so that those 150 soldier-models indeed make the noise of about 600. (although in a more chaotic manner)

[Didz]

All means I have to represent the "mad minute" is that I can set the canister reloading time very short.

If you can do that then it would be the best option.

Logic would suggest that most players and the AI ought to switch to canister fire if their batteries are under immediate threat, so it makes sense to link the two events. I can't think of any obvious reasons why a battery would continue to fire roundshot to protect itself, or why it would waste canister in long range bombardments.

But as soon as the gun has taken out enough enemies and gained enough experience (which will happen very quickly, given the deadliness of canister), the rate of fire and accuracy will drop. Its a very bad workaround, but I think it's better than nothing. You won't be able to unleash canister hell for too long a time.

No, quite apart from the fatigue, the battery would very quickly expend its ready ammunition, and of course the speed was achieved at the cost of relaying the gun between rounds so the battery itself would rapidly lose unit cohesion and accuracy.

As for the effect of all 4 "imaginative" balls hitting at the same time: true, the end result will be the same. But the game takes into account the time in which casualties have been inflicted. If it is a very short time (the single ball causes casualties in a split second), there will be a different, higher morale penalty than for casualties inflicted during a longer time-span.

True but unless units start routing every time they are hit by a roundshot I don't see it as a major problem.

Last but not least, your remarks about canister are totally correct. I have problems to find out the correct "effectiveness" of canister. I wonder how large a canister cone/death zone would be in real life.

Well there are test results for the affect of canister fire. Have I not posted them already somewhere?

Canister Test Results

Unfortunately, many of the test results published by Nafziger are useless, partly because the range parameters used to sub-divide the results are so large as to be meaningless in assessing the variation in battlefield effect.

For example: Table 73 doesn’t start quoting results until after 300 metres which is well beyond the range most batteries would fire canister anyway and by that range only 16% of the charge was still effective providing no explanation of where 82% of the shot went.

Likewise Table 74 quotes the number of balls hitting the target without stating how widely the shot were spread.

The only useful information I can glean from these tables is the number of balls per charge, and the maximum travelling range likely.

12pdr Gun
Heavy Canister/Grape: 41 balls of which about 18% may travel 800 metres
Small Canister 112 balls of which 25% might travel 700 metres

8pdr Gun
Heavy Canister/Grape: 41 balls of which about 20% may travel 700 metres
Small Canister 112 balls of which 22% might travel 600 metres and 35% 500 metres

4pdr Gun
Heavy Canister/Grape: 41 balls of which about 20% may travel 600 metres, 41% 500 metres and 51% 400 metres
There are no figures for small canister from a 4pdr gun.

Muirs book also challenges Nafzigers test results claiming that canister would be unlikely to be used at the ranges quoted, and unlikely to achieve that performance in the field.
He points out that if these results were accurate then it would suggest that a battery firing canister could expect to lay low 150 men in one salvo. This would in turn suggest that at the battle of Friedland, where Senarmonts batteries fired 368 rounds of canister into a Russian infantry line at 200 yards. The Russian infantry should have suffered at least 9,200 casualties.

In fact, Senarmont himself claimed that after the action there were only 4,000 enemy left dead on the field, and this included casualties from earlier fighting over the same ground and those caused by the 2,000 or more roundshot his guns had also fired during the phrase approach to the enemy.

So, it would seem that actual effect was far less than theoretical effect, even at ranges of 200 metres.

Having said that there are examples of canister fire dealing devastating damage to units in the field. At Waterloo one round of canister fired at 50 yards range laid low two whole platoons (about 70 men) from a German square forcing it to adopt a triangle formation for cavalry defence.

What I'm missing is any evidence of the extent to which canister shot spreads after leaving the barrel and its relative spread over the extent of its journey down range.

This video seems to suggest that the spread was quite small.

Unfortunately, whilst I usually have the utmost respect for Tony Pollard in this instance he is being a real cheapskates and obviously the BBC can only afford eight paper targets, so the unit frontage set up for the test is quite narrow.

However, to me it looks like the target on the extreme left of the line is untouched, suggesting that the charge was quite limited in its spread at the 100 yards or so that the test was made. So, perhaps three of four men would have taken the full force of the charge.

It's just a shame that if they were going to try and demonstrate the affect of canister they couldn't have conducted a proper test with company wide screens at regular distances to plot the spread and travel of shot.

I've also found it pretty frustrating to watch re-enactors firing canister rounds on from real cannon or YouTube and doing nothing to gather any useful data on actual performance. Firing canister into truck really doesn’t provide any valuable information, other than the conclusion that General Lee should not buy a Ford Transit as a command car, even though it might make a cool video.

I've started a thread in the history channel to try and elicit some more useful results, but I've been unable to find anything myself so far, and I'm reluctant to simply accept the figures used in my wargame rules without verifying them.

[Kaunitz]

Yeah, it's really difficult to find any information on the "spread" of canister, which is very important if you want to determine canister "effectiveness" at different ranges. This also the only "serious" video of a canister discharge that I could find on youtube. It looks like a good amount of the bullets struck the wooden targets, but it's hard to judge the distance (the hilly ground doesn't really help *g*). There were two groups of targets, we've been presented the results on the closer one:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

All I can say is that the spread seems to be smaller than I thought. So there must be a point at which canister gets less dangerous if only you're close enough (and if you're not the one who stands directly in front of the muzzle...)? Or could gunners influence the spread by modifying the charge? And what are the differences between different calibres firing canister? The bigger the calibre, the greater the range - so I assume that the spread is smaller?

In game terms:

I've done some quick calculations, based on the video ( a very scientific approach!). In the video, we see that a canister dishcarge at a distance of 70 yards (that's my guess) spreads very roughly over a frontage of 5 men. So, if we think of a 4:1 scale, the discharges of 4 guns should spread over a frontage of 20 men (no overlaps). Conclusion: at the distance of 17,5 ingame yards, a single gun model is supposed to knock out 5 soldier models (not considering any penetrations into the second rank here). At this short distance, there should be enough balls concentrated on the frontage to knock out all of the models in within this frontage.

Based on the assumption that a soldier model occupies the space of roughly 0,7 ingame-yards (that's my feeling), I've done some calculations:

real distance (ig-distance) / frontage over which the bullets spread at that distance in ig-yards / potential hits in soldier models (real soldiers) on that frontage
50 (12,5) / 2,4 / 3,4 (13,6)
125 (31,5) / 6 / 8,5 (34)
200 (50) / 10 / 14 (56)
300 (75) / 14,5 / 20 (80)

It's easy to see that this does not fit to the incident that you've mentioned (a single piece taking out two platoons with a single discharge). So I guess that the truth lies somewhere "in the middle". 70 men in 4 (?) ranks? That would make a frontage of 17,5 men, whereas in my inept and hypothetical calculations, the discharges of 4(!) guns would spread over a frontage of only 14 men.

Now, of course, the chance for a soldier model to be hit should become less likely with increasing "frontage", as the balls spread out. At 12,5 ingame yards, all the ca. 110 bullets of the discharge will be focused on the tiny frontage of 2,4 ingame yards, whereas at a distance of 75 ingame yards, the bullets will spread out over 14,5 ingame yards (we have to imagine two dimensions). Except for the angle (in this case: 8,44°), the spread of the bullets within the cone will be the most important thing to get right. I have to get the amount of "bullets" per discharge right, but I don't know yet what "right" is. If I want to make it less dependent on coincidence, I will have to tweak "damage over range", rather than the number of bullets. Part of the problem is that the models' hitboxes and the bullets are all out of any scale, so I'd have to use less bullets per discharge than in reality, which in turn makes the whole thing more dependent on accident.

PS: I do't even dare to think about large canister/grape yet. Let it bounce? Let it penetrate multiple models?
PS: My custom experience-chevrons work now! I found the right ones in "ui/frontend ui/skins".

[Didz]

As far as canister is concerned the size of the gun only really affected the number of balls that could be packed into the case. I also suspect that there was a difference in performance between small canister, heavy canister and grape. The smaller number of heavier balls would reduce the number of hits, but I assume a heavier ball had more chance to penetrate and inflict several casualties to a deeper formation. Grape obvoiusly being preferred at sea due to the need to penetrate a ships hull, and cause physical damage to the ship.

[JaM]

I read somewhere that size of bullets vs gun caliber matter for canister spreadout, so while small canister had bigger dispersion, heavy canister had less. I remmember seeing some test from History Channel (quite stupid btw - Napoleon vs Washington LOL),but they compared 6pdr firing scatter shot, vs heavy canister at about 100 yards (dont remmeber) Anyway, while heavy canister dealt huge damage to wooden figurines it was much less spreadout than doing the same with scattershot ( small musket bullets, nails etc) which had about 2-3x larger cone.

[Didz]

Well we have been trying to find a decent video of a test on YouTube so if you can find it that would be useful. The only one Kaunitz and I could find was the one I posted earlier, which almost useless.

The idea that heavy canister would have a smaller spread, suggests that my theory might be correct. I reasoned that most of the smaller balls that spread beyond the 2.5 degree's were probably being deflected by hitting other balls during the discharge (a bit like snooker balls bouncing off each other). That would obviously be less likey to happen if the balls were bigger and therefore not only less numerous, but less likely to be deflected.

[JaM]

do a search on youtube with - Warrior, Napoleon, Washington as a search phrases. You will find it just beware, there is a lot of real crap in that video... like saying that Washington would beat Napoleon because he had strong national feeling etc... nothing agaisnt Washington, but putting such nonsense into something that looks like a document... i dont know.

[Didz]

do a search on youtube with - Warrior, Napoleon, Washington as a search phrases. You will find it just beware, there is a lot of real crap in that video... like saying that Washington would beat Napoleon because he had strong national feeling etc... nothing agaisnt Washington, but putting such nonsense into something that looks like a document... i dont know.

Had a quick look on YouTube and I assume you are talking about the Deadliest Warrior programme Napoleon v Washington. Unfortunately, the only video's I've found so far of this programme are limited to the 2nd part where the two opponents face off in a simulated battle, whereas the 1st part where the team assesses the respective weaponry is missing. I used to like this programme when it started and was comparing individual warrriors e.g. Spartan v Ninja etc, but it got a bit stupid towards the end when they were dealing with teams like Mobsters v Scientists

As for the end result of that programme.....come onnnnn! It was an American made programme there was no way Washington was going to lose.

[bloody bill]

Everybody is against America!!!

[wangrin]

Or America is against everydody

joking apart, You can download "Traité d'artillerie théorique et pratique", written by G. PIOBERT, Hetzel editor, 1836, you will find some table about "tir a balles" from canons (p.150).
I found it in google book.

I don't know if I'm able to translate text in English, but author write about "tir à balles" probabilities, something that you could find interesting, I think.
He said that divergence was around 1/20 from each sides of the axis so, total "opening" was around 1/10 of distance.
But shots were not uniformly distributed. Distribution follow laws depending of caliber and distance, most of bullets were near the axis.

Author write that, a 12 gun firing canister containing 41 bullets was able to shoot 12 bullets in a 1,90 high and 16 meter width target at 300 meters.
At 450 meters, bullets firing efficiency was reduced by half.

Some of the tables from the book :

EFFECT OF BULLETS DEPENDING OF THEIR SIZE

CAST IRON AND IRON BULLETS SIZE AND WEIGHT

CANNON'S BULLETS FIRE PROBABILITIES

[Didz]

Author write that, a 12 gun firing canister containing 41 bullets was able to shoot 12 bullets in a 1,90 high and 16 meter width target at 300 meters.
At 450 meters, bullets firing efficiency was reduced by half.

Hi Wangrin, welcome to the discussion.

Actually the figures you quote above look like they may be the source of the tables published in Nafziger's book. They aren't really that helpful as they don't start recording results before 300 metres down range.

Is there anything in there about canister spread between 25m and 300m. We really need to know how rapidly the charge spread after leaving the gun and how many hits occured on an company size target at each 25/50 metre interval, so that we can get an accurate dispersal pattern.

[JaM]

Nope, we are not. Its just seeing such stuff in the TV makes you wonder why!?! Comparing Washington to Napoleon... and thinking Washington would prevail is just pure patriotism, and zero reality.. (they compared them at their best - Grand Armee vs Washington Continental Army)

[bloody bill]

Nope, we are not. Its just seeing such stuff in the TV makes you wonder why!?! Comparing Washington to Napoleon... and thinking Washington would prevail is just pure patriotism, and zero reality.. (they compared them at their best - Grand Armee vs Washington Continental Army)

I was only kidding with my earlier post. I honestly think the idea of ultimate warrior is pretty silly. As for Washington and Napoleon we will never know. If Napoleon invaded America he would have failed by pure logistics alone in my opinion. As for the two men meeting with their best armies both in their prime, Napoleon wins every time. I am a very proud American, I served in the Marine Corps six years before becoming a disabled vet and I dont really see how a continental style army would have defeated the Grande Armee in open combat. We would of course kill as many of them as we could though