New Tech - opinions?

[HorseSoldier]

Want to add a new tech to fill the longish gap between cannon and artillery.

Call it "Rifling" or "Ballistics" ??
And put it next to Nationalism or Industrialization ??

Basically the advent of indirect fire. I know Parrots and Whitworths (et al) were rifled, but they were direct fire.
The maiden unit would be a French 75 of course.

A couple of other stray thoughts:
Never was comfortable with the "Guerilla" unit appellation. It seems to me "Heavy Weapons" better suits its function or place in the timeline. Maybe bump its BF to 4 and ROF to 2. Just feels a lot better that way.

Read all the way thru the "The Big Question - How Does The AI Choose Which Units To Build?" thread last nite. Major thanks to Ozymandias and Tom2050 for your tests.
That data will be used in my mod.

A post in that thread reminded me of a time in my neighbors spacious basement where we were playing a current Avalon Hill game (Midway, actually). I remember thinking how nice it would be to have a computer crunch all the numbers instead of all that dice rolling. Then I looked around that "spacious" basement and realized - that computer probably WOULD NOT HAVE FIT IN IT.
Uphill........ Both ways

 

[timerover51]

Want to add a new tech to fill the longish gap between cannon and artillery.

Call it "Rifling" or "Ballistics" ??
And put it next to Nationalism or Industrialization ??

Basically the advent of indirect fire. I know Parrots and Whitworths (et al) were rifled, but they were direct fire.
The maiden unit would be a French 75 of course.

The French 75 had a maximum elevation of 15 degrees, and was not a real good indirect fire weapon whatsoever. The principal advantages of the 75 were rate of fire, it was a breechloader with a good gas seal, used smokeless powder with a more consistent burn rate and velocity, and the fact that the carriage did not move upon firing, meaning that you did not have to push the piece back into position and then relay it on the target.

If you put in a new artillery advance, I would call it Smokeless Powder, and put in alongside Nationalism, with no requirement for saltpeter. Critical to the development of indirect fire was a consistent muzzle velocity, which is very difficult to achieve with black powder, muzzle-loading cannon. Range tables of the period show a 50% zone for black powder pieces of roughly plus or minus 20% of the range. Smokeless powder combined with breechloading with a good gas seal reduced that by a factor of about 10.

A couple of other stray thoughts:
Never was comfortable with the "Guerilla" unit appellation. It seems to me "Heavy Weapons" better suits its function or place in the timeline. Maybe bump its BF to 4 and ROF to 2. Just feels a lot better that way.

Read all the way thru the "The Big Question - How Does The AI Choose Which Units To Build?" thread last nite. Major thanks to Ozymandias and Tom2050 for your tests.
That data will be used in my mod.

A post in that thread reminded me of a time in my neighbors spacious basement where we were playing a current Avalon Hill game (Midway, actually). I remember thinking how nice it would be to have a computer crunch all the numbers instead of all that dice rolling. Then I looked around that "spacious" basement and realized - that computer probably WOULD NOT HAVE FIT IN IT.
Uphill........ Both ways

I remember the first computer I worked on, an IBM 1401, that did take up an entire room. I did like Midway, and still prefer to roll all of those dice, as you get the odd results that happen in war. The problem with designing simulations for the military is that they do not want to have odd results popping up, but only want consistency. Therefore, they can consistently get the wrong results.

 

[Ozymandias]

Want to add a new tech to fill the longish gap between cannon and artillery.

Call it "Rifling" or "Ballistics" ??
And put it next to Nationalism or Industrialization ??

Basically the advent of indirect fire. I know Parrots and Whitworths (et al) were rifled, but they were direct fire.
The maiden unit would be a French 75 of course.

A couple of other stray thoughts:
Never was comfortable with the "Guerilla" unit appellation. It seems to me "Heavy Weapons" better suits its function or place in the timeline. Maybe bump its BF to 4 and ROF to 2. Just feels a lot better that way.

Read all the way thru the "The Big Question - How Does The AI Choose Which Units To Build?" thread last nite. Major thanks to Ozymandias and Tom2050 for your tests.
That data will be used in my mod.

A post in that thread reminded me of a time in my neighbors spacious basement where we were playing a current Avalon Hill game (Midway, actually). I remember thinking how nice it would be to have a computer crunch all the numbers instead of all that dice rolling. Then I looked around that "spacious" basement and realized - that computer probably WOULD NOT HAVE FIT IN IT.
Uphill........ Both ways

1. You're welcome

2. You're basically looking for a unit to fit between a BF=8 / Rng=1 / ROF=1 and a BF=12 / Rng=2 / ROF=2. - Which means BF=10 / Rng=? / ROF=? The "obvious" name for an indirect artillery piece would probably be "Howitzer" or, if that's too modern, perhaps simply go with "Field Piece". If you do decide to add a tech for "Rifling", you could also introduce the intermediate valued "Rifled Musketman" - just a thought.

3. Basement ... Avalon Hill ... Midway et. al. I actually used to playtest pre-publication wargames for the old SPI, and recall many speculations on what the "computerized wargame of the future" might look like ...

,

Oz

 

[Ozymandias]

The French 75 had a maximum elevation of 15 degrees, and was not a real good indirect fire weapon whatsoever. The principal advantages of the 75 were rate of fire, it was a breechloader with a good gas seal, used smokeless powder with a more consistent burn rate and velocity, and the fact that the carriage did not move upon firing, meaning that you did not have to push the piece back into position and then relay it on the target.

If you put in a new artillery advance, I would call it Smokeless Powder, and put in alongside Nationalism, with no requirement for saltpeter. Critical to the development of indirect fire was a consistent muzzle velocity, which is very difficult to achieve with black powder, muzzle-loading cannon. Range tables of the period show a 50% zone for black powder pieces of roughly plus or minus 20% of the range. Smokeless powder combined with breechloading with a good gas seal reduced that by a factor of about 10.

Also a good idea

I remember the first computer I worked on, an IBM 1401, that did take up an entire room. I did like Midway, and still prefer to roll all of those dice, as you get the odd results that happen in war. The problem with designing simulations for the military is that they do not want to have odd results popping up, but only want consistency. Therefore, they can consistently get the wrong results.

One of the "Close Combat" was/is IIRC used by the USMC. Also, back at the aforesaid Old SPI, again IIRC there was something done for the DOD; perhaps it can be found on Jim Dunnigan's web page.

Best,

Oz

 

[timerover51]

Want to add a new tech to fill the longish gap between cannon and artillery.

Call it "Rifling" or "Ballistics" ??
And put it next to Nationalism or Industrialization ??

Basically the advent of indirect fire. I know Parrots and Whitworths (et al) were rifled, but they were direct fire.
The maiden unit would be a French 75 of course.

Actually, if you are going to put in an additional unit between cannon and artillery, you need to change the combat data for artillery to give it a greater increase over cannons, so as to get a more meaningful spread of attack values.

For my modifications to the game, I use the following attack values sequence to go from catapult to radar artillery: 4(catapult), 8(trebuchet), 12(cannon), 18(artillery), 18(radar artillery). Radar artillery gets a higher rate of fire compared to standard artillery. Artillery could easily be given a higher value compared to cannon, when you consider that the cannon represents a muzzle-loading smoothbore piece of limited range (circa 1200 yards maximum effective range) using solid round shot as its best overall projectile, compared to breech-loading, quick-firing rifled pieces firing high explosive shells with an effective range starting at about 12,000 yards.

If you keep cannon at 8, then I would recommend setting the new unit at 12, representing the initial development of the rifled, muzzle-loading or slow breech-loading, howitzer with no recoil system, and then giving the artillery an attack value of 18. Give the new unit a range of 2 it indicate that it is an order of magnitude improve on the existing cannon, with a rate of fire of one.

 

[tom2050]

You're basically looking for a unit to fit between a BF=8 / Rng=1 / ROF=1 and a BF=12 / Rng=2 / ROF=2. - Which means BF=10 / Rng=? / ROF=?

Give the new unit a range of 2 it indicate that it is an order of magnitude improve on the existing cannon, with a rate of fire of one.

That would only make sense for the advent of indirect fire artillery. Initially they were not incredibly accurate, so a ROF 1 would better apply over 2.

Or if you want to get a bit creative, you could do something a bit different. Figure it like this: As Timeover said

The French 75 had a maximum elevation of 15 degrees, and was not a real good indirect fire weapon whatsoever. The principal advantages of the 75 were rate of fire

So you could give a lower Bombardment of 5 or 6, Rng=1 or 2, ROF=3
* The BF shows the French 75 was not a great indirect fire weapon, hence the lower dam values
* The higher ROF brings the 75's rate of fire into play, which was it's primary advantage.
* This is not overly powerful either, but gives subtle advantages in certain situations (more so on grasslands/plains since they have lower def bonus, and less useful against units in hills/mountains).

Tom

 

[Ozymandias]

Ah, my friend, the French 75mm may have been a very effective LOS weapon, but the Brits were definitely into indirect fire. Viz. the 4.5" howitzer:

"4.5-inch (4.5") howitzer Introduced into service in 1909, the shell fired by this howitzer was 4.5-inch caliber (114mm); the shell weighed 35-lb (15.9 kg). It had a maximum range of 7,300 yards (6.67km), with this distance being covered in a little under 22 seconds. The gun could elevate to 45 degrees above horizontal, which meant that its shell plunged onto target - an ideal way of delivering high explosive onto a trench or fortification. Design Mark II came into service in 1917, with a modification that improved wear against the actions of the sliding block breech. (This design stayed in service until withdrawn in 1944). The howitzer weighed 3,010 pounds (1.362 tonnes)." ( WW1 Heavy Allied Weapons )

Image attached (EDIT -Apologies - the "Attachments" function doesn't seem to be working ATM.)

Best as Always,

Oz

 

[HorseSoldier]

The French 75 had a maximum elevation of 15 degrees, and was not a real good indirect fire weapon whatsoever.

My bad. I just remember reading how the French 75 was responsible for a greusomly high % of all casualties in WWI. So infamous in fact they named a drink after it.

2. You're basically looking for a unit to fit between a BF=8 / Rng=1 / ROF=1 and a BF=12 / Rng=2 / ROF=2. - Which means BF=10 / Rng=? / ROF=? The "obvious" name for an indirect artillery piece would probably be "Howitzer" or, if that's too modern, perhaps simply go with "Field Piece". If you do decide to add a tech for "Rifling", you could also introduce the intermediate valued "Rifled Musketman" - just a thought.

Howitzer works - R=1, ROF=2 (assume a breech loader). BF=TBD - probably will rework all.
Re: "Rifled Musketman" - Perhaps more breechblock emphasis ala Henry or Sharps which would upgrade to Rifleman. Rifleman = '98 Krag/Enfield?

If you put in a new artillery advance, I would call it Smokeless Powder, and put in alongside Nationalism, with no requirement for saltpeter. Critical to the development of indirect fire was a consistent muzzle velocity, which is very difficult to achieve with black powder, muzzle-loading cannon. Range tables of the period show a 50% zone for black powder pieces of roughly plus or minus 20% of the range. Smokeless powder combined with breechloading with a good gas seal reduced that by a factor of about 10.

"Range tables" (their advent) is precisely what I'm going for here, hence "ballistics". Assume the complete transition to smokeless. Good point to eliminate Saltpeter.

What about renaming Guerilla to Heavy Weapons and bumping the BF to 4 and maybe ROF to 2 ? Hello Ma Deuce

 

[timerover51]

My bad. I just remember reading how the French 75 was responsible for a greusomly high % of all casualties in WWI. So infamous in fact they named a drink after it.

Artillery as a whole was responsible for a high percentage of the casualties in WW1, but the French 75 was most effective against troops in the open and firing shrapnel, against dug-in troops, it was not that great. Machine guns were a great killer as well, and it is estimated that about 200 German machine guns were responsible for most to the 57,000 casualties suffered by the British on the 1 July 1916.

Re: "Rifled Musketman" - Perhaps more breechblock emphasis ala Henry or Sharps which would upgrade to Rifleman. Rifleman = '98 Krag/Enfield?

I always figure the standard game rifleman reflects the muzzle-loading rifled musket that came into use in the 1850s, and the infantry unit reflects the use of bolt-action smokeless rifles. However, the attack value for infantry is too low. What you could do is put in an intermediate unit, based on blackpowder breechloaders, with an attack value of 6, same as the infantry unit, and bump the infantry unit up to an 8 attack value to go with the 10 defense value. Progression would go, Rifled Musketman, 4/6/1, Rifleman 6/8/1, Infantry 8/10/1. That would also bring the infantry unit more in line with the Marine unit.

The use of smokeless powder breechloaders by infantry had a massive effect on infantry tactics and artillery usage, as the British discovered in the Boer War of 1899. With black powder, you could almost immediately determine the source of enemy fire from cover, and respond accordingly. With smokeless powder, troops firing from cover could not be located, and the British artillery tactic of having the guns in the front line for direct support became suicidal for the gunners. Add the fact that accurate fire could now be encountered at ranges in excess of 500 yards, from hidden troops, and massed infantry attacks also became extremely expensive. Adding the intermediate unit would help reflect those changes if you are adding the howitzer.

"Range tables" (their advent) is precisely what I'm going for here, hence "ballistics". Assume the complete transition to smokeless. Good point to eliminate Saltpeter.

I did not mean to eliminate Saltpeter, but remove it as a requirement from any unit once you reach the Industrial Age.

What about renaming Guerilla to Heavy Weapons and bumping the BF to 4 and maybe ROF to 2 ? Hello Ma Deuce

I suspect that the entire reason for the Guerilla unit was to give the player without rubber a more effective infantry unit than the rifleman. What I would recommend that you do is set up a separate unit as the Heavy Weapons, which would reflect the addition of machine guns, mortars, and light infantry guns to the infantry, and take the Bombardment fire away from Guerillas totally. Plug it in as a BF of 4, range of 1, and ROF of 2, with a base rating of AF 4, DF 4, and movement of 1. Reduce the shield cost of Guerillas to 60, and give the new unit the same cost.

 

[HorseSoldier]

it is estimated that about 200 German machine guns were responsible for most to the 57,000 casualties suffered by the British on the 1 July 1916.

The Somme? Wasn't the saying something like "it takes 10,000 casualties to train a Brigadier"?

I always figure the standard game rifleman reflects the muzzle-loading rifled musket that came into use in the 1850s, and the infantry unit reflects the use of bolt-action smokeless rifles.

So Mech Inf would include the intro of semi-auto & assault rifles. I've always thought one more intermediate unit is needed to reflect this with about the values suggested.

suspect that the entire reason for the Guerilla unit was to give the player without rubber a more effective infantry unit than the rifleman.

I don't have that much of a problem with resource poor civs not being able to access Infantry or better. However, I'm not married to the rubber requirement for Infantry (editor) and have added one strat resource (Copper) and have given it a higher appearance ratio than most (178). With 24 Civs (my mod), that's an appearance ratio of 1.33 per Civ. Also, if it's a ranged weapon (i.e. arrows or better) , everybody gets at least a nominal def bombard. So Riflemen get a little stronger. And regardless of any changes (or none at all) I am renaming Guerillas to something else

Thanks for the good input.......

 

[Ozymandias]

The Somme? Wasn't the saying something like "it takes 10,000 casualties to train a Brigadier"?

More like 60,000 ...

"What passing bells for these who die as cattle?" - Wilfred Owen (1893-1918)

 

[timerover51]

I don't have that much of a problem with resource poor civs not being able to access Infantry or better. However, I'm not married to the rubber requirement for Infantry (editor) and have added one strat resource (Copper) and have given it a higher appearance ratio than most (178). With 24 Civs (my mod), that's an appearance ratio of 1.33 per Civ. Also, if it's a ranged weapon (i.e. arrows or better) , everybody gets at least a nominal def bombard. So Riflemen get a little stronger. And regardless of any changes (or none at all) I am renaming Guerillas to something else

Thanks for the good input.......

I very much like the idea of copper being required for infantry, as copper is absolutely vital for use in metallic cartridges, and no viable substitute has been found so far, except for the plastic shotguns rounds which are not under high pressure. And even they have brass bases. I will need to start including that in my modifications to the game. When do you have the copper appear? Early or at the start of the Industrial Age? Or do you have two different forms, one straight copper, available with Bronze Working, and one of say, Specialty Brass, available with Electricity? Something tells me that I am going to be running into the strategic resource bug pretty soon in some of my games.

And regardless of any changes (or none at all) I am renaming Guerillas to something else

How about renaming them National Guard? That would make them more of a lower cost infantry unit, that did not require a special resource.

 

[HorseSoldier]

When do you have the copper appear? Early or at the start of the Industrial Age?

Early (Mining)- and I think it might have some use all the way through to the Modern Era - same Copper - trying to somewhat KISS.

How about renaming them National Guard?

Or pehaps slightly more generic Home Guard ? or Guardsman ?
One quality step above Militia anyway..........

Thanks

 

[Ozymandias]

I very much like the idea of copper being required for infantry, as copper is absolutely vital for use in metallic cartridges, and no viable substitute has been found so far, except for the plastic shotguns rounds which are not under high pressure. And even they have brass bases. I will need to start including that in my modifications to the game. When do you have the copper appear? Early or at the start of the Industrial Age? Or do you have two different forms, one straight copper, available with Bronze Working, and one of say, Specialty Brass, available with Electricity?

You'd probably have to use just copper, and not tin, for the Bronze Age as tin is surprisingly scarce. I'm not sure about zinc for the brass ... a-researching I shall go.

Something tells me that I am going to be running into the strategic resource bug pretty soon in some of my games.

I think that's nearly become a universal constant.

Best,

Oz