Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Suggestions for Artillery.

  1. #1

    Suggestions for Artillery.

    As of right now we can't fire beyond point blank range accurately because there's no Pendulum-Hausse on the gun.
    So a Pendulum-Hausse would be VERY helpful to fire accurately at range.

    However, another problem occurs with long range shooting. And that is the drawing distance. Is there anyway at all for the developers to increase this? Already at 350y (which is short range for a gun) textures start glitching out and disappearing. A gunner needs to be able to watch his own shots land with the naked eye in order to make proper adjustments.

    Then the next problem occurs on SHORTER ranges, the fusetime. The fusetime can't be made lower than ONE second. Despite the fact that for example in 'Instruction for Field Artillery' a Light 12-pounder gun SHELL needs a fuse of 3/4 of a second fuse for the 300 yard. Which means we can't even properly bombard anything BELOW 350 yard with shell unless there's terrain BEHIND them that can stop the round.

    In short, can't shoot accurately past 350yard because of textures not rendering and not having a Pendulum-Hausse to fire beyond point blank range.
    But we can't set up our FUSES for BELOW 350 because there's a limiter on the fuse length.
    4th New Jersey Volunteer.

  2. #2
    Quick addition. I think there's a whole lot more wrong even than I first thought with the whole range to fuse time system. For example the indicator stating that a 1s fuse will explode at 0 yards for the 3-inch ordnance gun. Seemingly for that gun everything under 380 yards is an unreliable indication. The whole fuse time system also seems to break when point the piece up and trying to then bring the fuse time down.

    ANYWAYS I did some research and for the light 12-pounder shell and case shot they used Bormann fuses. These had a fuzetime ranging from 1/2 a second to 5-1/4 seconds. So historically speaking giving us that 1/2 fuse option for a light 12 pounder would be historically accurate too!

    I'm sure the devs still have a lot to work on for the arty, but this certainly is important! As well as (if it is broken) making sure the velocity and trajectory of both guns are accurate!
    4th New Jersey Volunteer.

  3. #3
    How about they first add harder teamkilling punishment on the cannons, as right now trolls can just aim right into friendly lines and kill them the entire round and receive no punishment.

  4. #4
    I second with the pendulum sight. Is this a planned feature? If so, is it currently being worked on? Or is it on the back burner in order to get other systems in place first?

  5. #5
    Jigsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Beeville, TX
    Something needs to be done. At the very least fix the sights on 12 and 10 pounders. You can't even see the sights on them to aim.
    Do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life. Because that field is not hiring. ~1st Jiggalations 4:20

  6. #6
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by Jigsaw View Post
    Something needs to be done. At the very least fix the sights on 12 and 10 pounders. You can't even see the sights on them to aim.
    Thank you for the feedback.

    It's a known issue and is on our todo list of fixes we're working on.

    - Trusty

  7. #7

    USA General of the Army

    Bravescot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Perthshire, Scotland
    For the draw distance, if your officer isn't watching with their binos then it's down to the naked eye and those buggers don't come with built in zoom. Whilst watch the shot fly is good, it's the duty of the officer to be watching it all like a hawk rather than the gunners trying to eye ball the target. Increases in drawdistance would still be brilliant as assisting what can be seen by gunners would be brilliant due to how far some of the battery locations are. The batteries on the highs around Harper's for example is guesswork on seeing anything moving without binos a lot of the time.

  8. #8
    Just please get rid of the moveable camera thing and put it on a single fixed camera behind the aiming spike like everyone else does who has ever done artillery for this era. Yeah I guess it adds some challenge but the only challenge I find myself dealing with is not yelling loudly each time I try and make the camera cooperate. So please, single fixed point, not moving camera.
    Last edited by McMuffin; 12-04-2020 at 02:40 PM.

  9. #9
    I think as a new member I am unable to post a separate thread. So I’m going to piggyback on this one since it's already about artillery and hope that it's seen.

    I was talking to Bradley the other evening, with some questions about artillery and he suggested, most likely as a means to get me to shut up, that I post them here to share. I’ve been sitting on this for a while so I’ll try and keep it as short as I can.

    Just a quick disclaimer; I am not a Civil War historian, just an enthusiast. So I’m happy for anyone to correct me if I’m wrong on anything I mention, let’s just keep it civil, this game already has enough toxicity from certain people.
    Also I am well aware some of what I suggest here may already been planned as future development, and so will be redundant as a suggestion. Furthermore I’ve been playing this game for some years now and had a lot of fun. I think the developers have done a very good job; these are strictly suggestions and not criticisms.

    Firstly, what I was talking to Bradley about.

    Shell Fuses
    Suggestion: Rifled Shell rounds should not be blowing up mid-air.

    For a while now I had been getting into disagreements with people regarding fuses and shell rounds specifically from the rifled guns (3inch Ordinance Rifle & 10pdr Parrott Rifle). People had been suggesting I extend the fuse length to shell at longer range, to which I disagreed. But upon further testing I see that I was wrong & those shells from the rifled guns are exploding mid-air when firing over longer distances. This doesn’t make any sense to me as the shells in-game are modelled after impact/percussion fuse type and do not have accommodation for the Bormann timed type of fuse such as used in case rounds and the smoothbore shell. Shell for the rifled guns appears to be the simple sliding bar percussion cap type fuse that would be activated when the forward inertia is lost and the primer cap inside detonated; primitive but reliable method of the period.
    Shell was primarily used against entrenched / fortified positions & buildings where detonation on impact was the best way to ensure damage to said structures, whereas timed fuses my bounce off and explode away from the target, not having the desired effect. Case on the other hand being more intended for use in open field formation, or over the heads of positions.
    It may be a bug that is causing shell to explode early from the rifled guns right now but, whatever the cause, it should not be happening. Although there were accommodations for fitting timed fuses to rifled shell during the war, this appears to have been the exception and not the rule.

    Solid Shot:
    Suggestion: Create accommodations for using solid shot in game.

    Solid shot was rarely used during the war to my knowledge, however, it was in some rare cases and I think it would be useful in this game. My suggestion to simulate this would be simply to have the fuses be deactivated when turned all the way to zero as this was the method used in the rare instance solid shot was required. Within the Federal army, solid shot was not issued as standard, but removing the fuse from the ordinance rendered the explosive charge inside nearly inert and effectively turned a shell or case into a solid shot. Why would this be useful in game? There are times when firing a solid shot through a garrisoned soft skinned building, such as Dunker church, or any number of barns or cabins scattered around Antietam / Harpers Ferry would be a good use of a round when regular shell/case would simply bounce off or explode on the exterior to little effect. Another use would be firing into formations close to your own men, without fear of splash damage causing losses among your own ranks. Rare instances I agree, but I don’t feel that much effort would be needed to implement this, although I am also suggesting that such rounds should travel through the same kind of material that bullets currently do, which I do not believe is true of artillery rounds.

    Canister ballistics
    Suggestion: Canister should bounce at close range, & the spread pattern for rifled canister shot needs changed.

    This game lacks the ability of canister to be employed as was common during this period. It was standard practice to aim a canister shot at the ground in front of advancing infantry. This would create the effect of flattening out the spread pattern of the shot, creating a greater field of effectiveness. From what I have experienced in this game, canister currently does not bounce off any terrain & simply terminates wherever it first impacts. I think if it’s possible within this game engine this would be a great addition to raise the effectiveness & skill level achievable with this round type. If it is possible to implement it should only work at close range, as well as at the appropriate angles.
    Secondly with regards to canister, when fired currently, canister from the 12pdr Napoléon creates a wide pattern of shot over short range, dissipating quickly over distance. This seems historically accurate to me.
    However the rifled guns, on the other hand, seem to create a tight pattern of shot over exceptionally long distances. As much as it pains me, because I love using canister like this, this seems very inaccurate to the actual ballistics of canister from rifled guns of the period. When fired one of two things would happen. If the canister disintegrated very quickly within the barrel of the gun, the shot inside the can would make contact with the gun’s rifling creating an irregular and unpredictable shot pattern. The second likely outcome would be that the canister doesn’t instantaneously break apart when being fired, the whole of the canister shot, outer case, shot & all would have a part spin imparted on it causing the shot inside to be thrown into the horizontal plain the second it leaves the barrel (much like firing shot from a rifled shotgun) once again causing an unpredictable pattern unlike the highly predictable and reliable way canister is behaving just now. This is supported by contemporary reports from artillery men of this period. Henry Jackson Hunt for example suggesting that the canister range from rifled guns was far lower than that of the smoothbores, which is the opposite of what is currently in-game.

    3Inch ammo in 10pdr Parrott rifles.
    Suggestion: when used in Parrott rifles, 3inch ammo should be unreliable in both accuracy and fuse efficiency.

    It is correct that the Parrott could use 3inch ammunition. The bores are very similar in gauge with the Parrott being slightly larger although not to the extent that it cannot fire the rounds. However the slightly extra windage was known to cause the 3inch ammunition to become less reliable in terms of fuses (impact) and accuracy as the looser fit allowed the shell to wobble some when travelling through the barrel, and possibly allowing more propellant gasses to escape around a less tight fit in the shell. It could also cause the shell to take an irregular flight path, tumbling through the air instead of a stabilised spin, travelling nose first which affected the reliability of the fuses. 3inch ammunition shouldn’t become so bad it’s not worth using in a Parrot rifle, I just feel the player should notice a difference when using suboptimal ammunition. This leads into my next point about gun ballistics.

    12Pdr Napoléon gun/howitzer
    Suggestion: Change the ballistic model of the 12pdr Napoléon to accurately depict its historical use.

    Currently in-game it seems all the pieces have the same ballistics models. I have no doubt that this is a measure that is a placeholder waiting on future updates. I think it’s important that in lieu of a dedicated howitzer, the 12pdr should be able to perform its task as a gun/howitzer. Simply, the round (Shell or case) should travel with high velocity and straight during the first part of its trajectory, but then quickly slowing and becoming quite curved while falling to the ground, fulfilling both the gun & howitzer roles in its namesake. To my knowledge the 12pdr always used the same powder charge so I assume it was simply used as a howitzer at medium to long rangers and a gun within its point blank range. I feel this distinction is important to implement as currently an enemy in a fortified position, such as behind a wall, defilade or some kind of fort/redoubt are exceptionally hard to target using the flat flight paths of the guns. The rounds simply hit the covered portion, or fly over the top. Having a gun with a curved flight path would remedy this issue perhaps and increase the skill celling when using the guns, which I am in favour of, while also simulating the historical use of the 12pdr.

    Limbers and Caissons
    Discussion: Should extra ammo from limbers and caissons be available?

    In-game each gun comes with its own limber, as well as a limber caisson combo behind. Currently the limber/caisson is static and ammo cannot be retrieved from them. I’m not sure if it would be wise or not to open up the players to an extra 3 ammunitions chests. I imagine there are balance concerns with this amount of ammo being available. However I also can’t recall ever playing a match in which guns running out of ammo was the deciding factor. If more ammo had to be fetched by detaching the extra limber and pushing it forward to the gun, or simply walking the ammo back and forth could negate any issues with the much larger ammo capacity on game balance. Regardless, I felt it was worth mentioning as I find myself running out of ammo often with much battle left to be fought and I don’t fire without reason.

    Some anti-suggestions

    McMuffin has suggested removing the moveable camera when aiming the guns. I think this is a poor idea. I think it’s great the way it is now. If the sights were fixed like on the rifles, anybody & everybody would be able to find the point blank and fire like those who have spent time gaining experience and skill using the weapons. I advise against this, I think the developers got this perfect, although perhaps more range of motion even would be better still.
    Furthermore, with regards to ‘Bitchqueen’, and their suggestion of adding the Pendulum-Hausse sigh to the gun, I support this notion. However it seems superfluous. It provides nothing extra that the range and elevation displays already do not. But it would be nice for aiming.

    There you go Bradley, be careful what you ask for
    Last edited by SalamiSticks; 04-01-2021 at 05:46 AM.

  10. #10
    WoR-Dev Bradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Quote Originally Posted by SalamiSticks View Post
    There you go Bradley, be careful what you ask for
    Thanks for taking the time to post here in the forums. I guess I know more about artillery than most casual enthusiasts of the Civil War (and certainly more than most of my colleagues in academia), but I do not know nearly as much about specific ordnance types and trajectory paths of particular guns as the folks we have developing the artillery, so I figured we would have a much more edifying discussion here with their input and my listening intently than with me in-game trying to converse with you while also fending off questions about the next update (Soon TM), KDR (no), hitmarkers (no), and flag melee (no).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts