Artillery Progress & The Platform System Explained - May 2nd 2020

[TrustyJam]

https://steamcommunity.com/games/424030/announcements/detail/2212900354780461584

- Trusty

[SwingKid148]

Thanks again for the video!

[Deckhart]

awesome, hope to see more of these community updates intermittently throughout the dev process.

[PAIOLETTI]

Thank you for the progress report Trusty and the Campfire Games Team!

[RhettVito]

Looking great. I'm glad to see the angle is displayed to eventually facilitate long range firing in accordance with the limber chart.

I hope future releases do include the pendulum sight, covering the vent hole, setting Bormann fuse times on shells, and that we eventually have solid shot as an option. One thing at a time, of course.

Hell yea that would be nice!

[Lord Drax]

Big thanks to the dev team for the progress report!

[Exorf]

thanks for the update! It looks amazing! It's never fun to wait on something you really want, but i rather have artillery that works properly then some half-work stuff that doesn't work half of the time

[DIABLOG]

Looking forward to it, keep up the work gentlemen!

[Ghern84]

Thank you for the update! Looks great!!

[Stone]

In the video I seen that you showed 3 different types of rounds. These include Shell, Case, and Canister. Now I understood that we would have Solid which would be roundball for the smooth bores and Bolt for the rifles guns. One type of explosive round which could either be Shell which was a round packed to explode with either a timed fuse or a impact fuse. Case which is also known as shrapnel shot is similar to shell but has small balls inside the shell so that when it bursts it throws them into a line. This is where I am confused. Are we getting Shell or Case shot? Of course the last shot is Canister and we know that turns the cannon into basically a shotgun. I am quite pleased to also see we get the degrees for aiming.

[TrustyJam]

In the video I seen that you showed 3 different types of rounds. These include Shell, Case, and Canister. Now I understood that we would have Solid which would be roundball for the smooth bores and Bolt for the rifles guns. One type of explosive round which could either be Shell which was a round packed to explode with either a timed fuse or a impact fuse. Case which is also known as shrapnel shot is similar to shell but has small balls inside the shell so that when it bursts it throws them into a line. This is where I am confused. Are we getting Shell or Case shot? Of course the last shot is Canister and we know that turns the cannon into basically a shotgun. I am quite pleased to also see we get the degrees for aiming.

Hello,

Our research indicates that solid shot (or bolts) were rarely a part of the limber chest of the deployed batteries. Instead, they would be fielded with what is to be available in the initial artillery version.

You are correct that both shell and case rounds are explosive ones. The shell has a thicker metal wall with a bigger internal blast charge and fewer, but bigger balls (sometimes it didn't have any at all) inside of it while the case shot has a thinner metal wall, a smaller internal blast charge but many more smaller balls for shrapnel inside of it.

We have been unable to find actual field tests of the exact differences of the two types of rounds but have come to the agreement of having them differ in characteristics this way in WoR:

Shell: Will have a bigger initial blast/explosion radius (killing anyone inside of it) due to its bigger internal blast charge. It's shrapnel radius will also be bigger than that of the case, again due to the size of the blast charge - but it will also be less deadly because of the fewer pieces of shrapnel that it produces.

Case: Will have a smaller initial blast/explosion radius due to its smaller internal blast charge (it is smaller in order to make room for the many balls). It's shrapnel radius will be smaller than that of the shell due to its smaller internal blast charge but deadlier due to the amount of shrapnel it produces.

- Trusty

[RhettVito]

Hello,

Our research indicates that solid shot (or bolts) were rarely a part of the limber chest of the deployed batteries. Instead, they would be fielded with what is to be available in the initial artillery version.

You are correct that both shell and case rounds are explosive ones. The shell has a thicker metal wall with a bigger internal blast charge and fewer, but bigger balls (sometimes it didn't have any at all) inside of it while the case shot has a thinner metal wall, a smaller internal blast charge but many more smaller balls for shrapnel inside of it.

We have been unable to find actual field tests of the exact differences of the two types of rounds but have come to the agreement of having them differ in characteristics this way in WoR:

Shell: Will have a bigger initial blast/explosion radius (killing anyone inside of it) due to its bigger internal blast charge. It's shrapnel radius will also be bigger than that of the case, again due to the size of the blast charge - but it will also be less deadly because of the fewer pieces of shrapnel that it produces.

Case: Will have a smaller initial blast/explosion radius due to its smaller internal blast charge (it is smaller in order to make room for the many balls). It's shrapnel radius will be smaller than that of the shell due to its smaller internal blast charge but deadlier due to the amount of shrapnel it produces.

- Trusty

Shell
Hollow projectile with a powder-filled cavity. Fused; exploded into 5-12 large pieces. Loud air burst terrorized troops and horses.
https://i.imgur.com/0m6QNuR.png


Spherical Case
Developed by British General Henry Shrapnel. Hollow shell with powder and 40-80 musket balls that exploded in all directions. Fused; used 500- 1,500 yards. More effective than shell, but more difficult to manufacture.
https://i.imgur.com/ITJZeY0.png


Canister
Tin can containing 27 iron balls packed in sawdust. Tin can ripped open at the muzzle and showered the balls directly at the troops. Good for repelling the enemy at close range--50-300 yards. For more devastating effect, could be used in double load. Turned cannon into giant shotgun.

http:// https://www.nps.gov/anti/learn/historyculture/arty2.htm


https://i.imgur.com/QFBOr9O.png

[Oleander]

How do you plan to handle setting fuzes?

[RhettVito]

How do you plan to handle setting fuses?

would be quite interested to know that

[TrustyJam]

How do you plan to handle setting fuzes?

We have several ideas as to how to support that without it being too much a pain as a gameplay mechanic nor too disruptive in terms of immersion. It's a balance act between the two extremes of hugely repetitive gameplay and a possibly immersion breaking one: imagine having to manually set the fuse of each of hundreds of available rounds at the start of each skirmish area with a complex (but fancy animation) opposed to be using a simple UI menu popup where you can adjust the entire limber chest content instantly. We'd like to avoid both of these extremes if at all possible as we don't think the first one is going to turn out to be good game design and the 2nd one is too disconnected from the actual game (we want as little time spent doing stuff in the UI as possible).

We'll talk about our ideas at a later date and get your input on them as fuses won't be a part of the initial artillery version - we'd happily hear what you think would be a sleek way of supporting them however, as our ideas are still very much on the drawing board indeed. :)

I should also note that the degree of effectiveness of the artillery in the initial release will play a major part in just how complex additional systems we wish to develop and put on top of it (it's of little use to bring in a very hard to master fuse system if the easier to manage initial artillery is already underperforming - on the other hand it would make sense to bring in more complex new systems to it if the initial release of it is overperforming).

- Trusty

[Spud]

I've some ideas for shell fusing

For setting the fuse - since its a time fuse a simple option perhaps would be to use the corresponding number keys for seconds = 1,2,3 etc. (each second of flight time thus being associated with range). Possibly upon taking the shot from the limber the loader could be presented with a 'set fuse' option and hit the corresponding number.

Naturally depends on how you have the shot 'trigger' either by using actual time set or a range corresponding to the appropriate time.

Or it could be that the shell/caseshot turns ‘live’ when it reaches its set flight time and detonates either upon hitting a solid object after going ‘live’ or just explodes at the set time or even as an airburst when passing over a player/players after going 'live'?

(could that also help with the team damage or if someone were stood in front of the muzzle… ie. the shot can’t explode if its not ‘live’? Thus, requiring the fuse to be set? 0 = impact up to 5 or 6 seconds for max range perhaps? Or have the shot 'active' in set range/time zones so it only explodes within those distances?)

Failing to set a time or leaving it default would be an impact/percussion fuse. There were examples of combination time/percussion fuses in use especially on case shot = https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/648404320953434151/695938722922758204/iia16.png

http://www.civilwarartillery.com/fuzes/schenklcombinationfuze.htm

[TrustyJam]

The solution shouldn't be, at least only, to reduce the damage dealt by the guns. Instead, I hope CG considers increasing the complexity of the gun mechanics which will s-l-o-w the rate of fire considerably while still allowing only two players to work a gun.

Thanks for the suggestions and ideas - keep them coming. :)

Just wanting to make sure that I'm not being misunderstood. I've not talked about reducing the damage dealt by the cannons. I've only talked about taking into account the performance of them in the initial artillery release in regards to how complex any additional systems to add on top of them going forward should be (less complex systems would be preferred if the initial version of artillery underperfoms and more complex systems should be considered if the initial version of artillery overperforms).

This is entirely guesswork at this point in time as the effectiveness of the cannons won't come into view until the initial artillery version is released for testing.

- Trusty

[Stone]

I could see 3 different ways fuses could be handled. 1 allowing the person selecting the shell to set the fuse for each shell they pick up. Just a simple system where they select the number by typing it in on a small ui box that pops up. 2. A proximity system where if the code reads it is near an enemy player it will explode. On one hand this system could cut down on team kills unless someone decides to shoot at enemies that are in close proximity to friendly units. 3. A RNG based system that is similar to the AI arty we have now. Some shells would explode correctly some would fail to fuse properly or some would fuse late and explode more on contact. Though I think this last option would not be acceptable in the players eyes or the development vision.

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

is there a difference between both privates or why are they separated?

https://youtu.be/hkjVkZ7_Ovo?t=19

[Poorlaggedman]

Bolts (for rifled guns) were rare but solid shot for napoleons was used throughout the war. Bolts tended to tumble too much (like an American Football) while solid cannonballs tumbled and even rolled up inclines at lethal speeds.

Obviously there has to be some variation to fuzes or crews will just learn from experience the precise azimuth and range to fire at to whatever particular fenceline they are targeting.



At these close ranges, battery officers usually started thinking it is time to limber up before the horses are all killed and then the guns are lost for sure.
It goes back to a concern I have about the actual use of the pieces in the game. You have your intended use and then you have what gamers (not reenactors) will naturally and rightfully do to compete.

What incentive does a gun crew really have to not lose their guns? Casualties aren't really factored into the score beyond team morale. What incentive does a team have to not just load pieces with canister, hide back, and wait 'til infantry come within range of where the guns will obviously be captured. If losses do count, will artillery just be a great nuisance drain for team morale to the teams as crews stick to their guns and get wrecked? In the real world if you lose all your horses or limbers you're losing serious war power, not just for the moment, for the campaign. Can opposing teams gun crews work guns? Can infantry steal guns? Why or why not. If there's going to be full compliments of batteries on the field (there are no full representation of regiments) why wouldn't a small artillery crew just load all the guns and wait 'til they get a good target?

[TrustyJam]

Bolts (for rifled guns) were rare but solid shot for napoleons was used throughout the war. Bolts tended to tumble too much (like an American Football) while solid cannonballs tumbled and even rolled up inclines at lethal speeds.

Obviously there has to be some variation to fuzes or crews will just learn from experience the precise azimuth and range to fire at to whatever particular fenceline they are targeting.

It goes back to a concern I have about the actual use of the pieces in the game. You have your intended use and then you have what gamers (not reenactors) will naturally and rightfully do to compete.

What incentive does a gun crew really have to not lose their guns? Casualties aren't really factored into the score beyond team morale. What incentive does a team have to not just load pieces with canister, hide back, and wait 'til infantry come within range of where the guns will obviously be captured. If losses do count, will artillery just be a great nuisance drain for team morale to the teams as crews stick to their guns and get wrecked? In the real world if you lose all your horses or limbers you're losing serious war power, not just for the moment, for the campaign. Can opposing teams gun crews work guns? Can infantry steal guns? Why or why not. If there's going to be full compliments of batteries on the field (there are no full representation of regiments) why wouldn't a small artillery crew just load all the guns and wait 'til they get a good target?

Hello! :)

I'm strictly speaking of the 3 inch ordnance rifle which will be the first useable cannon in WoR. It's limber chest content will of course differ from those of smoothbore guns.

You can hang back, yes - if you wish to spend the time and manpower hauling the guns and their limbers back. That is entirely up to you - it may prove to be a sound tactical choice sometimes.

Note that the rounds in the limber chests are limited in numbers. Once you've used the available 25 rounds (10 shell, 10 case and 5 canister) of the half section of the limber chest (the removeable tool tray, exposing the other half of the chest will be a future addition to the artillery and not part of the release) you are out of ammunition. So if you have any plans regarding using the cannons for their canister firepower only you're going to be limited to 5 shots per cannon/limber per round.

Yes, enemy artillery crews can use captured cannons/limbers. Infantry cannot but they can disable the "battery forward deployment" option by getting close to the initial deployment area of the battery in question with a few men. This area will be visible via the caissons in place there (not moveable) even if the guns and limbers have all been pushed away. We've opted not to allow infantry to interact with the cannons or limbers in any other way as we do not wish to see a meta develop where two thirds of the artillery crews are actually infantrymen (whom of course will be much better suited to defend against a surprise attack with their rifles and bayonets compared to the low damage dealing ramrod of the artillery crews).

We want the choice of sending infantrymen over to defend an exposed arty position to happen out of concern for the arty crews ability to manage man to man fighting.

- Trusty

[Poorlaggedman]

Any chance of main spawn protection or changes in spawn areas to prevent spawns from getting targeted? It would be the most obvious target since you'd catch players congregating and loading for the first time throughout the course of the round. Once you have the range and azimuth you can practically fire indirectly in many situation confident the target won't change.

[TrustyJam]

Any chance of main spawn protection or changes in spawn areas to prevent spawns from getting targeted? It would be the most obvious target since you'd catch players congregating and loading for the first time throughout the course of the round. Once you have the range and azimuth you can practically fire indirectly in many situation confident the target won't change.

We'll take measures if/when that is going to happen but it won't be part of the initial artillery release, no.

- Trusty

[Oleander]

Considering there are already maps where the enemy is able to shoot directly into spawn points, there is going to need to be some sort of protection for people spawning in.

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

is there a difference between both privates or why are they separated?

https://youtu.be/hkjVkZ7_Ovo?t=19

just a small bump on my question why there are 2 private classes :)

[A. P. Hill]

just a small bump on my question why there are 2 private classes :)

One comes with a coat, the other doesn't. :D

I dunno to be honest.

[TrustyJam]

is there a difference between both privates or why are they separated?

https://youtu.be/hkjVkZ7_Ovo?t=19

No they are identical. The 2nd private is a placeholder for future class variation, possibly to be added in later updates to the artillery system (could be a private with a worm/dry sponge tool when we support misfires/cannon damage, etc. in the future).

- Trusty

[August Karl]

Hi Trusty,

I am a Ranger from the 52nd New York. My idea is to release arty already but ONLY for the drill camp. The arty at drill camp can life with the problems that aren´t yet fixed. So that the future arty crews can already form up, can drill and can send bug reports to CG. Since there are some problems to fix, we are all agreeing that arty for SKIRMISHES should only be released FULLY FUNCTIONALLY.

-Ranger Otto von Steuben

[RhettVito]

Hey Devs, is there going to be an update to the draw distance for the artillery update At the moment the draw distance is what around 500 yards? Will that be expanded?

[MK81]

Draw distance for multiple user graphics settings is going to be tough to produce I would think, it's been a lingering question at the back of my mind as well.

I appreciate the video CFG, am glad to see the modification to the initial deployment options selection screen. I was wondering how that was going to look, not a lot different but seemed to fit for the next update from what I saw. The video had placeholder text and images for the primary and secondary weapon selection options, I realise that for some of the crew types these options may be limited to particular artillery equipment and tools, will the selection types be a choosen option or randomised? Will the weapon selection for the infantry in the next update still be randomised or will a chosen weapon be held when deployed if selected?

[USHistoryCollector]

Just wondering, will NCOs be able to have field glasses? I dont suppose it would matter much for public matches, but in regimental play where an officer of a regiment would have to play as an NCO, I think it would help a lot to have field glasses to monitor the shots.

[A. P. Hill]

Only down to the Sergeant of the Piece. The Gunner, (corporal,) won't or shouldn't.

[MK81]

As there isn't any destructable objects in game at the time of writing this, I was wondering if the artillery objects themselves would be affected by direct hits from enemy projectiles? Would an artillery piece, limber or a caisson be disabled/destroyed or would a partial (blast radius) or direct hit be a wasted shot if it didn't also hit gun crew?

[Draco8x25]

Hello Devs,

I was wondering wether you are planning on releasing the 200 player servers with or around artillery release. Looking back at the feedback and videos from the 200 man stress test it seemed pretty positive and stable. I would also imagine that if you added artillery you would remove a lot of players from the line, by adding two hundred man severs it would add enough slots to increase the soldiers on the line while also providing enough men to set aside enough guys for the artillery. Thanks for all the updates, I cant wait for artillery.

[USHistoryCollector]

Another question I have, what are the shells being modeled in? At first I thought they might be the 3" Schenkl, but now it kind of looks like the 3" Dyer?

[A. P. Hill]

Dyer and Parrott. they're both pretty close to each other.
But Dyer was specifically made for the 3 inch ordnance.

[Oleander]

So, we're coming up on the end of the month and still a lot of silence on any sort of progress. Are we getting close to a release of this update?

[Shrimp]

So, we're coming up on the end of the month and still a lot of silence on any sort of progress. Are we getting close to a release of this update?


Lol. We are still awaiting a fix for the dead rising bug and the implementation of 200 player servers. Artillery was previewed over a year ago and per their last "update" it doesn't seem to be coming anytime soon. I wouldn't get my hopes up. It's a shame really. This game has so much potential, but for whatever reason, it appears the development has stagnated.

[TrustyJam]

So, we're coming up on the end of the month and still a lot of silence on any sort of progress. Are we getting close to a release of this update?

We'll probably create a progress report within too long as it has been close to a month as you point out. :)


Lol. We are still awaiting a fix for the dead rising bug and the implementation of 200 player servers. Artillery was previewed over a year ago and per their last "update" it doesn't seem to be coming anytime soon. I wouldn't get my hopes up. It's a shame really. This game has so much potential, but for whatever reason, it appears the development has stagnated.

Artillery was first previewed on the 17th of September, 2019 (the anniversary of Antietam). The development is progressing although we realize that it may seem as though it isn't from the outside (which is why a progress update every month is a good call). While Mike, our programmer, continues to work on getting rid of the release blockers (a few are likely to have been fixed since the last progress report) other team members are able to work on other things that otherwise wouldn't have made their way into the initial artillery release. We'll go into detail with some of those in the progress report itself.

- Trusty

[Jagdmann]

We'll probably create a progress report within too long as it has been close to a month as you point out. :)


We'll go into detail with some of those in the progress report itself.

- Trusty

That´s about all I want to hear good Sir. Thank you for those reports, keep them coming and keep us informed on what is going on in Aquavit-Land!

Cheers lad`s! :)

[Poorlaggedman]

Perhaps the draw distance could be made to change when viewing through the binoculars and when fine-tuning the gun's aim.

[Exorf]

I'm glad with these updates. Yeah i want artillery to be released today, but I don't underestimate the work that goes into programming this. As I said before, rather have artillery that works properly then artillery that bugs out half of the time.

[Draco8x25]

We'll probably create a progress report within too long as it has been close to a month as you point out. :)



Artillery was first previewed on the 17th of September, 2019 (the anniversary of Antietam). The development is progressing although we realize that it may seem as though it isn't from the outside (which is why a progress update every month is a good call). While Mike, our programmer, continues to work on getting rid of the release blockers (a few are likely to have been fixed since the last progress report) other team members are able to work on other things that otherwise wouldn't have made their way into the initial artillery release. We'll go into detail with some of those in the progress report itself.

- Trusty

I understand that you are not able to give a timetable on anything. However I am wondering if 200 man servers are in the works. I have seen recently especially in events a lot of players are getting stuck out and I think having larger servers would really help. I appreciate all the good work you guys are doing and I cant wait to see the progress report.

[Lord Drax]

I understand that you are not able to give a timetable on anything. However I am wondering if 200 man servers are in the works. I have seen recently especially in events a lot of players are getting stuck out and I think having larger servers would really help. I appreciate all the good work you guys are doing and I cant wait to see the progress report.

The next scheduled test for 200 man servers was told to be after the Artillery update as we have tested it quite thoroughly in the past with just infantry.

[RhettVito]

There is always the possibility that we might not see Artillery until September or later. As such, I wouldn't get too excited about the prospect of 200 player servers any time soon. Best to temper your expectations.

Would not be surprised if we get artillery on the anniversary of the battle.

[Oleander]

So where is this update we were supposed to get?

[TrustyJam]

So where is this update we were supposed to get?

Apologies for not getting it out there yet. We're making excellent progress at the moment and so the public test may be just around the corner. We'll get one out if it, within the next week or so, turns out that it isn't as close as we currently think it is. :)

- Trusty

[PAIOLETTI]

Apologies for not getting it out there yet. We're making excellent progress at the moment and so the public test may be just around the corner. We'll get one out if it, within the next week or so, turns out that it isn't as close as we currently think it is. :)

- Trusty

BOOM! This is fantastic. Really looking forward to the public testing!

[CSHawkeye]

BOOM! This is fantastic. Really looking forward to the public testing!

I guess you are "DOING SEXY" Paioletti...


IX Corps Sends it's regards...

[RhettVito]

Apologies for not getting it out there yet. We're making excellent progress at the moment and so the public test may be just around the corner. We'll get one out if it, within the next week or so, turns out that it isn't as close as we currently think it is. :)

- Trusty

Hope that's the case it's been a long wait.I'm going to love destroying units with artillery not to forget counter-battery fire is going to be cool!

[Lord Drax]

Apologies for not getting it out there yet. We're making excellent progress at the moment and so the public test may be just around the corner. We'll get one out if it, within the next week or so, turns out that it isn't as close as we currently think it is. :)

- Trusty

Glad to hear it Trusty! I Corps and it's batteries are looking forward to the public testing phase!

[TrustyJam]

Hey everyone!

Just a quick arty update this time around as I promised we'd have one for you this week. :)

We're now down to a single release blocker holding us back from inviting you all in to test the artillery. (it is of course always possible that new or even old additional release blockers are encountered between now and the public test during our internal tests). Please note that the initial artillery test is going to be having plenty of bugs and issues - it's just going to be bugs and issues that we have accepted are not bad enough to be release blockers.

The feature list of the initial artillery release has been expanded due to us having time to work on more stuff while our programmer, Mike, is working on cracking the release blockers.

We've implemented a dynamic fuze system that is tied to the elevation screw into the first version of the artillery. You'll get the fully dynamically updating table of fire shown in the UI as you turn the elevation screw up or down (range, elevation, time of flight, fuze timer). This is our initial suggestion as to a simplistic, non intrusive fuze system that won't require dozens of rounds to be adjusted manually at the start of each skirmish area. We also believe it will help make the artillery task more viable to use for more players. Note that the range to the target as well as a clear trajectory of course still needs to be taken into account. During our limited internal testing we've found that it is most certainly still hugely challenging to land an accurate shot.

We realize some of our community will probably want a full on hardcore fuze system (having to remember the table of fire, having to manually pick up each round and adjust its fuze) and so the above dynamic fuze system shouldn't be looked at as an absolute set-in-stone feature (nor should any other artillery related mechanic really) - we expect to get a lot of requests and feedback from you all when the public test build goes live and we are of course very much open to change things around based off of it and what we are seeing in-game ourselves as well. :)

We now support ricocheting rounds. This tends to happen when the angle of impact becomes rather shallow; in short, the closer to a purpendicular impact the more of a chance of the round not ricocheting and instead burying itself into whatever surface you've hit, eventually exploding as the fuze timer burns out. A ricocheting round will also explode when its fuze timer runs out.

We've added a light trail of smoke in the wake of a fired round. This can be seen in several live firing artillery demonstrations and is caused by the fuze burning. It is a neat way of tracking the trajectory of your shot as well as spotting any kind of ricocheting rounds in-game.

- Trusty

[SwingKid148]

Hey everyone!

Just a quick arty update this time around as I promised we'd have one for you this week. :)

We're now down to a single release blocker holding us back from inviting you all in to test the artillery. (it is of course always possible that new or even old additional release blockers are encountered between now and the public test during our internal tests). Please note that the initial artillery test is going to be having plenty of bugs and issues - it's just going to be bugs and issues that we have accepted are not bad enough to be release blockers.

The feature list of the initial artillery release has been expanded due to us having time to work on more stuff while our programmer, Mike, is working on cracking the release blockers.

We've implemented a dynamic fuze system that is tied to the elevation screw into the first version of the artillery. You'll get the fully dynamically updating table of fire shown in the UI as you turn the elevation screw up or down (range, elevation, time of flight, fuze timer). This is our initial suggestion as to a simplistic, non intrusive fuze system that won't require dozens of rounds to be adjusted manually at the start of each skirmish area. We also believe it will help make the artillery task more viable to use for more players. Note that the range to the target as well as a clear trajectory of course still needs to be taken into account. During our limited internal testing we've found that it is most certainly still hugely challenging to land an accurate shot.

We realize some of our community will probably want a full on hardcore fuze system (having to remember the table of fire, having to manually pick up each round and adjust its fuze) and so the above dynamic fuze system shouldn't be looked at as an absolute set-in-stone feature (nor should any other artillery related mechanic really) - we expect to get a lot of requests and feedback from you all when the public test build goes live and we are of course very much open to change things around based off of it and what we are seeing in-game ourselves as well. :)

We now support ricocheting rounds. This tends to happen when the angle of impact becomes rather shallow; in short, the closer to a purpendicular impact the more of a chance of the round not ricocheting and instead burying itself into whatever surface you've hit, eventually exploding as the fuze timer burns out. A ricocheting round will also explode when its fuze timer runs out.

We've added a light trail of smoke in the wake of a fired round. This can be seen in several live firing artillery demonstrations and is caused by the fuze burning. It is a neat way of tracking the trajectory of your shot as well as spotting any kind of ricocheting rounds in-game.

- Trusty

Great work!

[Lord Drax]

Can't wait!

[DIABLOG]

Can we have a list of all the artillery batteries that will be featured in the update?

[RhettVito]

Can we have a list of all the artillery batteries that will be featured in the update?

Yes please!

[SwingKid148]

Can we have a list of all the artillery batteries that will be featured in the update?

I only know two things of units, Whiting's Battery is not included but Clark's is included. :cool:

There was a list I think in the officer's steam chat.

[Hinkel]

Well, I can say that Clark's battery is included and will be available at Burnsides Bridge ;)
Clark will face 2 confederate batteries, defending the hills behind the bridge.

On another map, Clark's battery will be the only available artillery unit and is able to fire the confederate positions without any counter battery fire :)

[SwingKid148]

Well, I can say that Clark's battery is included and will be available at Burnsides Bridge ;)
Clark will face 2 confederate batteries, defending the hills behind the bridge.

On another map, Clark's battery will be the only available artillery unit and is able to fire the confederate positions without any counter battery fire :)

I approve of the last map ;)

[RhettVito]

Well, I can say that Clark's battery is included and will be available at Burnsides Bridge ;)
Clark will face 2 confederate batteries, defending the hills behind the bridge.

On another map, Clark's battery will be the only available artillery unit and is able to fire the confederate positions without any counter battery fire :)

I assume that would be the Anderson's attack I guess the other map be could also possibly be on would be AP Hill counter-attack? the AP Hill counter-attack map will be awesome for confederate and federal artillery counter battery stuff.http://antietam.aotw.org/officers.php?unit_id=805&from=results

[DIABLOG]

Will the 1st Massachusetts "Porter's Battery" be featured at least in the drill camp?

[Exorf]

Thanks for this update!

[LeFuret]

It's happening!