Suggestion for artillery

[SwissDixie]

My brain just shat out an idea. I hope that artillery will be usable realistic and not like the whole verdun-kinda thing: Aim with binoculars and wait for explosions. No, my idea is to let the players choose artillerists. You need three guys to operate the cannon, and three drivers. Or just let the three gun-operators drive. One reloads, one aims, and one gets ammo from the limber. And maybe they could like, place cannon and limber, and then go back to the spawn base to get a caisson. Yes, im really keen on victorian-age artillery and that would be awesome material for the game. Expecting your opinion and critique.

-SwissDixie

[A. P. Hill]

Really? three guys to operate a gun?

According to everything I've ever read, a gun crew consists of 10 guys to operate effectively. And that's not counting the teamsters.

[Murch]

Please. Arty regiments are arty regiments because they can only get 5 guys online.

[Estus]

Please. Arty regiments are arty regiments because they can only get 5 guys online.

That's not true. In some cases it may be that way, but I myself was part of a big regiment who always had an artillery group. They used to let 10~15 people operating and guarding two~three cannons.

[A. P. Hill]

Please. Arty regiments are arty regiments because they can only get 5 guys online.

That's probably because they don't think operating artillery is as glorious as it is. :)

[William]

Please. Arty regiments are arty regiments because they can only get 5 guys online.

so wrong i know a arty reg with 20 guys so they can man (in warband) 3 Cannons and have like 6 man or something like that arty guard and some man in reserv as arty man

[Rithal]

Last I heard, artillery will definitely be on the map (compared to Verdun that has off-map arty support) and will be player controlled. That's about all we know at the moment. :)

[A. P. Hill]

Last I heard, artillery will definitely be on the map (compared to Verdun that has off-map arty support) and will be player controlled. That's about all we know at the moment. :)

And it will be out standing!

[Gokiller]

Even if that number was required back in that time. Requiring 10 people to use one cannon would be rather unrealistic on gameplay terms. As it just unnecessarily fills up server slots. (One reason)

But yeah a proper artillery system would be neat to see!

[Szotu]

Remember that there will be casual games aswell! three or even two men should operate a gun, maybe with less efectivity.

[Hinkel]

Like Gokiller said, we are aware of the problem that artillery might need to much players to operate. Since we would like to stay accurate in terms of artillery, we are discussing other solutions at the moment ;)

[Gokiller]

Sounds good!

And yeah, especially with casual gaming. You definitely need the option so only one person can operate a cannon. For those who have played NW; We've all seen what happens when on a casual server, people have to share a cannon.

[A. P. Hill]

Every man in an artillery battery were trained in every responsibility, so theoretically one man can operate a field gun, just not as fast as a full crew.

And yes, I am aware of gaming restrictions. I am sure the developers will find a solution.

[Landree]

Barebones, a gun can be ran by three men, yet need a man to bring up rounds. So four in total.

The man on the vent-hole needs to be there to keep the gun from going off prematurely.
The gunner can also worm out the charge.
The #2 man can wet sponge, dry sponge, and ram the charge.

Still, it'd fatigue the crew and very much hamper the effectiveness of the crew with such a low number. The gunner needs to be focused on the targets ahead with the commander instead of working on the gun.

[FirstDiv2Corps]

There is one example at Antietam of John Cook, bugler for Battery B, 4th US, in the Cornfield who almost single-handedly kept a cannon firing. He earned the Medal of Honor for his actions. But this is an extreme case-- a gun crew should, at the very least, have 3-4 guys per gun.

[BloodBeag]

During the mutiny of the Sepoys in India, some naval crews were brought into fight as there was a shortage of soldiers and I remember reading that one said naval crewman was operating an artillery piece during a siege singlehandedly and it was quoted as it being at least 4 men's work he was doing by himself and that he was pushing the gun along after each shot. So I don't think players should be obliged to have full crews to be able to operate cannons but I think it should be realistic and that it takes much longer to load and fire if there are less people.

[Mississippi]

During the mutiny of the Sepoys in India, some naval crews were brought into fight as there was a shortage of soldiers and I remember reading that one said naval crewman was operating an artillery piece during a siege singlehandedly and it was quoted as it being at least 4 men's work he was doing by himself and that he was pushing the gun along after each shot. So I don't think players should be obliged to have full crews to be able to operate cannons but I think it should be realistic and that it takes much longer to load and fire if there are less people.

I agree as well.

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

That would be the best solution I think

[David Dire]

That sounds about the best solution. Although, what of mortars?

[Willie Fisterbottom]

Only problem i could think of is that you would have an abundance of gunners and a lack of reloaders, spotters, etc. Because everyone wants the glory of shooting the cannon, not stuffing ammo in it over and over :)

[A. P. Hill]

Only problem i could think of is that you would have an abundance of gunners and a lack of reloaders, spotters, etc. Because everyone wants the glory of shooting the cannon, not stuffing ammo in it over and over :)

I think you're mistaken. Again you miss the developers intent to nurture and ingraine the team spirit of this endeavor.

[Willie Fisterbottom]

I think you're mistaken. Again you miss the developers intent to nurture and ingraine the team spirit of this endeavor.

I have no doubt it would work well with an artillery regiment of people in a group together, im just concerned about how it would play out in a casual match with random people. I suppose a good way to mitigate against it would be to not include a personal kill counter so people dont just all try and play as a gunner. (basically what you said about making it very team focused)

[BloodBeag]

I'm not sure how many people would 'enjoy' being a loader and just picking up a shell placing it in, waiting, picking up a shell, placing it in, waiting.

I can imagine it being fun though if you have someone who is very good at aiming and you know you are getting hits because then you would know that you had contributed to something that the ordinary infantry did not as much. But if you all sucked then it wouldn't be fun at all, just really monotonous and boring.

[Furrnox]

Really? three guys to operate a gun?

According to everything I've ever read, a gun crew consists of 10 guys to operate effectively. And that's not counting the teamsters.

I don't think that would be very fun gameplay wise.

[Landree]

The NW method of a gunner and loader works out fine, with the loader contributing vastly to a gun's quick usage. If there is enough incentives to want to be a loader other than some players simply enjoy it, the better.

[Jamez]

Do remember the only thing this game has in common with NW & N&S is the time period and genre. But as for incentives for loading a cannon, I would think a system where if a cannon you loaded got a kill it would be simply counted as your kill aswell as the gunner.

[Jonny Powers]

I think that the point in regards to casual play is a valid one and, while I believe that this will be a non-issue in events with organized artillery crews, the ability to crew a cannon with only one or two people will need to be available. The Napoleonic Wars example is a good comparison, one which I believe is likely to be replicated in the final game. My questions are: Is there any information on the crewing of cannons? How were the different members of the crew equipped and trained? With that in mind, do the devs have any plans when it comes to how many different unit selections there will be for cannon crews (gunner, loader, swabber, etc? Will these units be limited in their actions or will there be a multipurpose unit that can perform all the duties needed to maintain and fire the gun? Are cannon actions even limited to the crew units or can any man use them? With the maintenence of unit cohesion mentioned in other threads, what would be the "colors" a crew could stay by to gain bonuses? The gun itself or actual unit colors? Might gun crews be listed in killfeeds and leaderboards as one unit or would just the gunner recieved the kill?

And if there has been no thought whatsoever towards artillery as well, that's just fine :D

[Rithal]

The developers have yet to go into detail on how artillery will work. They probably aren't even 100% sure yet. :p

Let's wait and see what they come up with! :D

[Skipper]

I personally think there should be at least 3 people to operate the artillery because it is more realistic than one guy doing everything. Think of all the work you have to do. Getting the gun in position, loading and again clean the cannon. For one Person that would be a pretty hard workout. It would be like running through the fields with full gear, without any loss of stamina. Also ... if it is not easy to use artillery you get the real feeling of accomplishing something within the team as you are giving artillery support for your boys at the frontline. I would have no problem to just reload the gun over 30 minutes because it IS the job you have to do to help your men.

Also little side effect: If it's hard you can filter out the soldiers from the artillerst and the recruits from the veterans. MORE IMMERSION! :D

[A. P. Hill]

You do know what's extremely interesting about this discussion.

Reenactment groups have no problem raising complete units of guys to man a gun. That means there are 8 or so guys just standing around a gun doing their real jobs. But yeah, in the real world there is no problem in filling all the positions on a gun crew.

I don't see why it should be a problem here as well. There are already Artillery units here with enough men to man a section properly. Do you think every man in an artillery unit is automatically going to get a cannon of his own? Really?

[Rithal]

You do know what's extremely interesting about this discussion.

Reenactment groups have no problem raising complete units of guys to man a gun. That means there are 8 or so guys just standing around a gun doing their real jobs. But yeah, in the real world there is no problem in filling all the positions on a gun crew.

I don't see why it should be a problem here as well. There are already Artillery units here with enough men to man a section properly. Do you think every man in an artillery unit is automatically going to get a cannon of his own? Really?

Well we have to keep in mind that gamers tend to have less patience and interest than reenactors. :p

[A. P. Hill]

Well we have to keep in mind that gamers tend to have less patience and interest than reenactors. :p

That might be the polite way to say it. :D

1795

[Landree]

I'm part of an artillery crew that has original guns in it. It's fantastic! Crewing an actual gun compared to sitting behind a keyboard is extremely different. There's so much to concentrate on, yet the end result of firing a round has a very primal and awesome (in the true sense of the word) feeling to it as the shockwave goes through your body. I don't think that'll ever be recreated in a video game, yet that shouldn't stop a developer from trying. ;)

[A. P. Hill]

That's why computer sound systems have sub woofers! ;)

[Soulfly]

That's why computer sound systems have sub woofers! ;)

Indeed ! who knows this mod for RO2 will agree :cool:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HyCNto4kDk

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

That's why computer sound systems have sub woofers! ;)

All what you need are Teufel boxes ;)

[A. P. Hill]

And maybe a butt kicker for your chair! ;)

[Willie Fisterbottom]

You do know what's extremely interesting about this discussion.

Reenactment groups have no problem raising complete units of guys to man a gun. That means there are 8 or so guys just standing around a gun doing their real jobs. But yeah, in the real world there is no problem in filling all the positions on a gun crew.

I don't see why it should be a problem here as well. There are already Artillery units here with enough men to man a section properly. Do you think every man in an artillery unit is automatically going to get a cannon of his own? Really?

But what about in a random casual match where people aren't playing with their company?

[A. P. Hill]

It's not my job to find a solution to every possible combination of game play, I have the utmost confidence the the players will manage to work something out. ;)

[SpectretheGreat]

The problem is that games always simplify Artillery to make it more user friendly, and thats because games are trying to cater to, shall we say... "less patient" gamers. Artillery in games is as we have pointed out already usually just called in instead of being player controlled, but in games with controlled Artillery it is usually too easy or just boring. In M&B Napoleonic Wars, Artillery was simplified to an extent and that really impacted its popularity. The cannons required 2-3 people max and were very boring to play, all you did was hold F to load then fire it, and firing was like hip firing an assault weapon in modern FPS's. Plus, the weapon was relatively ineffective because it had to directly hit someone since there was no fragmentation. In more serious games like ARMA artillery is even simpler as it loads itself and you have a computer that does it all for you, click on map and you're good to go. Both were very underwhelming and contributed to it being boring as all hell.

The game needs to be brave and make artillery something that needs effort and skill, they need to be complicated and tedious so in turn the more experienced you get the more effective you'll be. There has to be a challenge with being an artillerymen other than hitting the enemy, possibly implementing cannon effectiveness after each shot needing to be cleaned mid-game. It would be awesome seeing messengers having to constantly keep the artillery informed which all ties into a previous post I made about realistic communication, which would add for a more engaging experience. Note that I am not an artillery expert but I know from experience that it needs to be challenging and engaging if we want to see people play dedicated Artillery and make regiments for it. As an infantrymen in real life seeing the Artillery go to work is really interesting because they never stop moving and are always occupied, and their officers are screaming more and more coordinates and constantly working to keep up to date with information from the front, and hearing the earth shattering blast is something let me tell you. Which by the way, the cannon better be so loud that people take their headphones off for fear of deafness because nothing is more sissy than an artillery gun thats as loud as a musket, sound makes the game and loud noises in a war game are awesome. Red Orchestra has such amazing sounds and it makes it 100 times more awesome.

Ill leave videos referencing some artillery in other games and why it blows, plus a link to my forum post about realistic communication.

Forum post: http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?924-Realistic-In-game-communication-Why-it-needs-to-be-implemented

Mount and Blade: https://youtu.be/DmF5uYhmQCA?t=3m11s Time stamped to the actual firing.
Arma 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K68LixfHko

[Willie Fisterbottom]

The problem is that games always simplify Artillery to make it more user friendly, and thats because games are trying to cater to, shall we say... "less patient" gamers. Artillery in games is as we have pointed out already usually just called in instead of being player controlled, but in games with controlled Artillery it is usually too easy or just boring. In M&B Napoleonic Wars, Artillery was simplified to an extent and that really impacted its popularity. The cannons required 2-3 people max and were very boring to play, all you did was hold F to load then fire it, and firing was like hip firing an assault weapon in modern FPS's. Plus, the weapon was relatively ineffective because it had to directly hit someone since there was no fragmentation. In more serious games like ARMA artillery is even simpler as it loads itself and you have a computer that does it all for you, click on map and you're good to go. Both were very underwhelming and contributed to it being boring as all hell.

The game needs to be brave and make artillery something that needs effort and skill, they need to be complicated and tedious so in turn the more experienced you get the more effective you'll be. There has to be a challenge with being an artillerymen other than hitting the enemy, possibly implementing cannon effectiveness after each shot needing to be cleaned mid-game. It would be awesome seeing messengers having to constantly keep the artillery informed which all ties into a previous post I made about realistic communication, which would add for a more engaging experience. Note that I am not an artillery expert but I know from experience that it needs to be challenging and engaging if we want to see people play dedicated Artillery and make regiments for it. As an infantrymen in real life seeing the Artillery go to work is really interesting because they never stop moving and are always occupied, and their officers are screaming more and more coordinates and constantly working to keep up to date with information from the front, and hearing the earth shattering blast is something let me tell you. Which by the way, the cannon better be so loud that people take their headphones off for fear of deafness because nothing is more sissy than an artillery gun thats as loud as a musket, sound makes the game and loud noises in a war game are awesome. Red Orchestra has such amazing sounds and it makes it 100 times more awesome.

Ill leave videos referencing some artillery in other games and why it blows, plus a link to my forum post about realistic communication.

Forum post: http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?924-Realistic-In-game-communication-Why-it-needs-to-be-implemented

Mount and Blade: https://youtu.be/DmF5uYhmQCA?t=3m11s Time stamped to the actual firing.
Arma 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K68LixfHko

Lol i don't know what you were playing but there's nothing more enjoyable in NW than sending your cannonball down an enemy line and have your name repeated the the kill-feed six times. Or dropping a mortar inside the enemy fort killing 10 guys in an instant.

[SpectretheGreat]

Lol i don't know what you were playing but there's nothing more enjoyable in NW than sending your cannonball down an enemy line and have your name repeated the the kill-feed six times. Or dropping a mortar inside the enemy fort killing 10 guys in an instant.

Considering I find the game detestable in all accounts I especially hated artillery, it was a boring game with no skill requirements other than knowing how to chamber during melee.

[Jonny Powers]

The problem is that games always simplify Artillery to make it more user friendly, and thats because games are trying to cater to, shall we say... "less patient" gamers. Artillery in games is as we have pointed out already usually just called in instead of being player controlled, but in games with controlled Artillery it is usually too easy or just boring. In M&B Napoleonic Wars, Artillery was simplified to an extent and that really impacted its popularity. The cannons required 2-3 people max and were very boring to play, all you did was hold F to load then fire it, and firing was like hip firing an assault weapon in modern FPS's. Plus, the weapon was relatively ineffective because it had to directly hit someone since there was no fragmentation. In more serious games like ARMA artillery is even simpler as it loads itself and you have a computer that does it all for you, click on map and you're good to go. Both were very underwhelming and contributed to it being boring as all hell.

The game needs to be brave and make artillery something that needs effort and skill, they need to be complicated and tedious so in turn the more experienced you get the more effective you'll be. There has to be a challenge with being an artillerymen other than hitting the enemy, possibly implementing cannon effectiveness after each shot needing to be cleaned mid-game. It would be awesome seeing messengers having to constantly keep the artillery informed which all ties into a previous post I made about realistic communication, which would add for a more engaging experience. Note that I am not an artillery expert but I know from experience that it needs to be challenging and engaging if we want to see people play dedicated Artillery and make regiments for it. As an infantrymen in real life seeing the Artillery go to work is really interesting because they never stop moving and are always occupied, and their officers are screaming more and more coordinates and constantly working to keep up to date with information from the front, and hearing the earth shattering blast is something let me tell you. Which by the way, the cannon better be so loud that people take their headphones off for fear of deafness because nothing is more sissy than an artillery gun thats as loud as a musket, sound makes the game and loud noises in a war game are awesome. Red Orchestra has such amazing sounds and it makes it 100 times more awesome.

Ill leave videos referencing some artillery in other games and why it blows, plus a link to my forum post about realistic communication.

Forum post: http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?924-Realistic-In-game-communication-Why-it-needs-to-be-implemented

Mount and Blade: https://youtu.be/DmF5uYhmQCA?t=3m11s Time stamped to the actual firing.
Arma 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K68LixfHko

Do you have any ideas how the operation could be implemented in-game? Players are limited to their keyboards and mice when it comes to actual operation of in-game actions, after all. I found, in contemplating how this could be carried out, perhaps a certain set of key combinations would carry out a certain action. This could be done in a quicktime-like way, or it could be rhythmically based. Another idea I had was to make actions automatic and non-player controlled, but with an in-game experience progress that would make your work faster, more efficient, more thorough, etc.

[SpectretheGreat]

Do you have any ideas how the operation could be implemented in-game? Players are limited to their keyboards and mice when it comes to actual operation of in-game actions, after all. I found, in contemplating how this could be carried out, perhaps a certain set of key combinations would carry out a certain action. This could be done in a quicktime-like way, or it could be rhythmically based. Another idea I had was to make actions automatic and non-player controlled, but with an in-game experience progress that would make your work faster, more efficient, more thorough, etc.

I concur, but some would disagree with a quick time event as a ways of playing artillery. I admit I have the slightest on how they could make it more engaging but all I know is that it HAS to be more engaging or no one will play it.

[Willie Fisterbottom]

I concur, but some would disagree with a quick time event as a ways of playing artillery. I admit I have the slightest on how they could make it more engaging but all I know is that it HAS to be more engaging or no one will play it.

People love playing arty in NW there's almost too many artillerist in most servers.

[A. P. Hill]

Lol i don't know what you were playing but there's nothing more enjoyable in NW than sending your cannonball down an enemy line and have your name repeated the the kill-feed six times. Or dropping a mortar inside the enemy fort killing 10 guys in an instant.

And this is exactly why we don't need personal kill counts in this endeavor.

And I agree whole heartedly with Spectre ... it should be elaborate ... rather one key to control everything perhaps each numbered man needs a set of key strokes to perform his duty, if he gets it wrong the gun either doesn't fire, or it explodes ... And again, this is a personal opinion and does not reflect anything the devs may do in the future.

[SpectretheGreat]

And this is exactly why we don't need personal kill counts in this endeavor.

And I agree whole heartedly with Specter ... it should be elaborate ... rather one key to control everything perhaps each numbered man needs a set of key strokes to perform his duty, if he gets it wrong the gun either doesn't fire, or it explodes ... And again, this is a personal opinion and does not reflect anything the devs may do in the future.

I concur, games that display your kills and deaths only promotes lone wolfing. I like it when games don't have kill feeds or K/D ratios so people don't feel compelled to do their own thing to ensure they have more kills to deaths, its not the type of competition this game needs.

From a gameplay perspective it also ruins the fog of war, with all the smoke smaller units that have sustained more casualties in reality could still pretend to look bigger via spacing, if a kill feed is implemented all you have to do is look at it and know that the unit you are firing on is taking heavy casualties and it ruins gameplay.

[SwissDixie]

I advocate a system as realistic as possible. Players who arent patient enough to serve as a loader can play as infantry.

[Landree]

As long as #3 has to hold down the space bar to keep the vent hole tended, I'm good.

[Landree]

I'd like to push this topic back into the limelight. Implementing a full crew of 10 versus 5 is the difference between one piece and a section being fielded.

I'm in full agreement that artillery should be not only active in its deployment and usage, but also rewarding when the pieces fall together. It should have the punch it deserves in the audio department and the suppression effects shown in the kickstarter trailer are a good window of just how terrifying it should be to be under fire from these guns.

[GeneralSquirts]

I myself am in an Napoleonic Wars Artillery detachment and am glad to see a game that will have a more realistic sense of Artillery being put into play. As NW stands, artillery is definitely not up to the standard as actual artillery in real life, but by no means has this affected the way artillery is ran during competitive events within NW. In NW, there are two types of things you see, competitive/serious events ran that host multiple regiments and casual servers that have their own little niches. As far as the actual competitive regiments that focus around artillery or have an artillery detachment, the good ones never see any case of 'lone wolfing'. In fact we create systems in which to derive away from the idea of lone wolfing. Underneath our regiment, I serve as the second in command and interact with other artillery regiments/detachments that we face all the time. And regardless of the interaction, artillery is always ran as a specialty that requires the total cooperation throughout the ranks and the up most humility among the ranks. If it can be done on NW, a game with a very simplistic artillery system, then it can definitely be done correctly here. My concerns are that the developers cross too far into the realistic aspect of artillery to the point where playing as artillery will be more work with less reward. I am really enthusiastic seeing how the mechanics of Artillery progress throughout the making of this title.

[CJ1515g]

The way I feel artillery should be is realistic. This game as far as I see is trying to be as realistic as possible, so keep it realistic. From what I know and a quick google search on how ACW cannons operated you needed at least two men to be able to fire a cannon. One guy constantly attending to the hole in the breach to make sure that cannon didn't misfire, and the other guy doing the rest of the jobs in ordered to make it fire correctly. If the order of reloading wasn't done right it should have a certain percentage of exploding, RNG one would say in gaming.
I feel if everything is put in in order to fire a cannon properly, like the different pieces of equipment such as ramrod, cleaning rod ect... The time it would take for fire and reloading would basically come down to what it would have been in real life, based on how many guys you had operated an artillery piece, and their coordination together.

Also I would like to see the different types of cannon's and there respective ammo used in the ACW at the time of these different battles. And if it's a rifled barrel, make the ramming process a little bit longer then for a smooth bore. This is how I believe artillery should be done!

[Legion]

Will non artillerist be able to interact with and use the guns? Like what if my company captured some guns, would we be able to use them on the enemy or move them to our line, or can they only be used by Artillery companies?

[Challis89]

Well in theory yes anyone can use a cannon, cant say for sure for the civil war but in the French army under napoleon infantry were used to bolster the arty on a number of occasions tho usually one gunner was with them..

The thing is while I think we should be able to load and get a cannon ready setting fuses and aiming would not be that good and it would be slow. So yea I think infantry should but there has to be trade offs.

As for artillery companies there was 6 peices of 20 men per gun under the command of a Sgt and every section of 2 guns was a lt. I don't think it's Unreasonable for this game to make an arty crew 5 men strong tho you will need extra for lumbers and ammo wagons.

[David Dire]

I did once read a book which had a story of a Union cook who fired and reloaded a cannon after all the Cannoneer's had died. So, theoretically, it should be possible, just inefficient.

[Hinkel]

I am sorry. We did not work much on artillery yet. We have some basic ideas, but most details are not clear yet ;)

[David Dire]

Actually, considering that, manning a cannon as infantry or cavalry would be pretty useless, as
A. If you're alone, not only are you suffering a penalty to all your stats, but (depending on how companies work in-game) your company might be too. Or, at least missing a man, which could help greatly.
B. You would, most likely, be a lot less skilled in aiming and loading cannons and put it to poor use.
C. Going in arms with A, your company is now a lot less powerful and it would probably be optimal to let the artillerymen respawn.
And D. if your whole company takes the cannon, you're basically just wasting the company (in 90% of situations).

So it's probably better to just leave artillery to artillery companies.

[Legion]

I meant in-game. also i dont think there should be any penalty, as long as the players know how operate the gun then it shouldnt be a problem. if they make it realistic not many people will know how to set fuses or operate the gun. it wouldnt make any sense to make it impossible to use the gun or penalize players who dont play as an artillery unit. also penalties and stats and buffs should not exist in this game, it should all be based on training and skill. and i meant if my company captures an enemy gun not use a friendly one.

[BloodBeag]

I already posted this but in a siege during the sepoy rebellion, a british navy man loaded, pushed and fired a cannon completely by himself. I just can't see how there would be enough jobs for 20 men on one cannon and if there is no stamina system, It wouldn't seem like there were many benefits of having more people on a piece.

[Challis89]

I disagree there needs to be a speed penalty and aim penalty when using arty as infantry as in real life they would not be as efficient as a well trained crew.


I already posted this but in a siege during the sepoy rebellion, a british navy man loaded, pushed and fired a cannon completely by himself. I just can't see how there would be enough jobs for 20 men on one cannon and if there is no stamina system, It wouldn't seem like there were many benefits of having more people on a piece.

nobody said it should be 20 people per gun in game.

[Legion]

I already posted this but in a siege during the sepoy rebellion, a british navy man loaded, pushed and fired a cannon completely by himself. I just can't see how there would be enough jobs for 20 men on one cannon and if there is no stamina system, It wouldn't seem like there were many benefits of having more people on a piece.

He may of done it by himself but I'm sure he was slow and tired. The benefits of having multiple men per gun is mostly speed

[Challis89]

He may of done it by himself but I'm sure he was slow and tired. The benefits of having multiple men per gun is mostly speed

not to mention the very high risk of not stopping the vent that can lead to a blow out.

[Legion]

I disagree there needs to be a speed penalty and aim penalty when using arty as infantry as in real life they would not be as efficient as a well trained crew.



nobody said it should be 20 people per gun in game.

I dont think there should be a panalty because he will be slow by default because he is only one person doing the job of many. also aiming shouldnt be panalized because all he would have to do is range in the gun, its not like mount and blade were you are actively moveing the gun to aim

Edit: I misread, the speed may be slower but I dont think it would be by much, also players who dont play as artilery much will be slower because they arent used to operating the gun like artillery players would be. and aiming shouldnt be panalized imo.

[SemajRednaxela]

https://warofrights.com/Fieldreport25.aspx#navigationContainer

We'll I don't know about anyone else, but I see 5 red caps manning that gun...... Read from that what you will all

Also like to add, after the cannon fires there is an aerial shell burst (like we saw many of in the bridge crossing video). Followed quickly by another what looked like ground based cannon shot. And if that wasn't enough when we again see the black hats marching toward the corn there are 4 more aerial shell bursts. one even kills a man.... I again vote for both manned (direct) and unmanned (indirect) artillery.

[A. P. Hill]

The bursts in the air are known as shell or case.
Shell or case can be fired from field located guns.
Shell and case were very real events during the ACW.

Grape and cannister were also very real.

[SemajRednaxela]

The bursts in the air are known as shell or case.
Shell or case can be fired from field located guns.
Shell and case were very real events during the ACW.

Grape and cannister were also very real.

What I meant was that's a lot of cannons and crew firing in just one very small area to be crewed guns. It's the same argument I made about the burnside bridge video arty on another thread

[Legion]

What I meant was that's a lot of cannons and crew firing in just one very small area to be crewed guns. It's the same argument I made about the burnside bridge video arty on another thread

Sry but I don't know understand, what's the problem? Also the shot fired at the blackhats looks to be canister

[Legion]

It would be sweet if we could double load the gun, like load double canister in dire situations to make it more deadly

[A. P. Hill]

What I meant was that's a lot of cannons and crew firing in just one very small area to be crewed guns. It's the same argument I made about the burnside bridge video arty on another thread

Perhaps you might find this link a bit informative! (http://www.nps.gov/anti/learn/historyculture/arty.htm)

[Hinkel]

It would be sweet if we could double load the gun, like load double canister in dire situations to make it more deadly

Well, for a double canister, you just need 1 powder charge and two of these pieces:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/MHS_canister_shot.jpg

So, why not? ;)

[A. P. Hill]

Well, for a double canister, you just need 1 powder charge and two of these pieces:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/MHS_canister_shot.jpg

So, why not? ;)

All it takes is some additional animation! ;)

[Willie Fisterbottom]

Look at it this way i believe the devs said they were aiming for at least 200 players in a battle maybe at most 300 or 400 would be what i'd guess. Historically there would've been thousands of men in these battles so what this means is everything has to be downsized to accommodate limitations for this being a game. Just like there arent going to be regiments of 1000 men you cant have 20 or even 10 people manning one cannon. You'd have 20% of your team just standing around loading guns which just wouldn't work. I'd say take whatever it was historically and downsize it 10x so if in real life it took 20 men in this game 2 or 3 would be a good number.

[Legion]

Well, for a double canister, you just need 1 powder charge and two of these pieces:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/MHS_canister_shot.jpg

So, why not? ;)
I hope that means what I think it means:D
Imagine the devastation this will cause in game

[Legion]

Look at it this way i believe the devs said they were aiming for at least 200 players in a battle maybe at most 300 or 400 would be what i'd guess. Historically there would've been thousands of men in these battles so what this means is everything has to be downsized to accommodate limitations for this being a game. Just like there arent going to be regiments of 1000 men you cant have 20 or even 10 people manning one cannon. You'd have 20% of your team just standing around loading guns which just wouldn't work. I'd say take whatever it was historically and downsize it 10x so if in real life it took 20 men in this game 2 or 3 would be a good number.

You can operate a gun with one person irl. In game people will probably stick with three or so people per gun, 1-2 loaders, 1 to set the charge and retrieve ammo, and one to aim and fire the gun.

[SemajRednaxela]

Perhaps you might find this link a bit informative! (http://www.nps.gov/anti/learn/historyculture/arty.htm)

Many thanks. That must have been a hell of a poinding for the boys that day.

So with all the available munition types and the potential lines of sight across the map I can certainly concede that with 200 + per side in a game you could have a fair few 5 man arty crews.

I most whole hearty hope this is the case and people do want to make well drilled and professional arty companies etc.

[BloodBeag]

But it wouldn't be any faster with more players if there is no stamina. There's no use having a guy just to stick the ramrod in and another to put the shell in as one job can't be done til the other has. So if there is no stamina, you're at most shaving off the quarter of a second for the guy who put the ramrod in to pick the shell up and then put it in. I agree with Willie that it would just be a waste of players to have 10+ men on each gun when servers might only have 200 people.

[Hinkel]

So why not having 1 player, commanding a full battery of AI guns?
Just my 50 cents.. :rolleyes:

[Challis89]

You can operate a gun with one person irl. In game people will probably stick with three or so people per gun, 1-2 loaders, 1 to set the charge and retrieve ammo, and one to aim and fire the gun.

Well yea but without a vent stop you run the risk of the cannon blowing up which is why a 1 man crew is dangerous do take some time and read up on the dangers of muzzle loading cannon it's pretty scary. I still think 5 people is the right amount for a crew it covers all the major positions and should give the quickest rate of fire. its also an achievable number.

I think AI guns would be a good idea and make it pretty intense advancing in open ground.

[BloodBeag]

AI don't muck things up and you can't train AI to be better

[Legion]

So why not having 1 player, commanding a full battery of AI guns?
Just my 50 cents.. :rolleyes:

I hope your joking. Also, in reply to bloodbeag multiple people will be faster than one person even if there is no stamina because you will have multiple people do different jobs at the same time rather than 1 person doing all jobs one step at a time. why do you think artillery crews have multiple people? its not because of stamina. Also there is more jobs to a gun crew than you might think, its not just load and shoot.
1 gunner, he commands and aims the piece
1-4 cannoneers they load clean and fire the gun.
1 person to move ammo and powder to the gun from the limber.
1-2 people to set and prepare ammo(set fuses etc etc)
As you can see there is multiple jobs going on, quite a few go on at the same time. so one person doing all these jobs will be much slower with or without stamina.
I'm not saying we have to have 8 men like in real life, we could bring it down to 3 or 4 but you will need more than one person if you hope to be any good.

Challis89. I agree with you that one person shouldnt operate a gun I was just saying it is possible. I also agree that 3-5 people will probably be the norm for player arty crews. I disagree with the ai though, I hope there is no ai guns, this needs to be an all player experience.

[BloodBeag]

A lot of jobs aren't all happening at the same time though. I don't know loads about how artillery works but you shouldn't need 10 people like some are suggesting

[Legion]

A lot of jobs aren't all happening at the same time though. I don't know loads about how artillery works but you shouldn't need 10 people like some are suggesting

you dont need ten. I edited my last post to show all the different roles irl

[BloodBeag]

Ok i'm in agreement with you then. I think someone should be able to do it by themselves for in-game moments where all the rest of the crew has been killed and in a final stand they fire off a shell at close range

[Legion]

Ok i'm in agreement with you then. I think someone should be able to do it by themselves for in-game moments where all the rest of the crew has been killed and in a final stand they fire off a shell at close range

Thats completely possible irl. Like i said one person could do it all, it's just dangerous and would take much longer. I also agree with you that people should be able to do it alone if they have to but its not the best option and would be dangerous

[A. P. Hill]

A lot of jobs aren't all happening at the same time though. I don't know loads about how artillery works but you shouldn't need 10 people like some are suggesting

Perhaps you should follow this link and do some reading, especially the second page. You may find it helpful. (http://www.nps.gov/anti/learn/historyculture/arty.htm)

[A. P. Hill]

So why not having 1 player, commanding a full battery of AI guns?
Just my 50 cents.. :rolleyes:


I hope your joking. ...

Yeah me too! Maybe a single player commanding a single gun of AI crew.

[Legion]

Yeah me too! Maybe a single player commanding a single gun of AI crew.

I wouldnt mind that much, but I still prefer no ai, unless you add ai infantry aswell just to even things out

[BloodBeag]

After reading that i am enlightened. I would say to only have 2 men cleaning and loading rather than 4 as well as only 1 preparing the ammo and the same man taking it from the limber to the gun. However, you would be saving time by having more people.

It's just that there may only be 200 people in a server at any one time and how many guns in a battery? 8? Then you're looking at 50+ men just for artillery.

[A. P. Hill]

Batteries consisted of 6 guns for most Union units, and 4 guns for most Confederate units.

[BloodBeag]

thanks I didn't know. That still takes a lot of men out of the main fighting though

[A. P. Hill]

thanks I didn't know. That still takes a lot of men out of the main fighting though

If you take time to go through the rosters of both sides as listed on these forums, I think you'll find there are not a great number of artillery groups being formed. So I suspect that the numbers would be about equal to what both armies set down in standards of one battery per brigade of men.

[Legion]

thanks I didn't know. That still takes a lot of men out of the main fighting though

I'm sure most companies wont operate a full battery, maybe one or two guns. But lets say that they are going with a full battery and they are useing five men per gun thats 30 men while it is alot they could lessen it even more by going with three men per gun making it 18. Thats alot better than 48 men. I'm sure it will all work out. I think most arty companies will stick with 2-3 guns with 3-5 men per gun while most players will play as infantry.
I personally hope here is a good deal of arty on the field, but even one well manned gun can make a difference
If I ever end up adding an arty company to my battalion I'm gonna operate it with as little men as possible while maintaining a good level of efficiency. That way I can have more guns with less men and still be formidable.

My main concern is how they implement artillery, I hope it's realistic and not like mount and blade where you just point and shoot like your holding a rifle.

[Plasma Rebel]

Just use Moutian Howitzers, all they take is 3 men to load it and fire it. And deffitinaly if it is not horse drawn but with some elbow grease. Have the lanyard puller be the powder monkey when he is not pulling the lanyard. And in case none of you knew there was no "worm" but just sponges. So there you have a 3 manned artillery crew. (And the prick being number 3)

[Willy The Walrus]

most sources I have found say 7-man crew and I would love to see a 12 Pounder whitworth breechloader rifle only 50 in the us though :/

[Legion]

most sources I have found say 7-man crew and I would love to see a 12 Pounder whitworth breechloader rifle only 50 in the us though :/

They will have the whitworth