Coming Fury Scenario Comments

[Gil R.]

We would very much like feedback on the new, improved July 1861 scenario, "The Coming Fury." Please let us know what you think of it. We are eager to provide additional scenarios for FOF, but want to first make sure that we got this one right.

[will b]

IMO if you'd create a scenario that combines the Southern Steel economy with the OoB in The Coming Fury that would be ideal.

[Gil R.]

It's something we've considered.

I'll take your post as one vote in favor of keeping the OOB as is.

[christof139]

Just add a few Gunboats as Ericbabe and I were discussing, and maybe slightly tweak up the CSA economy a wee bit, and add a CSA fort north Memphis at Columbus, KY and add 2 garrison infantry units in LA at NO and Ft. St. Philip. Just my take on things, but the July 1861 Scenario as it stands is good.
 
Chris
 

[sven6345789]

just downloaded the patch today and think that the setup( includes OOB) is pretty good; the patch has really improved the game, as far as i can tell

[christof139]

There are some strange things happening at the Lt. Col level of play with both economies set just about equal at 0 fro the USA and 1 for the CSA.
 
As the CSA player, I lost Petersburg and Richmond (James River), but 15-turns and more after I lost these provinces, the USA refused to take Raphahanock province, and one Corps of my ANV just sat there unmolested for about 5 turns, and it would probably still be sitting in Raphahannock province if after trying 4-times to move the Corps out through USA territory it finally did move out and was unmolested doing so.
 
By mid 1863 I had a toatl of about 200,000 CS troops in the field, and had one large army of about 105 - 110,000 troops and a smaller one of about 45,000 plus garrisons and secondary forces. the 45,000 man army took a trip through Cairo and Illinois and Springfield and the reat of Indiana and part og Ohio and came out at about 1/2 strenght through West Virginia.
 
Then the main 100,000 strong CSA army fought one similar strngth USA army and got the worst of it because the CSA economy at the low setting I have it set at allowed very little Arty. to be produced and the USAhad plenty of Arty, plus another 100,000 man USA army showed up and that was it.  Boring hordes of Ynkeedom.
 
The CSA economy has to be given a boost in order to keep the game in the ballpark with the economic might of the USA.
 
I will now play at a slightly lower dificulty level, and give the CSA Pres. a power of 2 and keep the USA Pres. at a power of 0, plus I will try the Richer Economy setting again with these Power Settings.
 
Ho hum.  I have to diddle with the guns File some more and make it much more accurate. I can't understand why the Liege piece-of-junk rifle has the same range and accuracy as the the Mississippi/Haper's Ferry rifle.  This just wan't so, among other things.
 
The 10pdr. Parrott had a slightly longer range than the 3-inch Ordnance Gun, but in FoF this is reversed.  Must change this for my piece of mind.
 
Chris
 
 
 
 

[ericbabe]

We can make a liege-bad-gun patch, but everything I found on it said that the model they were importing during the war was patterned after the Enfield and had similar performance.  My sources for this are a bit subjective ("performed like the enfield"), so if you can find some data sources that have numbers I'll be happy to change the data table officially.

Dean Thomas (Intro to Civ War Artillery) gives the 10pdr Parrott 100 yard longer range than the 3" Ordnance, but Philip Cole gives them both 1850 yards.  The "Confederate Ordnance Manual" gives a 100 yd advantage to the Parrott at 5-degrees, which I've seen as a frequently used angle for comparison.  The clincher for us was this article by Jim Morgan (http://www.civilwarhome.com/artillery.htm) in which he comes down decidedly on the side of the 3-inch Ordnance Gun, writing:

Unquestionably the best rifled gun of its day was the 3-inch Ordnance Rifle. ... The bursting problem was solved. What plagued the Parrott was virtually nonexistent in the wrought iron gun. Only one Ordnance Rifle is known to have burst during the entire Civil War.... The "3-inch wrought iron rifle" had a slightly greater effective range than the Parrott and compared favorably even with the British Whitworth for accuracy."

[Jaypea]

I find this scenario tracks historically very well although it seems really difficult to get emaniciaption.   I defeated the CSA AI in late 1865 without ever having the oppurtunity to emanicipate.   I was using the total victory option also.
 
JP

[christof139]

We can make a liege-bad-gun patch, but everything I found on it said that the model they were importing during the war was patterned after the Enfield and had similar performance. My sources for this are a bit subjective ("performed like the enfield"), so if you can find some data sources that have numbers I'll be happy to change the data table officially.

Dean Thomas (Intro to Civ War Artillery) gives the 10pdr Parrott 100 yard longer range than the 3" Ordnance, but Philip Cole gives them both 1850 yards. The "Confederate Ordnance Manual" gives a 100 yd advantage to the Parrott at 5-degrees, which I've seen as a frequently used angle for comparison. The clincher for us was this article by Jim Morgan (http://www.civilwarhome.com/artillery.htm) in which he comes down decidedly on the side of the 3-inch Ordnance Gun, writing:

Eric, You are confusing a different rifle with the Liege rifled musket that I am referring to. The Liege of .69 to .72 cal. I am referring to AND AS YOUR GAME DESCRIPTION OF IT DESCRIBES was/is a piece of junk as far as accuracy at range is concerned, and not only that, it had a very large screwhead on the buttplate that digs into your shoulder when you fire it.

You don't have the as it was termed much better 'French Rifle' in FoF!!! This so-called 'French Rifle' is a bit of a mystery and is not the Belgian made Liege that is in the game and that I am referring to. This so-called French Rifle may have been a Belgian Liege produced in the more accuracy enchancing .58 cal. rather than the huge and inaccuracy producing .69 cal. of the standard Belgian Liege Rifles that are in the game.

The Belgian Liege Rifles in the game have the same range and effectiveness as the fine Mississippi/Harper's Ferry Rifles, and that was just not so. The Miss. Rifles were very superior to the Belgian Liege Rifles of .69 cal., and that is a WELL KNOWN FACT.

Yes, the 3" Ordnance Gun was slightly more accurate than the 10-pdr. Parrott, supposedly that is, but THE PARROTT HAD A RANGE OF ABOUT 100 TO 150-YARDS MORE THAN THE 3" ORDNANCE GUN AT 5-DEGREES OF ELEVATION, WHICH IS WHAT ALL SOURCES STATE AS THE NORM OR AVERAGE FOR ANGLES OF FIRING.

***You have the 3" Ordnance Gun with a far greater range than the 10-pdr. Parrott and that is way off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!***

I gave links to sites with the ranges before.

You are confusing 'likeability' and reliability concerning bursting with GUN RANGE. In fact, there was little difference in gun accuracy between the 2-cannon, and some gun crews preferred the 10-pdr. Parrott all the way around, but that just depended on the gun crew's own experience with the guns and resultant likes and dislikes.

You might want to make a 'Corrected Weapons Gun file patch', as there are many things in the present file that are confused and a bit off.

Chris

[Gil R.]

You might want to make a 'Corrected Weapons Gun file patch', as there are many things in the present file that are confused and a bit off.

What are the other things? We want that file as accurate as possible, and where we're shown we've got something wrong we want to fix it.

[christof139]

What are the other things? We want that file as accurate as possible, and where we're shown we've got something wrong we want to fix it.

The classification, ranges, and damage values of some of the weapons are way off, as are some of the descriptions.

I have stated this before, and I know what I am talking about and have backed it up with links on the inet awhile back.

i posted a more accurate description of the Richmond Musket and posted it here. i save much of what I and others write, and I am using that description in MY Gun.txt file, and plan to rehash the whole file to a more accurate degree.

Also, the picture you have for the 9-inch Blakely is a picture of the breech end that has had its original barrel cut off for scrapping and replaced with a long piece of iron or stell piping. This photo of this butchered gun and the accurate description of what it is is at the Encyclopedia of Civil War Arty., one the site links I had previoulsy posted.

Next, there is not any sense in having a 10-inch Columbiad and a 10-inch Rodman in the game as the Rodman was just a New Model Columbiad cast with the Rodman Process. In the game, the 10-inch Columbiad is more powerful than the 10-inch Rodman Columbiad when in reality it was just the reverse.

**Four versions of the Columbiad exisited in the ACW: 1) The early or Old Model 8 and 10-inch Columbiad Shell Guns, not designed to throw solid shot; 2) the new Model Columbiads that had newer elevating ratchets etc. but were still Shell Guns; 3) about 300 or so New Model Columbiads of 10-inch bore that could throw both Shell and Solid Shot; 4) the 10-inch Rodman New Model Columbiads that could throw both Shell and Solid Shot and were superior to the previous models of the Columbiad.**

So, why not make the 10-inch Columbiad in the game represent all the previous models of the Columbiad both 8 and 10-inch, and have the 10-inch Rodman New Model Columbiad represent itself and the 300 or so New Model 10-inch Columbiads that could throw both Shot and Shell, and also make the performance values of the Rodman Columbiad Class better than the Old and new Model Columbiads that could only throw Shell and not Solid Shot.

I'll post the links again and you will see what I mean.

Chris

PS: The 15" Rodman is a New Model Columbiad pattern, and the New Model Columbiad Shot gun, the Rodman Columbiads, and the 9, 11 and 15" Dahlgrens could throw both Shell and Shot making these dual capability/purpose big guns vey useful. The reason some guns could only through Shell was that they wer purposefully designed that way in the Age of Wooden Ships, since shells would tear-up a ship's masts and rigging, rain lethal shrapnel on the deck, and also cause fires to be started. Shell guns had a large hemispherical chamber in the breech where the powder bag(s) sat while Shot guns didn't have this large powder chamber.

[christof139]

Here is the Field Arty. purchase screen from a game in progress. Note the 3-inch Ordnance Rifle has one more hex or whatever unit of range and it has higher damage or effectiveness values than the 10-pdr. Parrott, when the 10-pdr. Parrott actually had the slightly longer range at 5-degree angle of firing. Funny that the damage/effectiveness values are different when from mid-war on the same ammo could be used in both gun types after the later model 10-pdr. Parrott's bore was enlarged to the same 3" diameter as the 3-inch Ordnance Rifle in order to make use of the same standardized ammo.

[Erik Rutins]

It's not a huge difference - those stats are pretty consistent with the original research indicating that the Ordnance Rifle was _slightly_ better than the Parrot.

[Erik Rutins]

Chris,

That's odd - I just noticed that those stats are not the ones from 1.9.4, where arty gained charge protection. Are you sure you are running the right version?

Regards,

- Erik

[christof139]

Chris,

That's odd - I just noticed that those stats are not the ones from 1.9.4, where arty gained charge protection. Are you sure you are running the right version?

Regards,

- Erik

Yes, I did upgrade, but I see I must do it again. I have 2 computers with the game installed and am almost positive I upgrade both with the new patch, but maybe I didn't. I'll check. [&:][X(]

I also left one of my computer's on all night and this morning, this one. [&:]

Chris

[christof139]

It's not a huge difference - those stats are pretty consistent with the original research indicating that the Ordnance Rifle was _slightly_ better than the Parrot.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development and Business Relations

Guy, you cannot see for yourself that the Ordnance Rifle has a longer range than the 10-pdr. Parrott in the game when it is just the opposite!??! I do not know how someone can ignore simple facts like you are doing. Your research is more like subjective stubborness.

I bet you haven't read all that much about ACW weapons at all. For all practical purposes there wasn't any difference in the accuracy of the 2 guns, and they were nearly equal, with the experience of the crew providing much of the accuracy. However, the crew could not affect the range.

Toodles, Chris

[Erik Rutins]

Chris,

ORIGINAL: christof139
Guy, you cannot see for yourself that the Ordnance Rifle has a longer range than the 10-pdr. Parrott in the game when it is just the opposite!??! I do not know how someone can ignore simple facts like you are doing. Your research is more like subjective stubborness.

You need to step back and realize that you just insulted me for no apparent reason. I'm not ignoring simple facts nor am I being stubborn. I was simply commenting that the difference in the game values of the Parrot and Ordnance Rifle is not large - the Ordnance Rifle is slightly better, which is consistent with the _original_ research as Eric described it.

Eric explained his research and I was commenting that, given that research, the values in the game make sense. I'm not against changing it, I just don't see it as a major issue given that the research seems to indicate the two were quite similar in performance, which they are.

Given that you seem to be forming some of your conclusions based on a non-updated installation of the game, I suggest again that you step back and calm down.

I bet you haven't read all that much about ACW weapons at all. For all practical purposes there wasn't any difference in the accuracy of the 2 guns, and they were nearly equal, with the experience of the crew providing much of the accuracy. However, the crew could not affect the range.

I've probably read less on them than you, but I've read a fair amount. That's irrelevant in this case though. It's not a contest of whether I've read more than you or vice versa. I was commenting on Eric's posted research vs. the current game values.

Regards,

- Erik

[christof139]

You need to step back and realize that you just insulted me for no apparent reason. I'm not ignoring simple facts nor am I being stubborn. I was simply commenting that the difference in the game values of the Parrot and Ordnance Rifle is not large - the Ordnance Rifle is slightly better, which is consistent with the _original_ research as Eric described it.

Eric explained his research and I was commenting that, given that research, the values in the game make sense. I'm not against changing it, I just don't see it as a major issue given that the research seems to indicate the two were quite similar in performance, which they are.

Given that you seem to be forming some of your conclusions based on a non-updated installation of the game, I suggest again that you step back and calm down.

quote:

I bet you haven't read all that much about ACW weapons at all. For all practical purposes there wasn't any difference in the accuracy of the 2 guns, and they were nearly equal, with the experience of the crew providing much of the accuracy. However, the crew could not affect the range.

I've probably read less on them than you, but I've read a fair amount. That's irrelevant in this case though. It's not a contest of whether I've read more than you or vice versa. I was commenting on Eric's posted research vs. the current game values.

Regards,

- Erik

I insulted you!??! I have never seen you write 'I didn't know that.' or simialr. I do that, and so do some other people here, not many but some do, and that is just normal converstation and politeness. Anyone that thinks they know everything has a problem.

You are the one that makes it a contest. I don't feel that way at all, but I sure as don't appreciate certain smuggness and attitudes given off by some people.

You should calm down and realize how you come-off to people at times, such as accusing me of being a 'saboteur'. Sounds as if you are rather paranoid for some reason or other.

Chris

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: christof139
I insulted you!??! I have never seen you write 'I didn't know that.' or simialr. I do that, and so do some other people here, not many but some do, and that is just normal converstation and politeness. Anyone that thinks they know everything has a problem.

"I do not know how someone can ignore simple facts like you are doing. Your research is more like subjective stubborness."

Read your words above. Those are insults. I did not do the original research, nor am I ignoring simple facts. I merely commented that the stats didn't seem that far off and did seem to match the original research, which showed more than one side to the performance of those two cannons.

You are the one that makes it a contest. I don't feel that way at all, but I sure as don't appreciate certain smuggness and attitudes given off by some people.

I made it a contest? You said this: "I bet you haven't read all that much about ACW weapons at all." That's what made it seem like a contest, not my comments on the stats not being that far out of whack.

You should calm down and realize how you come-off to people at times, such as accusing me of being a 'saboteur'. Sounds as if you are rather paranoid for some reason or other.

I never called you a saboteur, I don't know what the heck you are talking about there. Now I'm paranoid? Keep digging, bud. Looks to me like you "don't play well with others" and continuing to sling insults at a moderator has pretty much one outcome. Calm down and rethink your position, you're flat wrong on what you've said about me.

Regards,

- Erik

[christof139]

I never called you a saboteur, I don't know what the heck you are talking about there. Now I'm paranoid? Keep digging, bud. Looks to me like you "don't play well with others" and continuing to sling insults at a moderator has pretty much one outcome. Calm down and rethink your position, you're flat wrong on what you've said about me.

Regards,

- Erik

Rethink what you say to people and quit being in denial and acting like a little kid.

You said I was attempting to sabotage FoF.

You have convenient amnesia. I have met yout type before. Seems the little boy ruffled egos and behind the scenes backstabbing is alive and well on the inet.

Chris