安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被置顶，因此可能具有重要性 
讨论规则及指引
256 
举报此帖
http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/19340-inverted-artillery-battery-performance/
I don't have it explicitly noted in the thread, but 16 guns also performs about on par with a 6-gun battery, if not a bit worse.
When I sit back n think about it, it makes sense. The more cannons less efficient.
----
http://www.x-cd.com/usma/ehlen1/ehlen1.htm
**
Often, when discussing CW era Artillery units, people often forgotten their actual size in men and equipment. A 60 man artillery battery centered on its 'six guns' but to support the guns, their were 30 carriages including the gun carriages, limbers, caissons, the battery wagon and a traveling forge. The motive power of a battery was 175 riding and draught horses. In a horse battery where all the soldiers were mounted, many more horses were required.
Each unit also had a large tail, or group of supporting units. Soldiers could carry some rations and some ammunition but they had to have access to re-supply of these items. The US Army ration for 100 men for 1 day weighed two and a half tons. And, all the animals required fodder (24 pounds a day) , the more horses. the more fodder.
The lieutenant of captain commanding a battery really had his hand full.
----------
Another thing is that wastage in artillery batteries, both in men and horses, simply had to be replaced. A battery without horses couldn't move, and without men it couldn't operate. An infantry regiment with a paper strength of 1,000 could dwindle down to 300 and still do it's job, more or less. A 100-man artillery battery dwindling down to 30 men and half it's horses was out of action.
*********************
http://stonewallgoeswest.com/tag/theory/
The famed twelve-pounder “Napoleon” (as in Napoleon III) was an innovation principally because it combined aspects of the field gun and howitzer into the same weapon, but it was also ponderously heavy at 1,227 lbs for the tube alone. The new rifled cannon were often as heavy or heavier. While the popular three-inch ordinance rifle was a mere 816 lbs, the 10-pounder Parrot weighed 1,750 lbs, and these weapons weren’t of as much use at “smashing” an opponent with canister as the Napoleon in any case.
In theory, Napoleonic artillery charges were made by horse artillery, “galloper guns,” which were generally lighter and had more horses in the team for greater mobility. The old U.S. Army had something similar in its “flying artillery,” but never on the same scale, and even less so during the Civil War. Also, in horse artillery units the crew is mounted, while in foot artillery units the crew marches alongside the guns
First off, it's a matter of consistency - every other brigade type (Infantry, Skirmishers, and Cavalry) suffer from no such backwards scaling as the unit gets bigger - a 2500-man infantry brigade is going to deal more casualties with firearms and melee than an equally skilled 2000-man infantry brigade. It might not be too much more because of diminishing returns, but it gets better. Artillery brigades flat out get worse as you add more guns than 12.
Secondly, there's only so much the idea of "battery survivability" (in use as expendable battering rams, for example) can go before the drop-off in efficiency is simply not worth the manpower and cannon wastage. 14 is about that limit (though for regular batteries, you should never go over 12), after which performance drops off so much it simply isn't worth going over that number for any reason.
Also, you haven't really provided a historical reason as to why artillery brigades become less effective as you add more guns. You'd simply add more internal structuring, like more batteries of 4-6 guns instead of just adding more guns to each battery (which would overbear the junior officer leading the battery). Managing it above that wouldn't be much more difficult for the higher-ranking and more experienced officers.
I still swear by at least one good brigade of shapshooters by all means, but question the severity of the diminishing returns.
Do note that dimishing returns vs. what artillery brigades suffer from (what I'm calling inverse scaling) are two different things. Dimishing returns is currently what Infantry brigades have - you can't go wrong with more men, a 2500-man brigade is undoubtly more effective than a 1250 man brigade, though it does not nessesarily mean you'll get twice the number of kills per volley. Artillery actually, undoublty gets worse as you go above 12 guns for some reason.
500 36.44%
450 69.68%
400 85.42%
350 86.88%
300 100%
250 72.89%
200 73.18%
If you do manage to test it, I would be grateful for sure. However, don't feel obliged by any means. I mostly wanted to know if you felt the same might be true at all.
Meanwhile, the revelation about artillery is truly annoying. Especially since I have gotten so far along already and have full 24 gun brigades that I am not particularly inclined to just disband, considering their experience. Truly though, I suppose even the experience might be outweighed by the 'bug' in the end. Tough decision to make.
Brilliant, I am relieved you could lend some credence to the idea, but also disappointed yet another unit type is quite possibly artificially limited. Especially since the game provides no indication you are doing yourself harm beyond any certain point.
Looking at historical Orders of Battle, such a limit is unfounded. For example, at Gettysburg the Union artillery was organized into brigades of about 5 batteries, each battery counting 4-6 guns. Each Corps had an artillery brigade, plus the Army had a reserve of 5 brigades. These brigades numbered about 20-30 guns apiece, and none was commanded by anyone ranking above Colonel.