JTS Gettysburg pdt bug

[logruspattern]

All the pdt files in the Gettysburg title (v. 3.0) have this line for the Whitworth:

W 2 0 14 3 21 2 28 .75 35 .25 70 .2 -1

This prevents the Whitworth from firing at targets within 2 hexes. An edge case but still a bug.

I reported it to JTS and was told it would be fixed in the next update.

It can be fixed by changing the line in question to this for example:

W 1 4 14 3 21 2 28 .75 35 .25 70 .2 -1

Which seems appropriate since the Whitworth seems to have fired only solid shot and not cannister, albeit quite accurately.

Just an FYI as I'm also searching for Gettysburg opponents. We'll need to agree on a pdt to use.

[-72-]

All the pdt files in the Gettysburg title (v. 3.0) have this line for the Whitworth:

W 2 0 14 3 21 2 28 .75 35 .25 70 .2 -1

This prevents the Whitworth from firing at targets within 2 hexes. An edge case but still a bug.

I reported it to JTS and was told it would be fixed in the next update.

It can be fixed by changing the line in question to this for example:

W 1 4 14 3 21 2 28 .75 35 .25 70 .2 -1

Which seems appropriate since the Whitworth seems to have fired only solid shot and not cannister, albeit quite accurately.

Just an FYI as I'm also searching for Gettysburg opponents. We'll need to agree on a pdt to use.

To put things in perspective, this is about 2 guns.  2 guns which in the battle (iirc) were set up on Oak Hill - a fair distance away from anything. Personally I would think any Confederate player would have more problems than worrying about setting up Whitworths in areas that might become close range.

I doubt I'd even call it a bug, but it seems rather more like a ratings disagreement.

[logruspattern]

To put things in perspective, this is about 2 guns.  2 guns which in the battle (iirc) were set up on Oak Hill - a fair distance away from anything. Personally I would think any Confederate player would have more problems than worrying about setting up Whitworths in areas that might become close range.

Hence why I said it was an edge case.

I doubt I'd even call it a bug, but it seems rather more like a ratings disagreement.

I disagree. A ratings disagreement would be the difference between the artillery firepower in the different titles. Take the Napoleon in Gettysburg and Overland1 respectively, for example:

N 1 14 2 11 3 7 4 5 6 3 8 2 10 1 13 .5 -1
N 1 20 2 14 3 8 4 6 6 5 8 3 10 1.5 13 .75 -1

Now the Whitworth; the difference is even more stark with firepower differences of an order of magnitude in many range bands:

W 2 0 14 3 21 2 28 .75 35 .25 70 .2 -1
W 1 15 14 12 21 10 28 8 35 6 70 4 -1

Combined with the facts that it is the only weapon entry that begins with the range '2' instead of 1 in the Gettysburg pdt and any other game pdt that I've seen, and that even indirect fire weapons do not have minimum ranges, I maintain it is a bug.

[-72-]

To put things in perspective, this is about 2 guns.  2 guns which in the battle (iirc) were set up on Oak Hill - a fair distance away from anything. Personally I would think any Confederate player would have more problems than worrying about setting up Whitworths in areas that might become close range.

Hence why I said it was an edge case.

I doubt I'd even call it a bug, but it seems rather more like a ratings disagreement.

I disagree. A ratings disagreement would be the difference between the artillery firepower in the different titles. Take the Napoleon in Gettysburg and Overland1 respectively, for example:

N 1 14 2 11 3 7 4 5 6 3 8 2 10 1 13 .5 -1
N 1 20 2 14 3 8 4 6 6 5 8 3 10 1.5 13 .75 -1

Now the Whitworth; the difference is even more stark with firepower differences of an order of magnitude in many range bands:

W 2 0 14 3 21 2 28 .75 35 .25 70 .2 -1
W 1 15 14 12 21 10 28 8 35 6 70 4 -1

Combined with the facts that it is the only weapon entry that begins with the range '2' instead of 1 in the Gettysburg pdt and any other game pdt that I've seen, and that even indirect fire weapons do not have minimum ranges, I maintain it is a bug.

It also has about a 2.5 inch bore, and based upon the shape of its shell packed a lot less HE material, doesn't appears to have ever used cannister, and was always used in long rage positions (due to the expense in acquiring those pieces, as well as the inability to replace them) ...   with 2 pieces, it would and should be pretty ineffective at that range.  In effect, basically a waste of ammunition. It is debatable if it is too much or not -but the real point is, why would anyone have a Whitworth gun anywhere close to where it has a target within 250 yards?  It's main use was counter-battery fire ... noting how Oak Hill is fairly far from everything on the field of Gettysburg.

A rating is not a bug, it is a choice of the scenario designer -I assume in the Civil War series it is rated in the PDT file (actually I think it is - I was looking at that when I was thinking there was an unaddressed issue with small arms in Franklin).  It's basically a matter of disagreeing with a rating. I didn't rate anything in the Civil War series - but I can see why it might be.

And for what it's worth x4 seems far too powerful -not just based on how they were used, but also based upon the information put out there by Battlefield Trust  (Garry Adelman, but in this case I think it was his subject matter expert, Wayne Mott).

[logruspattern]

This is my last reply to the thread for the sake of being a proponent of drawing reasonable conclusions from evidence at hand. That effort thus far seems to have been a poor use of my time. Aside from that, JTS has the bug report and will decide to change it or not. I suppose they will be the official arbiter.

You're arguing that it is not a bug because:

• it has a low probability of occurring and a low impact if it does;
  
• if it's in the pdt file, then it's as the scenario designer intended.
  

Neither of those points is an argument against it being a bug. The first point is simply your agreement with me that the bug only occurs in edge cases.

You think the firepower of 4 against adjacent hexes is too powerful. Then you surely find it odd when you compare the entries for the 3 in rifle with the Whitworth from the Overland1.pdt:

T 1 8 2 6 3 4 5 3.5 10 3 12 2 14 1 18 .75 21 .5 -1
W 1 15 14 12 21 10 28 8 35 6 70 4 -1

The 3 in has a larger bore and can fire case shot; the Whitworth has a smaller bore and cannot. Yet the Whitworth has 15 firepower against adjacent hexes and out to 34 hexes has more firepower than the 3 in does at 1 hex.

No other weapon entry in 17 pdts I examined starts with an entry of other than '1' except for the Whitworth entries. That is 4 entries from 17 times about 40 to 50 entries per file, or about 850 entries overall. Even weapons with minimum ranges start with a range entry of '1'. I was previously incorrect that indirect fire weapons did not have minimum ranges; however I was operating on faulty knowledge due to a different bug in the program that affects how parameter data is displayed in game.

So the Whitworth is the only weapon of 52 weapons across two games and 17 parameter files with about 850 entries to start with an entry other than '1'. Further it is the only direct fire weapon with a minimum range, it has the same minimum range as the indirect fire weapons in the games I have, and you are asserting that those entries just happen to be formatted differently in order to arrive at the same result. Because that's how the scenario designer intended?

How about this: the thunderstorm entries for Overland1.pdt differ in their descriptions only by the temperature yet all of them, but for one glaring exception, have the same effects in game:

Thunderstorms, temp mid 60s (100% at 21:00 05/24/1864)

Visibility: 10

Move Cost: 125%

Attack Mod: 90%

Artillery Mod: 100%

Thunderstorms & heavy rain, 60 degrees (100% at 17:30 05/11/1864)

Visibility: 10

Move Cost: 125%

Attack Mod: 0%

Artillery Mod: 90%

Thunderstorms temps almost 80 (100% at 14:00 05/20/1864)

Visibility: 10

Move Cost: 125%

Attack Mod: 0%

Artillery Mod: 90%

Thunderstorms temps low 60s (100% at 05:00 05/20/1864)

Visibility: 10

Move Cost: 125%

Attack Mod: 0%

Artillery Mod: 90%

Thunderstorms temps low 70s (100% at 21:00 05/20/1864)

Visibility: 10

Move Cost: 125%

Attack Mod: 0%

Artillery Mod: 90%

Thunderstorms, temp mid 70s (100% at 20:00 05/09/1864)

Visibility: 10

Move Cost: 125%

Attack Mod: 0%
Artillery Mod: 90%

So by your reasoning the scenario designers here intend that artillery fire is unaffected by thunderstorms in the mid 60s temperature range, although it is for the low 60s and 70s and for every other type of thunderstorm? Furthermore, melee in this situation gets a whopping 90% bonus! Clearly this is as the scenario designers intended.

I'm not interested in arguing over firepower ratings and designer intent in this thread. Especially when the ratings are within the realm of plausibility. Hell I even think it is plausible that the Whitworth could have 0 firepower against targets close in; at least against infantry and cavalry.

However I am arguing that the evidence in the files points to the entry being a bug. Even if the scenario designers intended for the Whitworth to have no firepower against close targets, then they formatted the entry differently than every single other weapon in the two JTS CW games I have. And they only just happened to format it differently than the entries for the other weapons that actually do have minimum ranges in reality (ie the indirect fire weapons). Based on the evidence a reasonable conclusion to draw is that the Whitworth entry is a bug and likely does not reflect the intent of the scenario designer or of the weapon's actual capabilities, regardless of its historical employment on the battlefield.

[wildb]

Using the Help Menu - Parameter Data option:

Parameter data from Chancellorsville:

Whitworth:
8 at 1 hex
7 at 2 hexes
6 at 5 hexes
5 at 8 hexes
4 at 12 hexes
3 at 16 hexes
2 at 19 hexes
1 at 22 hexes
0.5 at 50 hexes

Parameter data from Antietam

Whitworth:
8 at 1 hex
7 at 2 hexes
6 at 5 hexes
5 at 8 hexes
4 at 12 hexes
3 at 16 hexes
2 at 19 hexes
1 at 22 hexes
0.5 at 50 hexes

When I look at the parameter data for Gettysburg, I do not see the Whitworth listed.

[logruspattern]

Using the Help Menu - Parameter Data option [...]

When I look at the parameter data for Gettysburg, I do not see the Whitworth listed.

That's the other bug I alluded to. Namely, weapon entries that have a '0' firepower in the first range band are not displayed in the parameter data menu in the game. You need to open the actual pdt file with another program to see the weapon data. Which is also why you won't see the entries for indirect fire weapons like mortars listed in the game either (though Gettysburg doesn't seem to include data for mortars anyway; it does affect the Overland game though). The weapons function correctly however.

I reported this to JTS.

[-72-]

Using the Help Menu - Parameter Data option [...]

When I look at the parameter data for Gettysburg, I do not see the Whitworth listed.

That's the other bug I alluded to. Namely, weapon entries that have a '0' firepower in the first range band are not displayed in the parameter data menu in the game. You need to open the actual pdt file with another program to see the weapon data. Which is also why you won't see the entries for indirect fire weapons like mortars listed in the game either (though Gettysburg doesn't seem to include data for mortars anyway; it does affect the Overland game though). The weapons function correctly however.

I reported this to JTS.

To be fair, if the Whitworth is rated higher in other titles in the series, then they're too high as well.  I mean in all seriousness a Whitworth was never used in close proximity to the enemy.

If an indirect weapon, such as a mortar has a range of 1, then I don't know that that is right, either.  As a scenario designer I would really think seriously about changing that.

Overland? I tested Overland - weather?   To be entirely honest it wouldn't surprise me, as at one point I know of a PDT that had artillery coded at 0% ... pretty sure it was an accident - and it has been years, and to be entirely fair when I work with weather coding (the few times that I have), it has been in the Musket and Pike engine which may work generally the same, but may not be coded in the PDT exactly the same way. I guess I will find out if I can get to working within the CWB series.

You're arguing that it is not a bug because:

• it has a low probability of occurring and a low impact if it does;
  
  
• if it's in the pdt file, then it's as the scenario designer intended.
  
  

Neither of those points is an argument against it being a bug. The first point is simply your agreement with me that the bug only occurs in edge cases.

To be technically I would only argue the first bullet point.    I would change the second bullet point to ... 'it may be as the scenario designer intended' -may being the operative word.

I also am flat out saying that if it is the first bullet point, it wouldn't be a bug, and it wouldn't be one -if- the scenario designer had intended it that way.    Of course as you pointed out, that isn't automatically the case.

I can say that if I were rating that gun, I would be rating it as to how it was used -and based upon the top bullet point alone; I'd do the same with the mortars as well.   No one is using mortars as a defensive fire weapon in real life.


-I will agree with you, though, that if it is showing differently in the other titles within the series, that you are probably right about it having been missed. Call it a bug if you want. I think their idea is to have all of the weaponry rated uniformly across the various titles within the series- so good find.

I didn't look at all of the titles for that, and was only considering performance and use; I've found a few areas where I would probably do things differently than some of the scenario designers.