Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 112

Thread: Union woes

  1. #41

    CSA Major

    Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Baldwin,Louisiana
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by A. P. Hill View Post
    Take it up with the NPS and hundreds of other authors / historians who have used the 500 number. Thanks for the recommendation. Can I find it online?
    Yes. I posted a link above. You can also buy it as an e book so you can read it right away.
    Jesse S. Crosby, 20th Georgia Infantry, July 15, 1861 - May 6, 1864

    Samuel T. McKenzie, 20th Georgia Infantry, July 15, 1861 - September 2, 1862

    Joseph C. McKenzie, 20th Georgia Infantry, July 15, 1861 - October 1, 1863

    Henry C. McKenzie, 3rd Georgia Infantry, June 1, 1861 - January 28, 1863

    Charles R. Beddingfield, 38th Alabama Infantry

    Samuel L. Cowart, Cobb's Legion

  2. #42

    CSA Captain

    Reimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    29
    It's not only on the Bridge that the Union team struggles, it's the same on the other two maps as well.
    1stNCSS(A)-1st Sgt. Reed

  3. #43

    USA General of the Army

    Bravescot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Perthshire, Scotland
    Posts
    2,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Reimer View Post
    It's not only on the Bridge that the Union team struggles, it's the same on the other two maps as well.
    I've seen plenty of Union wins at Dunker Church and at the Sunken Lane. I am yet to see a Union win at Burnside Bridge though.

  4. #44

    USA Captain

    Stalin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Reimer View Post
    It's not only on the Bridge that the Union team struggles, it's the same on the other two maps as well.
    Given the period this is based in, it is always biased toward the defenders. However, Burnside is currently just impossible without organised units coordinating together efficiently, which will only happen in private events where Company's will be able to use their command chains, since what happens in public sessions right now on both sides is lots of wannabe General's try to do their own thing, which is more detrimental to the attackers than the defenders. This is due to the defenders on Burnside only have to hold a single choke-point. The Union however must attempt to organise an attack with players who are willing to just go over the bridge to die(not many people want to do this unsuprisingly) and then trust that the second wave wont just watch you die and do nothing.



  5. #45

    CSA Captain

    Bivoj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    171
    I am also against restricting the area, since it is not "realistic" and I would prefer something smarter or closer to the real battle situation to deliver "historical accuracy".

    When US had much more troops for attack in real battle, it should be rather represented by more frequent respawns on US side (longer delays before respawn on CSA side), so the inflicting casualties does matter.

  6. #46
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Bivoj View Post
    I am also against restricting the area, since it is not "realistic" and I would prefer something smarter or closer to the real battle situation to deliver "historical accuracy".

    When US had much more troops for attack in real battle, it should be rather represented by more frequent respawns on US side (longer delays before respawn on CSA side), so the inflicting casualties does matter.
    Longer respawns won't change the fact that the position right at the bridge is the strongest one. Sure, it might make the Union win more but I'm after a change in the general flow of combat on the map as well as balance - not only the latter.

    - Trusty

  7. #47

    CSA Captain

    Bivoj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    Longer respawns won't change the fact that the position right at the bridge is the strongest one. Sure, it might make the Union win more but I'm after a change in the general flow of combat on the map as well as balance - not only the latter.
    I understand the point, but I personally would prefer some "realistic" (i.e. not based on artificial restrictions) solution. If the situation is properly simulated in game, it should be played by people in the way the battle was fought. So, please, no invisible wall or artificial "suicide" after advancing too much forward And I believe, that when CSA had less soldiers (longer respawn times), the battle moves from bridge to hill automatically.

    Anyway, if I consider the restriction of the area around bridge, I would suggest using some kind of lethal artillery shelling the bridge position in random intervals when held by CSA. Short-time advance by CSA (a counterattack) would be possible, but holding the bridge by line formation would be inefficient, resulting in casualties.

  8. #48
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Bivoj View Post
    I understand the point, but I personally would prefer some "realistic" (i.e. not based on artificial restrictions) solution. If the situation is properly simulated in game, it should be played by people in the way the battle was fought. So, please, no invisible wall or artificial "suicide" after advancing too much forward And I believe, that when CSA had less soldiers (longer respawn times), the battle moves from bridge to hill automatically.

    Anyway, if I consider the restriction of the area around bridge, I would suggest using some kind of lethal artillery shelling the bridge position in random intervals when held by CSA. Short-time advance by CSA (a counterattack) would be possible, but holding the bridge by line formation would be inefficient, resulting in casualties.
    Skirmishes is chuck full of artificial restrictions (which easily could be thought as realistic ones though - take the map boundaries for instance: you've been ordered by your superior officer to operate at this location. Any movement further away from the location and you'll disobey orders. Keep going and you'll be deserting.)

    - Trusty

  9. #49

    CSA Major

    Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Baldwin,Louisiana
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Bivoj View Post
    I understand the point, but I personally would prefer some "realistic" (i.e. not based on artificial restrictions) solution. If the situation is properly simulated in game, it should be played by people in the way the battle was fought. So, please, no invisible wall or artificial "suicide" after advancing too much forward And I believe, that when CSA had less soldiers (longer respawn times), the battle moves from bridge to hill automatically.

    Anyway, if I consider the restriction of the area around bridge, I would suggest using some kind of lethal artillery shelling the bridge position in random intervals when held by CSA. Short-time advance by CSA (a counterattack) would be possible, but holding the bridge by line formation would be inefficient, resulting in casualties.
    Historically they stayed in the heights for the most part and on the flanks of the bridge. They never sat in front of the bridge and waited like we do in-game.

    They left the bridge open to attack. Only a handful of csa skirmishers even fought on the opposite side of the bridge, but once the union started advancing they retreated back across the the confederate side.
    Jesse S. Crosby, 20th Georgia Infantry, July 15, 1861 - May 6, 1864

    Samuel T. McKenzie, 20th Georgia Infantry, July 15, 1861 - September 2, 1862

    Joseph C. McKenzie, 20th Georgia Infantry, July 15, 1861 - October 1, 1863

    Henry C. McKenzie, 3rd Georgia Infantry, June 1, 1861 - January 28, 1863

    Charles R. Beddingfield, 38th Alabama Infantry

    Samuel L. Cowart, Cobb's Legion

  10. #50

    CSA Captain

    Lance Rawlings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    836
    First off, love this thread title

    I don't know about the organizational skill differences, I've seen good and bad on both sides. Depends on the time of day.

    Yes, Burnside's Bridge is nearly impossible for US forces to take simply due to the fact that its easy to hold/regain a single spot. It COULD be done using certain undisclosed tactics and the right organized units I believe. But still, all CS forces can be concentrated. The Sunken Road, however, I feel is quite easy for US troops to take just due to the dramatic extra number of tickets they possess, though I've only seen it done once or twice I believe. I haven't seen a US win at Dunker Church, but I would say that map is the most even probably. That's just my opinion.
    To the Colors!

    Captain Lance Rawlings
    Company K, 38th North Carolina, Pender's Brigade, A.P. Hill's Division, Jackson's Corps, Army of Northern Virginia
    http://www.warofrightsforum.com/show...lina-Boys-quot


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •