Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: My suggestion for realistic melee

  1. #11

    USA Captain

    FakeMessiah27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    432
    If we eventually get a sort of blocking mechanic, perhaps it would be an idea to either add in a chance of a nearby friendly soldier automatically blocking an incoming attack, or at least making it very easy for him to do so (for example: by having a very liberal range at which blocking can be successful).

    The automatic version might take a lot more time to implement, but even making it possible to block attacks that aren't directed exactly at you will help.

    All of this would be to encourage people to group up to be able to protect each other. Imagine four or five soldiers shoulder to shoulder (or at least close to each other) in a line. If one enemy runs up to them and attempts to stab the guy in the middle, the other men in the line could also block the incoming thrust (especially if they are indeed shoulder to shoulder).

    This would actually make it useful for people to stay in formation during a melee instead of just running off and having the entire affair devolve into a series of one-on-ones all over the place.

  2. #12

    USA Lieutenant Colonel

    R21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    602
    Don't know about auto blocking, blocking itself is a fairly big advantage (especially if the person being blocked has some kind of momentary stun effect happen to them) the only 'automated' thing i'd like to see in this regard would be to crouching soldiers pointing their bayonets up (like if an enemy ran into these they'd get bayonetted without the person crouching having the press LMB to hurt them) if that makes sense.

    I just want anti Cav Infantry squares,

  3. #13

    USA Lieutenant Colonel

    David Dire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    America
    Posts
    681
    Cavalry charges were a rare, rare thing in the civil war
    Though they did do square formatioms, they were of, atleast, 500 men.
    http://i.imgur.com/STUHVb8.png

  4. #14

    USA Major

    Maximus Decimus Meridius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by FakeMessiah27 View Post
    If we eventually get a sort of blocking mechanic, perhaps it would be an idea to either add in a chance of a nearby friendly soldier automatically blocking an incoming attack, or at least making it very easy for him to do so (for example: by having a very liberal range at which blocking can be successful).

    The automatic version might take a lot more time to implement, but even making it possible to block attacks that aren't directed exactly at you will help.

    All of this would be to encourage people to group up to be able to protect each other. Imagine four or five soldiers shoulder to shoulder (or at least close to each other) in a line. If one enemy runs up to them and attempts to stab the guy in the middle, the other men in the line could also block the incoming thrust (especially if they are indeed shoulder to shoulder).

    This would actually make it useful for people to stay in formation during a melee instead of just running off and having the entire affair devolve into a series of one-on-ones all over the place.
    That sounds great!! The boys has to keep the line and protect each other and they are forced to fill the gap instantly because the gap is a big problem. Two men are without side cover so you it would be easier to kill the formation.

    It would be also force to keep the historical 2ranks battle line because if such a gap is opened the rear rank has to fill it. (Hope you can get what I am trying to say)

    In the end I would love it. Maybe combine it with the tunnel focus. Without friends and neighbours around you have a tunnel focus in melee
    http://www.warofrightsforum.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=522&dateline=14500460  02


  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by David Dire View Post
    Cavalry charges were a rare, rare thing in the civil war
    Though they did do square formatioms, they were of, atleast, 500 men.
    Very seldom. There was an allegation that Buford's cavalry forced it at Gettysburg on a unit from I think Pender's division on Seminary ridge but it's not substantiated fully that they actually made a square.

    You've gotta ask yourself "Are we simulating the period correctly?" There was a reason cavalry didn't take on infantry mounted. The limitations make it all the more exciting to achieve that, if you could. But there should still be limitations.

    One thing about meelee is we know it should be slower to kill, one way or another. Two bodies of guys shouldn't obliterate each other down to a handful of survivors very easily.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 09-09-2017 at 03:27 AM.

  6. #16
    Training Grounds: Impact notification of some sort /or resistance to forward movement, after giving the ole bags a one two numerous times, noticed very little motion (in the bags/dummies themselves) from several angles/distances.

  7. #17
    Building on the suppression in melee concept, what if we use the existing group buff mechanic and make it so that when one group has the buff and the other doesn't, it causes suppression on the other team. That way, it really encourages players to stick together and have that group buff as otherwise if they are by themselves, their avatar instantly gets scared shitless (as you would be irl) when a bunch of well formed men advanced at you with bayonets fixed.

    I think this is a pretty good solution to stop lone wolves and also encourages team work and close formations gameplay.

  8. #18
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    3,554
    Quote Originally Posted by adventurer8612 View Post
    Building on the suppression in melee concept, what if we use the existing group buff mechanic and make it so that when one group has the buff and the other doesn't, it causes suppression on the other team. That way, it really encourages players to stick together and have that group buff as otherwise if they are by themselves, their avatar instantly gets scared shitless (as you would be irl) when a bunch of well formed men advanced at you with bayonets fixed.

    I think this is a pretty good solution to stop lone wolves and also encourages team work and close formations gameplay.
    This is what happens currently (although we still have a few issues to resolve to make it reliably work).

    Fire upon a group with no formation buff and they will be more affected by the supression as well as be slower to recover than if they had the formation buff.

    - Trusty

  9. #19

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    52
    I like the melee system the way it is now. Very harsh and very penalizing to both sides. Bayonets only caused a minute percentage of casualties in the war, far less than what is currently happening. I think people and teams should be mostly discouraged to even close in for a melee unless it gives them a very big advantage (clear out a much smaller enemy force) or they have no other choice (last minute charges to a point). Otherwise the game should be much more about exchanging fire and volleys.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    10
    You are on the right track. Melee should be tied to morale, charges (as most people here know) were largely resolved by one side breaking and retreating. The very idea of line fire was to break/weaken the morale of the enemy, and then to encourage him to run with a charge & fixed bayonets (if he did not break due to the volume of your fire). Hand to hand fighting was brief (and yes there are obvious exceptions to this) and over in minutes. To make line fighting matter you HAVE to make melee LESS of a factor.
    Last edited by Sox; 11-02-2017 at 09:05 AM.

Posting Permissions

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