PDA

View Full Version : Union woes



Slimbizza
05-20-2017, 08:53 PM
Since release, the Union has just been getting decimated, especially at Burnside bridge. The following is my experience from playing both sides, and may be a contributing factor to current Union woes.

1. The Confederates have much better organization. They have good Officers and teamwork oriented soldiers. The only thing they seem to be lacking is good NCO's, but that will come with time in my opinion.

2. The Union just seems to be generally and consistently disorganized every single round. The Officers are either just playing cause they like the pistol, or they are a 12 year old squeaker shouting orders in a child's voice, and consequently nobody listens.... I mean who could blame them.

3. Union doesn't seem to utilize their ticket amounts. They have the tickets, but I consistently see rounds ending in Confederate victories with the Union having 120+ tickets remaining. There is never any real massive organized effort to attack, reform, attack again, divide into company's of 7-8 men and make organized assaults. I mean look at Burnside bridge, it's a gaggle of union soldiers standing on one side just firing over the heads of the confederates at the other side of the bridge never really doing anything. They usually make a few charges, but never any follow up.

W1Z25
05-20-2017, 09:02 PM
the issue with the bridge is that union leaders never want to charge. that along with no place to ford the river causes the entire match to be a shootout

Johann Günderson
05-20-2017, 09:40 PM
The one thing I will say about the union officers is that they wait way to damn long to march out from spawn. They are caring way to much about moving out in formation rather than getting to the objective then forming up.

Bravescot
05-20-2017, 09:56 PM
I mean that's rather critical and short sighted of you to say. There are plenty example of organised union efforts to break through the Confeds to Burnside bridge. Myself, Captain Ross of Co. A, 95th New York and Captain Maximus of Co. A 52nd New York have all lead successful efforts to break through the Rebel lines.

As Mr. Smiley has pointed out the effort does not lie with he lack of organisation. The reb. position just over the bridge is nearly impossible to break through with without massive losses. After that it is very hard to hold the far side of the bridge with only 3-5 guys before the next rev spawn wave. Attack and attack as we might the attacks that do knock out the Rebs on the bridge are unable to take out the Rebs on the hills.

The Union were only able to take the Bridge with heavily casualties and twice the amount of men of the Rebs on the other side.

yoyo8346
05-20-2017, 10:09 PM
The Confederates have much better organization. They have good Officers and teamwork oriented soldiers.

Not from what I've seen so far. Both sides seem to be terribly disorganized with people running out of spawn one at a time.

A. P. Hill
05-20-2017, 10:14 PM
the issue with the bridge is that union leaders never want to charge. that along with no place to ford the river causes the entire match to be a shootout

Now you know why it took Burnside and his IX Corps the better part of 8 hours to take the bridge. ;)


The one thing I will say about the union officers is that they wait way to damn long to march out from spawn. They are caring way to much about moving out in formation rather than getting to the objective then forming up.

This is not actually a bad thing. In fact if they're trying to organize the units before leaving then I'd say they're doing a damned fine better job than you imagine they aren't.
This entire game system is based on units organizations and cooperation, not a bunch of single individuals running off as soon as they spawn. Keep doing that and you guys will loose every time.

The key to playing and winning in this game is unit organization. Line infantry being in line.

Bivoj
05-20-2017, 10:27 PM
To be honest, I do not see CSA to be significantly better organised. Maybe a little bit, but not significantly.

Regarding the bridge: the terrain is strongly favourable to CSA. The CSA line can be formed 3 ranks deep behind the bridge without any threat and they welcome any US charge with volley and bayonets. On the other hand, the hill behind the bridge from CSA side provides clear view (while being partially concealed in woods) to the Union side of the bridge, where the US line stands. So, CSA piquets can snipe-shoot at US line to increase their attrition and soften the defence before the CSA charge. When CSA charges across the bridge, they usually find disordered line with casualties.

Anyway - the game is awesome :)

Legion
05-20-2017, 10:46 PM
I mean that's rather critical and short sighted of you to say. There are plenty example of organised union efforts to break through the Confeds to Burnside bridge. Myself, Captain Ross of Co. A, 95th New York and Captain Maximus of Co. A 52nd New York have all lead successful efforts to break through the Rebel lines.

As Mr. Smiley has pointed out the effort does not lie with he lack of organisation. The reb. position just over the bridge is nearly impossible to break through with without massive losses. After that it is very hard to hold the far side of the bridge with only 3-5 guys before the next rev spawn wave. Attack and attack as we might the attacks that do knock out the Rebs on the bridge are unable to take out the Rebs on the hills.

The Union were only able to take the Bridge with heavily casualties and twice the amount of men of the Rebs on the other side.

Once your able to spawn on the battleflags I think it would help the Union out alot.

The main problem right now is that you have to walk all the way from spawn, and by the time you get back to the bridge it's already taken back by the confederates.

Johann Günderson
05-20-2017, 10:48 PM
This is not actually a bad thing. In fact if they're trying to organize the units before leaving then I'd say they're doing a damned fine better job than you imagine they aren't.
This entire game system is based on units organizations and cooperation, not a bunch of single individuals running off as soon as they spawn. Keep doing that and you guys will loose every time.

The key to playing and winning in this game is unit organization. Line infantry being in line.

I'm well aware that it is paramount to the winnning side. What I mean is that they sit around for 2 minutes after the company is formed trying to god knows what. Many men leading on the union side have no experience running any line formations in the past which makes it very hard to work with.

Saris
05-20-2017, 10:54 PM
Since release, the Union has just been getting decimated, especially at Burnside bridge. The following is my experience from playing both sides, and may be a contributing factor to current Union woes.

1. The Confederates have much better organization. They have good Officers and teamwork oriented soldiers. The only thing they seem to be lacking is good NCO's, but that will come with time in my opinion.

2. The Union just seems to be generally and consistently disorganized every single round. The Officers are either just playing cause they like the pistol, or they are a 12 year old squeaker shouting orders in a child's voice, and consequently nobody listens.... I mean who could blame them.

3. Union doesn't seem to utilize their ticket amounts. They have the tickets, but I consistently see rounds ending in Confederate victories with the Union having 120+ tickets remaining. There is never any real massive organized effort to attack, reform, attack again, divide into company's of 7-8 men and make organized assaults. I mean look at Burnside bridge, it's a gaggle of union soldiers standing on one side just firing over the heads of the confederates at the other side of the bridge never really doing anything. They usually make a few charges, but never any follow up.

1. Does it really matter who has better officers and ncos? it only takes one shot to kill them. It does seem like confederates know how to work together but there are some union companies and groups that know what they are doing.

2.I agree on the squeakers, the one time i joined the union side almost all the officers were 12 y/o squeakers trying to get people to follow them and most of them went officer class just for the pistol. But we confederates do have our share of 12 y/o officers, but we mainly ignore them.

3. The whole team is at fault there. They should work together more, I do see more rambo union players than Confeds, we like to work together to get the job done.

And like some said, Union officers wait too long to get a sizable group together and half the time people just leave to run to the front. I usually see confederates lining up together and moving out almost as a whole.

rebeldestroyer
05-20-2017, 11:24 PM
And like some said, Union officers wait too long to get a sizable group together and half the time people just leave to run to the front

I was playing an hour ago on burnside bridge and an officer at spawn was talking to around 20 people telling them a precise plan of what we are going to do for about 3 minutes.only I and 5 other people followed him. the rest Rambo'd into the field to the right of spawn. I have a suggestion for the union officers; make examples out of Rambos and shoot them on the spot or fire a warning shot lol

zerosius
05-20-2017, 11:47 PM
I was playing an hour ago on burnside bridge and an officer at spawn was talking to around 20 people telling them a precise plan of what we are going to do for about 3 minutes.only I and 5 other people followed him. the rest Rambo'd into the field to the right of spawn. I have a suggestion for the union officers; make examples out of Rambos and shoot them on the spot or fire a warning shot lol

At this point we are all testing the game, and getting used to it. Its nice that some people try to organize efforts to form lines and build on the drill they have been doing over the last few months, but i don't think anyone is obligated to join the line. Its not a serious battle, but small and chaotic skirmishes. What gives anyone the right to just shoot someone just because he is trying things out. Lets take it slow guys...

Stalin
05-21-2017, 12:01 AM
Just let people play how they want to play.
On the note of "Union Bashing" that is trending here: it is a lot easier to get a bunch of "plebs" to hold a choke-point than to tell them to go suicide across a bridge for the greater good.

Saris
05-21-2017, 02:36 AM
hell thats what we do on the CSA, even the 1stTX officers would execute their own men if they do not have the right tags on

Mageus
05-21-2017, 07:22 AM
My company, consisting of three men in the skirmishes, has had several charges over burnside bridge make it to the embankment on the opposite side. However, the union soldiers are much more content to set back behind the wall and shoot than possibly get shot in the charge. Many times the bridge has been held by no more than five rebels. When the union finally gets the courage to attack in a group and not worry so much about how pretty of a ripple fire they can perform then they may begin winning some of the engagements.

Scrouch
05-21-2017, 08:46 AM
To be honest, I do not see CSA to be significantly better organised. Maybe a little bit, but not significantly.

Regarding the bridge: the terrain is strongly favourable to CSA. The CSA line can be formed 3 ranks deep behind the bridge without any threat and they welcome any US charge with volley and bayonets. On the other hand, the hill behind the bridge from CSA side provides clear view (while being partially concealed in woods) to the Union side of the bridge, where the US line stands. So, CSA piquets can snipe-shoot at US line to increase their attrition and soften the defence before the CSA charge. When CSA charges across the bridge, they usually find disordered line with casualties.

Anyway - the game is awesome :)

Totally true.

CSA had real advantage defending bridge.

Legion
05-21-2017, 12:34 PM
Totally true.

CSA had real advantage defending bridge.

Mostly because they stay on the bridge.

Irl only a few skirmishers were even close to the bridge and a few were on the union side, but most men were on the heights above the bridge.

I'm curious to see how well the CSA can defend the bridge if they leave it open and sit in the heights like irl.

michaelsmithern
05-21-2017, 02:44 PM
Mostly because they stay on the bridge.

Irl only a few skirmishers were even close to the bridge and a few were on the union side, but most men were on the heights above the bridge.

I'm curious to see how well the CSA can defend the bridge if they leave it open and sit in the heights like irl.

Well IRL you had an entire corp assaulting the bridge as well

Legion
05-21-2017, 02:47 PM
Well IRL you had an entire corp assaulting the bridge as well

Yet around 300 men held them off for hours. Of course, they didn't assault all at once but still and incredible thing none the less.

Also, I'm trying to give the Union more of a chance by having csa stay on the heights like they did in real life.

TrustyJam
05-21-2017, 02:55 PM
Yet around 300 men held them off for hours. Of course, they didn't assault all at once but still and incredible thing none the less.

Also, I'm trying to give the Union more of a chance by having csa stay on the heights like they did in real life.

I'd be interested to hear what you guys would think of us limiting the CSA playable area to the lower section of the heights and not cover the entirety of the bridge as it current does. It would surely force the majority to defend the heights instead of being kneeled down in the same spot at the bridge throughout an entire match.

- Trusty

Legion
05-21-2017, 02:58 PM
I'd be interested to hear what you guys would think of us limiting the CSA playable area to the lower section of the heights and not cover the entirety of the bridge as it current does. It would surely force the majority to defend the heights instead of being kneeled down in the same spot at the bridge throughout an entire match.

- Trusty

It's worth a shot. I say we should try it. If it's not popular we could always go back to the original.

I wouldn't restrict too much though. I'll post a map with a good playable area imo, if your open to suggestions.

Lyman Trumbull
05-21-2017, 02:59 PM
I'd be interested to hear what you guys would think of us limiting the CSA playable area to the lower section of the heights and not cover the entirety of the bridge as it current does. It would surely force the majority to defend the heights instead of being kneeled down in the same spot at the bridge throughout an entire match.

- Trusty

While it would be considerably easier for the union forces to actually gain a foothold, it may prove to be a good balance.

Wilson
05-21-2017, 03:00 PM
Idk with the bridge being the ONLY way across it will be a choke point no matter what you do, now if you make the river fordable in several areas then the defense would have to shift. Mind the entire battle is made up of random people who may or may not work together, if this was an official line battle I think things would be different.

TrustyJam
05-21-2017, 03:02 PM
While it would be considerably easier for the union forces to actually gain a foothold, it may prove to be a good balance.

Don't underestimate the heights. They offer a nice vantage point over the bridge, but yes, if you manage to cross it alive you'll stand a somewhat better chance due to the fact that the steep angle of the heights work as a cover. :)

- Trusty

TrustyJam
05-21-2017, 03:03 PM
Idk with the bridge being the ONLY way across it will be a choke point no matter what you do, now if you make the river fordable in several areas then the defense would have to shift. Mind the entire battle is made up of random people who may or may not work together, if this was an official line battle I think things would be different.

Oh yes, certainly - and we intend it to be a challenge to cross. At the moment, however, mostly all combat takes place 5 to 0 yards away from eachother. A defending confederate force at the heights would shift that to much further distances at most times with the eventual charge still in there for good measure.

- Trusty

Legion
05-21-2017, 03:15 PM
How bout these? Just some ideas.

Least restricted version.
6122

version 2
6123

version 3
6124

Of course these are just ideas and help give a visual representation of what it could be like.

TrustyJam
05-21-2017, 03:19 PM
How bout these? Just some ideas.

Least restricted version.
6122

version 2
6123

version 3
6124

Of course these are just ideas and help give a visual representation of what it could be like.

Thank you for the suggestions. We'll most likely try it out in the next update. :)

- Trusty

Whip
05-21-2017, 03:23 PM
I disagree wholeheartedly with Limiting the CSA in such a way as we cant step foot on the bridge, As many time we push across and fight along the stone wall making it impossible to chase them back across iif you limit our movements. The issue everyone brings up here is a simple fix. When you play the union , Use your tickets to your advantage. Gather up , Send some men to make the bridge defenders waste their volley, then send the bulk of your men across while they reload.

I have played plenty of matches where the bridge is overrun quickly and The enemy make it to the capture point by using strategy , and not walking across the bridge 2 men at a time and complaining.

There is a reason the Feds have damn near twice the tickets . But never use them and complain that " Its too hard " to cross the bridge. Muster up and fight smart.

Maximus Decimus Meridius
05-21-2017, 03:28 PM
Maybe You Can Change the auto balance?

The biggest advantage of the union is/was their number. Maybe try a 1/1.5 ratio for players?

Do it would be possible for the union to play out their tickets and numbers. I didn't see a match where the union dropped under 100

I would try this first before do something hard like the restriction of the CSA

TrustyJam
05-21-2017, 03:34 PM
I disagree wholeheartedly with Limiting the CSA in such a way as we cant step foot on the bridge, As many time we push across and fight along the stone wall making it impossible to chase them back across iif you limit our movements. The issue everyone brings up here is a simple fix. When you play the union , Use your tickets to your advantage. Gather up , Send some men to make the bridge defenders waste their volley, then send the bulk of your men across while they reload.

I have played plenty of matches where the bridge is overrun quickly and The enemy make it to the capture point by using strategy , and not walking across the bridge 2 men at a time and complaining.

There is a reason the Feds have damn near twice the tickets . But never use them and complain that " Its too hard " to cross the bridge. Muster up and fight smart.

That won't fix the engagement distance though. It will still be an entire match of union guys being shot down 5 yards away from the enemy.

We'll try and see how the limited playarea does in the next update. Remember we're in alpha and everything can - and probably will, change again.

- Trusty

Whip
05-21-2017, 03:40 PM
Maybe You Can Change the auto balance?

The biggest advantage of the union is/was their number. Maybe try a 1/1.5 ratio for players?

Do it would be possible for the union to play out their tickets and numbers. I didn't see a match where the union dropped under 100

I would try this first before do something hard like the restriction of the CSA

I agree , The union side never uses its tickets to the fullest, and the games where they do end in the Rebs losing every ticket of theirs . They hardly never charge and when they do they have maybe 4 guys out of the 20 on their team.

Maybe move their spawn ? Restrict our movements On the other side of the bridge? But cutting the entire bridge off just creates an issue where they will never charge, They will sit on the sides of the river and pick at the hill until the Rebs run out of tickets. From my perspective this is isn't a balance issue that is fixed by restricting one side for playing correctly and Mustering up , while the other team runs around in 2 and 3's.

TrustyJam
05-21-2017, 03:44 PM
I agree , The union side never uses its tickets to the fullest, and the games where they do end in the Rebs losing every ticket of theirs . They hardly never charge and when they do they have maybe 4 guys out of the 20 on their team.

Maybe move their spawn ? Restrict our movements On the other side of the bridge? But cutting the entire bridge off just creates an issue where they will never charge, They will sit on the sides of the river and pick at the hill until the Rebs run out of tickets. From my perspective this is isn't a balance issue that is fixed by restricting one side for playing correctly and Mustering up , while the other team runs around in 2 and 3's.


Question is whether you actually are playing correctly as the capture/defensive area is on top of the heights. :)

I've noted your concerns. Let's see how it plays out and we'll take it from there.

- Trusty

A. P. Hill
05-21-2017, 03:49 PM
Yet around 300 men held them off for hours. ....

Actually closer to 500. The placards at the battlefield I read yesterday said so, as do many of the publications I've read on this fight. True the greater number of these were in rifle pits on the heights immediately to the west debauch of the bridge, and even today you can see those pits still, but there were single man deep skirmish lines all along the bank of the river on both the north and south side of the west bridge exit for the Confederates.

Again, my thoughts regarding restricting, while I understand it's purpose, I dislike it. And really, as much of an anal person as I am about historicity, the point and purpose in playing something like this is to see if one side or the other can actually change history as it happened.

While not having been able to play the skirmish mode yet, but having examined Legions screen shots, and having talked with DMurray yesterday (whose been in skirmish already, and explained it to me,) I think part of the problem is the Confederates could be spawning too close to the CP. So while they have to wait from the Union to form, find their way to the bridge, many of them just up and cross the bridge regardless of the fact that their main purpose was to stay on the heights and let the Union come to them and try to cross.

I understand the need to spawn the Confederates closer to the bridge as they already held the heights and their spawn point gives them the advantage to get to the CP early enough to put their defense in order before the Union show up, but I think based on the screen shots they might be about 200 yards too close to give the Union an equal chance of getting to the bridge before it's occupied by the Confederates.

Just my $0.02 since I haven't played I'm probably not a good source of advice ATM. ;)

michaelsmithern
05-21-2017, 03:49 PM
I'd be interested to hear what you guys would think of us limiting the CSA playable area to the lower section of the heights and not cover the entirety of the bridge as it current does. It would surely force the majority to defend the heights instead of being kneeled down in the same spot at the bridge throughout an entire match.

- Trusty

I'd like to give it a try to see how it turns out. You may get some flak from the CSA side of the Community, but it would make it slightly easier to cross as the Union. I know if the Confederates use the heights it'd still be a disadvantage to the Union as they try and cross the bridge but at least it would allow for the Union to make an attempt on the point instead of being blocked up on the bridge. and if it comes to down to it, instead of limiting the zone the Union could be given more tickets to work with.

Whip
05-21-2017, 03:50 PM
That won't fix the engagement distance though. It will still be an entire match of union guys being shot down 5 yards away from the enemy.

We'll try and see how the limited playarea does in the next update. Remember we're in alpha and everything can - and probably will, change again.

- Trusty

Well I disagree wholeheartedly , all it takes is 1 good charge and then your fighting on the hill .

I can tell you at least from what I'm seeing if you restrict the Confederate side it will allow the Union Free range of the map and force us to play in a " Watch out box" while we are forced to sit on the side of a hill with half the tickets while they just fan out and shoot from the apex of the bridge and Shore until we run out of tickets.

I guess we will see soon enough, But if this is the case then its taking a real big hit in the realism , and at least in my eyes severely restricts and punishes the CSA players for the only reason to make it easier for the Union to win.

As AP said why not jus move our spawn back to Even out the Distance , Instead of restricting our movements .

Oleander
05-21-2017, 03:52 PM
I can't say I'm in favor of this, but we will see how it plays out. I refuse to believe that the bridge can't be taken without coordination, from what I've seen so far there has been way too much time wasted on trying to get a "perfect" charge and less time devoted to using superior numbers.

A. P. Hill
05-21-2017, 03:52 PM
I can tell you at least from what I'm seeing if you restrict the Confederate side it will allow the Union Free range of the map and force us to play in a " Watch out box" while we are forced to sit on the side of a hill ...

Not to far from reality ... what more could you want?

TrustyJam
05-21-2017, 03:52 PM
Well I disagree wholeheartedly , all it takes is 1 good charge and then your fighting on the hill .

I can tell you at least from what I'm seeing if you restrict the Confederate side it will allow the Union Free range of the map and force us to play in a " Watch out box" while we are forced to sit on the side of a hill with half the tickets while they just fan out and shoot from the apex of the bridge and Shore until we run out of tickets.

I guess we will see soon enough, But if this is the case then its taking a real big hit in the realism , and at least in my eyes severely restricts and punishes the CSA players for the only reason to make it easier for the Union to win.


I will still refer you to that nearly all combat currently is taking place within a few yards of each other.

How authentic is that?

- Trusty

Legion
05-21-2017, 04:05 PM
Actually closer to 500. The placards at the battlefield I read yesterday said so, as do many of the publications I've read on this fight. True the greater number of these were in rifle pits on the heights immediately to the west debauch of the bridge, and even today you can see those pits still, but there were single man deep skirmish lines all along the bank of the river on both the north and south side of the west bridge exit for the Confederates.

Again, my thoughts regarding restricting, while I understand it's purpose, I dislike it. And really, as much of an anal person as I am about historicity, the point and purpose in playing something like this is to see if one side or the other can actually change history as it happened.

While not having been able to play the skirmish mode yet, but having examined Legions screen shots, and having talked with DMurray yesterday (whose been in skirmish already, and explained it to me,) I think part of the problem is the Confederates could be spawning too close to the CP. So while they have to wait from the Union to form, find their way to the bridge, many of them just up and cross the bridge regardless of the fact that their main purpose was to stay on the heights and let the Union come to them and try to cross.

I understand the need to spawn the Confederates closer to the bridge as they already held the heights and their spawn point gives them the advantage to get to the CP early enough to put their defense in order before the Union show up, but I think based on the screen shots they might be about 200 yards too close to give the Union an equal chance of getting to the bridge before it's occupied by the Confederates.

Just my $0.02 since I haven't played I'm probably not a good source of advice ATM. ;)

The 500 man number is inflated. Both Benning and Toombs estimated their strength at around 300 men not 500.

I highly recomend the book Burnside's Bridge by Phillip Tucker.

It goes into detail about the battle and reveals information that I never knew. It's a very good read for a more in depth look at the battle.
He also list all his sources in the back of the book so you can check for yourself.
https://www.amazon.com/Burnsides-Bridge-Climactic-Struggle-Antietam/dp/0811728161

A. P. Hill
05-21-2017, 04:42 PM
The 500 man number is inflated. Both Benning and Toombs estimated their strength at around 300 men not 500. ...

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?

Legion
05-21-2017, 04:45 PM
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.

Reimer
05-21-2017, 06:08 PM
It's not only on the Bridge that the Union team struggles, it's the same on the other two maps as well.

Bravescot
05-21-2017, 06:26 PM
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.

Stalin
05-21-2017, 06:56 PM
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.

Bivoj
05-21-2017, 09:47 PM
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.

TrustyJam
05-21-2017, 09:52 PM
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

Bivoj
05-21-2017, 10:47 PM
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.

TrustyJam
05-21-2017, 10:51 PM
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

Legion
05-21-2017, 11:02 PM
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.

Lance Rawlings
05-22-2017, 05:32 AM
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.

Reimer
05-22-2017, 08:08 AM
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.

I've seen some hard-fought Union wins on Dunker, and I think you're probably right.

Bivoj
05-22-2017, 05:51 PM
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.
I understand such kind of reasoning for artificial restriction, when it is because of incompetent higher echelon leadership (simulating French generals at Rossbach, Russian generals at Austerlitz, Austrian generals at Königgrätz, ...), otherwise denying efficient strategy because of higher echelon orders does not make sense.


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.
CSA did not deploy line formation just behind the bridge because of some reason. It was probably not wise to stand and wait for coming charges; it was better to deploy troops on the hill in woods. I would be much happier, when the reason why is recognised and implemented, so CSA players (especially playing for officer class) find it more efficient to deploy in woods like IRL.

Anyway, we now have the restriction implemented, let's see how it plays...

Dutchconfederate
05-22-2017, 06:20 PM
Funny to see the Union struggle so much :-) Long live the South!!

dmurray6
05-22-2017, 06:40 PM
Question is whether you actually are playing correctly as the capture/defensive area is on top of the heights. :)

I've noted your concerns. Let's see how it plays out and we'll take it from there.

- Trusty

Hi Trusty,

I've seen and like Legion's 3 suggestions for map modifications and I've read through all the suggestions pertaining to spawn points, Union tactics (or lack thereof), ticket numbers, etc.

Can I ask whether there is any current cap restriction per side at Burnside's Bridge? What I mean by this is not relative to ticket numbers. If you were to leave the existing ticket numbers at the start of Burnside's Bridge as they are for now, could you also restrict (if you're not already) the number of CSA players. For example, if the server cap is 64, are you currently allowing a 32 vs. 32 game, or do you have the ability to switch it up to maybe 24 vs. 40 or even 20 vs. 44? I feel like the delta in tickets between the forces do not really play out if its still a 32 vs. 32 battle. Granted the CSA would always have to opportunity to run out first, but when you have 32 CSA players split between maybe 15 at the base of the CSA side of the bridge, and 17 more patrolling the hill, that formula just leads to making the Union use their tickets. I think at least testing a 24 vs. 40 player model at Burnside's Bridge might be worth a shot. Again, if you guys haven't already done so, without us players being able to figure that out. Does this idea make any sense or am I out of my mind? I guess my thinking is, if it was 500 vs. 12000 historically, then I think besides just balancing the tickets, we should limit the team numbers. The heights should still allow 24 CSA to deplete 40 USA soldiers at a pace where the Union might eventually get over the bridge, but still die at a realistic pace. Especially if the CSA plays it more close to reality, and only defend the bridge from the hill. However, with this, I also feel like there should be some additions of rifle pits and/or stacked rails to aid the CSA on the hill, to balance the difference in numbers and the fact that the WoR map lacks an authentic grade of slope on the CSA side. I realize this gets into logistics of lower bridge vs. middle bridge, and the landscape of those respective locations between reality and the WoR map, and I realize your efforts are to find the most appropriate balance to make it as real as possible.

just my two cents.

Regards,

A. P. Hill
05-22-2017, 06:43 PM
Ow.
Paragraphs are your friend! ;)

dmurray6
05-22-2017, 06:45 PM
Ow.
Paragraphs are your friend! ;)

Negative, ain't nobody got time for dat! :)

Mageus
05-23-2017, 03:03 AM
I am happy to report that it seems the Union has finally learned how to use the tickets given to them as they have won 5 rounds in a row. Surprisingly it only took confederate officers to train them in mass charge tactics, and to break them out of the stupidity of perfect lines marching on a fortified position. We hope to see the confederate ranks answer with a shift in the tactics that they are using, as the forming up volley firing the charges has been largely nullified as the ticket losses are too great to continue this form of combat. As events continue to unfold we will keep you posted directly from the front lines.

Oleander
05-23-2017, 03:37 AM
I'm sure the CS spawn point getting moved a half mile further away had nothing to do with it. ;)

TrustyJam
05-23-2017, 03:42 AM
I'm sure the CS spawn point getting moved a half mile further away had nothing to do with it. ;)

;) Before, the Union could practically spawn camp wave after wave while capturing the area at the same time. Far too close together.

I like the new distance better as it can offer intense situations where most confeds have been killed and the Union is pushing while the few remaining try to hold out.

- Trusty

Oleander
05-23-2017, 04:04 AM
I only got to play one round, but it definitely spread the CS out. It makes me worried that one massed charge is all it will take to carry the objective and win the match.

TrustyJam
05-23-2017, 04:05 AM
I only got to play one round, but it definitely spread the CS out. It makes me worried that one massed charge is all it will take to carry the objective and win the match.

In general, we'd like to see more rounds won/lost due to an area capture. Happens too rarely at the moment.

- Trusty

Dutchconfederate
05-23-2017, 07:28 AM
V shape on the hill overlooking the bridge have men ready to hunt down the ones who get through that's how we can stop a mass charge

Reimer
05-23-2017, 12:59 PM
V shape on the hill overlooking the bridge have men ready to hunt down the ones who get through that's how we can stop a mass charge

Or shoot the officers. Can't be a charge if there's nobody to order one.

'course the Rambos would still be a problem.

Dutchconfederate
05-23-2017, 01:53 PM
Or shoot the officers. Can't be a charge if there's nobody to order one.

'course the Rambos would still be a problem.

Shooting officers sounds like a job for sharpshooters :-) So thank god you are on my side!

michaelsmithern
05-23-2017, 02:44 PM
Shooting officers sounds like a job for sharpshooters :-) So thank god you are on my side!

Officers, go down? good thing NCO's are still alive

A. P. Hill
05-23-2017, 02:58 PM
Thank god for TeamSpeak, if officers get shot they can still communicate with their troops.

Dutchconfederate
05-23-2017, 03:07 PM
Officers, go down? good thing NCO's are still alive

Not for long.


Thank god for TeamSpeak, if officers get shot they can still communicate with their troops.

Don't really like Teamspeak. Would hope in the coming events people will take the challenge to use the in-game voice for communication.

A. P. Hill
05-23-2017, 04:05 PM
... Don't really like Teamspeak. Would hope in the coming events people will take the challenge to use the in-game voice for communication.

Sadly we lack a sarcastic/sarcasm emote. But I am 100 percent in agreement with you.

Whip
05-23-2017, 07:36 PM
Sadly we lack a sarcastic/sarcasm emote. But I am 100 percent in agreement with you.

You know what's really fun , When a Company is online , and they only use TS to form up and direct their men.

and you try to talk to them and yell that your being flanked .

But they cant hear you over their TS commands and get mowed down

Good Times.

A. P. Hill
05-23-2017, 11:00 PM
The game chat function is there for a reason. I'm hoping the developers can devise a way to make any external communication non functional while in game. :)

Lance Rawlings
05-23-2017, 11:41 PM
Don't really like Teamspeak. Would hope in the coming events people will take the challenge to use the in-game voice for communication.

Yeah I'd be cool, but they problem is that with the VOIP, a whisper is just as loud as a holler. I find myself running or sending men running for any sort of communication even just to a company right next to us.

A. P. Hill
05-24-2017, 12:35 AM
.... I find myself running or sending men running for any sort of communication even just to a company right next to us.

Oddly that's exactly what happened in real during the war. :D

Lance Rawlings
05-24-2017, 05:11 AM
Oddly that's exactly what happened in real during the war. :D

Haha yeah. I feel like I'm doing it a little much though. ;) It definitely adds a neat aspect!

LaBelle
05-24-2017, 09:23 AM
I do not believe my counterparts fighting for the North are simple, slow, or poor commanders. I do not believe they lack skill or ability. I do believe, however, that the mindset between the officers of the CSA and those of the Union differ in a significant manner. Whereas the Union seems to be focusing their attention on discipline, drilling, and the trading of rifle fire to smash Confederate defenses, the CSA is much more keen on loose formations, firing by squad to keep a blistering fussilade down range, and charging Union lines.

These mindsets will work very well once the map and player cap is increased, but it's just not working on these smaller skirmish maps. A change of mindset, and I think the blue bellies will be able to gain the advantages they seek.

With respect, 1st Lieutenant LaBelle, 1st Texas, Company E.

Colum O'Brien
05-24-2017, 04:38 PM
the issue with the bridge is that union leaders never want to charge. that along with no place to ford the river causes the entire match to be a shootout

What are you on about? We (Me capt and this battalion commander) kept lining people up to charge in big groups then we got yelled at by this big General or something for charging... He wanted us to stand there and shoot only until we whittled their numbers down in tickets.

TrustyJam
05-24-2017, 04:39 PM
What are you on about? We (Me capt and this battalion commander) kept lining people up to charge in big groups then we got yelled at by this big General or something for charging... He wanted us to stand there and shoot only until we whittled their numbers down in tickets.

This is why CSA tickets will be increased in the next update. :)

- Trusty

Charles Caldwell
05-25-2017, 10:59 AM
Im not making excuses for the poor Union show. I've experienced it myself over the last few nights. Inexperienced Officers taking charge (as stated) more concerned with marching out in order than seizing objectives. Clumping units together on exposed ridges when clearly a kneeling skirmish line is needed or better a different direction of attack.

However from what little experience I've seen of the maps, they seem to favour positionally at least, the CSA. The Bridge, Bloody lane and Church are easier to defend from the Confederates point of view than the constant charging over fields and fences Union.

Legion
05-25-2017, 12:31 PM
However from what little experience I've seen of the maps, they seem to favour positionally at least, the CSA. The Bridge, Bloody lane and Church are easier to defend from the Confederates point of view than the constant charging over fields and fences Union.

That's how it was in real life. Lee had a good defensive position.

Charles Caldwell
05-25-2017, 12:51 PM
That's how it was in real life. Lee had a good defensive position.

Yep its up to us, the Union, to drive you from those key positions. Currently with the splattering of Green Officers I've seen, its going to be a slow process. ;)

Still loving it though....

Oleander
05-25-2017, 04:44 PM
If you look at the maps, and the terrain, Lee had command of nearly every approach to those positions and there was a massive amount of artillery supporting areas like Dunker. I highly recommend looking up the battlefield tour videos on Youtube, it gives you a much better understanding of how unforgiving that battlefield is.

Whip
05-26-2017, 02:17 PM
I have only one complaint about the new limit to the CSA movement on the Burnside bridge. Since we cant step foot on the road now , the union just run across and the survivors immediately run to the river bank and try and sit there until the next charge since we desert if we move down there to kill them. Even if you try you only get 20 seconds and poof you get shot for deserting .

I get moving to the bank for cover, But us not being able to hunt them out of there once they are over the bridge on our banks is pretty shitty.

Legion
05-26-2017, 03:24 PM
I have only one complaint about the new limit to the CSA movement on the Burnside bridge. Since we cant step foot on the road now , the union just run across and the survivors immediately run to the river bank and try and sit there until the next charge since we desert if we move down there to kill them. Even if you try you only get 20 seconds and poof you get shot for deserting .

I get moving to the bank for cover, But us not being able to hunt them out of their once they are over the bridge on our banks is pretty shitty.

In part I agree with this. That's why I made the 1st map suggestion to be only the front of the bridge blocked off from the CSA.

Stalin
06-01-2017, 11:19 AM
In part I agree with this. That's why I made the 1st map suggestion to be only the front of the bridge blocked off from the CSA.

The criticism i have with the first suggest you made is that it would just be the original problem again the only difference being that the CSA would camp the desert borderlines and just mow down Union at point blank. Perhaps if the CSA could come down to the bank but have the invisable wall to far away to be used as a camping line say around 10-20 metres away from the bridge, this would allow the CSA to shoot any survivors of a charge whilst not camping the bottom of the bridge(or the areas around it).

Frederick
06-01-2017, 11:26 AM
I feel as though the Confederates have more spirit than the Yanks. I often hear Confederates making the rebel yell, taunting the blue bellies and blaring Confederate songs, particularly when charging. I've rarely seen this sort of spirit from the other side unfortunately.

Since it's the Yanks job to attack, their yellow bellied lack of fighting spirit cripples their chances more often than not.

Profender
06-01-2017, 11:28 AM
I feel as though the Confederates have more spirit than the Yanks. I often hear Confederates making the rebel yell, taunting the blue bellies and blaring Confederate songs, particularly when charging. I've rarely seen this sort of spirit from the other side unfortunately.

Since it's the Yanks job to attack, their yellow bellied lack of fighting spirit cripples their chances more often than not.

A+ Comment

Whip
06-01-2017, 06:30 PM
I feel as though the Confederates have more spirit than the Yanks. I often hear Confederates making the rebel yell, taunting the blue bellies and blaring Confederate songs, particularly when charging. I've rarely seen this sort of spirit from the other side unfortunately.

Since it's the Yanks job to attack, their yellow bellied lack of fighting spirit cripples their chances more often than not.

I would Agree , but there are some out there who have spirit on the Yank side

https://clips-media-assets.twitch.tv/25405669664-offset-3804.5833333333335-13.416666666666647.mp4#t=0

Excuse my shit shooting , I wanted to kill the officer so he wouldn't mow down our line from behind.

Bravescot
06-01-2017, 06:59 PM
I feel as though the Confederates have more spirit than the Yanks. I often hear Confederates making the rebel yell, taunting the blue bellies and blaring Confederate songs, particularly when charging. I've rarely seen this sort of spirit from the other side unfortunately.

Since it's the Yanks job to attack, their yellow bellied lack of fighting spirit cripples their chances more often than not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aIDqrSYjc0&lc=z13if1hp3laqdfwei22htvbibmrnyn1e2
Oooooooooo I'm sorry. Am I singing joyfully about Gerogia being burnt to the ground whilst leading a pack of very high spirited Union soldiers.

You Rebs aren't really doing yourselves and the greater Confederate community any favours by trying to smack talk the Union, particullary when it sounds like you only play rebs and don't have a go playing with the Union. I've been playing on both sides on a regular basis and can say with utter confidences that both sides have moments where they are both yellow bellied with a strong lack of fighting spirit. I played on a full 64 server where for 5 maps on the trot the Union won within the first 10 minutes and on some where the Rebs have beaten the union by draining their tickets whilst still retaining a massive ticket lead over the Union. The knife cuts both ways.

dmurray6
06-01-2017, 07:21 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aIDqrSYjc0&lc=z13if1hp3laqdfwei22htvbibmrnyn1e2
Oooooooooo I'm sorry. Am I singing joyfully about Gerogia being burnt to the ground whilst leading a pack of very high spirited Union soldiers.

You Rebs are really doing yourselves and the greater Confederate community any favours by trying to smack talk the Union, particullary when it sounds like you only play rebs and don't have a go playing with the Union. I've been playing on both sides on a regular basis and can say with utter confidences that both sides have moments where they are both yellow bellied with a strong lack of fighting spirit. I played on a full 64 server where for 5 maps on the trot the Union won within the first 10 minutes and on some where the Rebs have beaten the union by draining their tickets whilst still retaining a massive ticket lead over the Union. The knife cuts both ways.

So you're the guy with the "stuck" N key who sings non-stop over the commanding officers orders? If not you, then there's another person playing for the CSA that does the same.

Bravescot
06-01-2017, 08:31 PM
So you're the guy with the "stuck" N key who sings non-stop over the commanding officers orders? If not you, then there's another person playing for the CSA that does the same.

Thankfully I can say with absolute honesty that that is not me. I rarely sing when I'm playing on the Confederate's side and when I do I normally sing softly to myself at Bunside's Bridge whilst waiting for the Union.

Lance Rawlings
06-01-2017, 08:40 PM
The criticism i have with the first suggest you made is that it would just be the original problem again the only difference being that the CSA would camp the desert borderlines and just mow down Union at point blank. Perhaps if the CSA could come down to the bank but have the invisable wall to far away to be used as a camping line say around 10-20 metres away from the bridge, this would allow the CSA to shoot any survivors of a charge whilst not camping the bottom of the bridge(or the areas around it).

I still VERY much disagree with ANY boundaries. The way I see, the excuse for boundaries is "this is what they did." But we're not here to repeat what they did, we're here to change it. Sure, balance it, but I think the balancing has been done the wrong way. Instead of fighting in a cage, how about the CS just fight with less numbers? Its authentic to the numbers they actually had and still gives the yanks a chance to win. The whole idea of defending a bridge is that it's easy. The only reason the yanks ever got across that bridge was lack of defenders in the first place. At this point its too easy for the yanks to win Burnside anyway. Our company went US on that map two days ago for the Texas skirmish event and if I remember correctly we got across the bridge on the first attempt and ending up winning with 20 some minutes or so left. It was super fun as US, but at the same time felt kind of meaningless winning against a foe who had their hands tied behind their backs.

All that is just to say while I'm fine testing with geographical boundaries, I REALLY don't want to see them as the solution to balancing.

The good news is that this is my biggest issue, I love bout everything else! ;)

You can talk morale all you want, but I think that's kind of a pointless argument. People will lead and follow how they see fit, it's different each tome around for either side.

That's all I've got to add for now!

Now to go hunt down Captain Ross of the 95th NY...

Frederick
06-01-2017, 08:59 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aIDqrSYjc0&lc=z13if1hp3laqdfwei22htvbibmrnyn1e2
Oooooooooo I'm sorry. Am I singing joyfully about Gerogia being burnt to the ground whilst leading a pack of very high spirited Union soldiers.

You Rebs are really doing yourselves and the greater Confederate community any favours by trying to smack talk the Union, particullary when it sounds like you only play rebs and don't have a go playing with the Union. I've been playing on both sides on a regular basis and can say with utter confidences that both sides have moments where they are both yellow bellied with a strong lack of fighting spirit. I played on a full 64 server where for 5 maps on the trot the Union won within the first 10 minutes and on some where the Rebs have beaten the union by draining their tickets whilst still retaining a massive ticket lead over the Union. The knife cuts both ways.

Take it easy, Yankee. The moments are more common on the southern side. I know because I'm personally spending quite a bit of time mowing down yankee boys.

Some may get irritated with the music, hollering and rebel yellin'. I'd tell those folks to lighten the fuck up and take it for what it is -- a game.

People are just trying to get in the role and for a lot of folks that enthusiasm and engagement makes it more fun. I'm sorry you don't feel that way. But not everyone is so serious about it that they'd rather hear some 12 year old bark orders at them than hear dixie or the battlecry of freedom, or scream the rebel yell while they charge the enemy line. Get over your self importance.

I take the piss out of the Yanks, but it's all in good humor. It's a game.

I think the fact some take such exception to my good natured competitive ribbing in such a defensive nature exposes your overly serious attitude toward this game. If you don't like it, mute VON and use discord.

Bravescot
06-01-2017, 09:14 PM
I think the fact you take such exception to my good natured competitive ribbing in such a defensive nature exposes your overly serious attitude toward this game. If you don't like it, mute VON and use discord.
If you read over the rest of this thread about 80% of it is just Union bashing with no base in humour. Your post came across as union bashing and not in the slightest bit humourous. I was defending the Union spirit and that we sing and woop just as much as the Rebs which you claimed we did not. If anything you'll find I'm one of the least serious officers for the union in the fact that I march into place and sing on the move. Most Federal officers yell at you for being too slow to get to the point. Or squeek at you which can be very embaressing.

So if I came across too strong then I apologies as I took your tone the wrong way.

Charles Caldwell
06-01-2017, 09:15 PM
Take it easy, Yankee. The moments are more common on the southern side. I know because I'm personally spending quite a bit of time mowing down yankee boys.

Some may get irritated with the music, hollering and rebel yellin'. I'd tell those folks to lighten the fuck up and take it for what it is -- a game.

People are just trying to get in the role and for a lot of folks that enthusiasm and engagement makes it more fun. I'm sorry you don't feel that way. But not everyone is so serious about it that they'd rather hear some 12 year old bark orders at them than hear dixie or the battlecry of freedom, or scream the rebel yell while they charge the enemy line. Get over your self importance.

I take the piss out of the Yanks, but it's all in good humor. It's a game.

I think the fact you take such exception to my good natured competitive ribbing in such a defensive nature exposes your overly serious attitude toward this game. If you don't like it, mute VON and use discord.

As a Union man.... I love hearing that rebel yell, and then that sickening thud, followed by that cold deathly silence. No seriously the more RP in game the better,

Keep um coming you shoeless, unwashed bearded loons. I love it!

Frederick
06-01-2017, 09:54 PM
As a Union man.... I love hearing that rebel yell, and then that sickening thud, followed by that cold deathly silence. No seriously the more RP in game the better,

Keep um coming you shoeless, unwashed bearded loons. I love it!

You can bet your sweet ass, you scallywag carpetbagger!

David Dire
06-02-2017, 12:54 AM
Southern smack talk is mostly just annoying. You lost, at least overplay it.

Frederick
06-02-2017, 06:12 AM
Southern smack talk is mostly just annoying. You lost, at least overplay it.


South lost the war, but won the reconstruction.

Gamble
06-02-2017, 07:06 AM
I have the feeling that some people in here still try to hold on to their great-great-great-grandfather's grudge... honestly, relax!

Frederick
06-02-2017, 09:07 AM
I have the feeling that some people in here still try to hold on to their great-great-great-grandfather's grudge... honestly, relax!


No grudges to hold. he killed all the yankees he was going to kill.

Soulfly
06-02-2017, 11:59 AM
I have the feeling that some people in here still try to hold on to their great-great-great-grandfather's grudge... honestly, relax!

Indeed, i really dont get why people are getting into this too much....though you must say that this isnt a WoR only problem, you can imagine the eloquence of players where you play as US vs. "insurgents", i have heard things i cant believe, same for WoR....insults arent really improving anything

Legion
06-02-2017, 12:16 PM
South lost the war, but won the reconstruction.

What? Reconstruction was horrible on the south.

Gamble
06-02-2017, 12:35 PM
Indeed, i really dont get why people are getting into this too much....though you must say that this isnt a WoR only problem, you can imagine the eloquence of players where you play as US vs. "insurgents", i have heard things i cant believe, same for WoR....insults arent really improving anything

You can't imagine how many times i was called a nazi because I am german. Not only during playing a multiplayer game, but in "real life" aswell -.- .... people.... :D

TrustyJam
06-02-2017, 12:43 PM
Please get back on-topic.

- Trusty

Bravescot
06-02-2017, 02:42 PM
I still VERY much disagree with ANY boundaries. The way I see, the excuse for boundaries is "this is what they did." But we're not here to repeat what they did, we're here to change it. Sure, balance it, but I think the balancing has been done the wrong way. Instead of fighting in a cage, how about the CS just fight with less numbers? Its authentic to the numbers they actually had and still gives the yanks a chance to win. The whole idea of defending a bridge is that it's easy. The only reason the yanks ever got across that bridge was lack of defenders in the first place. At this point its too easy for the yanks to win Burnside anyway. Our company went US on that map two days ago for the Texas skirmish event and if I remember correctly we got across the bridge on the first attempt and ending up winning with 20 some minutes or so left. It was super fun as US, but at the same time felt kind of meaningless winning against a foe who had their hands tied behind their backs.

At the Bridge the Rebs are blocked from heading down to camp the bottom. At the Road the Union can't run into the corn to get behind the Rebels. Whilst I fully agree with the point I have underlined above the rewriting of history is for later down the line with larger battlefields. On these small "skirmsh" phase I think the limitations are acceptable as the small battle area already limits us massivly. The bridge camping is a perfectly acceptable tactic but you have to think about the longjevity of the skirmish phase. If the Bridge remaind as it was then all the Union players not in units would just avoid the map like the plauge slowly killing the phase.

LTC Philip A. Work
06-02-2017, 03:04 PM
At the Bridge the Rebs are blocked from heading down to camp the bottom. At the Road the Union can't run into the corn to get behind the Rebels. Whilst I fully agree with the point I have underlined above the rewriting of history is for later down the line with larger battlefields. On these small "skirmsh" phase I think the limitations are acceptable as the small battle area already limits us massivly. The bridge camping is a perfectly acceptable tactic but you have to think about the longjevity of the skirmish phase. If the Bridge remaind as it was then all the Union players not in units would just avoid the map like the plauge slowly killing the phase.

I agree with Bravescot here, the skirmish maps are naturally restricted by their small size, the battles a already like knifefights in a phone booth. Some reasonable restrictions must be put in place to prevent the games deteriorating into cheap tactics such as holding the opposite side of the bridge on the Burnsides Bridge map or worse into a CoDesquie shooter.

Frederick
06-02-2017, 04:18 PM
I agree with Bravescot here, the skirmish maps are naturally restricted by their small size, the battles a already like knifefights in a phone booth. Some reasonable restrictions must be put in place to prevent the games deteriorating into cheap tactics such as holding the opposite side of the bridge on the Burnsides Bridge map or worse into a CoDesquie shooter.

The game just needs a more active playerbase, at this point. I know it's just in alpha, but there's no consistency in numbers. That makes it difficult on these sorts of maps for an attacker. An elected 'commander' position with the ability to force respawn would probably help, as well as directional artillery to soften enemy positions.

Oleander
06-04-2017, 12:48 AM
The game has an active player base. On event nights the servers are packed. Once the number allowed on the server is increased you should see these battles change dramatically.

Reimer
06-04-2017, 02:27 AM
Wasn't it possible, with some issue, to pack around 80 people into a server before it crapped out when Skirmishes was first released?

Kane Kaizer
06-05-2017, 10:05 PM
IMO it does make a lot of sense that we struggle the most with Burnside Bridge just because it's so easily defensible, but it's not impossible for us to win by any means. Some maps should be harder for the attackers/easier for the defenders than others. Personally, it always feels like there's no good excuse for the Union to lose at the Sunken Road considering the only real defense that the Confederates have is a fence and we have a 2:1 ticket advantage with a lot of attacking options.

The main problem for the Union at present, the way I see it, is that it's extremely frustrating to be on the offensive 100% of the time which results in an eventual lack of team spirit and coordination through exhaustion and everyone being upset when repeated attacks go poorly, thus not trusting their officers. If everyone starts off fresh and eager then maps like the Sunken Road and even Dunker Church are more than winnable, with a fair shot at storming across Burnside Bridge as well, but after multiple rounds the Union players get pretty sick and tired of the endless charges while the Confederates are able to chill out in their defensive formations waiting for us to walk into their sights.

I think that, when there are some Union defensive maps available, there will be a much healthier balance in terms of morale and teamwork. As a side note though, I have to completely agree that certain *ahem* Union officers have a serious fetish for marching pretty as opposed to stealing a march on the Confederates to gain an early advantage. Time is our enemy and the defenders' ally, yet we sure seem to like wasting a lot of it just so that officers can indulge in their drill instructor fantasies. Someone ought to remind them that, while the maps are based on serious battlefields of Antietam, these are still skirmishes.

Saris
06-05-2017, 10:16 PM
IMO it does make a lot of sense that we struggle the most with Burnside Bridge just because it's so easily defensible, but it's not impossible for us to win by any means. Some maps should be harder for the attackers/easier for the defenders than others. Personally, it always feels like there's no good excuse for the Union to lose at the Sunken Road considering the only real defense that the Confederates have is a fence and we have a 2:1 ticket advantage with a lot of attacking options.

The main problem for the Union at present, the way I see it, is that it's extremely frustrating to be on the offensive 100% of the time which results in an eventual lack of team spirit and coordination through exhaustion and everyone being upset when repeated attacks go poorly, thus not trusting their officers. If everyone starts off fresh and eager then maps like the Sunken Road and even Dunker Church are more than winnable, with a fair shot at storming across Burnside Bridge as well, but after multiple rounds the Union players get pretty sick and tired of the endless charges while the Confederates are able to chill out in their defensive formations waiting for us to walk into their sights.

I think that, when there are some Union defensive maps available, there will be a much healthier balance in terms of morale and teamwork. As a side note though, I have to completely agree that certain *ahem* Union officers have a serious fetish for marching pretty as opposed to stealing a march on the Confederates to gain an early advantage. Time is our enemy and the defenders' ally, yet we sure seem to like wasting a lot of it just so that officers can indulge in their drill instructor fantasies. Someone ought to remind them that, while the maps are based on serious battlefields of Antietam, there are still skirmishes.

From a Confederate view point, Union players either attack so infrequently that people are tired of waiting and attack piece meal or if the Union did gain an advantage, they never exploit it to it's full potential, Union officers would rather wait to get a substantial number of people before attacking which gives enough time for Confederates to reinforce their position with new troops and retaking any lost ground. Union players on Burnside Bridge do not consider their ticket amount and wait till half the round is over before trying to cross the bridge. They take their time gathering people behind the stonewall that they created a list that never seems to work for them. First, gather the majority behind the stone wall, then attack, die or run to the river where cut down by counter attacking confederates, respawn and rinse and repeat. We confederates get tired of waiting on the hill that some try to cross to the Union controlled side of the river. If Union players considered their advantage over the confederates and were proactive about attacking, they could win more but they decide to sit on their side of the map and take pot shots at the defenders.

Kane Kaizer
06-05-2017, 10:27 PM
From a Confederate view point, Union players either attack so infrequently that people are tired of waiting and attack piece meal or if the Union did gain an advantage, they never exploit it to it's full potential, Union officers would rather wait to get a substantial number of people before attacking which gives enough time for Confederates to reinforce their position with new troops and retaking any lost ground. Union players on Burnside Bridge do not consider their ticket amount and wait till half the round is over before trying to cross the bridge. They take their time gathering people behind the stonewall that they created a list that never seems to work for them. First, gather the majority behind the stone wall, then attack, die or run to the river where cut down by counter attacking confederates, respawn and rinse and repeat. We confederates get tired of waiting on the hill that some try to cross to the Union controlled side of the river. If Union players considered their advantage over the confederates and were proactive about attacking, they could win more but they decide to sit on their side of the map and take pot shots at the defenders.

To be fair to our officers, one of the biggest problems with actually attacking is that there will often be players not following orders or too many officers giving orders for anyone to know what to do, causing long delays. Which is why I hope that the number of officers will be limited ASAP. I'm not surprised that the Confederates get pretty impatient with us but strategically speaking they don't even need to be, since they just have to wait out the clock. Again, I'm fine with some maps such as Burnside Bridge being extremely tough to take, because it was extremely tough to take. We do often survive the Confederate counter-charges though just by putting as much distance as possible between us rather than waiting next to the bridge on the riverbank, though a lot of times I end up being the sole survivor having to attempt some kind of independent sneak attack to kill as many Confederates as I can before I inevitably get killed. We definitely need to be faster and more aggressive though, but none of our officers really want to be known as "the guy who always gets us all killed". It's just war. I'm not even complaining about the Burnside Bridge map being too unbalanced or anything like that since both sides deserve to have their most favorable maps that they can look forward to.

David Dire
06-05-2017, 10:37 PM
I think most officers try too hard to be """authentic,""" than anything else.

Kane Kaizer
06-05-2017, 10:41 PM
They're free to indulge in the roleplaying aspect, but next time they try to have us quicktime march from the spawn area all the way to the bridge I'm breaking out of formation.