Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: Aiming Animation

  1. #31

    CSA Major

    Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Baldwin,Louisiana
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by General. Jackson View Post
    Not here to be a smart ass or anything but they aren't intended to be close sir. Hinkel pretty much confirmed this even like he said melee won't be devoloped into too much detail something around 1%

    If we were intended to fight close range I could imagine that we'd be switching to melee very often as it's easier than the long reload, meaning they'd need to devolope that more which takes away Hinkles statement.

    If the game was suppose to be fought at close range, melee would be used a lot more simply due to it possibly being easier than reloading and then everything would be fine as the weapons would be great at that range I could imagine but if the game was required to fight at a medium range you will need the best of both worlds such as the shooting mechanics sway and/or the zooming of the iron sight needs to be worked on as it's clear we won't be able to hit anything lol! It's only in alpha and I'm only merely giving my insight on this. Devs are doing an excellent job and I hope they continue to do so.
    If they are doing things realistically then the fighting will be close (around 300-600 yds) That's how it was during the civil war, the only thing I can think of that took place beyond those ranges is skirmishing and sharpshooting.

    Also, they don't have to focus on melee much because irl melee was quick and bloody, it wasn't drawn out like it is in m&b.
    I can give you some first hand accounts on how quick brutal melee was
    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. #32

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    Actually the typical combat range was more like 100 yards.
    (a bit lower at the start of the war and a bit more at the end)

    Both Earl J. Hess and Bremt Nosworthy have done studies on this topic.

    The low velocity of a rifle muskets give the bullet a very parabolic trajectory making range estimation a very important skill.
    Misjudge the range even a small bit and you will not hit the target.

    But range estimation and marksmanship was (with a few exception like Cleburne's men) not something the soldiers learned anything about.
    And it is not something the drill books take into account.
    The result is that both sides preferred to wait until they where well within the range of smoothbore muskets before starting the firefight.
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

  3. #33

    CSA Major

    Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Baldwin,Louisiana
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by thomas aagaard View Post
    Actually the typical combat range was more like 100 yards.
    (a bit lower at the start of the war and a bit more at the end)

    Both Earl J. Hess and Bremt Nosworthy have done studies on this topic.

    The low velocity of a rifle muskets give the bullet a very parabolic trajectory making range estimation a very important skill.
    Misjudge the range even a small bit and you will not hit the target.

    But range estimation and marksmanship was (with a few exception like Cleburne's men) not something the soldiers learned anything about.
    And it is not something the drill books take into account.
    The result is that both sides preferred to wait until they where well within the range of smoothbore muskets before starting the firefight.
    Interesting, considering that these rifles were capable of long distance even by todays standards.
    Any first hand accounts of combat usually happening at that range? I've read accounts that state it was around 300yds (before the smoke built up)

    Also, like I stated above, the reason the combat was so close is because of visibility. Even if the soldier could hit his target, he wouldn't be able to because of the smoke build up.
    Last edited by Legion; 06-15-2016 at 04:55 PM.
    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

  4. #34

    USA Lieutenant Colonel

    R21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    598
    I can see Melee playing quite a big part tbh as the psychology behind a Players decision making will be:

    'There's a line over there, i'll fire at it'

    'Now I have to reload, but will probably get shot while doing so, may as well just Melee Charge and respawn'

  5. #35

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    I don't have time to go looking for first hand account right now... will try later in the week.

    But I do suggest books like: (They do a much better job at explaining the point.)
    Earl J. Hess:
    "Civil war infantry tactics"
    "The rifle musket in civil war combat"
    Nosworthy:
    "The Bloody Crucible of Courage: fighting methods and combat experiences of the Civil war"
    Paddy Griffith:
    "Battle Tactics of the Civil War"

    The problem with firing at long range it, as mentioned the low velocity.
    The result is that if you with a springfield set the sights at 300 yard and fire, but the enemy was only 250 yards away, the round will go over his head.
    Raserende-skudbane-nr1.jpg
    The result is that hitting at 300 yard require a good marksman that can judge the distance correctly. And there was simply no organized system used for teaching this to the soldiers.
    (Cleburne who had experience with the british system did institute training in his division, but this was an exception)

    Griffith calculated an average first volley of around 140 yards.


    Page XII (preface) in "civil war infantry tactics"
    Hood before the Atlanta campaign: "Firing on the enemy at long range should never be permitted, since its lack of effectiveness often gives encouragement instead of causing demoralization, as a well-directed fire at short range is certain to do."
    (...)
    and Benjamin F. Cheatham recalled that on the battlefield of Franklin, where the Army of Tennessee attacked across a broad, open area, bodies of his men lay as fare away from the federals as 400yards, but the great majority of dead and wounded lay within 50 yards of the defenders.


    Also remember that for half the war smoothbore muskets was common in the ranks of both armies.



    But maybe we should take this to another topic...
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

  6. #36

    CSA Major

    Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Baldwin,Louisiana
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by thomas aagaard View Post
    I don't have time to go looking for first hand account right now... will try later in the week.

    But I do suggest books like: (They do a much better job at explaining the point.)
    Earl J. Hess:
    "Civil war infantry tactics"
    "The rifle musket in civil war combat"
    Nosworthy:
    "The Bloody Crucible of Courage: fighting methods and combat experiences of the Civil war"
    Paddy Griffith:
    "Battle Tactics of the Civil War"

    The problem with firing at long range it, as mentioned the low velocity.
    The result is that if you with a springfield set the sights at 300 yard and fire, but the enemy was only 250 yards away, the round will go over his head.
    Raserende-skudbane-nr1.jpg
    The result is that hitting at 300 yard require a good marksman that can judge the distance correctly. And there was simply no organized system used for teaching this to the soldiers.
    (Cleburne who had experience with the british system did institute training in his division, but this was an exception)

    Griffith calculated an average first volley of around 140 yards.


    Page XII (preface) in "civil war infantry tactics"
    Hood before the Atlanta campaign: "Firing on the enemy at long range should never be permitted, since its lack of effectiveness often gives encouragement instead of causing demoralization, as a well-directed fire at short range is certain to do."
    (...)
    and Benjamin F. Cheatham recalled that on the battlefield of Franklin, where the Army of Tennessee attacked across a broad, open area, bodies of his men lay as fare away from the federals as 400yards, but the great majority of dead and wounded lay within 50 yards of the defenders.


    Also remember that for half the war smoothbore muskets was common in the ranks of both armies.



    But maybe we should take this to another topic...
    I have the first book you mentioned.

    From the accounts I've read, the close fighting was mostly due to poor visibility (which would effect accuracy and make it more difficult to judge distance).
    Either way, a combination of low visibility and accuracy of the soldiers caused the fighting to close in. I still think it was more due to visibility than accuracy, though both had a part to play in it.
    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

  7. #37

    USA Captain


    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    261
    So being Australian myself, they didn't teach any history of the Civil War back in my day and I don't think either today. I became very interested in the civil war when the game came out and have been self educating. I've read a lot of books and I watched documentaries also so I may be wrong here and there.

    I was told the round balls used before the civil war could fire up to 150m accurately and they swapped to the minie balls that could fire 300-600m like you stated but the thing is it's going to be difficult hitting a bloke 300 metres away with the current aim as you can't really see lol. So we will obviously have to get closer, a lot closer. If someone could inform me the average distance they fought to and from each other would be awesome. As if they were fighting 600m's away and killing blokes, great, but if they we were to keep it historically accurate as 600m's away we would need to improve the aim to shoot someone XD

    Just my thoughts haha

  8. #38

    CSA Major

    Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Baldwin,Louisiana
    Posts
    1,723
    It's not so much the projectile as much as it is rifling in the barrel, both do have a part to play in it though. Also, alot of rifles could fire accurately at distances of around 1000yds or more.

    Ranges at which combat is fought depends on the situation and what type of fighting your doing.
    Sharpshooting could be up 1000yds or more depending on how good of a shot you are.
    Skirmishing just varies, most accounts I've read state that it usually occurred around 300yds or more.
    Line Battle I'd say started around 2-300yds and closed in closer as smoke built up due to the fact that you can't hit what you can't see.

    Also, I wouldn't expect many fights beyond 300yds simply because it's going to take practice and skill to be able to hit targets farther than that.
    Close is better because it's more deadly but being farther away is much safer, it really just depends on the situation when it comes to how close you should be imo.

    I also prefer that they keep the aiming system the way it is, if you train with your weapon then you will get good eventually, if long distance shooting was easy everyone would do it.
    Last edited by Legion; 06-16-2016 at 05:48 PM.
    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

  9. #39

    USA Captain


    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    261
    Yeah I do understand. Like with warband NW I remember shooting the weapon and I was like "wtf is this shit?" then after a while I can get pistol shots 50m's away haha, maybe we all just need to get used to it first and then judge going into the next step such as beta.

    Good discussion Legion!

  10. #40

    USA General of the Army

    A. P. Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    In Maryland State Near to both Antietam and Gettysburg, Harper's Ferry et al.
    Posts
    3,390
    Many interesting comments here, and precluding the one that I made about not being able to use my eyes and zoom in, in real life ... I thought I'd venture a bit farther into this.

    My supposition for this topic seeing as how the main is based on not being able to have "depth perception" or "seeing the target down range" comes from the misguided perception that individual kill counts will be tallied and that certain shooters feel that if they can't clearly "zoom in" on a target that they may miss a counter. Fortunately, it has been stated by those that matter, that this game WILL NOT (initially, or ever maybe) consider individual kill counts, but rather will be scored on how well your company as a group does. Remember, this is because individualism during play will not be wholly acceptable, and if you do go off as an individual there will be penalties, and whose to say that perhaps your individual kill counts will not tally to the overall regimental kill if you're not in group?

    HOWEVER, that said, there are, among the things already mentioned against the 'zoom thing', other telling factors. For instance, there's been some discussion about weapons and their capabilities. Sadly one thing has been missing in that particular conversation. Number of rounds fired, fouling of the piece, and overheating of the piece. The first one has been covered somewhat; "There will be lots and lots of smoke." Yes there will be, any user of the Testing Alpha will now notice that smoke from your discharge seems to hang around a bit longer, (something I'm personally glad to see,) and it seems that it may be directional based on the wind, I can't really tell for sure, but it'll be a cool thing if it does.

    Let's talk about fouling ... each round that gets discharged, especially in rifled guns, leaves a residue in the grooves which over time builds and eventually effects windage, that fouling will cause the Minnie or the ball to leave the muzzle in god only knows what condition and trajectory. No matter how good your aim is. During the battle some men took time when they were relieved from the line to be reissued ammo, to attempt to clean their weapons, others, not so much. While it is true that the troops were instructed in drill about weapon maintenance, during a fire fight one has a tendency to let things slip their minds. Sadly there are no historical figures to back this up, and if there were, I wouldn't even know how to go about tallying that. LOL.

    A third problem that hasn't been touched on yet is very important to the use of any weapon, (including modern made,) is that as the weapon if fired consistently over time it becomes heat degraded. Heat causes many funny things. For instance, in most all the weapons of the time we're in here, all the barrels were mounted to the stocks by means of banding. Most all long arms have 3 bands, carbines and such have two or maybe even one. I have personally experienced what happens to a long arm with 3 bands and over heating. The grip of the bands on the stock and barrel cause the barrel to warp under extreme heat. What I learned in real life is that if you are expected to fire for extended periods of time, the key to a tighter grouping is to loosen the screws on the barrel bands so that as the barrel heats up from firing, the barrel will expand axially down the bore and not perpendicular to the bore if the bands remained tight. Again, there are no records of whether this was ever taught in drill or not, I don't recall ever reading it ... and again it'd be almost impossible to document as to who did it during a fight. But barrel warping from overheating is a major factor, again no matter how good you line up the sights, if your muzzle is out of axial alignment with the gun, who knows where that shot goes?

    I know a lot of you think I'm a blowhard and I type too much but ... please bear with me, I think it's about to get interesting. I did a little research and compiled a little spreadsheet. What prompted me to do this is my constant reading and recalling numbers from certain events. I remember saying to myself 'I don't see how anyone could have survived those battles with the amount of lead and steel flying through the air', but amazingly many did survive. This little exercise is something I've been wanting to do for a while, I just never found the time, but this discussion has prompted me to move forward a bit on this.

    So without further ado, This Link should produce an html output of my spreadsheet. It's a mathematical look of several battles, numbers of men involved, numbers of those listed as actually K.I.A., numbers of those wounded, and those missing. This is not a total number dead from battles, as we know those figures have been calculated several times with the most recent estimate coming out around 750,000 to 800,000 and not the 620,000 previously believed.

    I have added behind each column of incident, Killed, Wounded, Cap/Miss ... what the percentage of people involved those figures produced. I think you'll be surprised that not a great many men were killed outright during the battles. Reasons for such low K.I.A. counts with so many men shooting at each other, have been touched on in previous posts as well as added to in the excessive wording I have posted in this particular thread alone.

    And as long as we are on the subject, Yes, the men got close, many times in every account of most battles, you'll happen on experiences where the men went hand to hand for many minutes before one side over powered the other.

    Respectfully,
    Powell

Posting Permissions

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