Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38

Thread: The great trap on the horizon

  1. #11

    USA Captain

    SwingKid148's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Posts
    527
    I would like to suggest a couple things:

    1. There needs to be some type of information on splash screen downloading into the servers to let all players know about the Buffs and debuffs. In our events too often I hear of new players not knowing they are hurting our team.

    2. For out of formation players, I would say they should have Sprint disabled or greatly reduced to say 25%. And I agree with Bradley where when we spot out of line enemies we always count them as free tickets to drain the enemy.

  2. #12

    CSA Brigadier General

    GenMorgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    40
    These all sound very good. I would also like to add in that I hope these maps increase in size so that we have the ability to move cavalry and artillery. Although fixed locations of artillery can be used as points of capture on some maps, it would be nice to be able to limber up and move. As cavalry dismount and mount. Having multiple locations to capture and yet still be able to pull off a win based on casualty counts would also be a plus in my view. Speaking of capture points, I believe the devs could possibly make so that a point must be captured by say ten people and defended by three?? Forts, fortification development, supply depots captured??? all these can be maps created for the purpose of attack and defend scenarios of which no points may end up being captured because opposing forces may fight away from them so the winning side is the one that causes the most casualties.

  3. #13
    Hinkel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,871
    The skirmish maps are all based on ONE map already. Our maps are as big as 4x4 km in total and nearly recreated 1:1.
    So the skirmish areas just represent tiny part of the entire battlefield, but already set on a single map (you can spawn as spectator and look at the size of our battlefield).

    Once the battlefield mode will be released, you have the entire battlefield unlocked with different strategic positions to capture and such.
    Artillery and Cavalry might play a huge role there.

    Although, since the game is based on the Maryland Campaign of 1862, you might find less cavalry action at Antietam. We already added cavalry ingame, like the 1st Virginia Cav or 4th Pennsylvania Cavalry, but they act dismounted.

    Forts and fortifications won't play a huge role, like I said, its based on the Maryland Campaign and its battles.
    You will find a huge fortification on Bolivar Heights in Harpers Ferry

  4. #14
    I wanted to show you what the new suppression effects will look like, probably coming to the Steam build in an update later today.

    You will notice that even though in this simulation, the Dazed amount is at 1. The various effects sort of comes and goes. This is intended to sort of simulate the player partly loosing consciousness for a moment. Sometimes it may be harder to see than it was before and sometimes, it might be easier. Also notice the rifle shake when I start aiming.


  5. #15

    CSA Major

    Warboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by Fancy Sweetroll View Post
    I wanted to show you what the new suppression effects will look like, probably coming to the Steam build in an update later today.

    You will notice that even though in this simulation, the Dazed amount is at 1. The various effects sort of comes and goes. This is intended to sort of simulate the player partly loosing consciousness for a moment. Sometimes it may be harder to see than it was before and sometimes, it might be easier. Also notice the rifle shake when I start aiming.

    Hmmmmm, looks interesting. Though I'm sure some will find a way to complain about it XD but yeah looking forward to the update coming

    - Warboy
    Napoleon Total War American Civil War Multiplayer Mod Discord Community - https://discord.gg/J3xJ4DU

    TUNNELLS ARE USELESS....so why bother anyway - Henry Wirz (Andersonville film quote)

  6. #16

    CSA Captain

    Jagdmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    513
    Oh no... an update? This will mean another fridays drill with technical Problems maybe even unplayable drama. Well maybe there will be someone at HQ at least this time...

  7. #17

    USA Major

    Shiloh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Shepherdstown, WV
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Fancy Sweetroll View Post
    I wanted to show you what the new suppression effects will look like, probably coming to the Steam build in an update later today.

    You will notice that even though in this simulation, the Dazed amount is at 1. The various effects sort of comes and goes. This is intended to sort of simulate the player partly loosing consciousness for a moment. Sometimes it may be harder to see than it was before and sometimes, it might be easier. Also notice the rifle shake when I start aiming.

    It seems a bit dramatic to me but let's see how it plays in an update. I think fear is subjective and all guys handled it differently but I understand the why and respect the decision to test it out and see how it goes. Also will this lessen when a single player is in proximity to another single player?

  8. #18
    Also keep in mind that this example demonstrates how it would look if the effect was always at 100% where in reality it would peak at 100% and then slowly or somewhat quickly regenerate, depending on whether or not you are InFormation.

    These are the things that will trigger and increase this effect:

    Bullets flying over your head.

    Weapons being fired within 10ish meters of you. The farther away from you the shot was fired, the less intense the effect is.

    Players dying within 10ish meters of you. The farther away from you they die, the less intense the effect is.

    Artillery shells landing within 100 meters of your position. The closer to you the explosion is, the stronger the effect is. The effect gets reduced by 50% if a building or a stonewall seperates your position and the position of the explosion.

    For right now. The effect of each event may get reduced, depending on whether you are InFormation, Skirmishing or OutOfLine.

    InFormation = The effect of each event only has 40% of its base strength.
    Skirmishing = The effect of each event has 70% of its base strength.
    OutOfLine = The effect of each event has 100% of its base strength.

    By default, you are OutOfLine. You are Skirmishing, if 3 players are within 12 meters of each other. You are InFormation if 5 or more players are within 6 meters of each other.

  9. #19

    USA Captain


    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    58
    Watched the vids. One of the things I wonder is why in part 1 the guy thinks "lone wolf playstyle" should be encouraged.
    It did happen in the CW.
    It just did not happen to the ordinary soldier often - and usually was the result of losing their unit.

    The ordinary fighting soldiers (not the ones at the rear) usually were deployed in line formations, skirmisher formations and smaller, specialized groups like a "pickett unit" probing enemy positions. However, no ordinary soldier was tasked to do a "lone wolf job", mostly because there was no tactical or strategical advance doing so. Lone soldiers could get killed by friendly fire, could defect or get captured by the enemy, telling everything they know etc, etc.
    However, as I said, there were soldiers doing the "lone wolf stuff": either as specialists, like snipers with precise, scoped rifles, or as messenger passing orders, intel etc between units. The messenger wasn't supposed to engage in ANY combat, their sole purpose was to get their job done. And snipers didn't do a full lone-wolf-job, but kept following their skirmisher units, protecting them against enemy snipers & taking out valuable targets.

    That being said I don't want to see WoR encouraging non-formation gameplay. However, I'd love to see more formation types, supporting stuff like the "pickett unit" I was talking about earlier. What we know now as "skirmishing" is in fact that pickett formation 'cuz it kicks in once you have at least 3 soldiers in close vincinity.
    Skirmishing units should not only require more soldiers but should also have a slightly improved AoE. Maybe 10 soldiers are the minimum to "promote" your formation from pickett to skirmish. Also AoE needs to be large enough to allow spacing of 3 - 4 soldiers between each and ALSO should not use "clumps" of soldiers to determine if they're in formation, but "chains". So if you have 10 soldiers, the one at extreme left and the one at extreme right are still in skirmish, despite both of em are too far away to be in their respecitve formation AoE. A skirmishing unit consisting of 10 soldiers with spacing of 4 soldiers each can become as wide as a 50 man line formation without spacing!
    Last but not least we need something similar for lines. A line formation is considered as such as soon as 40 players are acting together. Also, the formation is based again on "chains" not "clumps" of soldiers, so the soldiers at the extreme flanks don't need to be in their respective formation AoE but the AoE of their neighbour. Spacing should be allowed too by a bit more than one soldier (means: a 40 man formation can be as broad as a 80 man formation without spacing)

    Punishing the team was introduced to discourage lone wolf tendencies and here I concur with the vid: why? It doesn't really make sense, if some lone soldier got KIA without witnesses. Why should that have ANY impact on the team's morale? In fact, if I were a soldier, I'd be more shattered seeing half of my line falling due a well placed volley and yet, the game considers this as less impacting on team morale, than the death of two or three "Rambos".
    This is, where I'd love to introduce individual penalties.

    For instance: what if the "lone wolf" that just got killed simply gets a prolonged respawn time? If you die in formation, regardless if you're in line, skirmishing or as pickett unit, you get that regular respawn cycle. Next time your side gets a respawn wave, you'll be there.
    However, if you get killed as a lone wolf, you may get a respawn penalty: you won't spawn with the next wave but may need wait a full minute before you spawn again. This way, only you get some sort of punishment, not the whole team. You can see this as "unfair", since there is an awful lot of situations where you can end up as a lone wolf involuntarily, yet this is way less of a prize to pay than punishing the whole team 'cuz you simply were the last survivor of an ill fated charge.

    Same can be done to Rambo Officers: current system is to activate a countdown killing them once it runs out. The countdown activates if the officer in question has no soldier nearby. But that's not a good gameplay decision, because a) it can be exploited and b) it kills immersion. In fact, there are way other forms of penalties you can apply. My own idea here is to simply auto-remove them from the officer role. They'll get assigned to a normal private role and can't select the officer role for a couple of minutes. Neither does it hurt gameplay or immersion, nor does the team get punished: removing an unfit (rambo) officer from his post is actually a boon, not a penalty.

    So the entire morale stuff may need a review one day. Instead of punishing teams for actions of some players, I'd love to see morale affected by the battle itself. Your side gets slaughtered every time you charge into that line? Your morale will drop faster than a rock! It doesn't matter if the boys "fall in formation" - the sheer losses devastate your morale, period!
    In another thread I suggested an idea how to deal with the flag bearer and, especially, the loss of one unit's flag. Losing a flag usually delt a major blow to an units morale 'cuz it was dishonorful to let that happen at all. So even if a unit was reduced to a few dozen soldiers, it only was considered "destroyed" if they came back without their flag. As long as the flag stood, a unit was considered "functional".
    Also the loss of an officer may have consequences, the loss of a checkpoint on the map, all that stuff. And yeah, even if your unit doesn't get destroyed by well aimed volleys: your morale also gets damaged if your unit gets surpressed by massive (yet inaccurate) enemy fire.
    Also I'd love to see separate morale bars for each regiment deployed. Currently, all maps have 2 units for each side. What if your 7th Maine gets a depleted morale, why shouldn't 42th PA continue to charge enemy positions? Just saying. Unit morale may add another layer of strategic gameplay to the game, since it allows you to take out a particular unit for the remainder of the fight.

    If done right, the game itself can encourage a certain playstyle. That's what I wanna see: less team-punishment, more individual penalties. Sometimes they might be a bit harsh (especially the long respawn timer), sometimes they work in favor of overall gameplay experience (like removing an unfit officer from his post). I'm certain, other players might support that idea too.
    Last edited by CptData; 08-04-2018 at 04:56 PM.
    Ingame Nick: [KRT.2ndAuriga]Cpt.Data
    I'm not part of any Company: KRT is a clan playing Star Citizen and 2ndAuriga means I'm member of the 2nd wing of the Auriga Squadron.

  10. #20

    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
    Amazing video Fancy!

    Just goes to show that even developers get 1842s on occasion.

Posting Permissions

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