Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: Some things I'd like to see.

  1. #21

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    347
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjtheko View Post
    I don't play this game to show a realistic experience of the Civil War. I don't lead my men into cinematic situations purely for the eye candy. I go into every map trying to win. Thats a personal motivation, and may explain why i want a more competetive 75 vs 75 person game.
    I wasn't talking about the civil war, I was talking about WoR as a game, and I've seen your regiment in many a 'cinematic' moment. Also being on point does not guarantee a win in this game, you can actually be out-fought as well. You keep talking about opening up more points of attack but with 75 players per side it's not a point of attack, it's just another gap in the line. You're not talking about tactics, you're talking about finding a point on the map that the other side can't cover because they don't have the troops to do it, simply because of game design. When all is said and done, this is an American Civil War fps game, all the mechanics are geared towards fighting that way, wishing/wanting it not to be what it is, that's just counter productive.

    In esscence you are not talking about flanking, you are talking about the ability to attack and undefended part of the map. A real flank attack requires that you to hold your enemy in position so that he cannot shift troops to defend his flanks. For example Lee extending his front at Chancelorsville, to hold the enemy attention while Jackson shifted his men to the flank. On the WoR Sunken Road map the Confederates, as it stands now, cannot cover their entire front, meaning that they already have to shift troops along the front in order to stop the Union attacks.......all you are suggesting is that they extend this, so that we have to do even more running around, & even less fighting. No matter how much people might want it to be, this is not Battlefield/Call of Duty/Post Scriptum et al', and it's never going to be.
    Last edited by Sox; 02-10-2019 at 01:43 AM.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

    Sgt Jinx, Company B, 1st Georgia Regulars.

  2. #22

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by RhettVito View Post
    Then it would just turn into holdfast with people running around playing music and charging with the flag trolling it would be a waste of development time to add something like that plus then people would play flag-bearer for the wrong reason too many people want to re-enact The Patriot
    If you can't keep a flag bearer in line that's not my fault.
    Imagine paying people to join your server and steam group.
    Texan's always move'em.

  3. #23

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    I wasn't talking about the civil war, I was talking about WoR as a game, and I've seen your regiment in many a 'cinematic' moment.
    Knock off the regiment bashing, lmao. Like that adds anything to the discussion, Jesus.
    Imagine paying people to join your server and steam group.
    Texan's always move'em.

  4. #24

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    347
    Quote Originally Posted by LaBelle View Post
    Knock off the regiment bashing, lmao. Like that adds anything to the discussion, Jesus.
    Actually that was a compliment.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

    Sgt Jinx, Company B, 1st Georgia Regulars.

  5. #25

    CSA Captain

    Mjtheko's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    7
    Sox I've got a video for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVQ0L-t5i_Y&t=1s This is the 1st TX and 1st GA in an event. "A real flank attack requires that you to hold your enemy in position so that he cannot shift troops to defend his flanks." Tell me how what happens in that is not a flanking maneuver by your own definition. This game already is a tactical one. I can go on talking for 30 mins on the "meta" of every map on this game with MS paint open drawing on maps. There's a balance between running around and fighting that is healthy for the game. Right now I happen to think that some maps on Antietam are too narrow, and are limiting the tactical opportunities. There's a place in the game for lots of "fighting" on narrow maps already.

    I don't even think you want what you talk about. What if the confederates could hold the entire front on sunken lane? (with the current server size) The union would be forced to press W and shift across a wide open area to even try to win, and the Devs would be forced to give the union a 2 or 3 to one ticket advantage to "balance" the map.

    Let's take your argument to the extreme. If flanking apparently doesn't exist in this game and it's all essentially an "exploit" of game mechanics let's cut the maps in half. Sunken lane is now simply a road with 2 fences and corn behind it and the union have to sprint down a wide open hill to get there. The map would be even worse than Bridge crossing. Or Burnside. But hey at least one side is not running around trying to counter the attackers and is "fighting" quite often.
    Last edited by Mjtheko; 02-10-2019 at 02:00 AM. Reason: Clarification

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Oleander View Post
    At the very least there should a morale buff for a flag being in line.
    The way I see it, fear does not care about things that might lift your spirits. Just because it makes you less likely to run away doesn't mean it's going to make your heart beat any slower. You can argue that having other friendly players nearby wouldn't either but I think the presence of living friendly soldiers is a lot less terrifying than being isolated or in Skirmish formation and that's generally the gist you get from writings. The bonuses of having a flag present are already a major lift to the staying power of a group of players.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mjtheko View Post
    Why is opening up the map bad?

    Why does flanking hurt Cohesive gameplay?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    It's simple, with only 75 men per side we already struggle to present an adequate frontage on a lot of these maps, if you open them up even more then it will be impossible. It's game mechanic versus reality, to present the illusion of civil war combat, with so few players, you have to rely on them standing and fighting not running around the map for 70% of the game time. Making the maps wider will mean players will spend more time manouvering then they'll spend actually fighting.

    Lets use Sunken Road as an example. With 75 men it's almost impossible to defend that position witout having to constantly shift troops along the line, & nine times out of ten the Union gain a foothold on the right because the Confederates could not/did not shift men over there in time to defend it....now imagine if that was wider. Wider maps would mean an end to cohesive fighting and a shift to a game mode where you are just running around maps until you find a gap. Now I realise that Sunken Road is an extreme example, but none the less it still holds true for any map in WoR. This is an FPS game, not a war game, and while tactics are important to a certain degree we have to remember the limitations imposed by the nature of the game. The attacking team in WoR rarely has to worry about maintaining a solid front line, because the ticket system does not really allow for counter attacks, in reality this was not so. However, in WoR any gap in the 'front line' of the defender can be readily exploited by the attacker.......hence with 75 men the defenders rarely ever have enough men to defend their entire front, and thus you have a 'game'.

    Yes it still requires manouver, but to a 'limited' degree, widen the maps and the balance/cohesion is lost.
    Pretty much what Sox says. Literally the main offensive tactic is currently making a mad dash for an undefended area. Way too much of WoR is both teams racing each other at full sprint to a little farmers fence. You open up the map, you make that worse than it already is. People would rather gamble on a sweeping flanking motion than focus on hard fundamentals that will win you the match in the long run.

    I didn't get WoR to march around in a 5 man group representing a regiment in a grand battle. That's not as ridiculous as it sounds with the size of the battlefield and the future promise of grander battles. Seventy-five players is not enough to hold even half the front of most skirmish maps, 500 would be. I don't want to see the maps get much bigger. By a few rods, that's about it. Some of the desertion areas are indeed oddly placed but the fact that teams are creeping on the edges of the map was probably not intended in the scenario design. The scenarios should be revisited by the level makers at some point based on how they play.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 02-11-2019 at 02:26 AM.
    Suggestion: Selecting leaders and roles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN8XZJ4RgPU


  7. #27
    I have not been playing for long and a few guys of the regt that I am in took me into a skirmish. One of the things that struck me was that we could not join as a squad/group and that needs changing. if a regt can supply a whole squad (for example) and they joined together then you are more likely going to get better formations etc and we get to play alongside our regt buddies. also regts/officers that organise the battle will get to know which complete squads etc will be better located in the line if they have played together already a few times. otherwise I am enjoying dying a lot

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    Yep, those will be reverted back to their original smaller sizes again in the next update.

    It was an experiment too see if bigger capture areas would open up the areas for different strategies - players still gathered on the capture area icons no matter the size of the cap zone however. The bigger capture areas of Miller's Cornfield and Maryland Heights also did not work very well with the new end game events.

    - Trusty
    On this topic, I had an idea the other day during an event in which a cap point was taken in a way that frustrated the losing team.
    Currently it seems that a player is either capturing a point or not (binary, yes or no). What if instead that capture status per player was determined by a gradient based on distance from the center of the capture point? Let me explain with an example.

    Say 5 CSA players are defending a capture point standing very close to the center of the point, when 6 Union attackers occupy the outer edge of the capture zone. In the current system, it is my understanding that the Union would begin to take the point despite only having a slight numeral advantage and being far from the actual capture point. With my "system" and in the simplest terms, the Union would have to be closer to the center of the capture zone to begin taking the point as their per-player capture "value" (a float point between 0-1) would increase upon approach. I believe this would make it more difficult to 'cheese' the system and would possibly allow for quicker capture times from decisive offensives. In the current implementation it takes quite long to actually capture the point with zero resistance.

    I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words, so if you have any questions please let me know.

  9. #29

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    347
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjtheko View Post
    Let's take your argument to the extreme. If flanking apparently doesn't exist in this game and it's all essentially an "exploit" of game mechanics let's cut the maps in half. Sunken lane is now simply a road with 2 fences and corn behind it and the union have to sprint down a wide open hill to get there. The map would be even worse than Bridge crossing. Or Burnside. But hey at least one side is not running around trying to counter the attackers and is "fighting" quite often.
    First of all, I did not say that flanking did not exist, I said that actual flanking requires that you engage the enemy on his front, so that he cannot move to counter. You are not talking about flanking, you are talking about making the maps bigger so that even more dashes into empty, undefended, spaces can be made. As Poorlaggedman has pointed out, it's just chasing people around a map that's too big. Obviously some maps are too narrow, but who ever said this was supposed to be an even playing field, it's not & it never will be, that's the challenge represented by playing a historical FPS.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

    Sgt Jinx, Company B, 1st Georgia Regulars.

  10. #30

    CSA Captain

    Mjtheko's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    7
    I'm arguing for more flanking opportunities on some maps to help the attackers flank. Not empty space for people to run through. I'm not arguing for "attacker only" lanes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    You are not talking about flanking, you are talking about making the maps bigger so that even more dashes into empty, undefended, spaces can be made.
    I would appreciate if you don't straw man me sox.

    Personally I think hookers push could have the empty, effectively unplayable space on both sides cut by at least 500 feet. There's a difference between useless space and flanking routes to fight over. I'm also arguing for defenders to have more cover to re-take the point on some maps. Like Poorlaggedman said, "The scenarios should be revisited by the level makers at some point based on how they play."

    I'm not sure what "People would rather gamble on a sweeping flanking motion than focus on hard fundamentals that will win you the match in the long run. " means. Clarification please :P

    The argument that "This is a Historical FPS so where we draw a fake line we call the "map border" should not include the concept of balance" makes no sense on it's face.
    The sentiment I understand, Some maps will never be balanced nor should they be based purely upon historical context. (Burnside i'm looking at you). But the historical accuracy cost between creating another crossing for burnside bridge, for example, and moving a fake map border 100 feet is fairly large. Or adding ambient smoke to block sight-lines, or an extra bush here and there, Is fairly large. No historian will think twice about a new group of bushes on a map. Or pushing the border out to include more area.

Posting Permissions

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