OFFICER Ideas for PUBLIC SERVERS ONLY

[EneCtin]

For men that risked their lives, following orders on the chance the officer knows what he's doing and maybe get them through the battle alive and certainly not get shot/hanged as deserter afterwards, all this mouthful was incentive enough to follow orders etc.

Only, in this case, people play for relaxation from school/work/life tasks. Recipe for chaos in the future (right now this is not seen as numbers are low so dedicated people are available every match). If orders are heard easily, chaos is more likely to subdue. If a bad officer is removed by public vote, all the better, cohesion wise. Sure, punishment/reprimands can be too abrasive if used in excess but an interesting game mechanic.

I have to agree with "I thought the goal was to create a Civil War Mil-Sim not a Line Battle Pop up Target Sim"

[calmmyst]

The problem is the way WOR made the aspect of this game. You cant be and individual. You have to be part of a team, or the team suffers from individuality. go out get killed out of line, no matter where on the field you are killed, the team suffers. the more tickets individuals receive, for out of line, causes the team to loose. I wish kneeling didnt cause a higher ticket cost for having done it, if your shot dead. thus even if a wall is in front of you, for the team its best to stand. the ticket penalty needs to be addressed too at some point. This is why you see people Play the Game hard after every update, then its crickets, all go off to play other games. I admit I have been playing ARMA 3 for the past few weeks. just tired of the BS in WOR from individuals. people want a kill count, but wont ever see that. But then why have total number killed on both sides at end of the game, just announce the winner. people get tired playing the same MAP, any MAP, with no objectives, Just 1.

But again this is still in development. we need several objectives, to have a battle plan. as it is, the enemy will always be here, and this is the only way to get there. so after playing the map 3 or 4 times. you know where to wait, or how how long to wait, for a win. case in point burnside bridge. the yankees wait to the last 8 min of the game, of 35 minutes, then attack for the win. WOR I guess expected Forces to always do Napoleonic Line battles. stand 100 yards to each other and Just blast away, out in the open till a WIN or LOSS. people dont like this type of game play. Thus Individuals Cause more harm overall, by not wanting to stand in a line and take the hit, run back from spawn, just to do it again.

The rebels Always push the rail road bridge and the pontoon bridge, and its not till the last 8 min that I get tired of dying over and over, and over, and over again. trying to just cross it, but if the rebels did what the yankees do on burnside bridge, with the rebels waiting to the last 8 min of the game trying to cross that damn rail road or pontoon, the yankees would become bored very quickly wishing and waiting for the last 8 min to arrive for action. Boats are needed, a Train, or another bridge way down the road, to come cross over. Thus The yankees love the rail road bridge, and start quitting when they get the burnside bridge. but the game is still in development.

[Gamble]

Well, I love playing Burnside‘s Bridge as union, and I saw a lot of different tactics happening that led the union side to a win. I also saw the union side loose this map quite a lot of times. As it is now there are quite many tactics you can use for any of the maps. A lot of people don‘t seem to want to switch tactics often, though. But that’s hardly the fault of the maps. Same applies for river crossing, which I played as union as well as confederate. While on both these maps the tactics are a bit narrowed down compared to an open map it’s not like that you have play it a specific way to win.
A lot more people should care less about winning, especially in this game, anyway. But that’s just my humble opinion.

[Poorlaggedman]

That's why I think the punishment/benefit system for being out of line should be entirely on the individual and not on the team. No normal person is going to go fight a battle alone so the suppression should be severe -- not a huge fan of the black-and-white suppression-- that effectively a player isolated taking more than a bullet or two near him should be reduced to a quivering mess that takes a while to recover.

Tactics are beyond stale. I just can't handle it more than a bit each week. The bottom line is it's hard to do anything different. People look at you like you're insane when you deviate from the standard imported tactics from M&B or whatever. It's like I was transported to a universe where the concepts of reconnaissance and delegation of responsibilities were erased. How many times can we move to contact in a single file column in one lifetime? Oh wow, on this server at this moment in time we've divided into two units. Much smart. Very genius. Now let's move in columns to where we need to die in rows nnf_aerobics.gif. "Converging columns" as Abner Doubleday would condemn repeatedly as a viable strategy in his Chancellorsville and Gettysburg book which is in the public domain.

How many times is our main strategy going to be piking it on the edge of map to get some vague advantage on a flank while our reinforcements trickle in to their out-of-line deaths from the base spawn because we lost our colors on the last mad dash flank expedition? "I've got a great idea, guys. Let's cut ourselves off on the other side of the map. Then we can carry the objective." Because just trying to do a steady push and keeping the fundamentals would be insane, amirite? We need to put ourselves in the enemy rear where we can't reinforce more than one guy every 10 seconds and get into a stand-up fight attacked from two sides. I just... can't. Passworded events would help but also hurt with testing open servers. And it'd probably be similar gameplay.

We're just gonna have to be patient through the painstaking development I'm sure gameplay will look little like it does this time next year or the next and I won't be whining all the time.

[Sox]

How many times is our main strategy going to be piking it on the edge of map to get some vague advantage on a flank while our reinforcements trickle in to their out-of-line deaths from the base spawn because we lost our colors on the last mad dash flank expedition? "I've got a great idea, guys. Let's cut ourselves off on the other side of the map. Then we can carry the objective." Because just trying to do a steady push and keeping the fundamentals would be insane, amirite? We need to put ourselves in the enemy rear where we can't reinforce more than one guy every 10 seconds and get into a stand-up fight attacked from two sides. I just... can't. Passworded events would help but also hurt with testing open servers. And it'd probably be similar gameplay.

Okay, now that really is nail on the head time......that is exactly what is making this game so tedious to play. Players have fallen into the mindset, that to win in this game, you have to run into a space where there is no enemy. Even though, as stated, running into that space cuts you off almost completely from reinforcements & guarentee's that you will be outnumbered and outflanked. Just about the only time you can find an actual toe to toe fight now is on some Harpers Ferry maps but that's only because they CAN'T employ these supposed 'flanking' manourvers. What in gods name happened to the idea that you can win by actually out-fighting the enemy?????

[LaBelle]

Okay, now that really is nail on the head time......that is exactly what is making this game so tedious to play. Players have fallen into the mindset, that to win in this game, you have to run into a space where there is no enemy. Even though, as stated, running into that space cuts you off almost completely from reinforcements & guarentee's that you will be outnumbered and outflanked. Just about the only time you can find an actual toe to toe fight now is on some Harpers Ferry maps but that's only because they CAN'T employ these supposed 'flanking' manourvers. What in gods name happened to the idea that you can win by actually out-fighting the enemy?????

I can understand the complaints about the current meta, but the idea that "these supposed 'flanking' maneuvers" is some how not "out-fighting the enemy" needs to go. The maps are designed in a way that just does not allow the kind of stand-up-and-fight tactics you guys want to see. 90% of the maps are built so that one side has a clear advantage over the other, whether it be a fence, a wall, a building, what have you. Players are forced to find these empty positions and exploit them, or they risk wasting tickets assaulting a defended position.

Another compounding factor is the current melee system: A skilled force cannot make a stand and hold an area against a superior numbered attacking force. There's no blocking, no dodging, and I've found that sometimes a bayonet will magically extend 20 feet. A proper melee system would alleviate the issue of setting and sending smaller forces to hold/take positions as they'd be able to potentially fight two-on-one or more, but right now the meta calls for these massive rushes to get a flag across a bridge, or massive rushes to punch through an enemy line, or massive rushes to take undefended land.

A guaranteed solution to this would be multi-point maps, either successive or battlefield conquest style, creating a REASON to split forces and operate as independent companies. Idk, just my thoughts.

[Sox]

I can understand the complaints about the current meta, but the idea that "these supposed 'flanking' maneuvers" is some how not "out-fighting the enemy" needs to go. The maps are designed in a way that just does not allow the kind of stand-up-and-fight tactics you guys want to see. 90% of the maps are built so that one side has a clear advantage over the other, whether it be a fence, a wall, a building, what have you. Players are forced to find these empty positions and exploit them, or they risk wasting tickets assaulting a defended position.

Another compounding factor is the current melee system: A skilled force cannot make a stand and hold an area against a superior numbered attacking force. There's no blocking, no dodging, and I've found that sometimes a bayonet will magically extend 20 feet. A proper melee system would alleviate the issue of setting and sending smaller forces to hold/take positions as they'd be able to potentially fight two-on-one or more, but right now the meta calls for these massive rushes to get a flag across a bridge, or massive rushes to punch through an enemy line, or massive rushes to take undefended land.

A guaranteed solution to this would be multi-point maps, either successive or battlefield conquest style, creating a REASON to split forces and operate as independent companies. Idk, just my thoughts.

First of all, I'm far from being an advocate of the 'line battle', so lets get that clear right away. The current 'meta' is 100% not out-fighting the enemy, a tactical blob running down the right or left hand side of the map is not actually fighting anyone or anything. I'm sick to death of the 'wasting tickets' phrase, it's a war game, men got killed in wars. Of course one side has an advantage, that's why attackers get more tickets than defenders is it not? The current 'meta' ignores almost everything about Civil War combat, and has reached a point now where it's ALL about getting to the capture point by loosing as few men as possible. Troops in that war DID have to assault defended positions, when you reach the point when winning the game is more important than actually playing it, it's a problem.

Now having said all of that, I do agree that melee is a huge problem, it's a crass, clumsy system. Shooting a comrade by accident I understand, running a comrade through with a bayonet is laughable at best. There is no skill involved, but on the other hand I have been in actions when a smaller group has beaten off a bayonet charge by a larger force, but that's just blind luck. This is where we agree most though:

''A guaranteed solution to this would be multi-point maps, either successive or battlefield conquest style, creating a REASON to split forces and operate as independent companies. Idk, just my thoughts''.

I think, at this point, that's the only solution, the only way they're ever going to turn skirmish mode into true tactical games. In theory, it should be possible for the attacker to win skirmishes without taking a point, but is it? I'm struggling to remember the last time I saw it happen to be honest. I think melee might be a bigger part of the problem than we think it is, but unless we test it, we'll never really know. What I mean is, historically speaking Bloody Lane was taken with a charge, but by the time the Union were able to make that charge, the Confederates were all but beaten, having been decimated by gunfire. It equates to Last Stand in game, but being beaten into Last Stand by gunfire ONLY....would that be possible? It would be very interesting to test that's for sure.

[LaBelle]

First of all, I'm far from being an advocate of the 'line battle', so lets get that clear right away. The current 'meta' is 100% not out-fighting the enemy, a tactical blob running down the right or left hand side of the map is not actually fighting anyone or anything. I'm sick to death of the 'wasting tickets' phrase, it's a war game, men got killed in wars. Of course one side has an advantage, that's why attackers get more tickets than defenders is it not? The current 'meta' ignores almost everything about Civil War combat, and has reached a point now where it's ALL about getting to the capture point by loosing as few men as possible. Troops in that war DID have to assault defended positions, when you reach the point when winning the game is more important than actually playing it, it's a problem.

So with this part I have to disagree, but it seems only based on commanding differences between us. I absolutely think a "tactical blob running right or left" is a part of maneuver warfare, and it is a part of outfighting the enemy. That's just my opinion though, and of course it's up to everyone's interpretation. I do agree that the current meta ignores everything to do with the Civil War and how it was fought, though. I'm not a fan of it.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks we need multi-point maps. Last time I suggested it, I was shouted down on the forums.

[Sox]

So with this part I have to disagree, but it seems only based on commanding differences between us. I absolutely think a "tactical blob running right or left" is a part of maneuver warfare, and it is a part of outfighting the enemy. That's just my opinion though, and of course it's up to everyone's interpretation. I do agree that the current meta ignores everything to do with the Civil War and how it was fought, though. I'm not a fan of it.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks we need multi-point maps. Last time I suggested it, I was shouted down on the forums.

Well lets just consider Bloody Lane or Dunker Church for a second. Imagine those maps with three capture points on them, right, left and centre. What if the centre point only becomes active once the right & the left have been taken? Something along those lines makes more sense to me than a single capture point that can be rushed.

[Poorlaggedman]

In my prior drunken rant I'm also assuming that there are better tactics that would work but just aren't being done most of the time.

That's why I argue about taking up space with skirmishers or pickets in my tactics video in order to spread the enemy out. Any space that the enemy vacates should be occupied in an orderly manner in a way that will hold or at least deter the enemy from being able to use it again while screening any friendly forces arriving that want to move up to that position. That means you need to divide up in some way.

For the most part in each skirmish round people trying to lead are more concerned with the power struggle than they are with tactics. Dividing your forces is surrendering control. That's why I argue for a system where players voluntarily decide to work with you and consequentially up your rank in doing so. And also that the formation system is expanded and fine-tuned and given time rewards. Basically just do everything I say.

alcoholic.gif