Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: skirmishes

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    USA Major


    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    287

    skirmishes

    First of all, I really like WoR, I am closely following what's happening,even if I am not extremely active. I try to test every patch and keep up with the status of the development and I am playing this since the very first playable version. I am fairly educated about the american civil war and also about napoleonic warfare (which is NOT comparable. Don't argue with me, it's not. Same goes for the danish-prussian war e.g.).

    There is one thing that is REALLY annoying me besides some of the to be expected things that come with the fact that this is early access and in development. Why the hell is skirmishing being punished? I absolutely understand that being out of line is being punished to prohibit lone wolfs, but why the absolute f**k is skirmishing being punished in a gamemode called skirmishes? I don't get it. 150 players is far from being enough to have anything close to a real linebattle, but it's enough to simulate one of the smaller skirmishes during the ACW. The way is balanced right now forces everybody to keep standing up because kneeling, reloading, advancing is deemed to be bad thing. Because it does cost more moral, tickets whatever you want to call it. This is, I think, absolutely ridiculous and harming the game a lot. It doesn't help with lone wolfs ( if something helps, the out of line nerfs and ticket cost does), but enforces wannabee Gettysburg movie Chamberlain "FIX BAYONETS" boons without any tactical sense. It strips the game (as well as the name giving game mode) of a HUGE portion of the actual tactics of the civil war. I think it would be good if at least for the "skirmishes" gamemode being in line as well as being "skirmisher" would cause the same hit on moral, while being out of line should of course be punished. Flanking and harassing should be part of the game again.

    Just my five cents. I will definitely keep on playing, but this is the part I am disappointed about the most since quite a while.
    All of you may of course answer to this thread, hijack it, or do whatever you want. But this is mainly meant as my personal thoughts about this topic as a feedback for the devs and I most likely won't argue with anyone about my opinion on this or even answer. Thanks for your time

  2. #2

    USA General of the Army

    Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    647
    The short answer is because some people who play this game believe using cover or not standing in the middle of an open field isn't "dignified." The devs have also said they don't want matches to turn into everyone crouching behind cover and not achieving anything.

  3. #3
    The team morale system is inherently flawed in that the outcome of a battle should never depend on the actions of lone players and how they die. I'm sooooo tired of playing with teammates and hearing the "Hey everyone aim at that lone guy there" "Free Tickets." Looking at my teammates and being frustrated because they're kneeling to reload, etc. There's always these distractions within the gameplay all about this bunch of silliness.

    It's convoluted that hitting a lone player or a kneeling player counts as a multiplier towards your team's score. On the surface it looks like it might make sense somewhat but it runs counter to an enjoyable experience that the winner or loser is picked by how many hapless idiots you have running off alone. Especially when you take into consideration the end-of-round events (Final Push, Last Stand) since that system no longer means anything to the teams effected. There's little incentive for a player on a final push or a last stand team to work as a formation. Rather than the drumbeat sounding for Final Push there should be one of those old recordings of the Japanese "BANZAI."


    So you might say "Well we have to have something or players will just free-for-all." There's other things that can be done. Don't let out-of-line players meelee (no more rambos coming up stabbing). Wreck the suppression recovery for lone players, once they get suppressed they can't recover without significant time in a safe area or by returning to some resemblance of a formation. Add incrementally longer spawn times for the various stances. Expand the number of stances to more than just the three we have (In Formation, Skirmishing, Out of line) and tie it more closely to a more rapid respawn.

    It's a serious mistake to stray from development focus on refining the infantry combat right now. There's no urgent need in introducing artillery if you don't have functioning infantry formations. Even if artillery functions well then it still only works against infantry combat. If people today have to stop all gameplay within a server and carefully orchestrate something that appears to be Civil War infantry combat for someone's promo video then you have an effing problem in that the game doesn't really have the systems in place to give players what they want in the first place.

    I'm all about a laissez-faire approach to the preferences of players, that's why I hate the desertion timers in Picket Patrol. Players aught to be able to kneel, go prone, go off on their own, etc. They should just face realistic challenges in doing so such as reload time, suppression, and ability to keep doing it via respawning as fast as anyone else. If I'm off alone and 30 players fire a freaking volley at me and then less than one minute later I'm fresh and steady recovered again then 30 players just got ripped off of their experience by unrealistically having to deal with me again. And I'd really be interested if anyone can find a historical account of a lone soldier in the Civil War rushing an enemy formation outside of supporting distance of his own formation and start stabbing enemies. This happens nearly every round in WoR and pays dividends as a distraction and is totally undeterred in Final Push or Last Stand.

    Players who come into this game all have a good understanding that some purpose is supposed to be served by using formation tactics whether they're skirmish tactics or closer order single or double lines. It doesn't take a genius to find a place playing in one of those if given a tangible reason to do so. The problem is that the game leaves it hanging as to the whether there's a real reason to and in many cases the answer is no when it comes to the players own experience.

    I'm tired of begging players to fall back or move with the rest of us so they don't get killed out of line. Players should realize something is wrong when they become horribly suppressed without recovery and when they have a lengthier respawn time. The rest of the team shouldn't have to do the math and realize that each round the out of line deaths surpassed the in formation deaths in damage to the team. The player should pay for their actions not the team.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 07-06-2019 at 05:01 PM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


    Old Pennsylvania Discord: https://discord.gg/MjxfZ5n

  4. #4

    CSA Major General

    Redleader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Kingdom of Belgium
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    The team morale system is inherently flawed in that the outcome of a battle should never depend on the actions of lone players and how they die. I'm sooooo tired of playing with teammates and hearing the "Hey everyone aim at that lone guy there" "Free Tickets." …..

    I'm tired of begging players to fall back or move with the rest of us so they don't get killed out of line. Players should realize something is wrong when they become horribly suppressed without recovery and when they have a lengthier respawn time. The rest of the team shouldn't have to do the math and realize that each round the out of line deaths surpassed the in formation deaths in damage to the team. The player should pay for their actions not the team.
    • Most experienced regiments have some sort of focus on the morale system (or the capture point), taking out a some 'out of line' soldiers can make the difference between 'winning' & 'losing'.
    • It frustrates players in a regiment when a 'random' person runs out towards enemy positions (we all know there is a big chance he/she will be fallen soul).
    • Point taken that the 'whole' team gets "punished" for 'out of line/skirmish' deaths, a few extra seconds (like some games do for Tk's) would be a nice addition.


    On the other hand, many of the mechanics (some successful, some less successful) in place try and 'force/promote' teamplay and some sort of 'line formation/battles'.

    I know some gamers love to scout, snipe and are more drown to the 'skirmish/squad' operations, the only solution I see here to have an open less strict sandbox system & a historical mode.
    Last edited by Redleader; 07-15-2019 at 02:06 PM.
    I write for my personal account and from personal experience, unless stated otherwise.

  5. #5
    Totally agree with the above. The devs trying to "force" line battle action in a certain manner is not needed and is actually detrimental to gameplay. As mentioned, there are a lot of other ways to coerce players to work together and reduce lone wolf actions. There also needs to be an understanding that not every battle in the Civil War was fought by two lines of standing soldiers.

    One of the principal advantages of a numerically inferior defender behind a fortification was crouching behind cover. Punishing defenders for using cover is stupid. Keeping in mind that reloading is already slower when crouched, and behind many defenses, the player still needs to stand up to fire because of the height of the wall - there are plenty of reasons to stand up, or cycle units in and out of the front line while standing - but crouching is still a legitimate tactic.

    Hell - there should actually be a class (with limited availability - 1 or 2 to a regiment) called "scout/flanker" whose principal role should be to simply scout out the enemy ahead of the battle line and report back, and maybe pick off officers. They could have binoculars and a scoped rifle, but higher weapon sway to compensate.
    Last edited by Daveallen10; 07-13-2019 at 03:20 AM.

  6. #6

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by Daveallen10 View Post
    There also needs to be an understanding that not every battle in the Civil War was fought by two lines of standing soldiers.
    I'm sorry but Antietam WAS fought by lines of standing soldiers, and this is a game about Antietam, not Cold Harbour.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  7. #7

    USA Major


    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    287
    Antietam was also fought by 132.000 engaged soldiers, roughly 87.000 union and 45.000 confederates. Also not all of the engagements in Antietam were line battles. We play a game, and a game mode that is called skirmishes, because this fits much more to the 75 soldiers per side. We are forced to fight in a tight line. A proper skirmish formation is also a line formation, by the way, but utilizes cover as well as crouching or even lying down. Your argument of "Antietam was fought in line formations" is a quite broad description. I know e.g. that Antietam also had far less bayonet charges than the amount we see ingame on any WoR map. Antietam had it's fair share of all of this, "proper" line battles, skirmishes, sharpshooting, and even bayonet charges. Again: over 130K engaged soldiers. I still think very much that skirmishing in "SKIRMISHES" should not be punished the way it is now. It's a valid tactic for smaller engagements (an that's what's 75vs75 is, it's bloody tiny). Nobody would force you or your boys to skirmish all of the time. But as it is of right now, we are forced to play all maps in a specific and really extremely narrowing kind of way. I think it's unnecessary, and since we will NEVER reach something even close to the real thing the game should aim for something that is as realistic as it can be, taking the realities of technical limitations as well as gameplay limitations into account. This is not the case at the moment, and while it definitely is fun, it misses out on a lot of opportunities.
    There, I done it, I replied. ;D

  8. #8

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamble View Post
    I think it's unnecessary, and since we will NEVER reach something even close to the real thing the game should aim for something that is as realistic as it can be, taking the realities of technical limitations as well as gameplay limitations into account. This is not the case at the moment, and while it definitely is fun, it misses out on a lot of opportunities.
    First of all, are you and Daveallen some kind of comedy double act? I've never seen this mythical way that you claim officers have of forcing/enforcing anything.

    Oh...and I said Antietam, if I'd have been talking about any of the other engagements I'd have either named them, or said The Maryland Campaign.

    You do tend to take things rather literally, so forgive me if I follow your lead:
    ''A Skirmisher is a soldier usually sent ahead of a main body of troops to harass the enemy.[1] Groups of skirmishers may also be placed on the flanks to prevent a surprise attack or flanking maneuver.[1] A skirmish is a term first used in the 14th century.[2] It meant a small-scale fight between two opposing forces or a preliminary battle involving troops in front of the main force.[2] Skirmishers were those involved in the fight or battle. It comes from the Old French eskirmir "to defend".[3] Skirmishers were usually infantry or cavalry soldiers who formed a skirmish line ahead or next to friendly troops''.

    See what I did there boys, the word has more than a single meaning. Is it just possible that CG called it 'skirmish mode' to mean a 'small scale fight'???? as opposed to ' you need to fight as a skirmisher'? lol In what world could they EVER hope to get the 'realistic' amount of players in an FPS to fight a full scale civil war battle? The bottom line is that you are not 'FORCED' to do anything, you can easily fight in a skirmish line, AND it's a valid tactic. You take a big risk as a skirmisher, the ticket loss represents that.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  9. #9

    USA Major


    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    First of all, are you and Daveallen some kind of comedy double act? I've never seen this mythical way that you claim officers have of forcing/enforcing anything.

    Oh...and I said Antietam, if I'd have been talking about any of the other engagements I'd have either named them, or said The Maryland Campaign.

    You do tend to take things rather literally, so forgive me if I follow your lead:
    ''A Skirmisher is a soldier usually sent ahead of a main body of troops to harass the enemy.[1] Groups of skirmishers may also be placed on the flanks to prevent a surprise attack or flanking maneuver.[1] A skirmish is a term first used in the 14th century.[2] It meant a small-scale fight between two opposing forces or a preliminary battle involving troops in front of the main force.[2] Skirmishers were those involved in the fight or battle. It comes from the Old French eskirmir "to defend".[3] Skirmishers were usually infantry or cavalry soldiers who formed a skirmish line ahead or next to friendly troops''.

    See what I did there boys, the word has more than a single meaning. Is it just possible that CG called it 'skirmish mode' to mean a 'small scale fight'???? as opposed to ' you need to fight as a skirmisher'? lol In what world could they EVER hope to get the 'realistic' amount of players in an FPS to fight a full scale civil war battle? The bottom line is that you are not 'FORCED' to do anything, you can easily fight in a skirmish line, AND it's a valid tactic. You take a big risk as a skirmisher, the ticket loss represents that.
    I don't see in any way how your quote of a definition of skirmishing stands again anything I said. Also, trying to ridicule other's oppionions or thoughts or even the persons themselves (comedy double act) without any proper argument is not the best style in a discussion. It would be nice if you could stick to something constructive, and of course it doesn't necessarily has to be along with my thoughts and wishes for the game ( but I certainly would prefer it that way hehe).
    Anyway.
    Daveallen10 and I have similar thoughts, you don't. Let's agree that we disagree, but since the devs need feedback I will provide it in a hopefully constructive way. I have no 100% conclusion for what I asked for, but I certainly think that this is something that still needs balancing. It's of course perfectly OK if the devs don't want to go down that route and want small scale line battles with just a very few "skirmishers" (like 3 or 4 people running around on the side and no proper skirmish zigzag formation, and I will keep playing the game nonetheless. But since I am very much interested in the simulation aspect overall, and not just in one aspect of it I would like to have it as broad and fitting to the game we have at hand as possible. And that's where I think the actual gameplay doesn't do the possibilities of the "core" real justice.
    Sorry for my english and probably confused grammar, I am no native speaker.

  10. #10
    As long as the game rewards line formations appropriately, and officers have tools to enforce order - allowing crouching, prone/prone firing, and skirmishing from cover in a rough skirmish line is fine. I would further expect to see skirmish tactics utilized in heavily forested and rocky terrain, and line formations in open ground or defensible positions. Historically, tight line formations on the move often devolved into skirmish lines in heavy forest. This was probably unanticipated by commanders but not "discipline-worthy" as it was expected that individual troops in bad terrain would use cover/crouch/prone in order to best press an attack or hold a position.

    My main problem is with the ticket loss penalty because regardless of how good your officer is at keeping order, it is often the ticket loss penalties that decide who wins the battle because your "out of line" and "skirmishing" losses and kills count so disproportionately. Limiting penalties to the player rather than to the team would really help remove that frustrating aspect of gameplay where officers needs to spend so much time worried about crouched soldiers or soldiers off the line, instead of directing the main body of troops. There are always going to be players not following the "rules" often because they are new and the game mechanics are just not well explained.

Posting Permissions

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