Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: Melee improvement - displacement by discipline

  1. #11

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    530
    What if the radius of fear isn't activated without bayonets, or is dependent on certain factors?(officer ability, must have a flag in their formation, etc)
    Currahee!

  2. #12
    Mark L. E. E. Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by LaBelle View Post
    What if the radius of fear isn't activated without bayonets, or is dependent on certain factors?(officer ability, must have a flag in their formation, etc)
    "Radius of fear" aka shit-pants circle

    That's a good idea, and gives a specific use to the bayonet instead of just for charges. Couple it with higher sway or other negatives to deter it's general equipping. There's a lot that could be fleshed out from the base idea.

  3. #13

    USA Captain

    Pvt. Dane Karlsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    37
    I like this idea too. If I understand the suggestion correctly, with skimish formation included as beeing 'in formation'.

  4. #14
    The Charge is real ugly because failed charges don't stop (the attacker opting to die trying rather than to stop) and that there's no reason given to keep them orderly (in fact quite the opposite, it's "Spread out!"). The game isn't capturing the concept of advancing with a wall of men and the intimidation factor. Nobody is benefiting from standard gaming meelee dysfunction with stabbing mosh pits that leave 75% of both teams dead. People don't want to continuously have to reform in the main spawn after failed charges, they want close, social, and prolonged experiences in video games. You can't really get there if you coddle a small percentage of gamers who just want to poop all over everyone.

    If you make charges more realistically focused on pure numbers then you'd get more realistic results. At the same time I don't think this makes it impossible for smaller numbers. A team that is initially trying to charge would be more likely to stop (together, since alone they're not effective) if they've taken so many casualties that the odds are no longer favorable, opting to reorganize to regain an advantage. As players learn to understand a new dynamic of meelee combat then they'll try to take advantage of that rather than less effective methods of charging at a 1:1 ratio, more likely to engage in closer firefights without every fourth player peeling off and becoming Mel Gibson. A smaller force could still cause a larger and more disorganized one to retreat. At the same time a charging force still has to remain together to be effective. The longer they pursue their enemy the more disorderly they'll get.

    My main concern is mitigating the lone guys and that seems like a good place to start. There's just no reason a formation should have to stop for one guy. He should just get steamrolled without even having a fighting chance if he's out alone letting himself get into meelee. Autosurrender is a good way to do that where when you're isolated and suddenly are adjacent to enemy who are in formation you simply effectively die. It seems like a novel concept but it really isn't. This is key. If you want a game based on warfare where people mass up then there has to be a serious advantage to make up for the very obvious disadvantage of making yourself a barn-sized target of human flesh. People are willing to role play like that for a while but you need rock-solid reasons to make it truly part of a competitive experience

    I've always envisioned the concept as having some randomization to it in terms of what the individual player is able to sustain. Make it a 1/4th chance that your player surrenders when out of line vs an enemy in formation and see what happens. I bet behavior will change just off of something like that.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 07-09-2019 at 01:01 AM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  5. #15
    I like the base idea of a group of in formation players being able to intimidate lone suicide chargers into a state of questionable effectiveness. You could even through in a much longer spawn time for dying alone in the scary zone, and double if for every time it happens after that

    The whole spawn in, "Reloads and Bayonets" thing is pretty annoying. If there are changes made to neuter rambo kamikaze bayonet nonsense, perhaps there could be some changes made to discourage the automatic and endless attachment of bayonets. Right now the sway penalty is enough to be annoying to those doing the aiming but not enough to keep the majority of officers from having them constantly attached so the men don't get caught with with their pigstickers in their pockets.

    Maybe have the defensive and offensive scary zone buffs from having fixed bayonets fade with time, or make the aim sway increase over time, so that fixing bayonets becomes more of a tactical decision rather than the default option.

  6. #16

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    530
    The whole spawn in, "Reloads and Bayonets" thing is pretty annoying. If there are changes made to neuter rambo kamikaze bayonet nonsense, perhaps there could be some changes made to discourage the automatic and endless attachment of bayonets.
    Make the rifles dip after only a second of level aiming?
    Currahee!

  7. #17
    Mark L. E. E. Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Pvt. Dane Karlsen View Post
    I like this idea too. If I understand the suggestion correctly, with skimish formation included as beeing 'in formation'.
    No mate - skirmish formation would not get the buff, only "in formation" entities would have it.

  8. #18

    USA Captain

    Pvt. Dane Karlsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L. E. E. Smith View Post
    No mate - skirmish formation would not get the buff, only "in formation" entities would have it.
    But why? skirmish are beeing in formation. I.e not beeing a rambo. It will be just another restrictment in the game, in this case skirmish groups can't join a charge with the rest of the regiment, and in general yet another punishment for the skirmish groups. Even though we are playing the game "by the rules". And are clearly not doing rambo. And lets be honest, not all battles or maps invites too big line battles.
    And what about people standing on the fringes of a big formation? they are oftnen in ' skirmish' not 'in formation' ?

  9. #19
    Mark L. E. E. Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    46
    Actually, I think you're right - "skirmishing" should get a radius in this system, primarily to deter John Rambo approaching a skirmish group. It would make sense if it wasn't as strong as the main "in formation" power - i.e. a group in "skirmishing" would always lack the power to dislodge another "skirmishing" or "in formation" group, but it would have enough of an effect as to prevent it being approached and melee'd by a disorganised force.

    The whole system could lead to more interesting gameplay - for example, a large group kneeling behind a stone wall (or over the crest of a hill) waiting until the enemy is upon them before suddenly standing and activating its bonus, surprising and disorienting the opposition.

  10. #20

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L. E. E. Smith View Post
    The whole system could lead to more interesting gameplay - for example, a large group kneeling behind a stone wall (or over the crest of a hill) waiting until the enemy is upon them before suddenly standing and activating its bonus, surprising and disorienting the opposition.
    The thing is, unless the attacking group did not actually see them (which is extremely unlikely) then they're not 'actually' suprised are they. The same thing is true of a 'forced' surrender, you're both talking about RTS here, not FPS. Forcing an action, or a reaction, onto a player in an FPS setting is a very dangerous game indeed. Another thing is that they talked about 'finishing moves' that were going to improve melee, but we've heard nothing about that for months. I do understand the fruestration with melee, I even hate it myself, it's extremely immersion breaking for one thing, for another it's almost never a conclusive action, in that both sides get virtually wiped out every time.

    A word from Campfire Games on the actual state/plans for melee combat might be useful at this point.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

Posting Permissions

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