Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Twelve Core Gameplay Improvements

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Redleader View Post
    In most situations this is true, unless we are dealing with a stone wall (the rest is kind of flimsy).
    If the enemy is at a distance and in less cover, crouching for reload will bring benefits even if the reload is slower.

    The crouched movement (with some sort of delay, slow movement) could work out (I'm not talking about running ducked, but movement on the knees).
    Prone might be stretching it, even if it was used (which I'm definitely not questioning) it would be 'rare' especially in the early stages of the war.
    Agreed on the previous comments about making crouched and prone fighting and movement more realistic.

    I know prone fighting is portayed in Gods and Generals during 1st Manassas. Not sure if that really happened but it seems plausible. Going to the dirt during an artillery bombardment makes a lot of sense though.

  2. #12
    WoR-Dev GeorgeCrecy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    660
    I can attest for one, as has been mentioned above, that the prone position was certainly used and perhaps briefly taught. Take a peek at this vid for an example of the process:
    https://youtu.be/bcKWZJQ2AWA
    It was also used on several occasions by both sides at Antietam, let alone countless other examples throughout the war, in the former case in the Miller's Cornfield and at the Sunken Lane where soldiers went prone either to avoid artillery and musket fire, or to surprise the enemy respectively. So it does have plenty of tactical use, as well as plenty of historical footing, as well as a good amount of cons to it's use.

  3. #13

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeCrecy View Post
    I can attest for one, as has been mentioned above, that the prone position was certainly used and perhaps briefly taught. Take a peek at this vid for an example of the process:
    https://youtu.be/bcKWZJQ2AWA
    It was also used on several occasions by both sides at Antietam, let alone countless other examples throughout the war, in the former case in the Miller's Cornfield and at the Sunken Lane where soldiers went prone either to avoid artillery and musket fire, or to surprise the enemy respectively. So it does have plenty of tactical use, as well as plenty of historical footing, as well as a good amount of cons to it's use.
    I think an historical game only has to represent what was 'typical'. You can find examples of a lot of things, lying down as you stated, Jacksons troops at Bull Run or the Union troops in front of the wall at Frederickburg, but does that mean those kind of things are actually needed? Going prone would be useful BUT....add in the ability to fire from prone and, because it's just a game, before you know it everyone is doing it all the time. Add prone, but not firing from prone.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  4. #14
    That's why you'd have to model it to do it justice. So that you're not spawning reinforcements as fast, not reloading as fast, more vulnerable to suppression, and in serious peril in melee. Tinker with those things and it'll get used less than you think. I already am opposed to crouching in nearly all scenarios. Then again I'm usually offensive-minded and to me it's a waste of time and effort to marginalize your firepower so much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleader View Post
    Prone might be stretching it, even if it was used (which I'm definitely not questioning) it would be 'rare' especially in the early stages of the war.
    When you dig down into the details in reports it was used particularly when regiments were not engaged but were vulnerable to artillery or skirmisher fire. I'm dangerously assuming that Jackson even had his men lay down, as his been painted and portrayed, no less than at first Manassass as he mentioned above. They probably weren't the only units to do so at the battle either.

    One local newspaper in my hometown has an article about its action at Gaine's Mill and they hugged the ground in a road behind a fence during a lengthy firefight. I'm very unschooled at the unit-level movements in the early war so I don't have a lot of early war examples. Just as with skirmishing your typical tactical level history lesson won't discuss this leaving you to either dig deeper or imagine such things.

    It comes up quite a bit. In some battles it seems that few units aren't hugging the ground at some point. Entire units would also drop to avoid volleys. Not making it up. Dig into the details. You can see how that can be problematic in a firefight if not done in a split-second decision. And certainly would shake your men's confidence waiting on a volley that never comes. I could pull a half dozen or more examples just from a book I'm two chapters into reading on Gettysburg which tells of units proning, fighting prone, or being ordered to duck for cover to avoid a volley, and this is only where the details are given as such.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 07-15-2019 at 01:12 AM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  5. #15
    I'll admit that I skipped reading a lot of this but I would like to point out two things:

    If you're using crouching correctly, you won't be getting hit at all and thus the -3 penalty is a moot point. Otherwise I believe it is a good gameplay deterrent to organized field crouching. Similarly, if you're skirmishing correctly you shouldn't be seen or getting hit at all, and thus the -3 penalty is a moot point. Otherwise I believe it is a good gameplay deterrent to people mobbing about in 2s and 3s all the time instead of staying in line.

    I don't think that gameplay concessions should be made for people who can't figure out that crouching is something you do safely behind a stone wall or the crest of a hill, or for concealment behind fencelines. I don't think gameplay concessions should be made for people who can't figure out that skirmishing means survival first and kills second.

    There's a time and place for everything people.

    Add the prone position though!

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Vankovski View Post
    I'll admit that I skipped reading a lot of this but I would like to point out two things:

    If you're using crouching correctly, you won't be getting hit at all and thus the -3 penalty is a moot point. Otherwise I believe it is a good gameplay deterrent to organized field crouching. Similarly, if you're skirmishing correctly you shouldn't be seen or getting hit at all, and thus the -3 penalty is a moot point. Otherwise I believe it is a good gameplay deterrent to people mobbing about in 2s and 3s all the time instead of staying in line.

    I don't think that gameplay concessions should be made for people who can't figure out that crouching is something you do safely behind a stone wall or the crest of a hill, or for concealment behind fencelines. I don't think gameplay concessions should be made for people who can't figure out that skirmishing means survival first and kills second.

    There's a time and place for everything people.

    Add the prone position though!
    Here here! Wise points from my fellow Texan!

    Longstreet's I Corps
    1st Brigade Commanding Officer

  7. #17

    USA General of the Army

    Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    601
    I'm not sure how I feel about prone positions. I feel like its going to be more of a nuisance than anything. There's a point where you'd have to decide is it worth even having and how far into the realm of reality do you want to go. The teams are still relatively small, even if you fill a 200 man server you're talking no more than 100 men per side, then it could essentially descend into trench warfare. Things like arty could disrupt it, but you're basically counting on one side to be brave enough to attack a position where they can't get a good shot on the enemy which isn't tactically sound.

    If it were to be implemented I would say keep it resigned to units that would have most historically used it meaning Sharpshooters or dismounted Cav. That keeps the number of available players that are able to use it to a minimum and gives them a more realistic role as skirmishers.

    As for the ticket system, I've never been a fan of either the original ticket counter we had or the new morale system. Nor do I like the End of Round events. I feel like both completely change the way the game is played, the EoR events especially. When we had the old system each side would just sit on their duff and slog away at each other til the tickets ran down enough. The new system did away with a lot of that, but then showed the problems with the maps and made a whole new meta. Now, the attacker has a significant morale advantage over the defender which is completely backwards as far as I'm concerned. The defender should have the morale advantage and the attacker should be at a disadvantage.

    There's also the problem of defenders being left to hold untenable positions, such as the middle of an open field with nothing but a pile of rocks. I still believe multiple caps is the best way to break up the current meta and force commanders to be flexible. As it stands, the maps are stale and it becomes attack, reform, attack etc. You never have an opportunity to gain any sort of momentum. You attack until the morale breaks then take the cap, the defenders never get another option. They either have to stand their and take it or lose the round. It just doesn't make any sense when you consider there are other positions available that are far better to hold, not to mention the fact that the maps in some cases are way bigger than the actual areas of contention. That's leaving a huge chunk of gameplay options on the table that can't be used.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Vankovski View Post
    I'll admit that I skipped reading a lot of this but I would like to point out two things:

    If you're using crouching correctly, you won't be getting hit at all and thus the -3 penalty is a moot point. Otherwise I believe it is a good gameplay deterrent to organized field crouching. Similarly, if you're skirmishing correctly you shouldn't be seen or getting hit at all, and thus the -3 penalty is a moot point. Otherwise I believe it is a good gameplay deterrent to people mobbing about in 2s and 3s all the time instead of staying in line.

    I don't think that gameplay concessions should be made for people who can't figure out that crouching is something you do safely behind a stone wall or the crest of a hill, or for concealment behind fencelines. I don't think gameplay concessions should be made for people who can't figure out that skirmishing means survival first and kills second.

    There's a time and place for everything people.

    Add the prone position though!
    But the original issue remains that you need to kill three enemies for every death while crouched just to break even. Not all cover is stone walls. Should you only crouch behind walls and rocks but not fences?

    Scenarios should be balanced by tickets not crounching mechanics. If you have a scenario where one team has better cover, the other team should have more soldiers and the assumption should be that crouching and cover will reduce losses

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Daveallen10 View Post
    But the original issue remains that you need to kill three enemies for every death while crouched just to break even. Not all cover is stone walls. Should you only crouch behind walls and rocks but not fences?
    Breaking even on tickets isn't really the point of skirmishing though. We have many different objectives when deployed as skirmishers, but survival is our number one priority and risk management is our number one asset. We are always aware that in order to accomplish our objectives, we are going to have to spend a certain amount of tickets, much of our practice goes into minimizing ticket loss. We also try not to take shots at the crouch because it's faster to compensate for the sway while standing. If you're undetected using a split-rail fence for concealment is just as good as having cover. You maintain first shot advantage and can also disengage at will.

  10. #20

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    537
    @trusty - It's my belief that we're at a stage in game play where people recognize how slow crouched reloading is, and would rather stand in a straight up fight to make sure they're firing faster than the enemy. Thus, the only time crouching would be beneficial would be if you were behind low cover, which would be historically accurate. So what you said about the "reloading debuff should be enough" is something I am 100% behind.
    Currahee!

Posting Permissions

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