Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49

Thread: 17-09-2019 Forty-Third Field Report: Artillery Progress Update

  1. #11
    Moderator

    CSA Major

    Leifr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Dman979 View Post
    Asking this so Leifr doesn't have to.

    Rifle pits on Burnside's Bridge when? ;D

    Best,
    Dman979
    Hah! My thanks Dman.

    Excellent work, I’m sure the time taken to implement artillery will be worth the wait. I assume also that it will open up more development time for some of the existing core systems.

  2. #12

    USA Major

    RhettVito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    869
    How long will it take to load the cannon?

    Last edited by RhettVito; 09-17-2019 at 11:14 PM.
    -Vito Cpt of the 72ndPA

  3. #13
    Moderator

    USA Lieutenant General

    Kyle422's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Gettysburg, PA
    Posts
    733
    Looks awesome cant wait!!

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Fancy Sweetroll View Post
    Field Report 43: Artillery Progress Update posted 17-9-2019 CLICK TO VIEW
    Looks amazing, great job CG team! Will the map boundaries open up at all with the addition of artillery?



  5. #15

    USA 1st Lieutenant

    Dman979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    201/200
    Posts
    520
    How will supression and formation systems work with artillery fire?

    To me, this seems like a perfect opportunity to increase the suppression for being out of line and for skirmishers. When you're taking artillery fire, it's a terrifying experience, and you'll naturally want to be with your comrades. Unfortunately, there's a tendency among commanders to spread their troops out. If skirmishing and out of line penalties are increased (potentially dramatically), that might help leaders decide to keep their men in a formation, instead of in a skirmish line or spread out in a field.

    I can predict that some people might say that increasing the penalties to skirmishers is unfair, and will punish them for playing the way their historical regiment did. That may be so, but I'm hard-pressed to come up with examples of unsupported skirmishers assaulting artillery during the Maryland campaign. If someone is able to give an example that's fine, but I don't think that skirmish lines should be encouraged to assault cannons. It doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective, and would be more appropriate to a late war campaign.

    Best,
    Dman979

  6. #16

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    378
    At this juncture I realise that I'm wasting my breath, but I BEG you to re-consider turning on friendly fire with artillery, trolls are bad enough with muskets, I shudder to think what they'll do with cannons.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  7. #17

    USA Captain

    STOTS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    50
    "I can predict that some people might say that increasing the penalties to skirmishers is unfair, and will punish them for playing the way their historical regiment did. That may be so, but I'm hard-pressed to come up with examples of unsupported skirmishers assaulting artillery during the Maryland campaign. If someone is able to give an example that's fine, but I don't think that skirmish lines should be encouraged to assault cannons. It doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective, and would be more appropriate to a late war campaign."


    Why would skirmishers assault artillery positions? It will be easy enough to shoot them down from long range.

  8. #18
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,862
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    At this juncture I realise that I'm wasting my breath, but I BEG you to re-consider turning on friendly fire with artillery, trolls are bad enough with muskets, I shudder to think what they'll do with cannons.
    As stated in th field report: The initial implementation of artillery will be with friendly fire turned off. Later on we will look into creating a dedicated team damage punishment system for it and will enable friendly fire from it when this is in place.

    - Trusty

  9. #19

    CSA Captain

    Saris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    South East Texas
    Posts
    1,187
    With the implementation of artillery into the game, i say it would be fair for infantry to be able to go prone but with the downside of not being able to fire, only be able to fire once but having to crouch or stand to reload, or a timer on how long they can be in the prone position. You could count whoever in prone as out of line or skirmishing.
    Texas Poppin B
    My Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/c/SarisTX

  10. #20

    USA 1st Lieutenant

    Dman979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    201/200
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by STOTS View Post
    Why would skirmishers assault artillery positions? It will be easy enough to shoot them down from long range.
    For that matter, why should regular infantry formations make suicidal bayonet charge all the time? It doesn't make sense, since you're able to hit targets at 300 yards or more. It would stand to reason that a team would take fewer casualties and have a more cohesive formation if they engaged at distance to significantly weaken the enemy before following up with a decisive charge, but we rarely see that happen in-game (be that public play or organized events).

    I can think of plenty of reasons to assault a cannon- to stop its fire, because it's on a piece of the objective, if it's simply being a nuisance, etc.- but the default way to attack a position in the meta now is with a few seconds of fire, followed by a bayonet charge, so you spend as little time under enemy fire as possible. This mindset will inevitably find its way into attacking artillery: spread out to avoid shelling, fire for a bit, and then charge when the cannon is reloading. I don't think that's what the meta should be.

    Assuming that we're looking to encourage Civil War tactics, my point is that you should be in a close formation when assaulting artillery. This is counterintuitive to modern thinking (why should we clump up when it makes us an easy target?), so there should be incentives for sticking together and punishment for spreading out. Ideally, players will try to stick together during a charge instead of spreading out, and I think the best way to do that is to reduce some effects of artillery when you're in formation and to magnify them significantly when you're skirmishing. Due to the limitations of the current formation system, that might mean some collateral affects when a skirmish line comes under artillery fire, but I think it's an acceptable tradeoff. If there's no penalties for taking artillery fire when skirmishing (or if the punishments aren't significant enough), then players will default to spreading out under a barrage or when assaulting a cannon.

    I'm assuming that we're in agreement that most of the time, infantry should fight in a close formation. If you disagree with that, it's OK, but I didn't have the time to expand on why I think they should fight in close formations, and it's probably a subject for a different thread anyway.

    Best,
    Dman979

Posting Permissions

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