been awhile since i studied the civil war regarding melee deaths

[Lightfoot]

Melee during the Civil War was more a "morale test" than actual hand to hand fighting. While hand to hand fighting did occur it was rare and even rarer that bayonets were used as shown by the lack of deaths due to bayonet wounds even in battles like the "Mule Shoe" where there was close contact over an extended time. I think the entire battle of Spotsylvania resulted in only 16 bayonet wound deaths.

The infantry "charge" rarely resulted in an actual melee. Usually one side or the other decided they were out numbered and removed themselves from the situation. If the attacker could maintain its morale and formation until it reached a position they usually found the enemy had left.

If the game actually tried to simulate melee, anytime one side charged and ended up near the enemy line with enough troops left to win the enemy line would immediately route back to the spawn point to reform. Don't know whether anyone would like that though. Stabbing everyone with a bayonet is probably more fun.

[C. Moser]

We have the options on how to command, if you are being charged by an enemy line. You will either Counter charge them, brace for their charge, or you will withdraw as orderly as possibly and reform to fight a new contention. The latter I have not seen many commanders do, but I have seen it and it was well played.

Instead of trying to come up with more game mechanics to hinder our gameplay, we should leave it how it is, overtime people will learn that a weaker force cannot charge or hold a charge (with the exception of us superior Southern men lol joke). And if they don't learn that then its their own fault. Yes, in the real war maybe it was completely different from how we play. But we don't want a stale game do we? All I want is to maintain freedom of choice in how I lead, I could not ever see myself agreeing with any "auto surrender" or "auto rout".

If people want to retreat or withdraw let them order it or break themselves. I understand not everyone likes the idea of retreat so that's why you 90 percent of the time see these melee fights and also yes because its fun, but there is such thing as a "tactical" withdraw, live to fight another day scenario. If an enemy wants to be wreck-less punish him with your team not with an implemented system.

[Bivoj]

If the game actually tried to simulate melee, anytime one side charged and ended up near the enemy line with enough troops left to win the enemy line would immediately route back to the spawn point to reform. Don't know whether anyone would like that though. Stabbing everyone with a bayonet is probably more fun.

For me, more realism = more fun so, no - unreal "stabbing everyone" in suicide charge is no fun for me... or at least not as is now.

Instead of trying to come up with more game mechanics to hinder our gameplay, we should leave it how it is, overtime people will learn that a weaker force cannot charge or hold a charge

No, people will not learn anything - they will suicide charge and they will defend to the last man standing when charged, because it is efficient. Every 18-19c commander dream is such a unit, that fights till the last man standing - it would be so efficient, but morale effects happened (Russians were best in their stubborn defence, but even they retreated).

You do not want the game to "hinder the gameplay". I am on the opposite side of the fence: while I like Napoleonics (or any blackpowder confilct in Europe) more than ACW, I consider Holdfast much much inferior game to WoR, because WoR hinders the gameplay by formation rules, suppression and other "realism" features. In Holdfast you have freedom to do whatever you want - you can voluntary do line formation, but nobody is doing any formation, because there is no gameplay rule forcing the formation. It ends up as Call of Duty: Napoleonics. Unfortunately, in both games you can voluntarily retreat, but nobody is retreating due to gameplay rule for formation morale with auto-surrender/auto-rout is missing in Holdfast and in WoR as well.

If people want to retreat or withdraw let them order it or break themselves. I understand not everyone likes the idea of retreat so that's why you 90 percent of the time see these melee fights and also yes because its fun, but there is such thing as a "tactical" withdraw, live to fight another day scenario. If an enemy wants to be wreck-less punish him with your team not with an implemented system.

If people want to make formation, let them do it themselves, not with an implemented system. No, it is not working. There should be a system implemented to make the game realistic. One half of the game is already realistic - firefights, second half is about charging and it is very far from real 19c battle now.

[C. Moser]

Im sorry you disagree, but please don't act like you have all the facts. You don't know me and how I would lead. Most of your middle argument was about formations Bivoj, not once did I say I don't agree with the current mechanics. Yet I did say I don't agree and will probably never with a "auto surrender" or "auto rout". I am in a unit and we use formation and organization plenty, I simply cant get behind the idea for forcing people to "auto rout" when charged, do you have any idea how this could be implemented without it being stupidly exploited. I like realism and I am fine with mechanics, yet this is a game at the end of the day.


Then you say its very far from real 19c Battles, that may be true to a certain form, but you say the first part is firefights and the second is about charging alright....so you want the game to soley be focused on "fire fights" alone. I like the melee aspect, if we didn't have it this game would be stale with only one method. I am not saying I encourage charging every single time either, charging is like any other tactic or maneuver it should be used with caution and ordered at the "right" time. I honestly think you are over reacting, but each their own.

[Goad]

Hello Goad.

While I appreciate your feedback, I’d like to suggest you perhaps giving it in the future in a less hostile manner. Stating some of our team members ought to be fired because you don’t agree with specific things is not the way forward if you want your feedback to be heard.

It would be like me refusing to listen to you “because you are not a game dev” which is equally as silly.

- Trusty

Well my apologies if it offended you. Hostile it was not, but for me to complain and tell the truth and throw Flowers at you at same time isnt especially productive either as it hasnt achieved results in past, quite the opposite actually

Well not to derail too much......The 2nd Mississippi (Engaged elements of the Iron Brigade) & the 9th Louisiana (Engaged elements of the Iron Bridage also) were both involved in repelling Hookers attacks. There most certainly were not 'only Georgians there'..

Your time scale is off. Hookers Push scenario depicts the VERY beginning of the entire battle at Antietam ( if you want to leave out the day earlier dusk skirmish ). Only Georgia Units were there to defend, period! LA Units were used to reinforce the right flank a little later and got heavily involved and not in the Cornfield, 2ndMS , 1STTX were part of a counterattack that included the 18thGA which brings up a serious question ( but only the 1stTX, 2ndMS 11thMS made any serious headway ), why was the 2ndMS replaced by the 18thGA in the Cornfield? ... could it be that the 2ndMS has ONLY 1842s with their buck n ball and there were complaints about it ( certainly not from the Conferate side )? The only scenario ( as far as I'm concerned ) the 1842 has an advantage was taken away and I would like to know why. A very fair question. Actually, I already know the answer.


It's a totally different experience firing on a range and firing in combat after marching endless miles on dusty roads sleeping on the ground stretching your rations out.

Do you hunt? Because I do, and after walking miles and often, up and down Hills, the rest through Swamps and heavy Mud, I have no adverse effects of Aiming. Matter of fact, the 1842 is so stable, it would be my Iron-Sighted weapon of choice afterwards.

[Bivoj]

Im sorry you disagree, but please don't act like you have all the facts.

No need to apologise - it is natural that people disagree And, please, do not feel offended. Anyway, I do not have "all the facts", I have my opinion about 18-19c warfare by studying the period, reading books (Duffy among my favourite authors). I am very open to change my opinion, when I see facts and proofs.

Most of your middle argument was about formations Bivoj, not once did I say I don't agree with the current mechanics.

My argument is:
current mechanics "hinder" the gameplay + current mechanics are good => doing the same for charge would be good
no gameplay rules for formations = no good => no gameplay rules for charges = no good as well

So, I hope you agree with current formation mechanics and I am suggesting to do the same for charges.

do you have any idea how this could be implemented without it being stupidly exploited

If this is question, hereby my suggestions (see the post in the middle):
https://www.warofrightsforum.com/sho...-horizon/page4
the whole thread is very interesting.

Regarding the possibility of exploiting - any bold idea (as this one) has to be tested. Even the formation system as is now has some flaws and can be exploited, but it is much better than "freedom for all".

Then you say its very far from real 19c Battles, that may be true to a certain form, but you say the first part is firefights and the second is about charging alright....so you want the game to soley be focused on "fire fights" alone.

No, I want realistic charges. Charges, which rarely end up in melee as it was in history. Charge is very important in 18-19c warfare - it is an instrument of attack. Without charge, no attack is possible. Without (proper) charge, the game is half-realistic.

Current charges are always melee fight to last man standing. What would be the casualties of blackpowder era battles, when this is close to reality? The bloody Antietam: less than 5% killed and less than 20% wounded.

[C. Moser]

Thank you for being polite. I do agree with the current mechanics except maybe the new suppression, which is a fine idea but heavily exaggerated and off putting on how easily it is to become deaf and color blind.

I believe sir, we will have to agree to disagree on our thoughts about the charging. I stand by what I have said, as you do what you have said.

[Saris]

Georgians were not the only units there to defend (Hays was in "close reserve"), and the "Tigers" did, indeed, enter the cornfield. The Hooker's Push intro screen reads 6:30 AM. By all accounts I have read, Col. Douglass was dead, Lawton's Brigade wrecked, and Hays' Louisianans charging into the cornfield by 6:45 AM. It would be cool if there were some sort of tickets dynamic to the regiment selection screen which began with Georgians (Battle Ready/Engaged), then moved to the Louisianans (Taking Losses), and in the Breaking stage of tickets went to the various Mississippians and Texans and Georgians under Hood.

That would be quite interesting if they implemented that in, the regiments corresponding with the different stages of morale. That could work if the Historical battles features many different capture points. With each advance or retreat, the units are linked to the different ones so once you die and your side advances or retreats, you spawn in as a new regiment that would most likely be in that position. But people stay the regiment they spawned in as until they die. If this would happen, it would create a fusion of many different regiments and show the depleted ones joining new/reinforcing regiments and add to the chaotic feel of the battle.

[A. P. Hill]

I haven't found anything solely devoted to melee deaths - so to speak. BUT I did find some rather interesting reading.

"The Medical & Surgical History of the war of the Rebellion (1861 - 1865.)"

This was prepared in accordance with an act of congress shortly after the war, and under the supervision of Surgeon General, Joseph K. Barnes of the United States Army 1870.

Part 1 - Volume 1: https://archive.org/details/MSHWRMedical1

Part 1 - Volume 2: https://archive.org/details/MSHWRSurgical1

Part 2 - Volume 1: https://archive.org/details/MSHWRMedical2

Part 2 - Volume 2: https://ia801403.us.archive.org/34/i...RSurgical2.PDF

Part 3 - Volume 1: https://archive.org/details/MSHWRMedical3

Part 3 - Volume 2: https://archive.org/details/MSHWRSurgical3

I did a bit of clever work for you folks. In the first volume there were several charts covering 1861 - 1862 (June). You'll note that I am starting with number 123. That means that there are 122 earlier lines of information in these charts, but all that information is related to sickness, diseases, and maladies of the human body, I don't think it included infection from wounds gone bad or not.

But there is a section on these charts called Class V reports covering Wounds, Accidents, and Injuries.

Here's what I reproduced from the chart related to the Army of the Potomac. Numbers 130 - 133, I feel would deal with Melee.



Enjoy.