Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: Some things I'd like to see.

  1. #11
    A big YES for 2, 7 and 8, ok for the rest but a big no for 9 dropping the flag in the mud..

    For point 9, the flag bearer could be equipped by standard with a bugle and a sword. Bugle to emphasize the charge, retreat, form lines, fire by whatever orders the commander issued and the saber for limited defense while almost stationary holding the flag on the left shoulder?
    Bugle signals could offer a 20% decrease in morale or something (for skirmishers in hearing range for example)

    Voice chat is too quiet sometimes. I'd like the option on that players panel to increase or decrease individual volumes as needed
    Last edited by EneCtin; 02-09-2019 at 05:52 AM.

  2. #12

    USA General of the Army

    Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    646
    Flag bearers are not musicians. At the very least there should a morale buff for a flag being in line.

  3. #13
    Hinkel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,871
    Quote Originally Posted by EneCtin View Post
    A big YES for 2, 7 and 8, ok for the rest but a big no for 9 dropping the flag in the mud..

    For point 9, the flag bearer could be equipped by standard with a bugle and a sword. Bugle to emphasize the charge, retreat, form lines, fire by whatever orders the commander issued and the saber for limited defense while almost stationary holding the flag on the left shoulder?
    Bugle signals could offer a 20% decrease in morale or something (for skirmishers in hearing range for example)

    Voice chat is too quiet sometimes. I'd like the option on that players panel to increase or decrease individual volumes as needed
    Bugles for Flag Bearers? What should these boys do then?


  4. #14
    Moderator

    CSA Major

    Leifr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,268
    They’re also somewhere around two years old now. I am not surprised that people forget about musicians being a thing.

  5. #15

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjtheko View Post
    Why does flanking hurt Cohesive gameplay?.
    It's simple, with only 75 men per side we already struggle to present an adequate frontage on a lot of these maps, if you open them up even more then it will be impossible. It's game mechanic versus reality, to present the illusion of civil war combat, with so few players, you have to rely on them standing and fighting not running around the map for 70% of the game time. Making the maps wider will mean players will spend more time manouvering then they'll spend actually fighting.

    Lets use Sunken Road as an example. With 75 men it's almost impossible to defend that position witout having to constantly shift troops along the line, & nine times out of ten the Union gain a foothold on the right because the Confederates could not/did not shift men over there in time to defend it....now imagine if that was wider. Wider maps would mean an end to cohesive fighting and a shift to a game mode where you are just running around maps until you find a gap. Now I realise that Sunken Road is an extreme example, but none the less it still holds true for any map in WoR. This is an FPS game, not a war game, and while tactics are important to a certain degree we have to remember the limitations imposed by the nature of the game. The attacking team in WoR rarely has to worry about maintaining a solid front line, because the ticket system does not really allow for counter attacks, in reality this was not so. However, in WoR any gap in the 'front line' of the defender can be readily exploited by the attacker.......hence with 75 men the defenders rarely ever have enough men to defend their entire front, and thus you have a 'game'.

    Yes it still requires manouver, but to a 'limited' degree, widen the maps and the balance/cohesion is lost.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  6. #16

    CSA Major

    Warboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    It's simple, with only 75 men per side we already struggle to present an adequate frontage on a lot of these maps, if you open them up even more then it will be impossible. It's game mechanic versus reality, to present the illusion of civil war combat, with so few players, you have to rely on them standing and fighting not running around the map for 70% of the game time. Making the maps wider will mean players will spend more time manouvering then they'll spend actually fighting.

    Lets use Sunken Road as an example. With 75 men it's almost impossible to defend that position witout having to constantly shift troops along the line, & nine times out of ten the Union gain a foothold on the right because the Confederates could not/did not shift men over there in time to defend it....now imagine if that was wider. Wider maps would mean an end to cohesive fighting and a shift to a game mode where you are just running around maps until you find a gap. Now I realise that Sunken Road is an extreme example, but none the less it still holds true for any map in WoR. This is an FPS game, not a war game, and while tactics are important to a certain degree we have to remember the limitations imposed by the nature of the game. The attacking team in WoR rarely has to worry about maintaining a solid front line, because the ticket system does not really allow for counter attacks, in reality this was not so. However, in WoR any gap in the 'front line' of the defender can be readily exploited by the attacker.......hence with 75 men the defenders rarely ever have enough men to defend their entire front, and thus you have a 'game'.

    Yes it still requires maneuver, but to a 'limited' degree, widen the maps and the balance/cohesion is lost.
    agreed, if their going to widen the maps then higher player population is needed
    Napoleon Total War American Civil War Multiplayer Mod Discord Community - https://discord.gg/J3xJ4DU

    TUNNELLS ARE USELESS....so why bother anyway - Henry Wirz (Andersonville film quote)

  7. #17

    CSA Captain

    Charles Caldwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Across the Pond!
    Posts
    427
    *Progress!*
    4th Texas 'C' Company

  8. #18

    CSA Captain

    Mjtheko's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    It's simple, with only 75 men per side we already struggle to present an adequate frontage on a lot of these maps, if you open them up even more then it will be impossible. It's game mechanic versus reality, to present the illusion of civil war combat, with so few players, you have to rely on them standing and fighting not running around the map for 70% of the game time. Making the maps wider will mean players will spend more time manouvering then they'll spend actually fighting.

    Lets use Sunken Road as an example. With 75 men it's almost impossible to defend that position witout having to constantly shift troops along the line, & nine times out of ten the Union gain a foothold on the right because the Confederates could not/did not shift men over there in time to defend it....now imagine if that was wider. Wider maps would mean an end to cohesive fighting and a shift to a game mode where you are just running around maps until you find a gap. Now I realise that Sunken Road is an extreme example, but none the less it still holds true for any map in WoR. This is an FPS game, not a war game, and while tactics are important to a certain degree we have to remember the limitations imposed by the nature of the game. The attacking team in WoR rarely has to worry about maintaining a solid front line, because the ticket system does not really allow for counter attacks, in reality this was not so. However, in WoR any gap in the 'front line' of the defender can be readily exploited by the attacker.......hence with 75 men the defenders rarely ever have enough men to defend their entire front, and thus you have a 'game'.

    Yes it still requires manouver, but to a 'limited' degree, widen the maps and the balance/cohesion is lost.
    I'm not talking about widening the maps by 500 m to each side. Im talking about allowing more movement from both sides on more maps.

    Defenders in any scenario, game or otherwise almost never *should* hold the entire front on a strategic and tactical basis. They should instead hold high value areas and then react to the attacker.
    However im terms of "presenting realistic civil war battles" I'll concede that having two lines form up and blast each other from static positions is the predominant, realistic idea everyone has in their heads for warfare in this era.

    I could argue that efficent movement through rough terrain requires more "unit cohesion" and contributes "cohesive gameplay" or that coordination between multiple forces in multiple areas of the map also requires significantly more cohesion than a single group in a single area fighting a single enemy.
    But you guys might be talking about a totally different kind of cohesion entirely. Cohesion in terms of working parts of a gameplay experience presenting the Civil War.

    I don't play this game to show a realistic experience of the Civil War. I don't lead my men into cinematic situations purely for the eye candy. I go into every map trying to win. Thats a personal motivation, and may explain why i want a more competetive 75 vs 75 person game.

    Towards that end, more flanking is great for the game. To use sunken road once again. Lets say that the aforementioned scenario did occur, and while the Confederates still hold the point, the Confederate right has fallen to Union control. The Confederates could just sit on the point and expect to win, and they might given the fact that the union is at a severe tactical disadvantage on this map and can only take fights where they are at a disadvantage, or equal positionally. Or, the confederates could try to re-take their right by sending a force through the corn, and either get behind the union as they advance towards the point, or try to co-ordinate with other confederate lines to bait the union shots by advancing down either fence, then charge while the union is reloading and distracted. (They both work. Ive either commanded or been a part of both on the CSA side.)

    Why i suggested extending the map border on sunken is because to the north of the point there is a road and fence already moldeled there, and the desertion line is very, very close to it. Just allowing the Union and Confederacy to go there opens up the map far more, and gives the union another attack route. Thereby allowing union commanders to have more choice in where they go, and more opportunities to try to win. Everywhere else on sunken lane the union gets stuffed.

    If widening some maps to allow flanking is bad, should we instead narrow them?

    I don't know about you but the narrower the map the more i have to tell my men they have to charge into certian death. Over and over again in some cases. Not exactly enjoyable Long - term.

  9. #19
    RhettVito
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by LaBelle View Post
    Why
    Then it would just turn into holdfast with people running around playing music and charging with the flag trolling it would be a waste of development time to add something like that plus then people would play flag-bearer for the wrong reason too many people want to re-enact The Patriot

  10. #20

    USA Captain

    Cairnsy44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by RhettVito View Post
    Then it would just turn into holdfast with people running around playing music and charging with the flag trolling it would be a waste of development time to add something like that plus then people would play flag-bearer for the wrong reason too many people want to re-enact The Patriot
    God, I hated that movie. Such potential....
    Descendant of David Jewell - 1st Maine Heavy Artillery, Philo Johnson - 11th Vermont/1st VTHA

Posting Permissions

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