Gameplay discussion

[Garnier]

Well. . . about 5 MP games in and I'm kinda bummed. The games have slowed to a snail's pace. 90 minute games seem very long now, with the emphasis on artillery. What I feared most.

But perhaps even more responsible is the onset of fatigue and the time needed for recovery. I was all for making exhausted regiments recover slower, but this is pretty extreme. Maybe more realistic, but not nearly as fun.

I had released a mod for another game shortly before the patch came out which is why I've not been around playing, but, I can imagine this situation and it doesn't sound fun. I had thought the overall artillery killing pre-patch was quite decent for gameplay, and it's two to four times as much now. I like that columns take more hits, but then we'll need to make lines take less. For fatigue, my only concern was that it was better to run long distances and rest than to march.

We can't try real mods until the SDK is out for the patch, but I can try things like cutting artillery stats, and I'm going to experiment with the calisthenics skill to see what can be done with fatigue right now, as a temporary measure 'til we get the SDK.

The more input the better though, if you've got opinions or ideas, speak! I'll get on teamspeak today too.

[norb]

We implemented a little different idea on fatigue in this release. We found that you can run anywhere and recover quickly. So we decided that if you run for a short time, you can recover quickly, but if you get your guys down too far, they recover slower. We felt this was more realistic and also introduced a factor in gameplay to prevent unreasonable long sprints.

[SouthernSteel]

I agree, Norb, I think this gives the game a boost in realism. While the artillery stats may be able to be fine-tuned, I don't have any problems with them as they are now. Garnier, we did (or rather you did, since you made the actual changes) change the artillery previously to be more effective, so I will be interested to see how things work now that we (you) have switched all the guns back to their normal stats. I can definitely say that while strong, artillery was never the deterrent I feel it was during the Civil War. Most of us have played the PPT map to death and wouldn't assualt the stone walls on Cemetary Ridge, but never really because of the artillery. Now making a lengthy assault, particularly over open ground, is very very costly due to the increased effectiveness of the artillery. Lee's attack on day 3 didn't break down just by infantry fire and a few shells.

Unreasonably long sprints were, well, just that. Soldier had jokingly called Garnier out for his tactic of running/resting, and it's not all that realistic. Civil War combat wasn't ever lightning fast, and to have games with 10,000 casualties in 90 minutes is pretty ridiculous, looking from a purely statistical standpoint. However, while fatigue is much more of a factor (and I suppose that could be fine-tuned as well), we're still getting those casualty numbers. Honestly, from what I've seen, casualties are piling up at a much faster rate than before, and so even in our 90 minute games, lots of units are routed by 45 minutes in.

There is always a tough balance between realism and playability (fun), as I'm sure I have said before. But with all the attention paid to detail for the maps and whatnot for historical accuracy, throwing that out the window on other aspects of the game seems kind of silly. Much though some players revel in long runs and then lying down to rest, that's in no way accurate, even for men used to marching, etc. You can't run troops for a mile then have them be fully rested in 2 minutes. 10 maybe, but even on a standard march the standard 10 minute break per hour was never really sufficient.

For one thing, the fatigue factor has finally stopped (or at least slowed) the absolutely ridiculous runs that some players love to get flanks or gain victory points by charge at the end. That is worth a lot, in my opinion. I still haven't played enough to make up my mind about what I like/don't like, but I can't say as I have any major complaints thus far. Combat certainly isn't as pretty as it was before (due to fatigue) but it never really was during the Civil War.

[Willard]

I like so far the majority of the changes.

I believed artillery was neutered too much before this patch and this is an acceptable compromise.

After 3 games (1 GCM MP, 2 Stock MP), here are my thoughts:

#1 - I have been unable to determine if units have increased their speed on roads/paths/etc. It doesn't appear that has been done so I think that is slowing down the game given the other tweaks. They certainly do not lose as much fatigue marching on roads now as compared to cross country marches and I think this is the way it should be. I personally did not like all the cross country marching where troops could sprint long distances across fields and woods with minimal penalty. Troops should receive strong incentives to move along the road network as was done in practice to move long distances from point A to B, before deploying into battle formation. I think some minor tweaks would be in order but overall players should concentrate on changing their tactics and not the game mechanics.

#2 - For the most part, I like the fixes to artillery and don't want to see them changed. I think provided the game is generating somewhere in the neighborhood of 25-35% range arty related casualties - as I have previously advocated for - and that should be the sweet spot. One could argue historically for a higher percentage, but no one wants to play that game. Conversely I think that anything less than this percentage, like we have been playing in the GCM pre-patch, unbalances the game play and makes artillery basically useless. I pulled the logs for Battles 1618 and 1617. I found that arty accounted for 26% of Yank and 29% of Rebel casualties in Battle 1618 and 32% Yank and 38% Rebel in Battle 1617. This percentage is approximately twice (not 4 times) the previous norm in GCM games (see below thread for additional info).

http://www.norbsoftdev.net/index.php?op ... Itemid=124

I anticipate that this will hold to form after a few more games, especially once players adjust to the new reality and the tactics evolve.

#3 - I still haven't been able to tell if 200 yard rifles were added in with this patch. I would really like to see a battle without the -40 yard (160yd rifles and +50 (250yd rifles) canister gap. Giving both infantry and artillery the same range at 200 yards would be interesting to see and with counter-battery fire improved, there is no need to give infantry that added advantage of 50 yards (which was previously justified as needed to keep the guns back in the absence of effective counter batter fire).

#4 - Players are going to have to change their tactics as troops will get murdered sitting out in the open or moving in column in front of the guns (as one would expect they would). Troops will now need to manuever more out of site/range and utilize cover a bit better than we were previously required to do. I would have no prob with line formation casualties taking less hits and perhaps slightly increasing the speed of troops moving in line formation. I haven't noticed too many probs with fatigue, but that is because I generally move my troops on the road vice cross country. If the road speed is slightly increased that will help compensate for the other tweaks that have slowed the pass of the game.

$5 - Given the artillery tweaks, players will be able actually economize forces better as artillery will be able to effective anchor defensive strong points along the line in support of infantry. This should require LESS troops in a defensive role, thereby maximizing troops available for offensive action. It will also require a little more forethought for commanders in placing their artillery in order to more efficiently deploy their troops.

[Turbotay]

I agree with Parker and Willard. I like most of the changes with this patch, and think they bring MP games closer to a historical simulation, without totally destroying playability and fun. I think it will now force more people to think tactically, when before, most battles consisted of everyone running towards the middle of the map for a 60 minute slug-fest (which would be fine for Medieval Total War). Now, players will need to coordinate and plan movements with each other more, especially at the start of the game, and people will have to make more decisions like "Should we hold this reasonably good defensive ground, or try to take the next ridge-line over and possibly get caught in the low lands in the middle." Things like that, that commanders had to consider often (and still do today) I think will add a new, and enjoyable dimension to the game.

As for artillery, I like the change so far. I think we should play for a week or two before any changes are made in GCM though. There is a reason artillery is called the King of Battle. It is meant to make people think twice about marching across open fields. Perhaps in the end we'll need to tweak them a little, in the spirit of fun and gameplay, but I would say not by much.

I like the changes in fatigue. I can tell you from experience that it is very tiring to march, in formation, in full battle rattle, across open country. Plus, formations by necessity, move at the pace of their slowest member, which can also effect fatigue levels. Yes, the new fatigue settings has slowed the game down, but I think in the long run its a good thing. It will now bring back tactics and maneuvering to the forefront. Also, I think it may end the last minute kamikaze charges on the objectives. I have always found that to be unrealistic and completely unfun. Perhaps now we'll focus on the objectives earlier in the game, and actually fight over that ground, which in my mind is what the objectives were supposed to do in the first place. If you can't pervent the enemy from approaching, or drive them from the objective area, you shouldn't really be able to say you control it in the first place.

All in all, I think this patch has brought a good shake-up to the game that was sorely needed, and may cause some of the players who have drifted away to come back and give things another go.


--
Robinson/Muleskinner

[Garnier]

To all: I think the patch is good overall, just that some things might need adjusting. Thanks for replying.

@ Willard

I agree that most of the changes are good, there's a lot of bug/glitch fixes that will make the game better. And modding to come, of course.

We disagree on the amount of casualties that cannons should be doing, from a gameplay perspective. I don't know the actual historical number, but for gameplay's sake I like the 5-15% casualties from cannons that we had before, if I'd wanted more I could have increased the artillery stats. I think the artillery were not at all useless, they did dictate which positions were important and did inflict casualties and morale hits, if one side didn't use their artillery they'd be in serious trouble.

I wouldn't want artillery to dominate too much even if it is realistic, I just don't enjoy it. I think most people don't, at least not every game.



@ Parker

Artillery stats were already switched back to normal for the last two battles.

Concerning the run/rest tactic, I completely agree it was dumb, I did it because it worked, and am glad it doesn't now.

<realism>
Perhaps the fatigue gained from fighting is the issue now, unless everyone is still running constantly. I'd have to play some more to find out. While I've never really fought, I've been in reenactments and the fatigue I've had from loading and firing and marching was nothing compared to the fatigue after a run with equipment. Part of that is just that you get out of breath for a while.
</realism>

<gameplay>
But I wouldn't want the fatigue to cause us all to have our infantry cowering exhausted at the front line being shelled, unable to do much, WW1 style. Even if it's realistic, it's not a fun game. That's why there aren't really popular WW1 tactics games.
</gameplay>

There is always a tough balance between realism and playability (fun)

For me, fun always trumps realism if the two go against each other, but when realism is fun, I'm all for it. I'll never make a change that many/most people don't enjoy and keep it for realism's sake. If I did that, not many people would be playing the campaign.


@ Robinson

Good points about the objectives. And I agree that shifting large forces across the field shouldn't be something you can do carelessly without any bad effects. We just need to keep some maneuvering and intensity or it becomes WW1.

[SouthernSteel]

Garnier,

I don't think I actually got to play in any games yesterday, so I didn't get to try the reverted guns out. All I got was a triple-CTD trying to play the campaign scenario Kershaw made.

I think we're all in agreement though that more play is necessary before making final pronouncements. Figuring out what causes fatigue will be good to know as well. It seems like combat definitely takes a toll, for both inf and art.

[Willard]

To all: I think the patch is good overall, just that some things might need adjusting. Thanks for replying.

@ Willard

I agree that most of the changes are good, there's a lot of bug/glitch fixes that will make the game better. And modding to come, of course.

We disagree on the amount of casualties that cannons should be doing, from a gameplay perspective. I don't know the actual historical number, but for gameplay's sake I like the 5-15% casualties from cannons that we had before, if I'd wanted more I could have increased the artillery stats. I think the artillery were not at all useless, they did dictate which positions were important and did inflict casualties and morale hits, if one side didn't use their artillery they'd be in serious trouble.

I wouldn't want artillery to dominate too much even if it is realistic, I just don't enjoy it. I think most people don't, at least not every game.

I agree that there needs to balance between history and playability. From a historical perspective, arguments have been made that artillery caused anywhere from 40-50% of casualties per battle. Not getting into the historical argument of whether that is too high/low, from a game standpoint it is way too high. That being said, I disagree with your preference for a 5-15% rate and argue that the 25-35% range is a nice medium. I would even accept a top-end 25% ratio IF the fatigue/morale malus of infantry of under artillery fire was increased (as explained in depth below).

My argument for the 25-35 rate is based on several game play and tactical factors in game. When the rate is lower, it is actually counter-productive to deploy artillery: the are ineffective at that rate; the point penalty for losing a gun far exceeds any benefit the guns provide; infantry are wasted protecting an asset that does not add value; and finally the inability for guns to defend themselves against infantry between the 200-250 yard gap negates any positives they could provide.

The benefit for guns at 25-35 rate is many: they become a true force multiplier; can be used to actually defend anchor points with much less infantry support; and by using less infantry support this will free up infantry from defensive strongpoints to be utilized in offensive action.

As Sherman said, a battery of guns was worth 1000 rifles - unfortunately that is not so in the game when the rate is at a 5-15% casaulty ratio and there is a 50 yard gap between arty effectiveness and infantry range.

There are two areas that may be of concern that I think should be looked into. First, canister may be a bit overpowered - I am pretty sure guns will fire canister within 200 yards and only double canister within 100 yards. However, I think everyone's major objection with artillery is not with the actual casualty ratio but with the fact that pre-patch the overwhelming majority of arty inflicted casualties was teh result of canister. It may be worth it to explore canister rates to 4/5 or even 2/3 of current effectiveness. Second, IF a tweak is made to cansiter rates, I would like to see a larger morale and fatigue malus incurred by units under arty fire. Civil War artillery was as much a psychological deterrent as it was a battlefield one. That isn't reflected adequately in game and more than anything would be a good way to balance without skewing casualty rates further.

All in all I think good progress has been made. Obviously you are free to tweak your mod as you see fit, but I hope you will take into account some of the points made above before doing so.

[kg_sspoom]

If people are worried about too many casualties from guns just lower the amount of available guns per side/division.

[Garnier]

True, players can already decide not to bring guns, and then the enemy has less guns. Though our ratio is already less guns than realistic, this might be a good way to let it balance itself.