This is where we discuss anything multiplayer. From strategies, arranging games, to multiplayer related technical help. You will also find tournament and league information here.
Yeah, only problem is I've found that cobbling pieces together never seems to make as nice a finished product as you can buy. I mean some companies give you different options, and I've done some upgrades to mine, but the two or three we've had built didn't hold together well at all, and they are used for very little. Not too encouraging.
I'd like to convince myself that I might need word or something again one day and so i ought to get a good all-around machine like the one I have, but honestly I'm not sure I'll ever use it for anything but surfing and gaming.
But just got the bill back on getting my Laguna back in shape and it's $700+ :pinch: No nothing for me for a while
Last edited by SouthernSteel on Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
Regiments' terrain bonus for defense should be calculated by the whole area the regiment occupies,instead of only the terrain underneath the flag. The proper way to do it would be to take the average terrain bonus using all of the "spots" that the regiment is on. Another way is to just use the most common one, so for instance if a unit has one part on fence and nine parts on woods, they would get the woods defense bonus.
The problem I see is with regiments automatically wheeling when not TCed. They would leave the wall frequently. The "flag on wall" tactic, or "fence creep" or whatever we call it is dumb, but it certainly would change gameplay if it was fixed.
Now if oblique fire was also fixed so regiments didn't need to wheel constantly, but could fire even when the regiment isn't lined up facing the enemy flag, both problems would be solved at once. Regiments could use walls properly, walls could be flanked, and it would be easier to play.
Was there a fix for the wall thing proposed last night? I mean there's always the ability to put unit markers on the ends of the units as well but that would, I think, hog more memory per regiment. And still, the oblique fire would have to be limited so that a unit facing 90 degrees off wouldn't be able to hold entirely on a wall and shoot an enemy.
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
NY Cav seems to think we went a little too far with the fatigue levels.
"As I have said before, the patch is good. The higher fatigue rates are welcome, I just think you went a bit too far. I think the fatigue rates needed to be tweaked a bit. The troops tire too fast during combat."
Would like to get other opinions on this. Fatigue levels way too high? Or just need to be toned down slightly?
I don't think we changed it unless you run the troops to exhaustion. I think the higher levels remained the same, with the same recovery. Not 100% on that, but our goal was to make exhausted troops have a realistic recovery time.
They do take a longer time to recover even from slight fatigue levels. In the previous patch, they went from exhausted to fresh in 5:10 (5 minutes 10 seconds), at a constant rate. So it's about 80 seconds to recover to fresh from 1/4 fatigue (or 750 stamina to 1000). In the current patch, doing that takes 4:15 according to my test. To go from exhausted to fresh it takes 20 minutes now instead of 5.
It's odd because I haven't found a change to it in the csv files other than the additional fatigue penalty at exhausted, tired and weary.
I also just thought of an interesting thing, do the fatigue penalties from terrain apply even when troops are resting? So they would rest slower in woods than in the open?
Last edited by Garnier on Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Would like to get other opinions on this. Fatigue levels way too high? Or just need to be toned down slightly?
Way too high? Not necessarily. I actually think they are an improvement over the previous settings, but yes, they could be toned down and/or tweaked a bit still. Just so that the troops don't get run down quite as quickly and possibly recover slightly faster.
I have also noticed a few other problems that need attention as well, but it's too early and I can't remember all of them offhand.
The first I will say is that a TC'd regiment brought in column at an enemy will not fall under the automatic charge radius. The unit can be brough calmly in column up to 5 yards in front of an enemy regiment, calmly form line, and begin blazing away. If the enemy regiment is not TC'd, it will be sucked into melee, but the other unit won't bother until the enemy charges them first.
Also, while the fatigue increases have helped cut back on column charging/advancing, it is still a problem. honestly, a unit that walks or runs directly at an enemy unit in column should, as with artillery, take much heavier casualties. Only by making this prohibitively expensive can we hope to stop this tactic. Attempts to take guns are way down and people are much more cautious about their formations now since the change to artillery. We have tossed the idea of a volley fire button around, but I don't actually know how feasible this is within the scope of the current engine and code. Still, it would be a terrific addition, if possible, and would serve to wipe, say, 20+ men per volley from the front of an advancing column. The way it is right now is a bit silly.
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
Would like to get other opinions on this. Fatigue levels way too high? Or just need to be toned down slightly?
The first I will say is that a TC'd regiment brought in column at an enemy will not fall under the automatic charge radius. The unit can be brough calmly in column up to 5 yards in front of an enemy regiment, calmly form line, and begin blazing away. If the enemy regiment is not TC'd, it will be sucked into melee, but the other unit won't bother until the enemy charges them first.
Also, while the fatigue increases have helped cut back on column charging/advancing, it is still a problem. honestly, a unit that walks or runs directly at an enemy unit in column should, as with artillery, take much heavier casualties. Only by making this prohibitively expensive can we hope to stop this tactic. Attempts to take guns are way down and people are much more cautious about their formations now since the change to artillery. We have tossed the idea of a volley fire button around, but I don't actually know how feasible this is within the scope of the current engine and code. Still, it would be a terrific addition, if possible, and would serve to wipe, say, 20+ men per volley from the front of an advancing column. The way it is right now is a bit silly.
The fix we talked about with the Norbsoft team last friday (edit: Thursday) about running tc'd units through lines should solve your first problem.
As to the second one, it would have to be a pretty big penalty to stop players from advancing in column since columns move so much faster than lines. As well, units disengaging and running away in column should also have the same penalty. And honestly, not very many people have a problem with that tactic, and almost everyone uses it. It's most often used to keep pressure on units that have run away from contact in column or have retreated and are already beat down. Also, in the game Saturday when I ran columns at your regiments, your boys were so tired and shot up they hardly fired as I moved in for the kill, so increased casualties for advancing columns wouldn't have been much of a deterrent. And as long as columns move a lot faster than lines, players will still use them. A possible fix might be making forming columns take longer. That would make it more costly for players to form columns to run away or pursue.
Last edited by KG_Soldier on Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Thursday, not Friday
Well, I only resorted to column (and couldn't run anyway) because retreat wasn't working at all - units either retreated parallel to my own lines or would stop. Plus there's always the danger of trying a controlled retreat and having the unit run amok and into enemy lines. The best fix for this would simply (I say that because I have no idea how tough it might be) make the retreat command send your unit away from any nearby enemy units, not just to the rear of where your unit is facing. Retreating units (historically) are going to get the heck outta Dodge, not run around in circles. I honestly think retreating in column already takes a hell of a lot of casualties as is, and doesn't need to be upped, especially seeing as they will be increasing distance from enemy fire, not running closer. I've regularly seen units pulling out in this fashion lose in excess of 20 men in a matter of seconds with the new patch.
I'm not sure that fixing the ability to run through a unit would stop a unit from running up in the face of a unit and stopping, unless they were forced to melee either way. I was mainly pointing to the fact that TC is what seemed to make a difference in this instance, just so the dev team would know.
Garnier mentioned that now skirmish formation was as fast or faster than column, but as of yet I don't see it. And being shot up shouldn't negate the fact that a volley fired from several hundred men (even if a broken volley) would deicmate an oncoming column (or any formation, for that matter), especially at, you know, 50 yards or less. The advancing unit would be defenseless and, if done with complete historical correctness, would have really no supporting fire from friendly units unless they were far on the flanks.
But yes, in the end, as has been proven to no end, if there is an exploit, players will find it and use it (*cue beating dead horse*). I know many are fine with this, and it's fine from a removed, objective point of view, but in my opinion (and mine alone, I understand that), being the guinea pig and having these things used against you time and time again gets old. I know it can help track down bugs and things that need to be fixed, but having to play against it nearly every game, you might as well hook up a vacuum and suck the fun right out of the whole thing.
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
now skirmish formation was as fast or faster than column,
What I meant was that I had recently discovered that it was always this way, and trying it out in stock games recently I've found that it's true. In the GCM mod, it's not.
I tried giving columns a radius where they automatically withdraw when enemies are in the radius, but that only applies to units not TCed.
One, probably easiest fix for the column charge would be to give a formation radius where the formation is impossible when a certain number of enemy troops are nearby. Say if there are at least 100 enemies within 50 yards, the column automatically changes to the fighting formation (line). If this was added as a possibility for modding, it might work. Obviously would stop columns from rushing up close because it would technically be impossible.
Last edited by Garnier on Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
