Fix Bayonets

[KG_Soldier]

All right. . . I know you guys are working on a patch. So I thought I'd throw this out there.


In MP Games, we see many players advancing aggressively to contact with the enemy, especially if they have them outnumbered. Fine. Attack the weak point in the line. Fine.

There's just one problem. There's no penalty, or very little, for closing with the enemy. In assault columns or in line or even in road columns, there's no way for multiple regiments even behind stone walls to stop the enemy cold or even slow them down. Rifle fire at 75 yards or less should devastate advancing regiments who are not firing but simply advancing to melee.

If the real guns had been this weak at close range, Lee would have been successful on 3 July.

We need something like Buck & Ball. We need to make regiments pay for advancing to melee against regiments behind stone walls or fences or woods or even out in the open.

Please help. I think it would be good for the game.

[Little Powell]

This patch is more of a quick fix patch to address a few issues that were left out of 1.4. What you propose would be a big change that could affect a lot of things. However I'm adding it to the list for a future release because it's something I'd like to see as well. Close range = devastating results.

[Jonah]

I agree with Soldier on this one i have been on the receiving end of column charges the devastating fire from close range would all but stop them under normal circumstances but the lack of short range effect really makes the column charge the assault weapon of choice.

[Garnier]

If this is looked at, it would best if it was added as a mod-able option, maybe to rifles.csv or something. That way it doesn't risk messing up the stock game.

[Amish John]

Just to be clear, are you saying as the game is right now, musket fire does not become more effective as the range decreases? So when two regiments fire at each other from 160 yards they inflict the same casualty rate as if they were 10 yards apart? I'm probably just misunderstanding something here. Or is it that musket fire does become more effective as range decreases and KG is asking for this effect to be increased from what it already is.

[KG_Soldier]

Just to be clear, are you saying as the game is right now, musket fire does not become more effective as the range decreases? So when two regiments fire at each other from 160 yards they inflict the same casualty rate as if they were 10 yards apart? I'm probably just misunderstanding something here. Or is it that musket fire does become more effective as range decreases and KG is asking for this effect to be increased from what it already is.

AJ,

I think it becomes more effective at closer ranges, but not much, so yes, I'm asking that it become much more effective.

[Chris G.]

I agree Soldier. There should be a high price to be paid for forming up, and crossing open ground under direct fire without ever stopping to return fire.

[KG_Soldier]

If this is looked at, it would best if it was added as a mod-able option, maybe to rifles.csv or something. That way it doesn't risk messing up the stock game.

Agreed

[Marching Thru Georgia]

It was rifled artillery that was chiefly responsible for breaking up dense formations, not rifled muskets.

[Turbotay]

During last night's MP game on Culp's Hill, we had the better part of *2* divisions entrenched along the breastworks on Culp's Hill proper, myself and Jmcraz8. Jim's men spotted an enemy division running up the slope about 120 yards out and opened fire. I shifted some regiments over to provide more fire, and moved my big brigade down the slopes some to try to get behind the attacker. With 6 to 8 regiments firing from behind breastworks, from uphill, into targets that are running from the downhill, you'd expect to see men falling like corn to a combine, especially as they drew to within 50 yards or so. But that wasn't the case. They weren't even slowed down a bit. I won't go into the swirling unavoidable melee and auto-charge issue, since that's another subject and sounds like one of the subjects of the next patch.

But, it seems to me that for the sake of realism, some range tables could be added to whatever .scv file is appropriate. Then, every weapon type in the game could have their 'best effective range'... say 120 yards for a Springfield rifle, and then from 119 yards to 90 yards, its slightly more effective, 89 yards to 50 yards even more so, and within 50 yards, massed fire becomes devastating. And the opposite effect for ranges greater than 120 yrds. And I agree with Garnier that making it an MP moddable function would be best.