regiment disorganization

[Garnier]

Guda,

It's possible to disable the charge button, in fact troops with a lot of fatigue already can't be ordered to charge. The problem is "autocharge" -- units that are too close to each other automatically go into melee.

Autocharge is necessary at some level to prevent enemy units from running through each other which used to happen. (Of course, you could replace autocharge with a forced retreat for the weaker side, but that would likely get even messier as retreating is so unpredictable, and the weaker side is usually the side being charged.)

[Gudadantza]

Guda,

It's possible to disable the charge button, in fact troops with a lot of fatigue already can't be ordered to charge. The problem is "autocharge" -- units that are too close to each other automatically go into melee.

Autocharge is necessary at some level to prevent enemy units from running through each other which used to happen. (Of course, you could replace autocharge with a forced retreat for the weaker side, but that would likely get even messier as retreating is so unpredictable, and the weaker side is usually the side being charged.)

If the fatige is high are the autocharges launched?

[KG_Soldier]

Guda,

It's possible to disable the charge button, in fact troops with a lot of fatigue already can't be ordered to charge. The problem is "autocharge" -- units that are too close to each other automatically go into melee.

Autocharge is necessary at some level to prevent enemy units from running through each other which used to happen. (Of course, you could replace autocharge with a forced retreat for the weaker side, but that would likely get even messier as retreating is so unpredictable, and the weaker side is usually the side being charged.)

If the fatige is high are the autocharges launched?

Yes. The charge button will not work if the regiment is tired or more fatigued. But units will autocharge even if exhausted.

[Gudadantza]

I am not wrong the debate is about the high rate of melees in game causing supposed unrealistic results on simulation?.

A solution should be implementation of harder comsecuences when advancing against enemy. getting too close could be too punishable on morale, stress and shots, because of the lack or fire, being probable the retreat of a regiment. That would limit close combats and accordingly, autocharges.

Correct me if i am wrong.

Greetings.

[Gudadantza]

Yes. The charge button will not work if the regiment is tired or more fatigued. But units will autocharge even if exhausted.

That is one of the reasons of the problem, then.

[NY Cavalry]

I would like to make a comment about the GCM mod.

First of all fatigue in GCM is recovered more quickly. I have heard from former members of the military here playing GCM that that aspect is more historical in GCM than in the stock game. I think the recovery time in stock game takes to long. After you advance and by the time you get to the enemy your troops are too worn out to fight and need to be withdrawn. As an example, I attacked a position that had artillery and double timed my guys to close the distance. When I was in range to fight my guys were too worn out and couldn't advance any more unless to get all shot up. If you want historical you have to listen to what the grunts have to say.

I have jumped a lot fences in my life and I was never tired after doing it, but it did take time. Why is it fatiguing to jump a fence that isn't 8' or 10' high? It took time not fatigue. If you want to drag a dead deer over a fence that can be fatiguing.

Actually all the other changes made in GCM are right on and that is the only way I play anymore. In SP I will play the GCM mod. The problem is that troops in tight formations should be taking more casualties. That and that alone is the solution to column charges.

Some guys may not like GCM, but if you had been here from the games release you would understand all the reasons behind all the changes.

[Gudadantza]

I would like to make a comment about the GCM mod.

I have jumped a lot fences in my life and I was never tired after doing it, but it did take time. Why is it fatiguing to jump a fence that isn't 8' or 10' high? It took time not fatigue. If you want to drag a dead deer over a fence that can be fatiguing.

In a game It could fatigue because all is simulated in a virtual computer space, and to achieve realistic results in gameplay perhaps some tweaks are needed. If jump a fence does not fatigue in real life, possibily must do fatigue in a game to achieve the desired result.

Greetings.

[Willard]

Why do you even care MTG? I have never once seen you play an MP game, and yet you are COMPLAINING about the melee feature being a-historical. And this is not the first time that I have seen you COMPLAIN about the subject. Are you really that offended by the AI attempting to charge you?

Ps. Willard I think you should go join Digby and his "historical" crowd. You would fit in perfectly. Just do not advocate jacking up your arty power too high.

Seal -

I have no problem playing with Digby or anyone else. I will probably ask them when they play as I like to experiment with different things in SOW.

It is obvious that you were defensive about my post and style of play. You can play however you want - I don't bother making it a point anymore because you don't listen to anyone anyway. The fact that you are a much better/effective player & teammate when you don't column/attack column charge seems to be entirely lost to you but that is besides the point.

As for your comment about artillery, that is your opinion about me. Had you bothered to read any of my posts on the topic you will see that I am not asking for artillery to necessarily be more effective. I am asking that the manner in which it is effective be tweaked. I want counterbattery fire to be more effective but that requires a greater fatigue/morale malus that cannot be accomplished (as far as I know) given the current design limitations of the game. Increasing casaulties to improve CB fire isn't the answer anyway. Most batteries pulled back under the "weight" of fire - meaning it was too hot to stay in place and had to retire or relocate. That didn't mean they lost alot of men and the best way to model it would be with an increased fatigue/morale malus that isn't currently modeled.

As for artillery effectiveness overall against infantry, I would like to see a greater morale/fatigue malus at longer ranges and a scaled increased in casualties as the distance closes to the lethal canister range. Despite what you may think, there was a huge morale/fatigue battle stress inflicted upon men as they got closer to artillery. That really isn't modeled effectively in game and consequently it allows for players to utilze those tactics pretty effectively on a consistent basis. I agree with you, Garnier and others - house rules unfortunately don't work - and until the game engine is tweaked to punish the tactic, players will still use it. That being said, just because players do it doesn't make it right. More importantly I don't want to outlaw the use of the tactic, I just want the tactic to incur historical costs if a player chooses to use it on the virtual battlefield.

Despite what you may erroneously may think, I am not this advocate for uber-artillery that you claim me to be. I have had multiple discussions with players to include Garnier, Soldier, Harmon, etc, on this issue and which is generally reflected based upon what I have discussed above and posted elsewhere. Had you bothered to read any of that you will probably see that in many respects Garnier, Harmon and especially Soldier have influenced my thoughts on this topic. I hope in some respect I have been a good advocate for artillery in the greater context of a well balanced game.

Willard

[KG_Soldier]

I would like to make a comment about the GCM mod.

First of all fatigue in GCM is recovered more quickly. I have heard from former members of the military here playing GCM that that aspect is more historical in GCM than in the stock game. I think the recovery time in stock game takes to long. After you advance and by the time you get to the enemy your troops are too worn out to fight and need to be withdrawn. As an example, I attacked a position that had artillery and double timed my guys to close the distance. When I was in range to fight my guys were too worn out and couldn't advance any more unless to get all shot up. If you want historical you have to listen to what the grunts have to say.

I have jumped a lot fences in my life and I was never tired after doing it, but it did take time. Why is it fatiguing to jump a fence that isn't 8' or 10' high? It took time not fatigue. If you want to drag a dead deer over a fence that can be fatiguing.

Actually all the other changes made in GCM are right on and that is the only way I play anymore. In SP I will play the GCM mod. The problem is that troops in tight formations should be taking more casualties. That and that alone is the solution to column charges.

Some guys may not like GCM, but if you had been here from the games release you would understand all the reasons behind all the changes.

Also, in the GCM, cannon fatigue much faster while double-timing.

Some people posting here haven't been around a long time, so they don't remember that for over a year, players ran their regiments everywhere they moved them. Recovery time was very fast and fatigue happened very slowly.

It was GCM players and mainly Garnier who lobbied NSD to increase fatigue rate while moving fast and to lower fatigue recovery times.

Unfortunately, GCM players also lobbied for the autocharge feature, mainly because a certain player (guess who?) kept running columns through enemy regiments in line formation to get to objectives.

So don't blame NSD for the autocharge feature (or curse, if you will). It's we GCM players who brought that plague onto the community.

I think the way we play games now, autocharge isn't necessary. It has really caused a lot more problems than it has solved; mainly, you can now get multiple regiments in melee against a single enemy regiment by simply moving them (using attack march or tc) on top of the enemy regiment already engaged in melee and letting autocharge do the work: that's the benefit of the massed charge. Regiments will not join an ongoing melee between two opposing regiments by hitting the charge button: they will charge the closest regiment or cannon not in melee.

Solution: make the autocharge range mod-able in single player and MP. Or make it under 10 yards. I prefer the first so that we can experiment and then decide which range is best.

The bottom line is that we asked for it and NSD gave it to us. So if NSD now says, "Sorry, be careful what you ask for." I understand.

Edit: I guess making it impossible for multiple regiments to engage in melee against a single enemy regiment would help too.

[NY Cavalry]

I want the option to column charge. It was used, but was not a common tactic. There should be a price to pay for its use.

More casualties at shorter ranges will also keep lines further apart.

I keep thinking that if we keep designing for balance that if we ever get a campaign going the rebs are going to be thrashed. Many players want a balance and even sides when historically the rebs were usually at a disadvantage. The defensive nature of civil war battles kept the south in the war as much as bad Union generalship. I just want to make this point. War is not a balanced exercise.

Historical over balance. This may just be me playing with terms.