Disorganization

[NY Cavalry]

We have moral and fatigue, but in the next version is there a way to introduce "disorganization"? It would be a function of the same magnitude of moral and fatigue, but could better help address realities of the battlefield.

Disorganization would be effected by the number of flags in proximaty and transversing different types of terrain. So a mob of regiments would lose effectiveness soley because of disorganization. Also, given time disorganization will always return to 100%.

This would further help out with stacking and mass charges.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

I interpret the fatigue value as being partly composed of disorganization. That way, the 'fatigue' a unit receives crossing a fence or cornfield makes sense. They are not really fatigued but disorganized.

[NY Cavalry]

I am compelled to believe that an abstract function for disorganization is deficient. A true disorganization function could more properly deal with massed charges and stacking problems.

As an example, if a regiment had two other flags in its proximaty then all is fine, if 4 or 5 flags are in its proximatey then all fire is cut by 2/3rds and continues to fall until the disorganized state is rectified and then once rectified it would increase.

A mob would itself be butchered and stacked lines would feel the effect of increased casualties for no reciprocating factor.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Stacking/bunching of regiments does incur a penalty. Those units expend a lot of effort to deploy. I have often seen them go from refreshed to weary by the time they untangle themselves and properly deploy. Now that shooting through the lines has been greatly reduced, there is even less reason to bunch up the units. Fatigue does result in slower firing times and produce fewer casualties. This can be interpreted as a combination of true fatigue and disorganization. Also, morale increases as tired/disorganized troops recover.

[NY Cavalry]

MTG,

The GCM has recently dropped the support bonus, which I agree with in concept. The unintended consequences are rather large and I don't think we have the tools available to do without the bonus. More tools makes it an easier time modding.

What are your thoughts to dropping the support bonus? I am at a loss to fully describe what is the most historical situation (refering to unit abilities from moral) . This game is not perfect, but I do get a feel of the Civil War from it. This is the basis of my post.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

The game becomes very ahistoric without a support bonus. That was the whole point of keeping a brigade together, to give mutual support to each regiment. It's even worse in GCM as rallying no longer exists. The units now fight to some casualty level and then retreats. You might be able to bring them back into line, but they will not stand very long. I played one game with these changes but I won't play another.

I think the error being made is that people are measuring the morale via the colored bar. That only measures the relative morale, not the absolute morale. That value can be seen by setting dbglvl=2. The bar can register high while the absolute morale may be at panic level. One or two more casualties and the unit will rout off the field. The bar really lulls the player into a false sense of security by making him think the morale of his regiment is much better than it really is.

I don't know if the bar can be made to display the absolute morale, but the game would be better if it did.

[KG_Soldier]

The game becomes very ahistoric without a support bonus. That was the whole point of keeping a brigade together, to give mutual support to each regiment. It's even worse in GCM as rallying no longer exists. The units now fight to some casualty level and then retreats. You might be able to bring them back into line, but they will not stand very long. I played one game with these changes but I won't play another.

I don't think you should make this absolute statement: "The game becomes very ahistoric without a support bonus." Agreed, their should be a support bonus. But the current support bonus makes the game play very ahistoric. Too much of a bonus for keeping all your troops bunched. The support bonus should be mod-able. But as of now, it's either on or off.

Rallying in the GCM hasn't changed. There's just no support bonus, so it looks as if units don't rally as much as they used to.

There have been at least 10 updates to the GCM since you played last Saturday. Tonight's game saw not a single regiment break, and there were near 20 players in the game. I suspect Garnier will lower the starting morale tomorrow.

You know, Kevin, the GCM has always been about having the best MP games possible. Garnier has always tinkered with the mod: sometimes it's been a failure and he went back to before the change; sometimes he hits it dead on and the changes stay; sometimes it's a middle ground thing that stays or doesn't and few notice.

Bottom line is that I think it's wrong to say "I played one game with these changes but I won't play another." Especially when the one game you played in was a great game, in my opinion (although I wish you'd have attacked earlier). :ohmy:

[Marching Thru Georgia]

I do agree that variables such as support radius, bonus values, max bonus allowable as well as a number of other items should be open to modding. They being hardcoded is a detriment to the improvement of the game. I also support Garnier's desire to see maneuver become a larger factor in the outcome of battles rather than just bludgeoning one another in a small space. But removing a large piece of the game system is the wrong approach. It may serve a legitimate need for normal GCM games. I can't comment on those. But for HITS games there is no need for it because maneuver has always been a large part of those battles.

Rallying did not exist in the game I participated in. I sat by one regiment for nearly 10 minutes and its morale did not increase by even 1 point. There are a number of things I do not particularly care for in the GCM mod. But I play the HITS games on Saturday to help bolster play from that unique perspective. And it is fun to participate in games where there are 15-20 other humans involved. My hope is that as people begin to get comfortable at saddle level, they might be more willing to get involved in some of the KS-style games where very little is modded and is a very different experience. But these last changes just ruin the gameplay for myself.

[NY Cavalry]

I understand the reasoning of removing the support bonus. The problem is is that it shouldn't be removed, but instead lowered. As it is not possible to lower it there are two options. With all the different mods and opinions we all lose certain perspectives. It is natural and we are all guilty of it.

In the end what we should imagine is a civil war battlefield. I don't know how many of us play with a reserve artillery, but that was a very real reality. If all the mods are made for balance with the status quo (how each of us plays) are we missing the big picture? A true test would be the troops their supporting artillery and the artillery reserve. When this artillery reserve is included how much does the game change?

If you take away the support bonus and add the artillery reserve then it is game over for the infantry. We are in WW1 50 years earlier. Any future campaign (which will never happen, so it seems) will not work under these conditions.

I am always against slowing down or inhibiting in some way the infantry regiment.

[IronBMike]

I have also been calling for this in the next release. Call it "cohesion" like in Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle and Austerlitz: Napoleon's Greatest Victory. Units lose cohesion through marching, taking fire, moving over rough terrain, bumping into other units, having units retreat through them, taking artillery fire, and especially melee. The only way to get cohesion back is to rest.

This cannot be properly modeled through fatigue IMO.