Page 2 of 4
Re:Proposed Artillery Behavioral Change
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 6:11 pm
by BOSTON
Marching Thru Georgia wrote:
Shirkon,
My #4 proposal is only for the times when a regiment captures the gun and automatically mans it. I would like the option of not manning it, just spiking it instead.
What would you prove by just doing spiking and how would it affect game play (loaded question)?
Re:Proposed Artillery Behavioral Change
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 6:22 pm
by RebBugler
Rich Mac wrote:
I'm also in favor of #2,.
However, can you consider adding in a melee before a gun is captured? As it stands now, capturing a gun is really like two-hand touch football. You charge the gun and you get it if you can touch it. Those batteries had crews that were very proud of those field pieces and were known for fighting to preserve their "virginity". Not only that, but those crews were, in many cases, recruited from the infantry ranks. So, those guys had been trained to fight.
If you can rush in a regiment by column, you can quickly capture an entire battery with an enemy infantry regiment nearby. They simply don't have time to react. If you add a melee in, this might give those neighboring regiments time to rush in and help defend the battery. At the very least, it might buy enough time to pull the remainder of the guns out of harm's way.
Just a thought....
Melee is a very good idea for realism. However, realistically, we must consider how the game engine is designed. Besides the problem of meleeing a 1:4 sprite ratio with a 1:1 ratio gun crew, ask the question: What results in a melee? Answer...Retreat. Sometimes a surrender may result, but 90% of the time...Retreat. And, you know who will lose...the gun crew. Capturing guns would be basically eliminated.
So, change the melee lines in the code to accommodate this idea, and risk new melee bugs associated with other areas...I really don't think this is practical...good idea, but improbable.
Re:Proposed Artillery Behavioral Change
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 6:23 pm
by Paladin
1. No
2. yes
3. No
Re:Proposed Artillery Behavioral Change
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 6:55 pm
by RebBugler
Shirkon wrote:
Marching Thru Georgia wrote:
I vote yes for all three.
I hope that for #2 the guns will not instantly limber, but will spend time doing so. I would also add a #4. Where the player can man the captured guns, ask him if he would like to do so or just spike them, (they raise the white flag and disappear).
Another thing to consider for your #4. If you capture the gun you must also capture the limber otherwise you have a 2400 lb paperweight. The ammo for the gun is on the limber and it's much easier to move by hand then the gun. Without the limber you have no ammo or fuses for the guns so they are useless for the current fight. And without at least some artillerists to guide the infantry you want to man the gum, most wouldn't know what to do anyway. Loading and firing a CW cannon isn't anything like loading and firing the rifle musket and most infantry would probably miss some important steps, like poking the friction primer through the powder bag to ensure the burning primer touched off the powder charge. or covering the touch hole while swabbing so that no air gets to the burning embers when swabbing out the barrel before putting a new charge in. Is bad if you don't have all those embers out and shoving in a bag of black powder that explodes because of them, it could really ruin the day of the person ramming the charge home.
Great, as always, historical narrative there Shirkon.
If I may add, historically, seldom was a gun captured and immediately manned, because the gun crews generally ran off with all the tools of gun loading. In essence, disabling the gun. This was opted by most battery commanders over spiking so the possibly of getting their gun back was still available. Plus, it was faster.
So, with this thread, we're really talking gameplay, and what seems to be more realistic.
Re:Proposed Artillery Behavioral Change
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 7:02 pm
by Marching Thru Georgia
Boston,
Most of the time I would prefer to keep my men, rather than have a green battery that can't hit the broadside of a barn. Not all the time mind you, but the large majority.
RebBugler,
A vast improvement would be to charge the entire battery and melee with the entire battery crew, rather than take them on individually. That way the whole battery can be captured at once, which is more historical, and the crew actually has a fighting chance.
Re:Proposed Artillery Behavioral Change
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 7:08 pm
by BOSTON
If I may add, historically, seldom was a gun captured and immediately manned, because the gun crews generally ran off with all the tools of gun loading. In essence, disabling the gun. This was opted by most battery commanders over spiking so the possibly of getting their gun back was still available. Plus, it was faster.
So, with this thread, we're really talking gameplay, and what seems to be more realistic.
So what would prevent the other side from capturing/spiking the gun? The tools would not do them much good then.
Re:Proposed Artillery Behavioral Change
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 7:25 pm
by RebBugler
BOSTON wrote:
If I may add, historically, seldom was a gun captured and immediately manned, because the gun crews generally ran off with all the tools of gun loading. In essence, disabling the gun. This was opted by most battery commanders over spiking so the possibly of getting their gun back was still available. Plus, it was faster.
So, with this thread, we're really talking gameplay, and what seems to be more realistic.
So what would prevent the other side from capturing/spiking the gun? The tools would not do them much good then.
A captured gun was a valuable prize for unit commanders, great fodder for promotions. Guns that were intact but unable to be manned, were tediously rolled back, MANually, to friendly lines. Spiking was always the last option considered.
Re:Proposed Artillery Behavioral Change
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 7:30 pm
by BOSTON
A captured gun was a valuable prize for unit commanders, great fodder for promotions. Guns that were intact but unable to be manned, were tediously rolled back, MANually, to friendly lines. Spiking was always the last option considered.
Is this one of the subjects you are considering bringing up to the NSD team?
Re:Proposed Artillery Behavioral Change
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 7:38 pm
by RebBugler
BOSTON wrote:
A captured gun was a valuable prize for unit commanders, great fodder for promotions. Guns that were intact but unable to be manned, were tediously rolled back, MANually, to friendly lines. Spiking was always the last option considered.
Is this one of the subjects you are considering bringing up to the NSD team?
Nope, just talking history.
Let's stick with this thread's proposals. Sorry, got a little off thread, but it was Shirkon's fault, drat you Shirkon, misleading me... :woohoo:
Great feedback guys...keep those opinions coming. I want this proposal solid, so Norb sees the merit...fully backed by the forum.
Re:Proposed Artillery Behavioral Change
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 8:31 pm
by Roberts
Greetings
If anything we can agree to disagree.
I don't think you are able to create a game that will satisfy both camps, What needs to be done is to optimize the game for, those who play AI and those who play Head to Head. In effect 2 seperate games.