Scourge of War Boards

Gents -

This is a very interesting topic - as it always is.

I ran some numbers, specifically in regard to Garnier's campaign and posted the results here:

http://www.norbsoftdev.net/index.php?op ... Itemid=124

The bottom-line for all involved - ground pounders and gunners alike - is that no one wants to play an unbalanced game. Baylor is correct that when "gentlemen's rules" were in force, there were many games that were played where players did not roll the guns up or snake TC'd columns through lines. Unfortunately, there were still instances where this issue could not be resolved and it has essentially been settled in Garnier's campaign with the tweaks.

As I have mentioned before, I believe that there has been too much nerfing of artillery but Garnier has done the best he can with the tools available. This issue will hopefully be resolved with the new patch by extending rifle ranges to 200 yards to match the canister range of artillery. I would like to see some other tweaks, specifically improved counter-battery fire and long range fire, which will also have a good effect of "pushing the guns back."

In my playing experience, Garnier's campaign has resulted in 10-15% arty casualties and the stock game (provided no gamey tactics) usually resulted in 20-30% arty casaulties. The only times I have seen pretty obscene casautly rates has been in the stock game when players were just using batteries like rolling shotgun tanks. In those instances, casualties reached 40-50%, which was just absurd in my book.

I think the two big tweaks of extending rifle ranges to 200 yards and improved CB and long range fire will bring balance back to the game and result in 20-30% arty casaulties without anyone having to worry about any "gamey" exploits. It will not result in absolute historical accuracy, BUT it will result in a continued greater trend towards restoring artillery to an important but balanced role in the game.

Interesting stats, Captain Willard. I had forgotten you previously posted them.

Based upon your observances, when coupled with the stats of Griffith and other historical research, it becomes obvious that Norb and Jim were CORRECT with the hit ratio of the game BEFORE it was modified. I.E. Griffith and others maintain (and correctly so in my opinion based upon my research) a hit percentage of between 20 and 50 percent of total casualties which closely correlates with Captain Willards research of 20 to 30 percent in the stock game. With these numbers in mind, I can only apologize to Jim and his team for my earlier criticisms of their game development for the artillery! I should have been more methodical in my assertions and have done the math as Captain Willard did.

Thanks Captain Willard for the data...now, all we have to do is to reapply the "gentlemen's rules" to future games in both stock and mods and return it to the correct balance as envisioned by the game designers.

J

Baylor, the common 20-30% kill rate in the stock game is almost entirely canister kills. Maybe that's realistic but I believe most players don't enjoy that at all.

As far as I know most people like artillery's current use in the campaign. It's effective at long range if you put it on high ground with clear line of sight, and it also is effective at preventing the enemy from overrunning your line and taking objectives, if you keep infantry in front of the guns.

Guns aren't effective when used as the front line against infantry, like they are with shorter musket range. This might not be realistic but I find it fun. Of course I'm open to hear if people don't like it.

I don't imagine I'll ever endorse gentlemen's rules against using your units any particular way unless the rules can be clearly defined.

"Why change and ignore what is historically correct unless one simply wants to 'play army commander' and emphasize their personal 'gamey' advantages."

"Wait...I don't like the historical aspect of cannister being able to fire at 200 yards while my infantry can only fire at 160 yards! Let's change to a longer musket range to negate historical effects of cannister so that I will have the advantage. . . ."

Jack. . . I take issue with both of these statements. And I think it's wrong to question other players' motives when they have a different opinion.

I'm fine with the game as it is, really, and only want more maps and better reliability in MP.

I have to say that the main issue I have found still revolves around stacking. In a recent game, I had someone roll up their guns into their line and fire cannister at will. I couldn't touch their guns, and when I rolled mine up to counter, mine were shot away quickly while theirs fired with impunity. Limber behind the infantry, guns right in the line. The same issue goes for infantry - I found while watching yesterday that you can essentially have an entire brigade form up on itself and open fire. That is to say, march a brigade of 4 regiments in column and then let them switch to line on their own, a godawful mess of a formation, but a hell of a lot of firepower in a very small front. I know changing this would be difficult, but I believe it would go a long way towards historical accuracy while keeping the gameplay good and honest.

Another option would be to penalize/reward artillery for moving too frequently or staying in place for longer periods, respectively. That would prevent these rolling cannister tanks which show up all too frequently, despite claims to the contrary. 250 yard muskets do help a good deal, but until we remove the ability to do this, it will continue to happen. Either that or we have to change the mindset of the players...yeah, right.

If this were to be modified, at least, I think some of these other problems would go away. As I am apparently not as savvy with stacking my guns in my front lines, my guns are often run off without firing any cannister because my infantry is mixed in to their front, and even in gaps in my line the guns will not or cannot acquire a target long enough or well enough to wreak proper havoc on them.

As for gentlemen's agreements, well, I think it's obvious why they have fallen by the wayside. Garnier, you'd support them only if rules could be clearly laid out. However, most don't want to bother with those rules because they would adversely affect their ability to do whatever they want whenever they want. People want to be able to do whatever is necessary to win, and these "agreements" just get in the way.

I was all for the 200 yard muskets, but now I'm not so sure. The 250 yard muskets do a pretty good job of keeping guns back, but I'm afraid the 200 yard muskets will not do as well and we'll see even more guns rolled up.

Best solution: give infantry the ability to choose specific targets like artillery does now.

I have noticed infantry lines overlapping with both lines firing. I think this should be definitely looked at. I think TC2M was good about this. Some overlapping is understandable, but not entire lengths of a regiment.

I have seen canister fire right through infantry lines when the artillery and infantry are mixed. Players should on their own not allow this, but I have seen it happen. I have seen canister fired into opposing regiments during and immediately after melee (charging). The friendly side takes no casualties while the opposing side gets the hot lead.

With artillery I have problems with front line resupply and the instantaneous resupply. This is very gamey and no one but me complains, but for me it is big. Artillery should not resupply except they are limbered up and then they should take excessive casualties if they are targeted while limbered. This would make players pull their artillery back for resupply. I believe this to be essential and doable for historical accuracy. Players would have to be more mindful of artillery supply and infantry commanders would have another historical tactic. Didn't Alexander send a note to Pickett to "Come quick or I will not be able to properly support you". Of course if he had front line resupply with "supper wagons" he could have all the supply he wanted.

Great game and support.

I am all for historical accuracy and playability. I think both can be achieved relatively speaking. Relatively speaking , in my opinion, simply means that this is still just a game.

I was all for the 200 yard muskets, but now I'm not so sure. The 250 yard muskets do a pretty good job of keeping guns back, but I'm afraid the 200 yard muskets will not do as well and we'll see even more guns rolled up.

Best solution: give infantry the ability to choose specific targets like artillery does now.

Quite agree, Mr. Soldier....with the proviso that musket ranges remain at the standard 160 yard range which represents actual, accurate CW combat! :ohmy:

J

I have to say that the main issue I have found still revolves around stacking.

I noticed that same thing in a game, yesterday. Had a Union player stack 3 regiments on top of one another with the expected results. Unfortunately, he did not suffer "friendly fire" from the extra regiments. It would definitely be an improvement to eliminate that from happening.

J

I've seen canister fired INTO my regiment while it was engaged in melee! Garnier and Rich Mac saw it too.

Magic canister, hit only my guys.

As far as the stacking goes, it seems to me this is mostly a problem in woods. I know in the woods just across from the seminary and railroad cut on the McPherson map you can "stack" your infantry and then move them a little and find lines of sight real easy (that's why many always attack those woods). I don't think stacking infantry is much of a problem on open ground.