Scourge of War Boards

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

So you're saying that a regiment approaching an enemy position should take no more casualties at 40 yards than it does at 140 yards from small arms fire?

If only the infantry could be ordered to hold fire/fire by volley command.This would surely have to add the desired effect of massed musket fire on closing formations.

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

I didn't say anything about rifled muskets "breaking up" dense formations. I said they (rifled muskets) should be more deadly at close range so they can stop or at least slow down regiments closing to melee.

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.

Yes, it does become more effective.. That's why there are multiple ranges listed in the rifles/artillery.csv files (as pointed out to me by Adukes).

But we can look into making it more effective, especially at really close ranges.

KG_Soldier wrote:

I said they (rifled muskets) should be more deadly at close range so they can stop or at least slow down regiments closing to melee.

I agree that the number of melees is extremely unrealistic. There were only 7 recorded instances of it happening at Gettysburg and 3 at Antietam. There were many charges but almost all ended with the defenders retreating, the attackers stopping mid-way and firing, or the attackers falling back. People don't seem to mind getting shot, but they definitely don't want to be stabbed. The issue was discussed in another thread a few months ago.
Regiment Disorganization
I'm all for fixing this problem. I just don't think upping the musket effectiveness is the way to do it.

As things stand now, a regiment that opens fire at 220 yards (we upped the range in our MP games to stop the canister parties) on an enemy regiment that is in assault formation/column by division will score *maybe* 20 casualties if they are lucky before the enemy crashes into them. That seems to be highly unrealistic. The enemy also suffers no morale loss from soaking up all the rifle fire when running into it. I don't think any of us are asking for machine gun-like effects at close range. Just more a more realistic effect of close range fire. If a morale hit could also be added into the mix, I think that would help with the number of melees going on.

I'm not saying there should be no more hand to hand fighting. It has it's place and its uses, but there are a couple players in MP who's only tactic is to mass their division and rush it headlong into the enemy. Every game. Sometimes multiple times in the same battle.

I definitely agree that close range fire should be upped in effectiveness (or moddable like soldier and garnier said). There are multiple times in MP where you have great ground (hill with fence/wall and open field of fire) that should be incredibly hard to take but simply isn't. The enemy can surge forward, taking minimal casualties, even if they are slowed by crossing fences and then drive off the defender. This is simply unrealistic as the quality of the ground should be able to overcome the numbers of the attacker (sometimes ) or at least make them pay for the ground they are taking.

Additionally, I think it could also be capped if the fatigue it takes to charge is dramatically increased. Several regiments would not be able to engage in repeated instances of hand-to-hand effectively.

Perhaps the reduction in morale caused by receiving casualties by fire could be increased sufficiently to produce the desired result, rather than having yet another mod that cannot be used in MP games. I have forgotten which file that is in, but IIRC it is one that is moddable for MP.

One this one I am not sure of the solution. In the past I have stressed then need for short range rifle fire to be more deadly. The big picture needs to be looked at. The three main things that I am concerned with at the moment is long range artillery effects, effects from canister, and short range rifle effects.

Canister fire has been changed and it is really what should be stopping column charges and charges in general; the cannons have been moved off the front lines which is what we all wanted.

Effective counter battery fire is not modeled well and it appears that it is not possible with the current game design. That is too bad, but that is the way it is. We cannot have it all.


I just want historical accuracy and we have had to give up some of that accuracy because of gamey tactics.

I just would want a lot of testing done before a change in rifles is implemented. Not to be disrespectful, but the best option would be to make it modable so any change could be played out in mp with the results made available to everyone. We could play test it every day and 2 or 3 times a day.

Barksdale's charge is one of the more famous of the war. That needs to be shown in this game simulation. He charged the peach orchard busted it up and then turned north and rolled up the rest of the 3rd corp and then made a drive for cemetery ridge where he fell and his charge ran out of steam and was stopped. That particular scenario is a good one and plays well(except for sharpshooters with a 400 yard range?)

In the Pickett's Charge scenario the rebel troops do not take enough casualties while closing on the clump of trees.

Marching through Georgia is right. There are way to many charges in this simulation. I wonder if everyone understands what that means. It means that offensives will be harder. We need to keep the game with a good flow so that players don't feel like they have to stay back. I think this can all be done.

I think that the changes made to LOS were excellent and that the new fatigue went a little to far, but was better than what we had.

Of course as always I defer to the developers.