Scourge of War Boards

10-4...no prob. Still need 7-Zip for my big stuff, but I'll discontinue RAR compressions.

Edit: Rars are Zips now, except for a couple that are now included in B&F v7

I like playing the historical OOBs in MP. I wish there were more games where we could go with that option.

Reference the canister versus infantry range, they need to be set equally at 200 yards. That will eliminate the disparity between infantry and artillery. The 220 yard range is an improvement but it still allows stacking of infantry units and has created a game that favors the tactical offensive vice the tactical defensive. By stacking regiments with 220 yd range (or even worst at 250 range), it allows multiple regiments to focus their firepower ahistorically on one single regiment.

Not sure what Garnier's stats are for artillery, but they are definitely tweaked compared with the new stock OOB stats. I believe he has made some changes and that for the most part it has resulted in nerfing counterbattery fire. The stock game OOB counter battery fire was very good - in Garnier's mod it is not effective to the point it is laughable. To me that should be the single biggest deterrent to someone rolling up the guns, but unfortunately that is not the case in Garnier's mod.

As for casualty rates, I think provided arty generates somewhere in the 25-35% range of casaulties per battle, that is the "sweet spot." Anything too low, and it isn't even worth deploying batteries as they have a neglible effect with a greater risk of losing points if they are taken out. And as has been previously stated, no one wants to play a game where 50% + of the casaulties are caused by artillery. I think increasing the fatigue and morale malus of units under artillery fire are also a good way to balance the impact of artillery on the battlefield without having to resort to further tweaks in the casualty rates.

As for Seal and those tactics, there are only a few ways to deal with that. First and foremost if it is a stand-alone battle, there is no current mechanism for punishing players who lose high % of troops. The only way to do that would be to increase the point penalty for casualties. Short of playing a true campaign game where troops are need to be preserved for the next battle, there really is no incentive to police the problem. That being said, more times than not, Seal's own tactics end up by screwing his team over especially as they his troops would have inflicted more damage had he just more patiently waited and allowed his troops to fight before charging.

I'd say Garnier's current setup for artillery vs infantry produces a suitable number of casualties. In a good position, a battery firing constantly for an entire battle (90 minutes) can achieve several hundred casualties in many instances. But yes, counter-battery is basically non-existent, but there's no reason why that alone should serve as a deterrent to deploying one's guns forward. Counter-battery should obviously be less effective at long range, but there's no reason why it should specifically stop someone from rolling their guns up behind their lines verses even 100 yards back. It should be useful in either case. The 220 rifles are meant to deter placement of cannon in the lines, and cannister has been nerfed as well, so honestly in Garnier's current setup, it isn't even worth it to roll your guns up.

Here again, I don't think anyone necessarily has problems playing historical OOBs, but they need to be tweaked to better suit MP. It's fairly well fine for the Union, but divvying up the Confederate command is most often a nightmare. Plus, the main reason we play GCM is because it's designed to make set-up and play as easy as possible (especially for the host), although maybe the historical OOBs could be incorporated. I highly doubt there will be any real shift away from it.

But yes, counter-battery is basically non-existent, but there's no reason why that alone should serve as a deterrent to deploying one's guns forward. Counter-battery should obviously be less effective at long range, but there's no reason why it should specifically stop someone from rolling their guns up behind their lines verses even 100 yards back. It should be useful in either case.

Remember, rolling the guns up - like you have described - requires several factors. First the battery needs to be limbered, then moved, than unlimbered. During that entire time, the battery is vulnerable to counterbattery fire without an ability to defend itself. Additionally, that sequence now has an increased fatigue hit which slows down the movements, ROF and makes the battery more susceptible to hits. Add that to the fact that the guns are moving closer, making the distance shorter which should theoretically increase accuracy. In the stock game now, artillery at less 500 yards or less gets torn up quite quickly. Unfortunately that doesn't happen in Garniers mod.

Very good info guys, pertinent stuff like this, tested and played, helps us develop and evolve the game both realistically and gameplay-wise.

I jumped in this thread because I really just like to play historically based OOBs, the balance being better but less Rebel infantry, with superior Yankee arty, as realistic as history can tell us.

Been playing around with the 200 yard maximum musket mod...and liking it. Anyone tried this in MP play yet?

Reference the canister versus infantry range, they need to be set equally at 200 yards. That will eliminate the disparity between infantry and artillery. The 220 yard range is an improvement but it still allows stacking of infantry units and has created a game that favors the tactical offensive vice the tactical defensive. By stacking regiments with 220 yd range (or even worst at 250 range), it allows multiple regiments to focus their firepower ahistorically on one single regiment.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the GCM favors the tactical offensive, but the original game does favor the defense, which is, after all, pretty accurate. But playing multiplayer games, it's hard to beat the GCM. Infantry tactics and a little luck decide most every game. Some games the attackers win, some the defenders, but most games, at least with 8 or more players, have both sides engaging in offensive and defensive action.

Artillery is toned down from the latest patch, no doubt. Yet it's most uncomfortable to sit under cannon fire ( I seem to remember your boys (Willard's) begging to pull back that battle on the Gettysburg map when all those guns on Culp's were pounding them). I give quite a bit of thought about when to expose my boys to cannon fire and try my best to stay out of range until I'm engaged with or moving to engage enemy infantry. If cannon were stronger, we'd see fewer firefights, and I love the firefights.

And yes, stacking regiments in order to gain superior firepower is perhaps not historical, but it's just as effective on defense (if not more) as it is on the attack. And when I say stacking here I don't mean making a giant mass; I mean maneuvering regiments until they have line of sight, even if sometimes the lines of sight are weird -- such as Parker's struggles on Alpine and Culp's Hill. But I have no problem with players trying to bring more guns to bear on their enemies.

In Defense of Seal:

Seal is a very good player, and honestly, I like the kid (he's 28 or so). There are many different types of players. Parker and Seal illustrate well how different players can be. Parker plays to inflict as many casualties on the enemy as possible while taking as few as he can. If it's going to be an even firefight, Parker will wait. If he loses the game, no big deal, he'll get 'em next time. No one, except maybe Barlow, is better on defense. Seal, on the other hand, is a butcher. His task is victory at any cost. Seal plays defense quite well when he gets a chance. But even if the situation is hopeless, Seal will sacrifice his whole division for even a slight chance at victory. And more often than not, or at least some of the time, his tactics help his team win. Without question, games are rarely boring when Seal's in the saddle.

Now. . . I'm not saying either should play differently. If fact, I think it's excellent that we have diversity. Knowing your opponent's "style" and adjusting accordingly is crucial to winning and makes the game great. But I do think Seal gets more abuse than he deserves, a little anyway.

Counter Battery Fire:

I agree with Willard and Parker here: CB fire is pointless in the GCM. And really, I think more effective CB fire would improve the games, give arty strategy a little more importance. Right now, it's a matter of getting your guns in a decent position, ordering them to fire solid shot at infantry, and then concentrating on your own infantry tactics. Other than keeping them resupplied, I don't pay much attention to how my guns are doing. And I never worry about CB fire.

KG -

As I am not a modder, not sure how we can really fix the counterbattery issue.
I would need to look at some of the tables with someone who is really good at modding to try to hit a "sweet spot" for the stats. Garnier sent me an email advising that he could not independently change the arty stats for counter battery, so my guess is that when he toned down the arty stats overall that impacted the CB fire issue. Perhaps Norb or someone from NSD can shed some light on this?

Overall, I don't have a problem with how arty is in the GCM. Yes you are correct about the game in question when I wanted to get off the hill - but that scenario is exactly what I am concerned about regarding CB fire. I took almost 200 infantry casualties with all my guns engaged in CB fire at about 500 yards. The Yank guns were elevated but out in the open. All my guns on Cemetary Hill were in defensive terrain targetting artillery with solid shot. I inflicted only 2 casualties on the Yank guns at 500 yards. That is obscene - I should have driven off the Yank guns very quickly in such a scenario.

As to how to technically fix it - well that seems to be the problem and until such time as Norb or NSD advise what can be done we are in a holding pattern.

That being said, what I would like to see it fixed as follows:

#1 - Expand the gun ranges to their listed range and not limit them all to 1000 yards (i.e. let 3 inch guns have a range of 1600 yards, Naps - 1200 yards, etc). This should result in pushing guns back as the 3 inch guns will be able to hit the other batteries at longer range.

#2 - Improve the effectiveness of CB fire for 3inch guns BUT decrease the effectiveness of infantry fire for 3 inch guns. This will make the 3 inch guns the "battery killer" on the battlefield like they should be. I would leave the 12 pd guns the way they are and slightly increase the 10pd effectiveness to reflect its "multipurpose" use.

#3 - Keep the GCM canister rates as they are, but increase the morale/fatigue malus at that range.

#4 - I would like to see a 200 yd rifle vs. 200 canister battle to see how that works. Still not a big fan of the 220 yd rifles as it still skews the tactics a bit for my liking.

The other issue at play regarding CB fire is that really a 90 minute game isn't enough time for CB fire to take effect even when it is at the level it should be. Historically, the guns were deployed in battle and firing much sooner than infantry engagements began. We really don't have that much "prep" time as we dive right into battle. Also, consider that we do not have the same ratio of guns deployed in GCM games that were historically in battle. That does effect what can/cannot be expected, especially regarding CB fire. Finally, with the guns spread out at the division level, it is hard to concentrate them like we did in the stock OOBs. Obviously that is more of a pet peeve of mine vice a criticism as everyone knows that I would be perfectly content to command an artillery corps!

-Will

I believe the limit of sight range in the game is 1000 yards, and hence the artillery is all limited to that range. It would be nice to have varying ranges, although I think to some extent each has its sweet spot. Still, it will be hard to Norb and the gang to comment much except on how to modify the values since we are already playing with modified values.

Willard's recommendations are all good and I support them as described by him. I too think that it is essential to have historically effective counter battery fire in the game. Guns at 600 yards from the enemy where considered very close. If you look at the peach orchard on day 2 of Gettysburg you can get a good idea of what artillery was like especially counter battery fire.

Willard, it is possible to (and is very easy) mod the gun ranges for MP play as stated earlier in this topic. I have been looking at the optimal effectiveness of the rifles at the increased range, but my time has been very limited, though I can say that it does seem to work well with just increasing the rifle ranges (all types).

As far as Seal is concerned, from early on we had a small group that played most nights together. Seal was one of these players. I know him as well as anyone else can around here and at times he does drive me nuts, but I do consider him a friend and not a bad player at all. His play has improved. He has even toned himself down a bit. When Seal every so often pulls his questionable tricks I take screen shots. I have one where a regiment (one of Seal's) is running down a road in column formation getting shot at from less than 30 yards. I have never seen a civil war painting or battlefield sketch where that was going on.



Regards Seal and all,

Harmon

I believe the limit of sight range in the game is 1000 yards, and hence the artillery is all limited to that range. It would be nice to have varying ranges, although I think to some extent each has its sweet spot. Still, it will be hard to Norb and the gang to comment much except on how to modify the values since we are already playing with modified values.

The range can now go all the way up to 2,000 if the weather is set to 12 in the scenario.ini. I believe this can be set in sandbox as well with a mod.