Scourge of War Boards

Moved the musket/canister range discussion from the ammo thread to here, hope y'all don't mind.

IMHO. . . 250 yard musket and 200 yard canister ranges cause less imbalance than do 200 yard canister and 160 yard musket ranges.

Ah,thanks :pinch: but, let me make sure I understand. :unsure: An unbalance that favors the infantry is okay. However, a perceived unbalance by the game designers in the latter example is not okay because it favors the artillery. I think I AM BEGINNING to understand! :huh: :blink: :whistle:

J

Just my opinion, Jack. I have no problem with you preferring it the other way around.

Just my opinion, Jack. I have no problem with you preferring it the other way around.

I completely understand, Mark! "Agree to disagree!"

Generals
Im am concerned about the concept of this 160yd muskets and 400yd cannister discussion :unsure: .You partake in the simulation regularly enough to realise that it simply would not work.Even if it was tried again and 2 or 3 players enjoyed the "unrealism" of it all and swung their tanks around ad lib to the whoops,yips and hollars of encouraging friendly Generals :blink: Would the few of you really have that much fun on a regular basis after the rest of the community has dissapeared to find something more balanced?
If you really dont get this then perhaps it should become a "main" topic at some point on Teamspeak where a larger percentage of the community might find it easier to express their opinion.I for one would be most surprised if this sort of suggestion got any kind of backing behind it at all. :silly:

"For many, winning comes first at any cost, and so shortcuts to gain an advantage are welcomed by them."

Really? Many? How many?

Well I don't usually keep count because that's not why I am here. But giving you a ballpark estimate off the top of my head? At least 5? I have no idea, really, like I said.

"If you have noticed our discussions, gentlemen's agreements are a complete farce owing to the disposition of certain members of the community."

Last I checked, there are no "gentlemen's agreements" in place for Garnier's campaign. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Right, you're basically saying the same thing that I am. All of the discussions here that have mentioned said agreements favorably have not gotten anywhere. Hence my remark that they are a farce (to anyone who believe they are in place or can be put in place reasonably).

I think Garnier's campaign punishes those who roll their guns up to the line enough so that it's really no big deal. I keep my guns several hundred yards behind my lines 90% of the time. But I really don't care where players put their guns, as long as we keep 250 yard muskets, that is. I jacked with you the other night because right off the bat you started complaining about Ellis' guns being too close to the line, and then you put yours right behind your lines.

Hypocrisy bugs me, where you or anyone else puts their guns, not so much.

Garnier cannot fix what the game mechanics will allow. We can tweak things, true, but the fact remains that the game mechanics allow for stacking and having infantry and artillery intermixed. Are things better with 250 yard muskets? Yes, I'd have to say so (despite the historical inaccuracy). You jacked with me the other night on something you couldn't even see, so far as I'm aware, being on the far flank with restricted sight. I mentioned it as a jab to you since the first thing you said to me when I came back (Friday or whenever it was) was a jab at me for my guns, which was untrue in both instances.

I am sorry that I wanted to put my guns on high ground to support my infantry, which was behind my men when I started my attack. I am also sorry that you think that guns at 350-400 yards from the enemy equates "rolling them up". The enemy was that far away when I formed my line and never got any closer, and were thus in no danger of cannister. Ellis's guns were rolled up (kept limbered) to just outside 200 yards. The funniest part was that when I called him out, then he purposefully rolled them up further to be within cannister range. The difference in intent is quite clear. I have no problem with anyone trying to eradicate hypocrisy, however labelling it where it does not exist is, well, you know. Just because you think you see it (which was technically impossible from where you were) and are convinced you are correct, despite obvious visual evidence to the contrary, does not, in fact, make you a moral arbiter. I was going to take a screenshot just so when you brought this up, as I figured you inevitably would, I could lay down the evidence. I was talked out of that, so as to let the issue rest, but I will not take being called a hypocrite based on your incorrect perceptions.

Ah,thanks :pinch: but, let me make sure I understand. :unsure: An unbalance that favors the infantry is okay. However, a perceived unbalance by the game designers in the latter example is not okay because it favors the artillery. I think I AM BEGINNING to understand! :huh: :blink: :whistle:

J

The only balance problem with the cannon, I think, comes in with cannister. Otherwise, I don't think anyone is saying there's a problem. To try and compensate for the overpowering, well, power, of cannister, we changed/compensated the infantry with longer range. With our current options, that meant giving them an "imbalance" of sorts. However, there does not appear to be a way to redress this imbalance. If we give cannister greater range or drop the musket range, it will again complicate the front-line dynamic, and will likely imperil the infantry again. There cannot be, as it stands now, a perfect balance between the two, and so in whoever's perception, one piece will always have something of an advantage/disadvantage. I do think we have done some decent work to make it closer to balanced, though.

Ha ha, the middle of Parker's post is a good example of why I have my opinion on the adequacy of gentleman's agreements. Not that there was one in this case, but the idea is the same.

His last paragraph does justice to the range issue I think.

The only balance problem with the cannon, I think, comes in with cannister. Otherwise, I don't think anyone is saying there's a problem. To try and compensate for the overpowering, well, power, of cannister, we changed/compensated the infantry with longer range. With our current options, that meant giving them an "imbalance" of sorts. However, there does not appear to be a way to redress this imbalance. If we give cannister greater range or drop the musket range, it will again complicate the front-line dynamic, and will likely imperil the infantry again. There cannot be, as it stands now, a perfect balance between the two, and so in whoever's perception, one piece will always have something of an advantage/disadvantage. I do think we have done some decent work to make it closer to balanced, though.

The only issue I have with this is the comment that we will "likely imperil the infantry again."
The bottom-line is that the infantry will always be imperiled in the game.

I would like to see a mutual 200 yard range for both canister and infantry (provide casuaulties are proportionally reduced based upon the distances). I personnally think that will result in a lot more tactical options as it will be easier for defenders to hold defensive anchor points with less infantry as artillery will be able to defend itself.

One of the biggest problems is this overwhelming fascination - by some players - to take guns at all costs. What really needs to be changed is their tactics, not necessarily whole sale game changes. The only way to change the tactics - as gentlemen's agreements will not work - is for those type of tactics to be punished by in game mechanics. Meaning, if a player attempts to column charge and gets hit with cansister, that canister needs to inflict alot of pain on that regiment. Once those types of issues are tweaked, I think we will see even better performance on the battlefield by players as they adjust to the new parameters.

Case in point is battle 1304 (http://www.sow.philipmcg.com/c/platte/p ... attle=1304) where one player took obscene casualties because they used crappy tactics. IF they had deployed in line on the open flank where they were, they would have inflicted more casualties and that part of the battle would have been over much sooner. Instead, the crappy tactics actually prolonged the game - the player only inflicted a 1 to 2 casualty ratio and lost 40% of their troops. That is hardly a good cost/benefit attack result based on the factors available.

I know I am in the minority, but I really do enjoy running batteries - especially when you have a good variety. I hope that the long range fire and counter-battery fire will be improved, along with adding 200 yard rifles, so we can get those guns back to a bit more prominence on the MP battlefield.

Indeed, I only meant it relatively, insofar as an imbalance means either infantry or artillery will be "more imperiled," as it were.

I was of the opinion that 200 yard muskets would be, at the very least, an interesting experiment. The more I see in the actual MP games, however, the more I am starting to believe that it will be a short-lived experiment. At or under 200 yards, the artillery doesn't need any additional boost. Those that charge, in any formation, on guns, will take cannister and then double cannister. If you think a shot of double cannister doesn't sting, either in line or column, I think you ought to look again. I'm the one who gave Seal that dose of cannister in 1304. Basically the majority of his casualties were from charging my guns, and I gave his troops all they could handle. His tactics were rewarded accordingly, in my opinion. It was an unusual circumstance in that I was in a fairly poor position and was being overrun by 2+ divisions, but yes, some people do seem to like to go for guns.

All in all, though, if I am reading your suggestion correctly - that you want guns to be more powerful than they are in Garnier's current Platte set-up, I think they are actually quite fine. On good ground, I have had a battery of 4 guns consistently kill 50-100 men per battle, and that's usually not firing the entire 90 minutes, depending, and includes no cannister. Look at my guns for 1304 if you want to see the type of damage cannister can do in about 20 minutes. Additionally, I think counter-battery can, at times, be overpowered, where I can, say shoot 12 guns off Culp's Hill at an enemy battery on much lower ground and not score 1 hit, yet they can plaster my guns on higher ground, with defensive terrain bonus. I was of the opinion that counter-battery fire was a thing of the past in the current set-up, but the only thing I've seen recently is it being oddly slanted to one side or the other.

Yeah. . . guns on Culp's Hill never seem to do well. I remember a battle here a while back when my guns were on Culp's Hill and yours were on Cemetary Hill and we were both firing at Kester on the stone walls and his guns were killing ours even though we had a height bonus and terrain bonus -- strange.

And I agree that the 200 yard muskets might lead us back to the canister defense. Put your guns in front of your infantry with a few of them TC'd and on canister, when infantry gets to 200 yards, hit them with a few rounds of canister and then recoil away.