Gameplay discussion

This is where we discuss anything multiplayer. From strategies, arranging games, to multiplayer related technical help. You will also find tournament and league information here.
KG_Soldier
Reactions:
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:43 am

Re: Gameplay discussion

Post by KG_Soldier »

I'm not sure that fixing the ability to run through a unit would stop a unit from running up in the face of a unit and stopping, unless they were forced to melee either way. I was mainly pointing to the fact that TC is what seemed to make a difference in this instance, just so the dev team would know.
The way I understood it, the fix to prevent column charges somehow made tc'd regiments immune to autocharge. So if that's fixed, tc'd units close to an enemy regiment should autocharge.

And we all face the regiment advance in column, fast, when we're in trouble. Saturday, in a different game, I had Garnier on the ropes and Little broke contact with McClernand and ran his whole division in columns at my division. And, bless his heart, McClernand, who never runs his regiments in column, almost didn't exploit the gap little created in time to save me. Fortunately, Hays sent a couple of brigades (in column, fast) behind Garnier and Little and McClernand made it just in time to save me. I was forced to fall back and face column advance after coulmn advance by both Garnier and Little. But my boys were up to the task and inflicted more casualties than we took.

It was actually a blast.
Last edited by KG_Soldier on Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SouthernSteel
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:07 am

Re: Gameplay discussion

Post by SouthernSteel »

Ah, my mistake. Still, I like what you did with the formation, makes it a bit quicker to form up. Maybe one day we'll get back to actually needing/wanting/using skirmishers properly (I expect once we can have custom rifle ranges).

I had considered the fix you're talking about Garnier, but I wasn't sure if that would be easier or if upping the casualties would be (as they did for the artillery in this last patch). Changing the way the artillery works and behaves dictated the way battles are fought now, and I would rather see changes made that don't simply have to explicitly prohibit a certain behavior, but rather discourage it with a heavy hand. That, however, may be wishful thinking.

Edit:
I don't have a problem at all with utilizing column to move troops to reinforce. That, I think, is completely fine and historically accurate for the most part, even if you have to TC the regiments to keep them from stopping and forming up of their own accord). However, when defending against it, it is perhaps only fun when you have numerous players and elements that can work and reinforce. The battle the other day did not have that luxury. Then again, my Union division can't seem to get a fair shake in any fight it's been in recently, even with cover/height advantage (not the battle in question, but numerous others recently).
Last edited by SouthernSteel on Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
Garnier
Reactions:
Posts: 1258
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Gameplay discussion

Post by Garnier »

I had considered the fix you're talking about Garnier, but I wasn't sure if that would be easier or if upping the casualties would be (as they did for the artillery in this last patch). Changing the way the artillery works and behaves dictated the way battles are fought now, and I would rather see changes made that don't simply have to explicitly prohibit a certain behavior, but rather discourage it with a heavy hand. That, however, may be wishful thinking.
That is the realistic way to do it, but it would be much harder to get it to succeed. The problems with column rushing are that the columns close the distance so fast there's often no chance for the defender to shoot them, and they can run sideways and the defending line has to keep wheeling and never fire.

If column at that distance was not possible, then you'd have to move with the speed of a line when charging.
Play Scourge of War Multiplayer! www.sowmp.com
Also try the singleplayer carryover campaign
KG_Soldier
Reactions:
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:43 am

Re: Gameplay discussion

Post by KG_Soldier »

I like the idea of not being able to form into column or maintain column formation when within a 100 yards or so from the enemy.

Edit: That would still allow using coulmns for flanking marches.
Last edited by KG_Soldier on Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Garnier
Reactions:
Posts: 1258
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Gameplay discussion

Post by Garnier »

But if this does get put in, please please make the radius moddable, and either only apply when enemy infantry are in the radius, or require a certain number of men like objectives do.

Otherwise we'll be running TCed cannons past the enemy columns to auto form them into lines when they're on the way to the battle.
Last edited by Garnier on Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Play Scourge of War Multiplayer! www.sowmp.com
Also try the singleplayer carryover campaign
KG_Soldier
Reactions:
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:43 am

Re: Gameplay discussion

Post by KG_Soldier »

But if this does get put in, please please make the radius moddable, and either only apply when enemy infantry are in the radius, or require a certain number of men like objectives do.

Otherwise we'll be running TCed cannons past the enemy columns to auto form them into lines when they're on the way to the battle.

You aways have to find a way around the rules, don't you? :P
Post Reply