Scourge of War Boards

MTG hits the nail on the head:

Getting unsupported guns to withdraw was a very good first step. But the guns should be withdrawn sooner as should the infantry when things start to go south. But as I've commented in other threads, the AI lacks a fear of doom. It will fight to the last man. Until the AI is given this quality, the artillery will always overstay its welcome.

Tank makes some good observations, and also LP has brought up some not so negative effects that I am otherwise BooHooing about. LP's examples are best case scenarios I believe, where the gun crews are more experienced and limber faster to escape.

My concerns are that overall, AI guns are way too vulnerable for capture.

I've stated this before in another thread, here's a refresher:
Before the patch to capture limbering guns, the player at best could capture two guns, but usually just one, before the AI battery commander sounded retreat. At that point all the player could do was fire at them and hope to inflict enough damage to make up for his canister losses that resulted while initiating the capture sequence. So in general, this was a big gamble, rushing guns, as it was historically.

After the patch, guns were not just sitting ducks, they were crippled ducks, embarrassingly easy capture fodder. Then, like I've already mentioned, Norb fixed this with the support code. Yes, it works sometimes, but not near as efficiently as before the first patch. I know this, I'm not busting my butt to point out something that is not a reality. With the capture while limbering patch, and even with the support patch to counter it, it is indeed absolutely easier to capture guns, I personally can blow through them with ease, except for the very experienced crews (small percentage), that have a short limbering time.

I firmly believe now that the ideal solution would be rolling back to before the capture limbering guns patch, and adding the support code. This would address MTG's analogy that the AI has no fear of doom, and guns could only be captured if supported by infantry...thus historic, because I think it is extremely rare historically, that unsupported guns were captured...they got the Hell outta there before things got hot, unless surprised by hidden enemy, or, their escape caissons or horses were compromised.

Or course, this sucks for MP play, so it won't happen.

Apologies Gary, this thread got truly hijacked, get it going again if ya can. I was going to start another thread, but I dread even starting a thread with Artillery in the title, they just wind up exploding. And I wind up eating canister every time. :woohoo:

I'm in agreement with pretty much everything you say there Reb. If some MPers complain because it doesn't suit their style of play then its they that need to adjust their playing style and not the game that should be changed to adjust to them.

If every change you make bears the question above it: "Is this change historically accurate?" and the change can answer this with: "yes" then that should be all you need.

I fully understand that gameplay balance has to be in there too, and that many things that occur in the game happen at a much faster speed than they would in real life, but if it is realistic for batteries to retreat when charged, then that should be in the game. If its realistic that the AI infantry to 'know' how to support its guns, that should be in too. Your gun line should be the core of your defence, not a vulnerable liability.

garyknowz

You have touched on yet another issue supporting the need for a separate MP version of the game. Lately I have been on a tear against one faction of the MP community for messing up certain aspects of the game by making demands, creating bad PR, and forcing us, the SOW team, to comply with said demands. We can ill afford bad publicity, because up to now, publicity dictates whether this game will flourish, or go the way of TC2M, unsupported, with no future for improvement.

We have a new deal coming soon that will help to get the game's name out, and that, in addition to the bold new changes coming with the introduction of patch 1.5, will most likely broaden our community.

Still, the ever increasing issues of an MP engine residing within an SP engine will persist. Maybe this can approached eventually. Right now it would be completely impossible for Norb to undertake, for it would essentially double his workload in preparing SOW's next project, not to mention retooling that would be necessary for a separate MP engine, or patch that could be installed as an option for MP play only.

I should be excited now about our new stuff coming, it WILL BE BIG, but unfortunately I'm rather bummed out at present. We're in a lull in between projects and I'm just managing to get myself in trouble with the team, stirring up and blaming MP'ers for breaking the game with their demands and insisting MP play be opened fully for modding...to at least temporarily address repeated concerns and issues. But possibly the only solid solution is SP MP separation...still, I'll continue on my open all for modding quests, the 'free spirits' that all games need to helpl keep things fresh and new.

So, get the word out, help make this game successful so Norb can hire on a co-coder to handle the MP side of things...I believe now that THATS THE TICKET WE ALL NEED.

It’s a shame to see such a division in the community seeming to form. To disagree is inevitable, especially amongst a group of knowledgeable, well-read individuals. I’ve never seen more heated discussions than at academic roundtables or within ACW reenactment politics. Most of the participants are confident in their understanding of the appropriate tenets of the topic and are reinforced by the factual data they’ve compiled. On the reenacting front, I’ve witnessed the dissolution of much of the reenactment community in California due to internal politics to the point that events are hardly attended by participants in a region with thousands of reenactors, many of whom, like myself, have quit in disgust. I don’t think we can afford to let this community to travel this same path; to add another battle front in the farby vs. authentic campaign.

Sorry for the delay . I’ve been out of town camping in Montana. I already miss it. *sigh*

Welcome back Gary, fear not, that split I spouted about won't happen, I was just on a tear. Although an ideal solution, it just won't happen with this engine. Maintaining two similar engines, even with designated teams and coders, would not be practical. Primarily, folks aren't going to invest in two like games, throwing more money after separate/similar battle packs, just to experience two aspects, MP and SP, although both would have better designs to accommodate each aspect...just won't happen.

So, no angst, sit back enjoy the features of the new patch, and get ready for Chancellorsville, featuring both SP and MP play.

That's great to hear. Glad things are smoothing out. And now with the Matrix deal, the horizon seems brighter than ever!

FWIW, I too have been a little frustrated with the feebleness of artillery in close quarters (<200 yds). I used to anchor my flanks with my guns (as was often the case in the ACW). Now I have them far behind with nary a canister fired, which is a bit ahistoric.

However, I do like the ability for artillery to get away. The Fairview situation at Chancellorsville the late morning May 3 shows the resiliency of artillery. Confederates came within 30 or 25 yds of the 1st New York Light, Battery D, which were still unlimbered, and still Capt. Winslow was able to get all six of his guns away safely. Previously, they would have surely been captured. The infantry support function is likewise an improvement.

Can't wait for Chancellorsville. Been reading a few books on the campaign priming myself for it. B)