Scourge of War Boards

Beef,

It was once the case in the game that if you charged a battery and were one second away from getting your first gun the player who had the battery could hit retreat. Guns saved, they would limber and run away. The regiment would stop in its tracts and watch them get away. Garnier took a whole series of photos describing the event. The infantry regiment would just stop(not even shooting) and just watch them get away. Imaging getting hit with multiple canister on your charge and not ever able to get the guns. This is a SP game breaker? I play SP and I find the fix no problem at all.

The rolling up of guns to get them into canister range is a gamey tactic. This was never a civil war tactic and just try to imagine an actual implementation. With rifle fire at 160 the gunners are completely free from loses, which is just nuts. No loses ever. Even when I play SP I don't use these tactic. It is ugly to see happen and it is ugly to use. I have been studying Civil War battles for a long time and using this tactic makes SOWG a non civil war game, but just fantasy because it never happened. The recoil is an excellent button keeping the guns safe.

At the mule shoe, when Meade wanted to break the deadlock he sent in a battery to somewhat close range not even 200 yards and was completely shot down. Every man and every horse dead. They never got a chance to unlimber. It was one of the eerie memories recorded from that battle.

At the battle of Sayler Creek the rebels had no artillery. The union artillery was set up and when they realized that the rebels had no artillery they limbered up and moved in closer. How close did the move? From this game it would seem anything outside 160 yards would be good. 200 yards surely would be close and they would be plenty safe. Lets say 250 yards because even though rifles could fire that far they could never hit anything for accuracy. The Union artillerists themselves said that the best place for their artillery in the face of enemy infantry was 800 yards. Why wouldn't they go ahead and move closer since they had nothing to fear and what could they possibly see at 800 yards? I wasn't there and no one alive today was, so it doesn't matter what I say, but it does matter what they did. I'm sure self preservation was a concern for them so they balanced self preservation with getting their guns close. That range was 800 yards +/_.

The problem with column charge was not just against guns. It is a problem also against infantry. Its use was mostly against infantry. A player would overwhelm a single brigade or small portion of a line with an entire division causing 100% casualties and taking very few casualties themselves. GCM has fixed this with modding.

I still play plenty of SP and I will say for me the changes have been good and add to the civil war experience. In no way are they game breakers for me. I will also say that if these changes had not been made then MP would be a lot smaller today than it is; and I wouldn't be playing MP.

SOWG today gives a great civil war experience. Visually to actual play it is a very fine game. It mimics in many ways actual linear combat. C&C is a challenge, pulling off flank maneuvers, organizing and implementing a proper and successful attack, disengaging troops from combat, proper use of artillery, etc are all challenges that make SOWG a great game.

I must be the biggest cry baby of them all. I don't think that I am the only one crying here.

@ RebBugler

With respect,

• No one is complaining about column charge any more that I'm aware of. Mods can fix it now -- there was a time when modding restrictions meant we couldn't fix it.
• When column charge was a problem it wasn't because of artillery being easy to take.
• The artillery invincible retreat issue had to be fixed eventually.

I agree that when non-mod-able changes are made they usually benefit MP or benefit SP and hurt the other. This is a problem. Because of this I don't ask for changes that are not mod-able. MP and SP are completely different games and benefit from being treated as such.

I wasn't asking for actual FOW on my computer screen, but historical FOW is one reason why in wargames we need to set weapon effectiveness and ranges far lower than their paper ranges or effects might suggest because in the black powder era often very little could be seen.

A rifle musket capable of hitting a man at 250 yards is useless if you can't see more than 90 yards.

Really i would never have guessed but in all reality it would not have stopped regiments from shooting there are many recorded incidents of there being no wind to blow the smoke of battle away. Instead of aiming for the man the experienced officers and NCO's would just change the target that the regiments would shoot at from the man to the muzzle flash hey presto we are firing again and just as accurately maybe a little more off target but the result would have been the same for the opposing side.

Why all the sarcasm and hate, Mark? What's got into you?

Point remains - battlefield conditions were not the same as manufacturer's testing conditions and thus there's good reason (if you're in the pursuit of historical accuracy that is) to limit weapon ranges well below what they were technically capable of.

Heck, don't read my posts on the subject, read Paddy Griffith!

Anyway, we're well OT.

OK Willard, you've got noble intentions here, but you need to stick to Artillery stats, and not defend something that's out of your expertise.

Reb - I am not going to quote your whole post as that would unnecessarily take up too much space in my response.

First, I have played ALOT of hours of SOW both MP and SP - probably as many as anyone who posts regularly here if not more. So that fact alone does make me qualified to comment on all aspects of gameplay. I do not claim nor ever claimed to be a game designer or beta tester nor an expert in those areas. That being said, there are serious things that require tweaking in the game and alot of those are not apparrent to players that solely focus on SP. We have constantly asked for participation from the BETA team and NSD to play in our MP games so we can show you what problems we have encountered on the digital battlefield. Except for the one instance you cited, and we were grateful for your participation, I am not aware of anyone else taking us up on the offer.

Second, no one is pounding anyone with negative PR. And if that is a serious concern - that people will see our criticisms and be turned off by the game I offer one of two solutions. #1 - Release the files so we can mod as we please or #2 - Set up a subforum where the Board moderators allow vetted players access so we can discuss the game in a more private setting to seek solutions without turning off prospective players. NO ONE HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN SEEING THIS GAME FAIL - WE WANT NSD TO SUCCEED HENCE THE REASON WE ARE POSTING HERE!!!

Three, the comments about artillery limber/unlimber issues are blown out of proportion. That was a very rare issue, but the root of the problem -as indicated by NYCav - was column charging against infantry. Players would quickly overwhelm a position with multiple columns and root one or two defending regiments and then hit the defenseless guns next. The fix for both is simple: Fix counter-battery fire and people won't roll the guns up to an ahistoric range with impuntiy AND increase the fatigue malus of units double timing (but balance it with an boost in recovery time), increase the morale/casualty malus of units in column under fire, and slow down the deployment stage from column/line formations.

The bottom-line is this: If the focus of NSD is to develop an SP game with an MP function because the sales come from the SP crowd, trust me we all get that. The answer is simple then: patch the game to optimize/perfect SP play without the MP crowd's input and then release the files so us fringe MP players can optimize on our own the game for MP play. There should be no downside to that as the MP crowd is negligble/fringe element anyway - which is essentially the underlying theme of your post - and what we do mod wise will not have any impact on the core focus of NSD on SP play. It is a win-win situation for all.

Then we did another fix, can't charge in column, more BOO HOOs from the column charge people.

where and when was this fix made? i know they added auto melee so you couldn't run through enemy units but other then that you can still pile 30,000 troops into column and send them all to the one small spot in the enemy line and roll it.

if this is the fix your talking about then are you saying it was cool to run columns through enemy lines? This is not an argument just trying to clear the facts.

The Problem with this tho Beef....
I was often present at GCM back then when the whole columns running through opposing lines
to try to gain the disruption of a Victory point location was prolific,
and the one thing that remained regardless of the disputes about its legitimacy,was the fact that everyone
still used it to turn the balance of the game.Not only just this,BUT often it would be ordered and planned. :blink:
Here i think is the main difference of opinion.
The question simply is: Do we use that flaw and abuse it?
or Do we make all aware of its negative impact and agree to ignore it as a manouvre

This is the main difference that seperates the different groups here on SoW MP.

As i mentioned in my first post here, i myself enjoy all formats of MP and the software as a whole and
dont intend to align to any as a preference.
However the differences of opinion here seem to be often missing the main points.
The software has been changed multiple times by Norb, and even the GCM software by Garnier the same,
and all for the simple reason that people can't agree to NOT abuse the flaws in a piece of work. :blink:
That to me is the worrying part.
If the rule sets must constantly be changed to protect from abuse the software playability then surely there is a problem with the groups ideals and not the software.
Either way it seems madness to be going over this stuff yet again.....
Should have been long laid to rest.Next thing the melee bug will get a mention and what then......

Cleburne wrote:

Should have been long laid to rest.Next thing the melee bug will get a mention and what then......

And then I'll have to have a word with you for bringing it up.

Thanks for all the feedback concerning ALL these issues of MP vs SP. As we bat things around, it is obvious I think to all that there is no magic code that will sate everyone's preferences. I think my hour long write-up was worth my time lost in that I'm not just seen as the ugly old SOW Team member that despises MP play just because it exists, I do have reasons for it P...ing me Off, as you have read.

I'd like to quote everyone and have personal replies, but frankly, points have been made, cool heads are the focus now, and I'm about burnt out on reflecting the issues of MP vs SP, plus general issues with MP gameplay, which I agree, could be improved to accomplish fair play. Unfortunately, I have no answers for that ever fleeting magic code. Some of you think you have, but nothings a guarantee to work across the board, it all winds up being trial and error, with weeks of testing involved.

The main concern overall that we'll all agree on is that gamey cancels out historic realism. Don't have to go far, just look at our roots folks. We were all weened on TC2M, where gamey was the game, and totally acceptable, for the AI never complained. If you wanted to make the General's list, you learned gamey, that's how you got the MV points. I know for a fact after studying and learning the TC2M scenarios that capturing every battery in sight was built in as standard procedures for getting enough points for a MV. To do this you had to move fast and deliberate...WITH COLUMN CHARGES. This was also the case with objectives, overwhelm the enemy AI with brigade column charges, again, the AI never complained.

Now, with MP play, the AI side (that never complained before) has been replaced by...YOU.

As I mentioned before, the fix that made AI batteries sitting ducks has really hurt the SP side of the game. However, with scenario design I have been mostly able to design around it, making battery capturing impractical, and NEVER including gun capturing points to be a necessity for a MV.

Unfortunately (for me) with our last expansion, one of my scenarios was basically ruined (for me) by a late minute inclusion of historical placement data. It made me move my battery positions making them capture fodder. No biggie for most folks, but it has really depressed me, this scenario took at least two days to plan, a week to build, and weeks of testing before it was right. I was really proud of it, I had eliminated gamey approaches completely as means of conquering it (this is standard procedure for all my scenarios I should add...I hate gamey requirements for winning). Then, they threw a wrench into it with new data from a map that was not part of our original source material. Maybe this has caused my lashing out episodes toward the MP crowd as of late, regardless, I'm PO'd to a state of dispair.

Most folks won't mind this at all, since guns can't retreat fast, just go down the rows and pick them off, you'll get lots of points this way and you won't have to take all the objectives. Loads of fun for the gamey folks, suks big time for my design endeavors.

RebBugler wrote:

Most folks won't mind this at all, since guns can't retreat fast, just go down the rows and pick them off, you'll get lots of points this way and you won't have to take all the objectives.

If you play from the saddle with couriers, taking on the artillery is not for the faint of heart. It's nearly impossible to take and keep a supported battery. Most of the time, the brigade is wrecked and the captured guns have been shot away or recaptured. Unsupported batteries can be snapped up when they stand their ground, but the regiment(s) doing the dirty work are pretty shot up, so the player better not have to depend on them to do much more fighting. It really comes down to how the game is approached. If a scenario is supposed to be a challenge for a player using 21st century tactics, then I agree, you've got your work cut out for you. After all, there are a lot of lt. generals on the roster. But if making the scenario difficult for someone playing the AI on fair terms, then these scenarios are not so simple. After 2 1/2 years, the list of full generals is rather thin. Hang in there, Reb.

MTG, thanks for the cheer ups. Your MP group is God's Gift to SOW. Everything we produce is challenging to your form of play, and since you only take on the AI, Mr. AI never ever complains about your gameplay.

God Bless the Kriegspielers

Thanks for all the feedback concerning ALL these issues of MP vs SP. As we bat things around, it is obvious I think to all that there is no magic code that will sate everyone's preferences. I think my hour long write-up was worth my time lost in that I'm not just seen as the ugly old SOW Team member that despises MP play just because it exists, I do have reasons for it P...ing me Off, as you have read.

I'd like to quote everyone and have personal replies, but frankly, points have been made, cool heads are the focus now, and I'm about burnt out on reflecting the issues of MP vs SP, plus general issues with MP gameplay, which I agree, could be improved to accomplish fair play. Unfortunately, I have no answers for that ever fleeting magic code. Some of you think you have, but nothings a guarantee to work across the board, it all winds up being trial and error, with weeks of testing involved.

There are some of us who have come up with answers. However those recommendations either go unimplemented or those that have the ability to mod and test can't because the files haven't been released.

You are correct that different groups want different things. There are at least 3 MP groups that play different than the other and for the most part are pretty happy. The answer is pretty simple, continue to perfect the SP engine and release the files for those of us to tweak for the needs of our specific MP groups.

I personally have provided multiple recommendations for tweaking arty none of which that have been implemented or even responded to by the beta group. That is fine, but don't ask for suggestions; then complain about the responses; don't implement any of the suggestions; and pander to one group and manage to insult the others. Seems a strange way to do business if you ask me.