Scourge of War Boards

I asked Garnier if he would set it back like before: both sides using Union guns.

just some spare change i have lying around.....

While it might be worth having some sort of formula in place to make the disparity between union and confederate guns a little less daunting, if it is really making life hard for the multiplayer games,however,im sure you are all aware that the armies in the field during the war thats being re created here had this same dilemna to cope with.Tactics and strategy is the only realistic fix for this problem and maybe that can be looked at more.The idea of making all things "equal" if you like seems to be along the lines of something that turns the simulation away from historical accuracy and into the realms of fantasy...just a thought.Im well aware of the various attitudes and responses towards this sort of idea, but in fairness to history and realistic portrayal then equality really shouldnt be considered at all.When you portray a "confederate gunner" then be prepared to suck up the pain and strike back from advantage when the occasion presents itself(if you can craft it).When portraying the "union gunner" then make hay while the sun shines as you know that those confederates dont have the fire power to compete.Thats the nature of the soldiers life im afraid,IF only he could call up a modder and have him produce an "equal" tool to compete with his foe........
:whistle:

We stomped over into fantasy quite a while back, I'm afraid. We do have some nods towards historical accuracy, but in all honesty, it's the majorly ahistorical moves in the game which most of us dislike the most vehemently. In MP, things have been softened up and equalized in large part out of fear of driving off members of the small community we have remaining. We try to set the stage as evenly as possible so as to let the players' skill(s) declare who is winner.

However, if we were to revert more closely to how the SP game was intended, if the Union were to be given better guns/gunners, the Confederacy ought to be given better troops. And, given the fact that Garnier's entire system appeals because it's automated, creating a sort of balance there would be difficult.

Points made are understood and accepted as fair comment.However the fact still remains,during the war there were commanders on both sides who faced daunting odds and opposition of great skill yet managed to use their own skills and experience to great advantage to overcome these odds and turn the tide of battle in their favour.I know that many of the SOW generals who play MP are capable of such inventive thinking and all im saying is maybe more time can be given to thinking these situations through and coming up with tactics to try to overcome their disadvantages.Well that would ALWAYS be my own approach,and maybe thats just horses for courses talking,but i think theres also some merit to the trials and tribulations of exploring new ideas and tactics,a change is as good as a rest so they say,and much more rewarding than asking for "favours" to level the playing field.

probrably have too much spare change lying around here tonight....sorry for encroaching on the ttopic.
B)

No, you're not encroaching, although I would shy away from use of the word "inventive" when it comes to tactics. Such things explain Seal's entire existence on the battlefield, and in such a context are not at all a positive.

I do like the changes that have been made to the game by its developers and I think the changes have been for the better.

I do think that the rate of fire for the artillery seems to have slowed?????? I have also noticed that canister does not have the effectiveness that it once did. Against charging infantry at 200 yards I don't see more than one shot of canister coming from most guns??????????

I have noticed that guns are put behind infantry lines without clear fields of fire and that the guns can and do fire "through" friendly lines.

Though casualties to troops in column formation have been increased I do not think that it has been increased near enough. I'd like to see a column of infantry decimated and rout when hit by canister.

As far as game play......Garnier's campaign was set up as a balanced competitive campaign system. That alone has helped out the MP community. There are more ways to play than just Garnier's campaign and I know that there are players who will play the more historical battles. If anyone wants more historical game play just look me up. I would like playing every so often with the courier rules that we used to play with. That being said, I like playing the historical and Garniers campaign.

Any and all MP games can have rifles set to 200 yards. We played a game like that just last week and it played very well.

As for Seal..........the boy will not learn or listen.........it is what it is with Seal.


I am more interested in how we can increase counter battery fire effectiveness. Willard was saying something about regulating fatigue????????







[attachment]a+OCH+kd.htm.part.htm[/attachment]


Lets see if the pic will show , but this is classic Seal.

Whenever I've played with Seal I always have a hard time keeping up with the changes he makes in his line leaving gaps and shifting entirely leaving me unsupported but instead tells me to move to him while under murderous fire. So yeah that's my experience with him. Also when I use artillery It never seems effective and always just scores very little and usually if we get overrun gets routed off the field.

The deal with counter-battery fire is that to increase its effectiveness, we have to increase effectiveness across the board, which means that artillery would be even harder on infantry.

Seal's basic "strategy" in any given battle is to form up and charge into whatever gap or whatever he thinks he sees. Then he will throw a fit when you don't "support" him enough. Don't feel bad David, he does it to everyone.

As far as artillery is concerned, you will do best if you search out a spot that is high with clear fields of fire (ie you can see the enemy). The easiest way to achieve this is to move your camera down to ground level and move around - this way you can see the terrain and decide where to put your guns. If possible, use solid shot against infantry, that will do the most damage by far. If your guns are being overrun when your infantry lines break, you ought to consider having your guns further back (especially due to the issues we are seeing with cannister failing to be an effective deterrent these days).

Gents -

Lots of good thoughts in this thread as well as in last night's pre-game discussion.
There are a couple of seperate but related topics that need to be addressed.

First, the GCM tweaks are not the same as the current 1.2 stock game tweaks to artillery. Obviously each have their relative merits, but I think??? everyone is starting to come to a consensus that they prefer the 1.2 stock artillery for the most part.

The two major issues of divergence still center around canister use/effectiveness and counterbattery fire. As SouthernSteel mentioned below, there is no way to seperate effectiveness of artillery fire on infantry and artillery. Essentially in the current game engine, if artillery is "improved" with an aim to increase counterbattery fire casaulties there is a defacto improvement of artillery's effectiveness in inflicting infantry casualties.

I think everyone agrees that improving the effectivness of artillery is not the way to go for game play balance issues regardless of whether a historical argument can be made for the improvement. As I have mentioned previously, IMO the "sweet spot" for artillery inflicted casualties should be in a band of ranging from 20-35% based upon a variety of factors (battlefield layout, geography, etc). No one really wants to go back to the previous battles of 35% + casualties inflicted by canister, etc.

There may be a way to possible achieve some of what we are looking for with some slight tweaks to the 1.2 stock game. In 1.2 stock, artillery on both sides will knock guns out and inflict counter battery casualties. In GCM that is simply not possible - and I have tried repeatedly without any success. Additionally, the GCM has modded the effectiveness of canister to about 1/3 to 1/4 of what you can expect in 1.2 stock game.

Now the modders would have to chime in on this, but the best way to model counter-battery fire is not necessarily to increase the number of casualties inflicted. If there is a way tweak artillery so that batteries under fire receive an increased morale malus you would achieve a similar impact. Right now, there is no current way to effectively model the duress that batteries experienced in battle under CB fire. Batteries at Gettysburg did lose guns and men to CB fire (as well as horses!!!) but more often than not the guns were supressed by heavy volume of CB fire and had to pull out. The best way to accurately model this in the current game system would be to increase the morale malus of batteries under CB fire. As their morale decreases, their ROF and accuracy decreases - but more importantly the battery will rout if effective return CB fire isn't provided for or the battery isn't withdrawn. This would still allow for casualties to be inflicted and guns knocked out - but more importantly would reflect the historical effect of batteries being "silenced" and withdrawn due to heavy CB fire. Not having too much familiarity with modding, this might not be possible without resulting in an increased morale malus on infantry targets as well. That would need to be looked at and balanced but I dont think its a game breaker.

As for canister, my opinion is that the GCM decreases in canister inflicted casualties is too low. Although I have no problem with the 1.2 stock game rates, I would not be adverse to lowering those by half if a slight morale malus increase was added. Simply put, canister was as much a pyschological deterrant as it was an infantry killer. The problem is that GCM batteries do not have the ability to replace significant amounts of infantry firepower with the neutered canister. Consequently the end result is that less infantry is available for offensive operations as batteries cannot hold their own at defensive anchor points without significant infantry support. I am not arguing that batteries should/could hold points without infantry support - I am saying that the amount needed is far in excess than should be as the effective firepower of the battery is far lower than it should be.

In MP play, the infantry still has an advantage with the 220 yard rifles. In the absence of effective CB fire, I think its probably a necessary evil though I would like to see some MP games with 200 yard rifles to see the results. IF we could make the two tweaks above and go with 200 yard rifles, that would go a long way towards improving MP in my opinion. Robinson also suggested last night that units within range and under infantry fire (and I would also suggest within canister range as well) - automatically deploy into line regardless if they are TC'd or not. Basically that would result in infantry unable to sit or manuever within 220 yards of the enemey in column formation. That would definitely eliminate the remaining vestiges of gamey column charges altogether.

The only final issue would be that of Reb versus Yank gun quality. From a strictly historical perspective, it is generally agreed that Yank guns and batteries were superior to their Reb counterparts. That is the case in the 1.2 stock game but not in the GCM game with the exception of the Rebs having the 12 pd howitzers for historical flavor. The problem is that howitzers are basically useless in a game where 220 yd infantry rifles are modded - and Reb artillery as a whole is disadvantaged as they really never get to adequately deploy all their smoothbores effectively. Mixed batteries did give the rebs more tactical flexibility but created logistical issues (having to carry more than one type of ordinance) and technical problems (Reb gun crews sometimes knocked their own guns out by loading the wrong ammo in battle) that aren't modeled in the game. Additionally Reb batteries only had 4 guns vice the 6 gun Yank battery which automatically put the Reb's at a 33% deficiency in an optimistic scenario where everything else was equal.

In my experience, Reb guns can be effective they just need to be used more efficiently. The current GCM system, with batteries attached to divisions, doesn't really allow that to happen as the general trend is to deploy the guns in local support of infantry vice massing them to anchor defensive points or to engage in CB fire (if it were effective in the game system). That push-pull between infantry and artillery commanders occurred historically and was a very real problem as outlined in "The Artillery of Gettysburg." The stock game does balance some of these issues - Yank arty is better but Reb infantry is rated higher. That really can't be modeled in a dynamic campaign scenario unless a decision is made to allow the Yanks to have the historically better guns with the Rebs having slightly higher rated troop quality.

*S*

Willard

In the GCM, gun crews are reduced from 15 to 10. Garnier did that in an effort to make counter-battery fire more effective.

But, obviously, that's not working.

". . . but I think??? everyone is starting to come to a consensus that they prefer the 1.2 stock artillery for the most part."

Not sure about that as most of us MP players haven't played with the stock (1.2) guns.