Page 6 of 12

Re: regiment disorganization

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:53 am
by NY Cavalry
Seal your a boob.

Re: regiment disorganization

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:33 am
by Sharpe55
This is true but it was never seal who did the first engagement melee with me. Being the professional that he is of that tactic, he knows that early melee usually doesn't work well for the attacker :lol:

Re: regiment disorganization

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:06 am
by Davinci
The CantCharge thing is meaningless because there is zero delay in changing formation. You just run in column right up the enemy, and then click line and click charge immediately.
OK, but you can still slow them up with the K Column by giving it a negative number.

The downside to that would be that it would affect any unit in a column formation.

davinci

Re: regiment disorganization

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:24 pm
by Little Powell
So since you guys got my gears churning, I've been doing some more research on melee and how often it happened in the Civil War. I have concluded that yes it did happen, but it was sort of random and usually used as a last resort. In other words, it was rare for a Colonel to order his regiment to fix bayonet, charge, and the men fought hand to hand to the death.

BUT it did happen. Here are some examples:

Colonel Jeffords of the 4th Michigan was fataly bayoneted in the Wheatfield. His fellow officer was felled by a clubbed musket. An Alabama soldier was seen to thrust his bayonet through the head of a yankee in the fighting at Little Round Top. Another yankee is reported to have been killed by having his skull crushed by a clubbed musket in the fighting at the Angle in Pickett's Charge. And these are just a few of the reported incidents.
Barksdale's Mississippians in particular had a score to settle....many of their buddies had been bayoneted when the yankees stormed their position at Marye's Heights a couple of months before, and I suspect they took bloody revenge when they overran the Peach Orchard.

Re: regiment disorganization

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:49 pm
by Marching Thru Georgia
Little Powell wrote:
In other words, it was rare for a Colonel to order his regiment to fix bayonet, charge, and the men fought hand to hand to the death.
BUT it did happen.
I agree that is did happen. It's just that it was exceedingly rare that there was large scale hand to hand fighting. As Davinci said, most hand to hand fighting was between a few individuals not regimental or even company size scrums. It is so rare that the individuals that were bayoneted are commented upon in the OR. Nobody writes about individuals that are shot, unless they are an officer.

There are many reports of bayonet charges being ordered and carried out. However, they always end with one or both sides retreating, or the charging unit stopping and firing their weapons instead, (ala Irish Brigade at Bloody Lane).

This behavior is what is missing in SOW, no fear of doom. The game probably generates a reasonable number of charges. But every charge results in a melee. I think most agree now that that is unrealistic.

Re: regiment disorganization

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:21 pm
by Willard
Little Powell wrote:
In other words, it was rare for a Colonel to order his regiment to fix bayonet, charge, and the men fought hand to hand to the death.
BUT it did happen.
I agree that is did happen. It's just that it was exceedingly rare that there was large scale hand to hand fighting. As Davinci said, most hand to hand fighting was between a few individuals not regimental or even company size scrums. It is so rare that the individuals that were bayoneted are commented upon in the OR. Nobody writes about individuals that are shot, unless they are an officer.

There are many reports of bayonet charges being ordered and carried out. However, they always end with one or both sides retreating, or the charging unit stopping and firing their weapons instead, (ala Irish Brigade at Bloody Lane).

This behavior is what is missing in SOW, no fear of doom. The game probably generates a reasonable number of charges. But every charge results in a melee. I think most agree now that that is unrealistic.
Exactly!!! Saying there was alot of melee and citing one or two instances of units of about 350 men per side engaged in melee in a battle involving 150,000 men isn't proof that melee was widespread. It is actually proof that there wasn't alot of hand-to-hand fighting. As MTG states, the charges generally resulted in one side breaking contact or the other surrendering with a few instances of men struggling for the colors. Of course the historical record reflects and amplifies those minor struggles over the flag - why? Because everyone there remembered it because it probably stuck out to them in the haze of battle AND we have a human need to document that heroic behavior.

As for fixing the melee problem, it once again goes back to the need to increase the fatigue and morale malus of charging units and a morale check before a successful charge.

Re: regiment disorganization

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:00 pm
by Saddletank
As for fixing the melee problem, it once again goes back to the need to increase the fatigue and morale malus of charging units and a morale check before a successful charge.
Four and a half months gone and no more comments, and no change in the game. Willard is absolutely correct - the way SoW models morale and cohesion and firepower is completely at variance with what the battle accounts inform us happened.

Meless should be EXTREMELY rare. "One per battle" is way too many. I gave up playing with the GCM group because certain players there use gamey, unrealistic, unhistorical tactics that get them easy wins. But that happens because the game code lets them do it. That is the issue.

Almost all attempts to make physical contact in SoW should fail, the rate should be that about 90% of attacks should stall. Of the 10% remaining, the defenders should fall back 5% of the time and the other 5% should result in a melee.

The autocharge rule is a horrible anachronism, it unbalances play and is a bane of frustration to me and other players in my group even having moved my MP gaming to a group that plays more historically. The game should NOT invoke an autocharge when units get close, it should invoke an AUTO-AVOID. Much closer to history and the ACW battlefield. Units should go to ground or stall yards apart and firefights should develop until one sides morale fails and it falls back.

The game should take its prime focus as morale. Morale and unit cohesion (the two are interwoven).

Please make some changes, SoW is a fantastic game but it has some glaring errors in it.

Re: regiment disorganization

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:50 pm
by KG_Soldier
As for fixing the melee problem, it once again goes back to the need to increase the fatigue and morale malus of charging units and a morale check before a successful charge.
Four and a half months gone and no more comments, and no change in the game. Willard is absolutely correct - the way SoW models morale and cohesion and firepower is completely at variance with what the battle accounts inform us happened.

Meless should be EXTREMELY rare. "One per battle" is way too many. I gave up playing with the GCM group because certain players there use gamey, unrealistic, unhistorical tactics that get them easy wins. But that happens because the game code lets them do it. That is the issue.

Almost all attempts to make physical contact in SoW should fail, the rate should be that about 90% of attacks should stall. Of the 10% remaining, the defenders should fall back 5% of the time and the other 5% should result in a melee.



The autocharge rule is a horrible anachronism, it unbalances play and is a bane of frustration to me and other players in my group even having moved my MP gaming to a group that plays more historically. The game should NOT invoke an autocharge when units get close, it should invoke an AUTO-AVOID. Much closer to history and the ACW battlefield. Units should go to ground or stall yards apart and firefights should develop until one sides morale fails and it falls back.

The game should take its prime focus as morale. Morale and unit cohesion (the two are interwoven).

Please make some changes, SoW is a fantastic game but it has some glaring errors in it.
Massed charges are the bane of the MP community, no doubt. But as long as they are effective, players will use them. We have repeatedly asked to be able to mod the game so that we (GCM or any other MP group)can make and test changes until we find parameters with which we like to play. I don't think NSD has the time or inclination to make all the changes we ask for.

Without question, something needs to be done to punish those who mass their regiments in assault columns and charge across the open fields. The easiest solution, I think, would be for NSD to increase MP mod-ability.

Until that happens, at least in the GCM, we will be often forced to play with Napoleonic tactics.

Re: regiment disorganization

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:14 am
by con20or
Modding is not my strongpoint, but there are two lines in the SDK drills file - 'can fight' and 'can charge' for different formations.

Maybe 'canfight' refers to melee, you could try changing that. Maybe it refers to firing, in which case its no good.

Can charge sounds like it does exactly that - you can probably switch it off here, then noone can charge.

Personally i still want to be able to doubletime my troops and melee if I need to.

Re: regiment disorganization

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:15 am
by con20or
Theres also this one

MinEnemy - number of yards determining how close an enemy can approach this formation until it will retreat.