Canister Reaction, Artillery Improvements Request

[Saddletank]

What seems to me to be the problem is that the original battery retreat order made the guns scoot away the instant it was pressed, which then made it very frustrating for online play. If that order was implemented in the same way the unlimber or limber up order is (that is it took an uncertain amount of time, say 15-25 seconds) for the guns to limber up and go, then there could be a chance for some guns to get away and some to get caught.

There aare other button presses that change a units state instantly as well which would be much better if they could be implemented after a short variable delay, such as the formation changes. A simple thing like a 30 second delay in changing formation would have killed the MP problem of column charging (and instantly making them lines the second before contact) in one fell swoop.

Can such delayed orders be implemented for more options? That way the battery retreat order could be brought back.

[RebBugler]

Thanks Willard

I don't know the arty numbers like you do, so it's tough for me to recommend or support your suggestions. From your suggestions I know you want the counter battery fire adjusted, and this seems to be a fix-all for you for everything else arty wise that the game lacks. You seem to have sound suggestions in this area, maybe drop Jim a PM, he's really the SOW arty expert regarding how everything relates, why they can't be modded for mp, their limitations, etc, at least he can tell you why he hasn't responded to your posts.

As far as canister firing through troops, I haven't seen it, they're always blocked for me. Sure, they'll fire over, which I admit is unrealistic, but the game is coded for infantry (from what I've been told by some informed sources), so basically, they're like big muskets. Until the game is recoded for different branches, adding cavalry and artillery, our hands are tied to what changes we can make. As you can see, the singularly based code works well in most instances, but it is definitely something that will be looked at for future engines...well, I say that, but I'm really just speculating, and hoping.

Bottom line, I just don't know much along these areas. I just build stuff, test, and occasionally play, and, spout off if I don't like what other folks build.

Regarding pandering...Are you referring to my post to MTG? Ya gotta be kidding. HITS drives me crazy and couriers are insane. I've gotta fly around and do the click fest thing...that's my battlefield bliss. :woohoo:

[KG_Soldier]

The GCM now has delay times for limbering based on the fatigue level of the guns: fresh, they limber quickly; exhausted, and they take forever.

I'm not sure if fatigue level impacts retreat limbering.

We don't see a lot of gun capturing in the GCM; some, yes, but it's not much of a priority. As someone said earlier, if you can't support your newly captured guns, they get recaptured or routed pretty fast, and you lose all the points you've gained from capturing them.

Another change in guns, done a while back, is that they don't recoil away as fast as they used too. You can't recoil fast enough to get away from advancing infantry as we all used to do so easily.

[RebBugler]

What seems to me to be the problem is that the original battery retreat order made the guns scoot away the instant it was pressed, which then made it very frustrating for online play. If that order was implemented in the same way the unlimber or limber up order is (that is it took an uncertain amount of time, say 15-25 seconds) for the guns to limber up and go, then there could be a chance for some guns to get away and some to get caught.

There aare other button presses that change a units state instantly as well which would be much better if they could be implemented after a short variable delay, such as the formation changes. A simple thing like a 30 second delay in changing formation would have killed the MP problem of column charging (and instantly making them lines the second before contact) in one fell swoop.

Can such delayed orders be implemented for more options? That way the battery retreat order could be brought back.

Yeah, the delay could probably be implemented, but I really doubt that Norb will even consider this since it's already been waffled back and forth so many times. And the primary 'why not' is what else would be affected...SOW Law, for every change there are repercussions. The capture while limbering is a PRIME example.

For now, I just want folks to live with the game the way it is (cross your fingers for MP modding to open up), I just wish it was more like it was, before many the demands were met and broke things. My rationale is...if everyone has the same tools, it's a level battlefield, do unto others as they do unto you, just do it first...

Bottom Line, the former Retreat button function worked the same both ways...LEAVE IT ALONE

[RebBugler]

We don't see a lot of gun capturing in the GCM; some, yes, but it's not much of a priority. As someone said earlier, if you can't support your newly captured guns, they get recaptured or routed pretty fast, and you lose all the points you've gained from capturing them.

I guess not, with 220 yard musket ranges, you can easily rout them with musket fire, without ever eating canister. This has always been my preference anyway, and yes, with stock numbers. Ya just must have good cover for your muskets, and the points can typically work in your favor...still, depends on the cover and the quality and quantity of troops. Also, from the battery flank so most guns are blocked...rout them from the ends IOWs.

[RebBugler]

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.

Tried to make light of this statement earlier, but now it's getting under my skin. Forum chatter is just not my forte, I've said too much. I'll retire back to helping folks with mod stuff and the like, and avoid getting into these type discussions again. No offense against anyone, I am just clueless when it comes to proper forum etiquette.

Thanks for some good conversations, I did enjoy a lot of it, but when blame and unfun start popping up, I'm outta here.

[Little Powell]

Thanks for some good conversations, I did enjoy a lot of it, but when blame and unfun start popping up, I'm outta here.

And don't let the door hit you on the way out! j/k

Kidding aside, anytime there is a thread with the word "artillery" in the subject, the discussion will become heated. The old regulars around here should be used to it by now. This is because artillery and its effects are very subjective.. Everyone has their opinions on how it should perform, is it historical, is it too gamey, etc. I do think it will be beneficial to open more options for modding arty (among other things) in the future. There is a report in the system that Garnier submitted a while back that covers arty and many other things, and hopefully Norb will get to it eventually.

For now, just enjoy the game that you love, and like Reb mentioned, if everyone has the same tools, it is always a level battlefield.

[NY Cavalry]

The game has come a long way since its release. Taking a SP game into MP was going to have its challenges. The greatest help in this is the ability to mod. Still though, having MP causes its own issues with its own fixes. MP stability I think was the biggest challenge (from my observations). Maybe MP players are perceived ungrateful and impatient. I think the reality is that MP has its own concerns and requirements. I hope the devs do not harbor resentment towards to mp guys. I think adding MP and tweaking MP, was a challenge that the devs have successfully accomplished.

The retreat button for artillery had to be fixed and to defend its existence is very confusing to me. For me it would make more sense to include a level 4 wizard that could cast protection spells on all the artillery. At least then we could all truthfully agree that we were in fantasy land.

Not trying to be argumentative, but just having a level playing field doesn't work in all situations. Column charging has cost the MP community players. When a new guy or even guys with some experience get column charged it is hard to tell them that, "its okay, you can column charge yourself next game." So I have seen players not come back. A terrible shame and loss. Column charging has been fixed in GCM with modding. There is still an issue that MP currently has where "all things being equal" or "level playing field" isn't working.

Many of us want a Civil War experience and I try to play to that form. It is not going to be perfect, but a balance in this respect needs to be maintained.

Giving each his due, MP is working pretty well and more and more players are coming along.

[KG_Soldier]

We don't see a lot of gun capturing in the GCM; some, yes, but it's not much of a priority. As someone said earlier, if you can't support your newly captured guns, they get recaptured or routed pretty fast, and you lose all the points you've gained from capturing them.

I guess not, with 220 yard musket ranges, you can easily rout them with musket fire, without ever eating canister. This has always been my preference anyway, and yes, with stock numbers. Ya just must have good cover for your muskets, and the points can typically work in your favor...still, depends on the cover and the quality and quantity of troops. Also, from the battery flank so most guns are blocked...rout them from the ends IOWs.

Well, Reb, sorry, but wrong again. Most players keep their guns out of musket range. I'm not saying guns don't get shot up ever, but most of the time, they get moved before they get shot up. The only exception is when the guns are tired and a player must pull his division back and can't get his guns limbered because they are exhausted.

You may not like it, but the 220 yard rifles are very effective at making players keep their guns out of the front lines. Personally, I hated the guns up front canister defense we saw so often in the early years of this game.

[Willard]

Tried to make light of this statement earlier, but now it's getting under my skin. Forum chatter is just not my forte, I've said too much. I'll retire back to helping folks with mod stuff and the like, and avoid getting into these type discussions again. No offense against anyone, I am just clueless when it comes to proper forum etiquette.

Thanks for some good conversations, I did enjoy a lot of it, but when blame and unfun start popping up, I'm outta here.

Reb -

I haven't had a chance to respond to your last post and in the interim you posted the above. My apologies as I wasn't aware that you were joking - that is one of the problems with the internet as nuanced context is often lost. That being said, in the context I read the entire thread, you came down pretty hard on the MP players and I don't think that is an entirely fair criticism.

As for blame and unfun, no one is blaming anyone around here. The conversation has been pretty civil and I don't believe there is any personal animus expressed in any of the responses. However, the gist of the thread was seeking suggestions on how to fix the "canister reaction problem." The responses received were pretty varied but all the same - that there isn't one fix because the artillery problem is one that doesn't lend itself to easy solutions.

Then the conversation evolved in general terms to:

-Suggestions were asked for and received. The answer provided was that once one thing is changed it breaks another and requires extensive testing and possibly not practicable for the NSD team.

-That is understood, so the suggestion was made to release the files so we can test the changes on our own as it was implied MP didn't really impact the SP crowd. No response was received.

-Comments were made that these suggestions were bringing bad PR to the game. I offered one option that we create a private subforum to address those concerns...again no response.

-Comments were made that fixing MP was difficult as different MP groups wanted different things and the changes impacted SP play. Again, understood so the suggestion was made to optimize SP play and allow MP to mod as they like. Again no response.

I think the above is a pretty accurate overview of what we discussed. I am sorry you feel like you do but no one is putting you on the spot nor should you feel that way. However, it is difficult to criticize the responses when you guys were asking the question. We understand the answers may be difficult and solutions imperfect but no response and then ending the conversation abruptly seems a bit unfair - especially now that you are blaming me as a pretext.

The bottomline is we all want the same thing - the best Civil War game possible. Obivously people will have different viewpoints on how to accomplish that and ultimately the only vision that matters is the NSD one. None of my comments should be construed as anything other than wanting a better game. They aren't a personal attack on you or anyone on the NSD team. Seriously, why would I spend hours of my own time searching online records and my on CW books for statistics to support my suggestions if my intent was to start a flame war?

Regards,

Willard