Scourge of War Boards

Willard:

If you had your way, even Stonewall Jackson himself couldn't take your guns which, as you exclusively contol art, is exactly what you would like.


XOXO,

XNS

@ Willard

concerning #1: That is simply not true. Roads are the fastest way to move your troops in my experience. Cross-country movements involve woods, hills, ridges, stones, fields etc. which definitely slow your troops down compared to roads (and grass).

I agree more or less with the other points you made. But if you want to make it harder to charge artillery with infantry, then you have to make it also harder to pull guns to the frontline and use it like a big shotgun to break the opponent’s battleline, because that’s sometimes the last resort for some players, if they can’t break your line by maneuver or small arms fire.
If you have no reserves to get at his flanks, the only way to keep your battleline intact is to pull back your men. At this point your opponent can push your line with his combined infantry+artillery line ad infinitum and it gets annoying and pointless to continue with the game.

Rob

Roberdeau Ch. Wheat wrote:

@ Willard

concerning #1: That is simply not true. Roads are the fastest way to move your troops in my experience. Cross-country movements involve woods, hills, ridges, stones, fields etc. which definitely slow your troops down compared to roads (and grass).

I agree more or less with the other points you made. But if you want to make it harder to charge artillery with infantry, then you have to make it also harder to pull guns to the frontline and use it like a big shotgun to break the opponent’s battleline, because that’s sometimes the last resort for some players, if they can’t break your line by maneuver or small arms fire.
If you have no reserves to get at his flanks, the only way to keep your battleline intact is to pull back your men. At this point your opponent can push your line with his combined infantry+artillery line ad infinitum and it gets annoying and pointless to continue with the game.

Rob

Rob Wheat - Sorry, I wasn't clear in my original post. Roads are the fastest way and should still be the fastest way of movement. What I was trying to explain was that cross-country movement in column is still too fast in my opinion. It isn't faster than moving on roads in column, but is still too fast for my liking. It should be reduced a bit more which would impact column charging.

The best way to push guns back is to use counter-battery fire. If a Union or Reb player has rolled his guns up like you decribed, you need to quickly change your batteries to counter-battery fire. Guns in the open will get routed very quickly under the circumstances you describe.

The problem you are describing is really the result of people giving up on using artillery correctly as opposed to anything essentially wrong with artillery.

X Navy Seal wrote:

Willard:

If you had your way, even Stonewall Jackson himself couldn't take your guns which, as you exclusively contol art, is exactly what you would like.


XOXO,

XNS

Absolutely!!!!

Hugs and Kisses and see you tonight!!!

Roberdeau Ch. Wheat wrote:

@ Willard


I agree more or less with the other points you made. But if you want to make it harder to charge artillery with infantry, then you have to make it also harder to pull guns to the frontline and use it like a big shotgun to break the opponent’s battleline, because that’s sometimes the last resort for some players, if they can’t break your line by maneuver or small arms fire.
If you have no reserves to get at his flanks, the only way to keep your battleline intact is to pull back your men. At this point your opponent can push your line with his combined infantry+artillery line ad infinitum and it gets annoying and pointless to continue with the game.

Rob

I have to agree with this. I don't believe that it was a common practice to throw artillery unsupported against a brigade at 199yds and flatten them with canister while the brigade has no real option but to back up 2yds and suffer significantly less casualties than if it had remained where it was. Historically speaking the damage inflicted on that brigade would be almost the same at both distances.

So how to fix this? Well perhaps artillery might take a morale hit if unsupported by infantry or other artillery units. That could make them more likely to hit the road if pressed. Secondly, why not have the damage done by canister fire really drop off against a regiment deployed in skirmish line. That just makes sense. Thirdly, why not increase a regiments firing range to say 200yds if they are deployed into skirmish line with a hit to their accuracy? Lastly, damage from artillery fire could be increased from 200 to 250 yards. Those men could start to put a lot of metal on a target at that distance. Sorry Norb.

JMHO,

Greg B)

Some further thoughts.


Artillery in the game as in the civil war at close range was devastating. I understand why players want to column charge. In SP play everyone does it and it is encouraged. When I play Barksdale's Scenario I use it myself. Of course it was not used in the civil war. When later in the war massed charges were tried they would take a whole division or corp. They were formed up and moved out in that formation. They never deployed in battle lines and then in the middle of a firefight send individual regiments forward after changing them into column formation.
The artillery in the game has unhistorical advantages too. 1)Front line resupply. This was never done. Supply wagons on the front lines would have all gotten blown away. The slightest spark and they would have been done. Guns were moved to a rear area for resupply and replaced out of the reserve if available. 2) Artillery setting up anywhere it wants. The game allows you to set up anywhere without consideration to terrain. In the civil war it was not only fields of fire they looked for but level even ground. In the Devil's Den area day 2 Smith could only find room for 4 of his 6 guns. Latimer could only deploy a few guns on Benner's Hill though he needed all he could get. Also, guns not placed where they could recoil on even ground would cause a jerk of the projectile. This made it impossible to effectively aim the gun. 3) Lack of any effect from small arms fire. The kill rate is too low from small arms fire. Especially, at closer ranges. You cannot chose to shoot down the gunners they will win every time and you will get decimated in the process. Yes they make a small target, but they are not immune, they should have more losses. An infantry commander must have options against massed artillery. Artillery not supported by infantry always withdrew on its own, in the game this is unnecessary. They can stay much longer because they receive few small arms hits. 4) Lack of sharpshooters. By Gettysburg both armies knew the value of sharps and the became a constant presence. They would target officers and gunners and they were deadly. They game has sharps for the Union and only 2 regiments. They are too strong themselves. In the game artillery has little to worry about from sharps. The moral loss from sharps could be a lot. These are a few of the advantages artillery has in the game.
Players like me really like the historical aspect of the game, yet I understand its not perfect and there will be tactics employed because the game allows it. No one wants to get beat up from canister fire. More than anything they need to change their tactics. Do not attack artillery head on. When I have cleared the infantry line and am left with a gun line I stop. If I cannot get to the guns I will move to the flanks or withdraw.
I don't care for Skirmisher charges at all. When faced with artillery alone you could deploy into skirmishers and that is a good tactic. When enemy infantry is around it is never done. When approached by an infantry line skirmishers fell back. You would never deploy into skirmish formation in the face of enemy infantry lines.
Some solutions.

Small arms fire should equal canister in range. Skirmishers should never be allowed to charge. More damage to gun crews from small arms fire. More damage received while in column formation (a lot more damage). Slow down the speed of columns in charge mode.


Personally to offset the advantages artillery has I'm not totally against column charges. I want the game to be fare. If a guys is blasting away with canister next to a supply wagon I say charge him. TC'ing a regiment and moving him past enemy infantry to get to the guns is a bit too much for me that is gamey.

NY Cavalry wrote:

Players like me really like the historical aspect of the game, yet I understand its not perfect and there will be tactics employed because the game allows it. No one wants to get beat up from canister fire. More than anything they need to change their tactics. Do not attack artillery head on. When I have cleared the infantry line and am left with a gun line I stop. If I cannot get to the guns I will move to the flanks or withdraw.

Exactly!!!

As for the other suggestions, I have no problem with the following:

#1 - Extending the range of fire for infantry units to 200 yards. However, the % hit rate at that range should not be as high as it is at closer ranges.

#2 - Increase the casualty rate very slightly for gunners under fire. I would also increase the fatigue/morale malus much higher to simulate the stress gunners had when under fire which would really force them to be withdrawn OR if a decision is made leave them in place, would significantly decrease their ROF.

#3 - I agree there should be no front-line supply for guns or any other units. Not sure how to model this in-game except for a "house rules" agreement. Would it be possible to change the supply unit to a fighting unit with a ZERO fighting value? That would allow it to be targeted and even captured. If it is targeted, the re-supply points could be destroyed. NOW that I say this though, I am positive some gamey player will move supply wagons to the front-line to draw fire from other units.

#4 - Skirmish and column charge should be eliminated.

#5 - I have no problem with adding more sharpshooter units, however the range should be decreased a bit along with the ROF. I would also like to see a greater morale/fatigue hit on Sharpshooter units to counter-act their higher ROF and longer range.

And my other recommendations from below...

#6 - Tweak the speeds at which different formations can move. Columns more entirely too fast in open field. Units in column do and should continue to get a speed bonus on roads and that should remain the highest speed means of travel. However they should have their speed decreased and fatigue increased in cross country movement. As it stands now, players do not use the road network at all because it is just as fast to move brigades cross-country with minimal fatigue hit.

#7 - Increase the casualty, fatigue and morale malus on troops in column formation. As it stands now, columns can continue to charge despite being hit with 2-3-4 canister shots. In reality, after that 2nd shot, there is no way those troops continue to run up to a battery of guns.

#8 - Increase the fatigue and morale malus for charging units all together. As is stands now, the game speed is a bit off as players continue to charge the same unit one time after the another with minimal impact on the units morale and especially the fatigue. Charging is and should remain an important part of the game. However, regiments now can simply charge one-after-another without any penalty such as a morale and fatigue hit. Plus, units re-form to line way too quickly after a charge.

#9 - Add a delay in changing formations by slowing down the speed in which the formation deploys. As it stands now, units move entirely too fast into and out of column/line formation. Slow that down because it is impacting games. What happens is that units are deployed very quickly - sometimes sprinted up to 150 yards of the enemy and switch into line without any negative hits. As a result battle lines can be deployed WAY TOO fast. By slowing down the deployment rate, battles will evolve more naturally, with units moved up and deployed into line much further away and marched up in that formation. Plus, it stops game column charging because if you increase the fatigue/morale/casualty rates, these deployments will need to take place much further away from the battle lines unless the commander is willing to risk the hits.

Yesterday, column charges were ahistorical and gamey, now skirmisher charges are ahistorical and gamey. What is the basis for these claims other than the fact that they threaten the complete dominance of art? Think that some members of this community should have learned by this advanced stage in their lives how to lose with a little grace.

Well, if we are playing a civil war game wouldn't we like for it to play that way? I can lose just fine.

X Navy Seal wrote:

Yesterday, column charges were ahistorical and gamey, now skirmisher charges are ahistorical and gamey. What is the basis for these claims other than the fact that they threaten the complete dominance of art? Think that some members of this community should have learned by this advanced stage in their lives how to lose with a little grace.

Manipulating what the game mechanics allows in its current incarnation is "gamey." Sending wave after wave of charging skirmishers is gamey. Artillery is not dominant and should not be dominant. I have never claimed that and never advocated that. As for losing, I don't believe I have complained about losing. I have complained about BS gamey tactics employed by certain MP players who are bull-headed and won't adjust their tactics in an effort to win. Instead, they want to manipulate the game mechanics or nerf exisiting unit stats to compensate for their complete lack of tactical competance.