Multiplay totally broken-Due to Gamey ARTY TACTIS

[Garnier]

I respectfully disagree.

It is possible to craft gameplay in such a way that people will use realistic tactics because they actually get better results.

[Tacloban]

No TC will also create a new set of unrealistic behaviors, like not moving anywhere when under fire, which they did (see "Pickett's Charge").

[RebBugler]

Garnier wrote:

I respectfully disagree.

It is possible to craft gameplay in such a way that people will use realistic tactics because they actually get better results.

Maybe, but I think GAMEY TACTICS, when made available by the game engine, will always be exploited by folks going after that fast and easy big score...braggin' rights if you will. Artificial to honorable tacticians, but fulfilling on their level.

[Paladin]

Garnier wrote:

I place the blame for gamey tactics and play where I believe it belongs.....the players

If these were clearly defined exploits the players could agree not to use them. But there's no way for everyone to agree not to use these "exploits". We won't get anywhere saying "no bringing artillery up to the front line".

This game is very good, but there's nothing wrong with discussing the faults. If we all just said "oh the game's good, don't talk about the problems" it wouldn't get better. When you're trying to grow a multiplayer community, it's very important that the players have freedom to talk about the things they don't like.

Now I've almost never seen a game company provide balanced competitive gameplay that almost everyone agrees is good. Usually it takes either years of patching, or it takes mods. I'm just hoping these gameplay issues will not take any of norb's attention until after the SDK is out.

I agree with what you are saying....freedom to discuss this game at a constructive level is a good thing for the Dev's and the community.In addition I can't think of a single game over the last say 15 years that everybody could agree didn't have some type of game play issue. I just won't blame the Developers for gamey play when its apparent that a potential exploit exists. However that doesn't mean that the Devs should ignore the situation if it needs to be fixed.

[RebBugler]

Tacloban wrote:

No TC will also create a new set of unrealistic behaviors, like not moving anywhere when under fire, which they did (see "Pickett's Charge").

I absolutely agree...stronger orders are needed to replace the necessities of TC at present, at least, on the brigade/battery level. Gamey is more exploited on the regimental TC level.

[AP514]

I have noted several times 8-12 arty sections in a close group say 4 x 3 lines deep. All being able to fire....all over/threw friendly Arty sections yards to the front and INF units less than 20yrds to the front of that.
I can see arty firing Shot or Shell over friendly heads if the enemy is farther away and the ARTY is on a MUCH higher elevation. But Cannister shot goes up/down and sideways very quickly.

Arty sections should need a large cone (for the lack of a better word) to be clear to fire Cannister. I think a WIDE Cone type LOS for cannister and maybe a moral drop/attrition on arty for enemy at close range would fix alot of the Arty Exploits. And or large damage for being limbered and not RETREATING.

This game is still great just Mplay is what I bought this for......

AP514

P.S. I was a little over excited when I posted "Totally Broken" in the heading.

[norb]

Jim explained this to me last night. I agree that there are some issues here where the game is not properly handling situations. We will address it.

[Mayonaise]

my .02 cents...


the game has two major flaws as far as historical play right now.

#1 is the way artillery functions. the ineffectiveness of the confed. artillery barrage on the 3rd day has led to a widespread and erroneous conclusion that med/long range artillery was ineffective. it was very effective, situationally. med/long range fire has so many historic examples it doesn't bother clarification, but i will throw out a few. the silence of the confederate batteries at fredericksburg because of the vicious pounding they knew they would take the second they revealed their position. The fact that Jeb Stuarts horse artillery materially aided in holding the left at antietem. Malvern Hill. Union artillery on July 3rd. (read Pickett's Charge by Richard Rollins for 1st hand accounts of how devastating the union artillery was. This book makes a fair case that union artillery was much more prominent in the repulse than the infantry).

That said, cannister is overpowered. Again, the literature is full of cases of infantry advancing into the teeth of batteries, often wtih destructive results. The issue, to me, isn't the decisiveness of a point blank cannister round. It is the lack of meaningful alternative to charging into that range.

How I would fix it... increase the effective of battery fire in these situations: batteries firing from high ground should get a large bonus. Batteries firing on units on high ground should get a large penalty. Enfilade fire should be devastating. This includes artillery fire direct on columns. Firing a shot down the line could take down scores of men. Counterbattery fire should have some ability to wreck a gun, instead of only inflict casualties. (albeit small).

#2 Gamey infantry tactics. All that needs to be said about this is that it is a viable tactic to form an infantry regiment into column and double quick in a half circle around your enemy, deploy and fire in their rear. Maneuvering under fire was distinctly the realm of elite units. You as often heard generals marvelling at a unit that could dress their line under fire as could successfully charge a line. Maneuvering under fire was both extremely difficult and extremely risky. Officers typically lost control of their units once contact was made. Especially in later years, teh men would simply make contact, take cover, adn exchange shots until they either ran out of ammo or one side or the other had enough. The entire left flank of pickets charge did just this at the emmitsburg road.

How I would fix it... units under fire lose the ability to maneuver unless in range of their direct commanders support bonus. Remove "TC" completely and replace it with more meaningful commands. "hold position", "advance", "fallback" being the main ones. This makes commanders much more valuable, and also gives incentive to keeping your units together. If you send your brigade off in 10 directions, you lose control of them. They become part of a disorganized mass. Realistic. If you keep your brigade together, teh commander can exert his influence to maneuver and position his men.

I cannot think of a single example where using "Take Command" is both necessary and realistic. If your men won't respond to your command it is because they shouldn't. Perhaps make TC a game option so those who prefer more control can have that option.

[RebBugler]

AP514 wrote:

I have noted several times 8-12 arty sections in a close group say 4 x 3 lines deep. All being able to fire....all over/threw friendly Arty sections yards to the front and INF units less than 20yrds to the front of that.
I can see arty firing Shot or Shell over friendly heads if the enemy is farther away and the ARTY is on a MUCH higher elevation. But Cannister shot goes up/down and sideways very quickly.

Arty sections should need a large cone (for the lack of a better word) to be clear to fire Cannister. I think a WIDE Cone type LOS for cannister and maybe a moral drop/attrition on arty for enemy at close range would fix alot of the Arty Exploits. And or large damage for being limbered and not RETREATING.

This game is still great just Mplay is what I bought this for......

AP514

P.S. I was a little over excited when I posted "Totally Broken" in the heading.

Good points, I'll be quoting some of this in a patch report/request. Also, guns seem to be as strong firing from their flank as from the front...not blocked by each other, this will be also added. Thanks for your cool down, you're much more informative in that state of being. B)

[RebBugler]

Mayonaise wrote:

my .02 cents...


the game has two major flaws as far as historical play right now.

#1 is the way artillery functions. the ineffectiveness of the confed. artillery barrage on the 3rd day has led to a widespread and erroneous conclusion that med/long range artillery was ineffective. it was very effective, situationally. med/long range fire has so many historic examples it doesn't bother clarification, but i will throw out a few. the silence of the confederate batteries at fredericksburg because of the vicious pounding they knew they would take the second they revealed their position. The fact that Jeb Stuarts horse artillery materially aided in holding the left at antietem. Malvern Hill. Union artillery on July 3rd. (read Pickett's Charge by Richard Rollins for 1st hand accounts of how devastating the union artillery was. This book makes a fair case that union artillery was much more prominent in the repulse than the infantry).

That said, cannister is overpowered. Again, the literature is full of cases of infantry advancing into the teeth of batteries, often wtih destructive results. The issue, to me, isn't the decisiveness of a point blank cannister round. It is the lack of meaningful alternative to charging into that range.

How I would fix it... increase the effective of battery fire in these situations: batteries firing from high ground should get a large bonus. Batteries firing on units on high ground should get a large penalty. Enfilade fire should be devastating. This includes artillery fire direct on columns. Firing a shot down the line could take down scores of men. Counterbattery fire should have some ability to wreck a gun, instead of only inflict casualties. (albeit small).

#2 Gamey infantry tactics. All that needs to be said about this is that it is a viable tactic to form an infantry regiment into column and double quick in a half circle around your enemy, deploy and fire in their rear. Maneuvering under fire was distinctly the realm of elite units. You as often heard generals marvelling at a unit that could dress their line under fire as could successfully charge a line. Maneuvering under fire was both extremely difficult and extremely risky. Officers typically lost control of their units once contact was made. Especially in later years, teh men would simply make contact, take cover, adn exchange shots until they either ran out of ammo or one side or the other had enough. The entire left flank of pickets charge did just this at the emmitsburg road.

How I would fix it... units under fire lose the ability to maneuver unless in range of their direct commanders support bonus. Remove "TC" completely and replace it with more meaningful commands. "hold position", "advance", "fallback" being the main ones. This makes commanders much more valuable, and also gives incentive to keeping your units together. If you send your brigade off in 10 directions, you lose control of them. They become part of a disorganized mass. Realistic. If you keep your brigade together, teh commander can exert his influence to maneuver and position his men.

I cannot think of a single example where using "Take Command" is both necessary and realistic. If your men won't respond to your command it is because they shouldn't. Perhaps make TC a game option so those who prefer more control can have that option.

Also very good points, these will be discussed you can count on it. Eliminating TC? Don't count on that. Modding it out for certain types of play...no problem. Thanks for this great feedback.