Hypothetical Tactics

[Reimer]

As we move in closer to the start of Skirmishes and eventually a full release, I start to wonder about some things in regard to how companies might fight in big events a year from now. In the Drill Camps thusfar I see most companies and company organized scratch-unit training events base their manual of arms and movement on historical drill books such as Casey's and Hardee's, and on simplified versions of both made for reenactors in real life. What I wonder in seeing all this is how long into the competitive element we're going to get with them. A lot of Companies forming now come from different games, they have different attitudes towards training, recruiting, and operating, but all, I believe will still be susceptible to drama and hard competition between units Confederate and Union, as you'd find in any other game. Seeing as we're blessed with historical hindsight and generally know that the small arms and artillery of the war outpaced the pseudo-napoleonic manner in which it was fought, if only at first, how long do you all think it will take come release until we stop seeing the Civil War and start seeing something resembling the First World War, with the long double-rank firing lines replaced by smatterings of small units of riflemen and skirmishers with scoped rifles dug into defensive positions hither and yon and artillery laying massed barrages upon any infantry they can find?
I've been aware for a while that the developers plan to incentivize historical tactics through systems of bonus and penalty, and that organized linebattles will often standardize the ways either side will conduct battle, but will this be enough to keep companies playing historically? What bonuses and penalties will apply to Sharpshooters? Cavalry? Artillery?

[Legion]

I say let people play the way they want. This of us who want to play historically will play in organized events. Also, theres nothing wrong with coming up with new or different tactics to use in-game, I'm actually curious to see what people come up with.

I'd say the reason the war was so deadly wasn't because of the tactics used but because of the lack of knowledge of disease and medicine. I'm sure the losses would have been much much less if they had better knowledge about these two things.

[Reimer]

I'm not quite saying that it's something I'd oppose, I myself would like to see how the meta evolves over time, but I'm also curious about how people who want to enforce authenticity would do so.

[Legion]

I'm also curious about how people who want to enforce authenticity would do so.

Private servers/events. Or servers/events with rules enforced by admins.

[thomas aagaard]

First of all the tactics worked just fine in the world of muzzle loaded muskets, used by men who didn't know the first thing about marksmanship.

The idea that the rifle muskets revolutionized warfare is just a myth... and not supported by facts.
For one thing the acw battles was NOT more deadly then Napoleonic battles. And the rifle musket takes a well trained marksman to hit anything at long range... something that was rare during the war, since it was not something that the ordinary soldiers learned. (the good marksmen that we do find learned their skills before the war as civilians)

And finally the armies was no where near the skill to actually use Napoleonic tactics. It was much closer to a poor mans version of the 7 year war... as fought in Europe.
(no proper use of combined arms and no proper use of large numbers of skirmishers.... Wellington often send 25% or even 1/3 of his infantry forward to skirmish... something we don't see done during the civil war)

So if the game was done perfectly in regard to simulating everything the tactics used back then would be the tactics we use.

The first thing that is important is how they model the small arms.

If the bulletdrop is gone correctly hitting things at long range will be hard. since you need to judge the distance pretty accurate.
And this will help "force" close range fighting. and if the fighting gets close you need to maximization of firepower so the enemy can't just charge you.


The big issue is that most players will be way, way better marksmen than they where historically... unless some artificial sway or similar is added.
And that will effect the tactics used.

[Legion]

The big issue is that most players will be way, way better marksmen than they where historically... unless some artificial sway or similar is added.
And that will effect the tactics used.

I don't see this as an issue and I hope they don't add any artificial means to try and balance the game. The smoke built up from fighting will be enough to force players to close in and fight at closer ranges. During the alpha we have mock skirmishes and it gets very hard to see anything once the smoke builds up. Visibility should be the balancing factor and nothing else.

[JG93]

I was gonna say...the smoke should be a good screen and minimize the aiming problems. Be forced to fire somewhat blindly or just aim at the flag on the other side...but with that said...Legion, you think I could always be in the second rank in the firing line....human barricade in front would be ideal.

[Reimer]

First of all the tactics worked just fine in the world of muzzle loaded muskets.....

That wasn't really the subject I was getting at.

[QUOTE=thomas aagaard;48114]The big issue is that most players will be way, way better marksmen than they where historically...]

This is. (sorta) Players don't fear death, their hands don't shake in the middle of combat and their rifles will shoot just as far as a modern carbine, if a little less accurately. They come from groups in other games and are mostly learned in more advanced methods of fighting, and finally, will start to get really competitive when Companies become more than a fun little tool on the website. I've been thinking about how the big fights would work in and out of organized linebattles and thought it'd make for an interesting thread.

[Legion]

Legion, you think I could always be in the second rank in the firing line....human barricade in front would be ideal.

Of course, I'll need to keep my best men alive:p I'll put the rookies up front;)

[thomas aagaard]

I don't see this as an issue and I hope they don't add any artificial means to try and balance the game. The smoke built up from fighting will be enough to force players to close in and fight at closer ranges. During the alpha we have mock skirmishes and it gets very hard to see anything once the smoke builds up. Visibility should be the balancing factor and nothing else.
I hope the smoke will be sufficient.

I think adding sway if you run would be a good idea.(but that is sort of another topic)

And some sort of moral system might be an option. (so it have an effect if men are killed close to you or something)
But time will tell if it is needed. And if done it should properly be as an option.

Also the fact that units on both sides had smoothbores will help.

[JG93]

Not to hijack another games ideas. But red orchestra 2 does a great job of adding in stress and obscuring aim when things happen close to u. Guy gets kill next to you screen shakes a bit ur aim goes out the window etc. works very well. I hope something similar happens here. But. With the smoke and the Devs said that there will be bonuses when u stay with officers and flags. I hope it is a similar concept that u r kept calmer and able to aim better around the flag.

[Reimer]

Not to hijack another games ideas. But red orchestra 2 does a great job of adding in stress and obscuring aim when things happen close to u. Guy gets kill next to you screen shakes a bit ur aim goes out the window etc. works very well. I hope something similar happens here. But. With the smoke and the Devs said that there will be bonuses when u stay with officers and flags. I hope it is a similar concept that u r kept calmer and able to aim better around the flag.

I was going to mention this actually. Say what you will about RO2 compared to the original but the suppression system is pretty well implemented, I believe.