Halving revolver damage

[Kane Kaizer]

I didn't really get much feedback on this idea before so I'm making it its own topic. I really think this idea could kill two birds with one stone, though, and should be easy enough to implement. If the revolver requires two hits to kill rather than one, much like the bayonet, it should curb ramboing by a significant degree, IMO. Mainly due to the fact that a rambo could only hope to get three kills instead of as many as six, and even that would require achieving all six hits without dying. That also means that even a rambo who gets his three kills and dies would still be costing his team more than helping (unless by some miracle he whips out his sword and kills a bunch more without dying).

The second "bird", if you will, is that this would justify adding revolver reloads, because the OP nature of it would be eliminated. Reloading would take a considerable amount of time, so a rambo would have no hope of reloading and continuing his onslaught in enemy territory. The revolver would be, for the most part, reduced to its intended purpose which is for self-protection.

[McMuffin]

Revolvers have two purposes in this game right now (Sergeant majors fall into this category also)

1) For an officer to defend a smaller unit from an attacking force. Whether that attacking force is two or three soldiers sneaking up on the line or an enemy unit charging the position, both require an officer to be successful and for anything to happen on the map. The same goes for if a unit is charging, an officer can make or break these charges because a good one can significantly aid in the charge and result in a win. This may sound stupid, and further reason to change the officers' pistols, but, in these small skirmish game modes where clumps of units will fight clumps of units and result in a stalemate, an officer can break this deadlock and result in anything happening and let things move along. Until people start to try and use other strategies than just 'flank over and over no matter how useless it is,' only an officer will break that deadlock or a MASSIVE, overwhelming force.
2) Self-defense of the officer, but this ties into function one.

Cutting the damage in half would make officers not as efficient at doing function one, and for the small skirmish maps we have right now, this function is essential because often the strategy for an attacker or defender is to break up their forces and have an officer lead that force. However, when we get out into the much bigger maps in the future, I would argue that you don't need to do this even then because I doubt an officer will sprint all the way to the enemy line on a massive map just to get a kill or two before being spotted far far away. In fact, I think in the bigger maps you could allow for an officer to reload (only once though) for the aforementioned reason.

[Shiloh]

I really like this idea Kane and it's brilliant in it's simplicity.

The way it is now is almost suicide to charge a unit that has one or two officers. They are the 'difference makers' in these situations and one officer can easily down 5-6 guys quickly on a charge (or half the charging numbers) out of the equation almost automatically. If you have two officers than you're talking about 10-12 guys that can be taken out almost instantly effectively rendering the charge a waste of tickets as how often are we charging many more guys then that? Even if you have 15 guys who began the charge two officers can easily take 2/3 of that attacking force out and with even numbers, there's no way that charge can succeed unless the officer(s) are/is taken out early which is hard to do when you're charging.

I can't tell you how many times I've gotten the jump on an officer by bayoneting him in the back or side on a charge only to have him spin around and shoot me dead instantly. It always leaves me shaking my head on how unbalanced that feels.

[Kane Kaizer]

Revolvers have two purposes in this game right now (Sergeant majors fall into this category also)

1) For an officer to defend a smaller unit from an attacking force. Whether that attacking force is two or three soldiers sneaking up on the line or an enemy unit charging the position, both require an officer to be successful and for anything to happen on the map. The same goes for if a unit is charging, an officer can make or break these charges because a good one can significantly aid in the charge and result in a win. This may sound stupid, and further reason to change the officers' pistols, but, in these small skirmish game modes where clumps of units will fight clumps of units and result in a stalemate, an officer can break this deadlock and result in anything happening and let things move along. Until people start to try and use other strategies than just 'flank over and over no matter how useless it is,' only an officer will break that deadlock or a MASSIVE, overwhelming force.
2) Self-defense of the officer, but this ties into function one.

Cutting the damage in half would make officers not as efficient at doing function one, and for the small skirmish maps we have right now, this function is essential because often the strategy for an attacker or defender is to break up their forces and have an officer lead that force. However, when we get out into the much bigger maps in the future, I would argue that you don't need to do this even then because I doubt an officer will sprint all the way to the enemy line on a massive map just to get a kill or two before being spotted far far away. In fact, I think in the bigger maps you could allow for an officer to reload (only once though) for the aforementioned reason.

Honestly, I think the reason why the officers have that "purpose" is only because the revolver gives them the power to do it. I believe that officers should be the ones planning out the strategy and trying to make sure that it gets executed properly, rather than trying to do half of the job themselves (They really shouldn't be the ones leading the charge like Alexander the Great, either). There are so many situations in which being a regular infantryman feels like a handicap by comparison. I would argue that perhaps in those later, larger battles where the ratio of revolvers to muskets is much more heavily weighted toward muskets, the change could be reverted, but we'd have to see. And I really do believe that this change would drastically reduce ramboing (or at least make the attempts far less effective or beneficial), and I also wouldn't mind them getting more than a single reload so long as it takes two bullets for each kill (except, perhaps, a headshot).

In short, as a dedicated rifleman who never plays NCO or Officer classes, I think the officers should lead by their example, while their men do the lion's share of the actual fighting. I'm pretty sure that most of us bought the game for the fun of blasting away at each other with muskets, not to roleplay as Jesse James.

[McMuffin]

I really like this idea Kane and it's brilliant in it's simplicity.

The way it is now is almost suicide to charge a unit that has one or two officers. They are the 'difference makers' in these situations and one officer can easily down 5-6 guys quickly on a charge (or half the charging numbers) out of the equation almost automatically. If you have two officers than you're talking about 10-12 guys that can be taken out almost instantly effectively rendering the charge a waste of tickets as how often are we charging many more guys then that? Even if you have 15 guys who began the charge two officers can easily take 2/3 of that attacking force out and with even numbers, there's no way that charge can succeed unless the officer(s) are/is taken out early which is hard to do when you're charging.

I can't tell you how many times I've gotten the jump on an officer by bayoneting him in the back or side on a charge only to have him spin around and shoot me dead instantly. It always leaves me shaking my head on how unbalanced that feels.

Mathematically that could happen where two officers wipe out a charge but in reality they would get maybe 4-5 or so at best before being stabbed so many times and dying or being shot, they can't instantly pull back the hammer and snap aim which would let them take all of those guys out. And I can't tell you how many times I have bayoneted someone in the back, only to have them spin around and shoot me with their rifle. I know it is frustrating to have it happen to you, but, if you nerf officers like this you're going to get a lot more stalemate gameplay on bigger events because strategy is almost non-existant now.

[Shiloh]

Mathematically that could happen where two officers wipe out a charge but in reality they would get maybe 4-5 or so at best before being stabbed so many times and dying or being shot, they can't instantly pull back the hammer and snap aim which would let them take all of those guys out. And I can't tell you how many times I have bayoneted someone in the back, only to have them spin around and shoot me with their rifle. I know it is frustrating to have it happen to you, but, if you nerf officers like this you're going to get a lot more stalemate gameplay on bigger events because strategy is almost non-existant now.

I respect what you're saying McMuffin but an officer can spin on you way faster than an infantry soldier and if you go back and watch some videos from Cody or any of those guys you'll see how quickly an officer can snap off six shots and stunt a charge. They also don't have that aiming sway like most have with a musket. They are crazy deadly right now in close quarter fighting and to me it feels unbalanced.

[TrustyJam]

Thank you for your suggestion. :)

We're currently working on an officer specific system that will both limit ramboing as well as add to the role of the officer. In short: an officer is worthless alone on the field without men to lead and thus he will be relocated back to HQ with a message stating so. If this isn't going to get rid of the unwanted behavior we will makes changes to it (could be to strip the officer of his rank should he find himself alone too many times or it could indeed be to try out your damage suggestion).

- Trusty

[McMuffin]

I respect what you're saying McMuffin but an officer can spin on you way faster than an infantry soldier and if you go back and watch some videos from Cody or any of those guys you'll see how quickly an officer can snap off six shots and stunt a charge. They also don't have that aiming sway like most have with a musket. They are crazy deadly right now in close quarter fighting and to me it feels unbalanced.

I know how fast an officer can send shots off, I've seen it plenty of times, hence why they are so effective and defending against a charge/leading a charge. I think that it's worth just dealing with it instead of severely nerfing the officers to where they are kind of useless. And you are going to have to expect some of this when you take what can be upwards of 70-80 people, put them in a small map where the point is also small, cluster them together with rifles and muskets then throw officers into the mix.

But some of the systems on getting rid of rambos, if implemented, could solve this problem without having to nerf officers.

[Poorlaggedman]

Don't start nerfing weapon damage. Please for the love of all that is holy. Try to capture the actual reasons why officers didn't rambo in real life rather than getting into that stupidness. It's absurd enough that officers can't reload and that needs to change. The very opposite direction needs to be pursued. Not buying more into the "take away their bullets" campaign. There's no greater way to admit defeat than to do those sort of things.

[John Jones]

Don't start nerfing weapon damage. Please for the love of all that is holy. Try to capture the actual reasons why officers didn't rambo in real life rather than getting into that stupidness. It's absurd enough that officers can't reload and that needs to change. The very opposite direction needs to be pursued. Not buying more into the "take away their bullets" campaign. There's no greater way to admit defeat than to do those sort of things.

This is an interesting thread and one that perhaps defines better than most the difficulty of implementing an historically accurate simulation vs game. Pistols at the moment are 'gamed' in other words their effects are exploited (understandably) by those who wield them. Not all officers Rambo but there seems to be a reasonable number that do. I have been on the receiving end of a Rambo's pistol more than once, and its kind of annoying.

Pistols were, and remain, as much a symbol of leadership, as of any practical value [and I say that as someone who helped invade a country in 2003 armed with a Browning Hi-power and 13 rounds of ammunition, feeling distinctly under-armed]. An officer's job is to motivate, maneuver, inspire, lead and occasionally cajole and threaten his troops into doing whatever is required to achieve the aim of the higher command. This was even more important during the Victorian/Civil War period, as battles were largely won or lost through the fire and maneuver of blocks of men directed by officers and NCOs. I'm happy to be corrected but I have read frequent accounts of sword and pistol armed officers being shot/stabbed and killed but relatively few where a pistol wielding chap routed solid infantry, as we seem to get at present.

That said, pistols do put holes in people, especially at close range, so to nerf damage seems inappropriate. It seems to me that Campfire are on the right track with proposing a penalty for misuse of the officer class, rather that nerfing the damage. I like the elegance of Kane's solution, but it potentially solves the gaming issue, not the one that is at the heart of the realism question.

[McMuffin]

The solution to officers should be directed towards the class and not the weapon, people will just find ways to work around the nerf.

[Kane Kaizer]

The issue is that even though hopefully the current plan will help to curtail ramboing (however exactly it's going to be implemented), I don't know of any other solution that will also justify allowing revolver reloads. This idea could have potentially allowed for both and would have balanced the decrease in damage.

[Poorlaggedman]

Well with an auto surrender option your lone wolves have to stand at a distance rather than enter the autosurrender range. Presently officers (particularly the unacceptable blue-uniformed Confederates) have no qualms about circumnavigating an enemy line and shooting 6 players one-by-one in the back (I'm sure with less damage they'd just aim for the head unless you're gonna nerf that too :D ). With an autosurrender in close proximity to large numbers of enemy - they can't do that. And it leaves the option of bum-rushing a lone wolf just out of reach of your line to take him prisoner if a loaded musket isn't handy or he's being tricky behind a tree or rock.


With the flag bearer system hopefully we start to see less of the wild reckless charges that we do and more sustained firefights with any 'charge' being the finishing touch not the main course. The wild and stupid charges would result in a lot of casualties that will not be back to the front sooner than if they had been taken while 'in line.' The hopeful slackening of wild charges will mitigate an officer role to endure more longer range engagements where a pistol is less useful.

My sincere hope is that lines start to choose to withdraw when they realize it's far more advantageous to preserve themselves and their handy field spawn than get obliterated every time on top of losing their flag. May not happen, but it's my hope. So hopefully there will be less engagements at 5-10 yards, particularly the mad-dash kind which they all become.

A server-side option not letting the same player spawn twice (or x number of times) as officer (unless TK'd) would also help tremendously. So in order to keep his power he has to survive. That means more staying behind the line and doing his job and less wild and reckless pistol dueling.

[A. P. Hill]

Thank you for your suggestion. :)

We're currently working on an officer specific system that will both limit ramboing as well as add to the role of the officer. In short: an officer is worthless alone on the field without men to lead and thus he will be relocated back to HQ with a message stating so. If this isn't going to get rid of the unwanted behavior we will makes changes to it (could be to strip the officer of his rank should he find himself alone too many times or it could indeed be to try out your damage suggestion).

- Trusty

Pretty sure this sounds like the winning solution.

[Poorlaggedman]

So... if I want a player to scout... send the officer, and if you time it right he can be teleported to the rear before he can be killed. I prefer non-gamey solutions that don't perpetually box players into literally you have to do this or we teleport you / kill you. Heaven forbid there's an officer on the skirmish line or an outpost or on picket duty. Or assigning an officer to marshal troops coming from a rear spawn area. That'll never happen legitimately :rolleyes: Manipulating human activity in a game or otherwise needs as much delicacy applied as to designing the tax code. To not take into consideration the exceptions and the ways it can be abused creates as many problems as it solves.

[TrustyJam]

So... if I want a player to scout... send the officer, and if you time it right he can be teleported to the rear before he can be killed. I prefer non-gamey solutions that don't perpetually box players into literally you have to do this or we teleport you / kill you. Heaven forbid there's an officer on the skirmish line or an outpost or on picket duty. Or assigning an officer to marshal troops coming from a rear spawn area. That'll never happen legitimately :rolleyes: Manipulating human activity in a game or otherwise needs as much delicacy applied as to designing the tax code. To not take into consideration the exceptions and the ways it can be abused creates as many problems as it solves.

We are talking seconds and not minutes. It is very limited how much scouting you'll be able to do.

In any case. It will be tested and tweaked as everything else.

- Trusty

[JohnDewitt]

In reality a lot of the soldiers were armed with revolvers and pepperboxes as well. They took them with them from home for the intended use of self-defense when in close combat. So if we were to approach this realistically we should be able to have a secondary revolver as an option eventually for close quarters combat. Another one of those reasons why actually closing in for man to man combat was very, very disliked back then and they'd even rather stand at 50 yards exchanging volleys.

[Leifr]

In reality a lot of the soldiers were armed with revolvers and pepperboxes as well. They took them with them from home for the intended use of self-defense when in close combat. So if we were to approach this realistically we should be able to have a secondary revolver as an option eventually for close quarters combat.

Sources?
If you're thinking of the thousands of portraits where soldiers are holding large knives, additional revolvers and other paraphernalia, you're going to be sorely disappointed. :)

[Bivoj]

I have read about personal weapons (including various firearms as revolvers, one-shot pistols and pepperboxes) in Osprey “Combat” (I know, military tabloid; I am not that interested in US history, my focus is military history of Europe), which is “proven” by the mentioned photos. I am curious how much of this is actualy true.

https://ospreypublishing.com/store/military-history/series-books/combat/union-infantryman-vs-confederate-infantryman-eastern-theater-1861-65

[Leifr]

I have read about personal weapons (including various firearms as revolvers, one-shot pistols and pepperboxes) in Osprey “Combat” (I know, military tabloid; I am not that interested in US history, my focus is military history of Europe), which is “proven” by the mentioned photos. I am curious how much of this is actualy true.

https://ospreypublishing.com/store/military-history/series-books/combat/union-infantryman-vs-confederate-infantryman-eastern-theater-1861-65

It's a gross misconception that appears over, and over, and over again.
The evidence that soldiers during the American Civil War carried additional arms (especially revolvers) is scant. When you're looking at a studio portrait of soldiers, both north and south, you're seeing props supplied by the photographer to the soldier.

---

"Along with the general setting, most Union soldiers were furnished with a few props, so the "fierce-looking Civil Warrior who appears in an ambrotype armed to the teeth may not have owned a single weapon with which he is pictured." The clearest examples of the borrowing of militariana are the many photographs of privates with officers' swords (pl.117), Confederates from the same regiments posed with identical D-guard bowie knives, and Union infantrymen with no holsters but large revolvers. Figure 33 is a typical studio portrait of a quadruple-armed Union private. He sports two revolvers (no holsters), a battle knife, and a musket with a fixed bayonet. The awkward young soldier yet to see action in this sixth-plate tintype probably owned none of the weapons other than the musket. The rest came from the prop room of the gallery." (Rosenheim, 2013)

"In some parts of the country, certain varieties of props were sold as easy moneymakers... Valerius C. Giles, a Fourth Texas Infantry soldier, recalled in his memoir... "While Bridges [sic] was placing me in position for this ambrotype, he suggested that I would look more fierce and military if I would pin one side of my hat back with a star. He had a supply of stars on hand, which he sold for a dollar apiece... " (Rosenheim, 2013)

Rosenheim, J. (2013) Photography and the American Civil War, Museum of Modern Art.

---

I have attached three images; the first of which is referenced in the above text as the private with the officers' sword, the second as the quadruple-armed private and the last one a member of a Tennessee regiment who succumbed to the same pressure as the Texan.

781878197820

[Shiloh]

This video is a great example of how much damage an officer can do in a short period of time. Beginning at 2:48 Cody took out 5 guys in 10 seconds - nice shootin' BTW Tex - and was able to finish someone off even after being bayoneted. That's one officer seriously stunting a charge of maybe 8-9 guys total and taking out half that force. Had he not been bayoneted and because he had the LeMat, he would have had 3-4 more shots he could have squeezed off and that would have done even more damage. To me it's just too much and some will disagree and that's what these discussions are all about.

In my opinion, it would be much better if even a percentage of his shots were one shots kills and another percentage were two shot kills than that would feel more balanced to me as certainly there were some men out there who could take a revolver bullet and keep moving forward due to adrenaline and physical strength, and then there would be some guys who would drop like a sack of potatoes for opposite reasons or depending on where they were shot.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfhEfSEROWs

[Saris]

or maybe go back to 1 hit kills with bayonets if actually stabbed in the stomach, chest, or head.

[Shiloh]

or maybe go back to 1 hit kills with bayonets if actually stabbed in the stomach, chest, or head.

This works as well. The infantry would still be at a disadvantage to the officer as it takes longer to lunge and stab then fire a pistol but it would still feel more balanced.

[McMuffin]

or maybe go back to 1 hit kills with bayonets if actually stabbed in the stomach, chest, or head.

I really want bayonet one hit kills brought back. I put forward a suggestion created by Stockton with a little bit added on by myself that was an excellent system that would bring bayonet 1 hit kills back with successful charges but two hits if someone is just by themselves.

[Bivoj]

The “in formation” bonus for melee in combination with random demage caused by revolver would be nice.

[Redleader]

This video is a great example of how much damage an officer can do in a short period of time. Beginning at 2:48 Cody took out 5 guys in 10 seconds ...


This is a different scenario from the so called 'Rambo Officers situation', here the pistol is used as a defensive weapon. (and yes it's the Lemat and if you don't get shot and got a good aim ....)
I wouldn't of charged the fence but the side and in group.

[Shiloh]

I realize this isn't a Rambo scenario. My basic point with that video is to illustrate how officers are 'one man wrecking crews' - particularly when the other team is charging - and it feels unbalanced. Some of my suggestions were to balance things out so they're not quite as deadly. When you can take out 5 guys in 10 seconds or less that's a bit too much.

[Teilyn]

Another way to combat this lone wolf trend would be to extend the respawn timer if killed while out of line. Perhaps even give a warning after being out of line for a couple of minutes, such as "Being out of line results in greater morale loss and longer respawn timer if killed." Being in formation or skirmishing then resets the timer.

[TrustyJam]

Another way to combat this lone wolf trend would be to extend the respawn timer if killed while out of line. Perhaps even give a warning after being out of line for a couple of minutes, such as "Being out of line results in greater morale loss and longer respawn timer if killed." Being in formation or skirmishing then resets the timer.

This will be a thing when flag bearer spawning is implemented. :)

- Trusty

[Teilyn]

This will be a thing when flag bearer spawning is implemented. :)

- Trusty

Sounds good.

[JohnDewitt]

If you ask me, simply making the melee system more eloquent would fix a lot of these issues. Once you're able to more reliably aim where you stab on a person's body and manage to land a hit on the center chest, neck or head and that being a 1 hit kill it would solve the problem. Yes the officer would still have an advantage in CQC but not something two or three men with bayonets can't handle. On the flip side those men armed with muskets have a huge advantage over range. So that counts as balanced in my book.

I reckon that at some point you would also be able to fend off from melee attacks if you're armed with a rifle yourself. Simply make someone armed with a pistol incapable of doing this (e.g. keep that the way it is now).