A few words regarding organized gameplay thanks to regiments ...

[CptData]

Before I start, I'd like to apologize for my words - they matter not but I need to get rid of 'em.

Yesterday I took part in the events which were hosted on an EU server. We had 80 - 100 players most time and it looked like fun first. Usually, I'm not biased towards a side and since I'm not part of any regiment, you can find me either fighting for the Yankees or as Johnny Reb.
Too bad, the event lacked any organization on Union side that day. We simply had no experienced officer (and only a few regimental boys) on our side and Rebs had an easy time taking us down. In one match, Union had suffered nearly thrice the casualties Confeds had just due lack of proper leadership. The other match we had an officer that had a bit of experience, we didn't win and still suffered bad decisions, but at least we kept our morale and had proper lines set up.
Now that's not the reason why I'm writing down those lines.

There was a small discussion going on dealing with "locked event servers for regiments". In fact, the entire talk started since we had no experienced officer leading our troops, instead the officer spot got either bugged (no officer at all) or was occupied by someone with questionable experience.
I'm not much of a fan of "locked" servers, unless a clan battle is going on (read: two regiments want to duke it out undisturbed). It simply will lead to following scenario: regiments will stay away from public servers, public players get denied experienced leadership by officers and soldiers organized in regiments resulting in a questionable gaming experience aka "no fun".
Now I do have some battles under my belt, maybe not that many like most regimental players, but still know the drill well enough. Most of the battles I took part had organized players and publics and we all were following a simple set of rules: if you're in a regiment, you follow your officer. And if you're not in a regiment, you tag along with one of the present ones and do whatever they do. Nice and simple, everyone can do that, even when not doing any drill preparations.
However, it simply doesn't work if no experienced officers (read: officers from any regiment) with some of his boys is present and able leading a line. Then the game simply falls apart. Picking the officer class alone doesn't make anyone an officer, but uses up a valuable spot. Picking the officer class without some boys supporting you also does not work since you need a certain amount of players to set up a line willingly - which isn't always working with a pure public line. In fact I believe, it's less the officer setting up a properly organized line but the players he brings with him - which IS a boon of regiments. They all know their job and officers usually can think about the ongoing battle. They don't need to organize a line by hand, that's what NCOs do and the players by themselves.
That means: any good officer player comes with his own boys and sets up a line as "rally point".

And that's when my argument starts to get weight. If no organized regiment is around, you'll end with a bunch of random players. Even when they know the deal, if there's no one to lead them, they simply won't work together in any meaningful manner. And even when they manage to stick together: a host of ragtag bunch of misfits isn't a line and will get gunned down at every situation, regardless if they act on their own or if they're led by an inexperienced officer that's simply an officer 'cuz the player took that role. No organized gameplay is no fun. And if regiments can lock themselves away, they'll remove the only element that makes a random public battle an organized one: their regiment. In a way we'll end with a self-fulfilling prophecy: regiments stay away from public servers due lack of organization - which is caused by regiments that do not play on public servers. Odd, isn't it? Thankfully, we don't have the option to lock servers currently, which means we still can enjoy organized public battles.

Now let's wonder if my mindset is wrong, shall we?
Yesterday I took part in a battle at Nicodemus Hill (spelling?) as Union soldier. We had roughly three formations: one left, one center and one right. None of 'em had nearly enough players to break through. The center formation was more or less a skirmishing unit without an officer or whatsoever and we kept firing at them Rebs. Since we had no proper leadership, we couldn't really support any of the flanking units. Als there was neither coordination nor did anybody came up with the idea of using messengers. I'm no leader in WoR, I simply don't know the drill. It's not that I can't command "at the ready - aim - fire", it's more the tactical part. When do I move my boys where? And since I know that, I simply don't pick the officer class. I do sometimes pick the NCO, his main job is to relay orders from the officer in charge to his end of the line. That's something I can do but even that role is rarely pick'd by me.
So, now I ask you: shall I pick a commanding role if I don't know enough doing that job 'cuz nobody else is taking command? Won't that lead to the very same situation I was describing above? A unit led by a poor officer with zero experience, no soldiers supporting him ... does that help anybody? Is my mindset wrong here?
As I said before: for me, there are a few simple rules: if a regiment is around, I stick with 'em and do what they do. And I will do my damnest to do a good job - and won't take valuable spots as officer, I will free up the spot of NCO or flag bearer if asked. Actually, I would do the same if I were part of any regiment.

I'm just saying. I can't join a regiment due lack of time and some other reasons any time soon, but I do enjoy volunteering in any line battle bolstering a regiment's number. At least I would feel devastated if regiments could lock themselves away from public servers in the long run - which may harm the game itself. As I said: organized gameplay is fun as hell, a lack of organization is not.

</end of words>

[CptData]

Very appreciative of your thoughts, I'm on my phone or otherwise I would probably have a more comprehensive reply. I did want to address this,


Fear not. Speaking for a couple of associations, the big battalions only plan on doing locked servers for events with certain rulesets (no skirmishing, hiding behind fences/terrain, etc) and scores to settle.

That's part of my concerns: at least I do enjoy such events with special rules and took part in some of 'em. And again the golden rule is: "if you're part of a regiment, find your officer/unit - and if you're not part of a regiment, tag along with one and do what they do."
Too bad that doesn't apply on all players.

So I wonder: if there are locked events, is there any way for a "pubby" to take part there? Like "invitation" or "Volunteering" or something? I know some regiments do accept volunteers (non-members) for certain events, but not all of 'em.

[Redleader]

Since I was there yesterday, I can comment on a few things :

Union leadership & organisation

Bigger regiments vs smaller units : CSA had the bulk of II corps & 6th AL while Union had a few smaller regiments and more 'non enlisted' players :

It's harder for Union to organize, we had a group in the house and a few skirmishing soldiers but in no way to threaten an easily shifting CSA force.
Global Union leadership was an issue, the question remains who could take leadership and if others would follow or at least coordinate the effort ?
As a CSA player I feel a threshold in 'leading' Union, supporting or helping out as an NCO feels better … it's even in our interest to have good experienced Union officers.
Agree on : if no leadership is on, people will resort in what they do best or think is best.


Taking the officer spot

On teamspeak we had the same discussion when one of our 'non leading' members took on the officer spot on Union :

We believe the officer spot should be open for an officer or NCO or a designated member assigned to lead (for test).
Union officers spots should definitely go to a Union player, the argument was brought op that at the time nobody wanted to lead or take the spot.
Taking the officer spot comes with responsibility, the spots means organizing men into battle … (I know some just want to mess around with the pistol -> I prefer they take NCO and try to support).
Events are different then weekly skirmishes, events require more structure and right people on the right place (try and keep the officer & NCO spots open).
Don't underestimate leading, it's more then just giving out orders and can be quite energy draining, especially leading bigger groups.


-> We hope in the future company tool will be leading for ingame uniforms so people have a visual confirmation of one's rank/regiment.

Private servers


The '+' would be that the rules of battle are followed since it's an organized event, it also could help with cohesion and communication.
Agree on : closed servers are great for groups having a face off or testing tactics/maps ...
Agree on : The '-' would be that you isolate off part of the community


-> Some people just want to play and aren't really interested in the whole 'line battle' or organization and they just join the server with people on … which makes sense :)

Communication

Ingame chat : using it will give an idea on people's opinion :)
Some use discord & teamspeak only to relay orders, the problem is it leaves 'non regimental' players kind of left out but is more effective in organizing things.
Sometimes 'ingame voice' doesn't work which makes it more difficult.


Otto & Sherrick farm (as Union)

We had a group shooting from the house and a few skirmishers on the side, but where in no way could bolster an organized attack on an organized CSA line (who could easily shift).
Damage was done to the CSA line since we could shoot and reload in cover.


Nicodemus hill (as CSA)

1st GA had the left & 6th LA had the right, we both had good visual and a good spot … we also had contact with the other group and could shift or reform pretty fast.
The tactic is easily implemented, try and hold back the enemy … if they have a superior force try to slow them down, retreat and reform and counter ...

[sal_tuskin]

as i have been playing this game for well over a yr now i would say the problem with the union side is they all are mostly paper companies what i mean is they have many companies with well over 100 people but have no one playing and they keep making new companies every day what they should do i get the 50-100 players that play the union side and make one good company and that will be a big step in the right direction
i have been wanting to say this for a while now is that company tool should only be available to people with capt pledge or higher that way you know the people you recruit can at least play the game then the next problem is people take the officers spot just cause they can and doesnt help leadership either
the csa has a large group of people who have actually have played this game for the last yr together, the 6th LA- 1st GA- 6th Al all have been doing this since last may and the leadership we have doesnt happen over nite it will take the union a long time to fine some good leaders on a consistent basis but it looks like they are trying now with 72nd and other and wish them good luck

and if you are not in a company you are always welcome to tag along with the 2nd corp on the csa side anytime you want and ask questions and we will try to answer them for you

and i dont see the public servers being deserted when privates ones go live unless this games gets 10s of thousands of players they wont be enough players to fill up alot of servers nightly so i dont worry about that to much

you have to find leaders who you trust and can follow and that takes time whether it is the csa or union you have to play with people for a long time and i mean months to learn whether they are a good leader or not these companies and regiments that come and go every day doesnt help matters either for the union side
i am not trying to bash the union but this post like others always seem to be about the leadership sorry that is what this is directed at nothing more or less

[CptData]

Thanks for your input, Redleader! Same @sal_tuskin, of course!

Actually, you did point out some very interesting issues, like the "loyalty issue". You're part of a Confed regiment and, yeah, I totally understand your feeling. It's pretty much the same for Pallioetti (spelling?) or Cody: if no CSA spot is free, they'll be on Union side, but refuse taking a leadership role. That is absolutely understandable and nobody will hold that against you or the other guys.

Also you said the officer spot comes with some responsibilities. I'm well aware of that and therefore refuse taking that spot at all. It's a bit more than barking orders and players usually blame officers if things go wrong. Let's put it this way: if a new face pops up, taking the helm, I usually give him a chance. If that guy knows a bit of the trade, it's still better than nothing, sometimes it's better to have an inexperienced officer than none at all. In best case, the guy learns quickly and turns out to be a capable officer, even if he comes out of the blue. In worst case, the guy insists on decisions like "charging blindly into the enemy ranks" every time. And that's the point when an inexperienced leader turns into a burden for the team. Sometimes I wish those officers would realise their failings and step down, freeing the spot for someone else, which I'd consider a very responsible thing to do. So in a way it's not only a responsible role to act as an officer, it's equally responsible to refuse picking up that role if one doesn't feel ready. I rather learn that trade first before sending some good boys into the fray!

Communication was a huge issue. The ingame chat usually doesn't get paid attention to and VoiP has limited range. So it's like you said: players without TS/Discord don't get the newest intel, they may not even get an idea what the other units are curently planning, resulting in a lack of coordination. Another reason why I don't do the officer job: I'm not in any of the regimental chats and will do no good to ensure our strategy plays out as planned.

I mean, is it just me or does it boil down to "if you can't lead, don't do it?" ;)

---------------

The main reason why I posted my lill' rant is 'cuz I'm somehow mostly playing for CSA at events. And usually I tag along with the IInd Corps or 1st TX - depending on my mood or whomever needs an extra musket. Leadership doesn't come over night and nobody expects that. But I was -really- and -truely- shocked how bad leadership was yesterday for the Union. I really didn't expect that, since I'm used to the better organized leadership of the Confeds. Also, yesterday appeared to be a rather bad day since I know from experience as well as from streams Union doesn't always suffer from that issue. So either this was a poor day for Union yesterday - or I was lucky to never have to go though that before.

[sal_tuskin]

no by all means try to lead if you want too but have a plan, know the map, know your enemy just dont grab and officer slot and wing it and that is what seems to happening on the union side alot
i would suggest try to get in a regiment most of 2 corps dont have much of an attendence code show up when you can and we can help, you are welcome in our ts if you would like and you can see what our leaders do and dont do
if you see me or and officer in 2 corps just ask they or i will help

and i am sure the union will do the same if you want to play them i know maj stone is helpful look him up if he is on line and i think 1st cav is some old 1st ga guys they know what to do

also today at 3:30 est the 2nd corps has their drill feel free to attended they will be in a csa drill camp then go play after that
if you want to lead you have to find people to lead so you need to start there

[Redleader]

I mean, is it just me or does it boil down to "if you can't lead, don't do it?" ;)


Some are born into it, others learn … like 'Sal' said try it, it may be something you like and grow into or it comes natural.
We didn't want to scare you off, just confirm that it's sometimes not easy especially for starters but with some good people supporting you'll get further.

Some 'new' players will automatically follow an officer uniform :) Cause some expect that the guy with stars and stripes knows what he's doing … and sure mistakes are part of it.
That's why we try to let our members try on the role (we learn them the basics, drill is open for everyone), give people a chance and they might shine :)

-> Again 'events' are different from the regular matches, in just skirmish you can more easily take on the officer spot and start of with a few men. (form at spawn/at a point and deploy tactics)
-> Like 'Sal' pointed out, drills (both sides) are an interesting place to check out !

[CptData]

Thanks both of you. I'll keep that in mind. Not sure if I can make it today evening due "wife + daughter". Family business, ya 'now. ;)

[Lackay]

one of the problems tends to be pubs that grab the officer role, making it difficult for actual organized groups to use the officers role and tools as intended. Also, its unsurprising that the CSA has better cohesion simply because of real life interest in the lost cause and a personal desire to remedy it ingame lol

[Bleddyn]

I totally agree it would be a shame if established companies started having events in private servers, however people who like established rules for events (like line battles) probably get very frustrated at constantly telling people why they shouldn't be capping/skirmishing etc.

You also get situations where players start questioning your "right" to even ask people to play that way on a public server. EXAMPLE (https://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?5334-So-called-quot-server-rules-quot).

Line battles are personally not my favorite way to play this game, but every company or organization has the right to try and play events the way they want to. If other people joining constantly prohibit them from doing so, I would fully understand them wanting to take it to a private server.

[CptData]

Sure, I understand not everyone is a fan of line battles.

In case of me, I'm open for a lot of different tactics on the field. I wasn't even talking about pure line battles. They're fun, but they lack deeper tactics. My favorite style is to have two or three smaller lines and at least a skirmishing unit - which gives you way more tactical options. Also if you don't like standing in the open and getting shot at, you can join a skirmisher unit covering behind rocks and walls to increase their chances of survival. If it works, it's okay.
What I don't like is a lack of coordination and, in worst case, a ton of rambos in the game. Rambos just get themselves killed, costing a lot of tickets. No coordination means those two or three lines plus skirmisher never can do anything against an organized enemy. Both cases kill most of the fun at least for me.
So I don't insist on one big line organized by one of the better known regiments - but I'd love to see more overall organization of all the units in the field.

I wonder if I put my words correctly this time. ;)

[Poorlaggedman]

You're pretty much spot on about your prediction of 'regiments' locking themselves away in closed servers. It will happen. Many who claim to be an asset to the community will become the opposite. You'll come out to public servers only to recruit and then suck these recruits into your private gameplay world where you may occasionally host terribly-organized locked-server events open to the public--probably with a password announced somewhere like on the forums. Players who join a 'regiment' will be sucked into that club life locked-server world. Players who don't will quickly learn the game doesn't work without that and will either only play in events in a controlled server or join one of those clubs.

Nobody respectable will long dare to have 'open server' events. The plethora of total trolls and border-line trolls which will descend upon this community will rock your world. You guys have no idea what's coming with later releases. No idea. Leaving a server without a simple lock deterrent gives trolls every excuse in the world to 'not know the rules.' Forget whatever you've seen in a game you think is similar, this game is going to overflow with them when the price is around $20 (which it had better be some day for the sake of survival). I know a game that's ripe for trolls and this one is looking to be reach the top of the charts for a good span of time.

The emphasis right now needs to be on making the game so you don't need closed events. Punishing the team for your own personal recklessness (team morale) is not a deterrent at all to a player looking to have fun (also known as a normal human-being). Players must be compelled to gravitate to each other in the most primitive of fashions for their own personal success or else the game won't work. Life's been coming at me too hard lately but I'll eventually elaborate on some ideas to fix that.

Leadership problems can't be fixed easily. The officer class means literally nothing currently and I'm hesitant to say it should for fear of it becoming a privilege of the wrong people. People need to become comfortable with following someone other than an officer class because anyone can and will take it without major overhauls to how you can select it. Use common sense and don't follow a guy into an open-ground stand-up fight on an entrenched (fenced) enemy. Numbers are your asset, not officer classes. With the flag-bearer spawn system that will be even more true. That'll be a nightmare of it's own I fear with so much relying on what one totally random guy does and a golden opportunity for trolls to do their thing.

[Ezra Baldwin]

"People need to become comfortable with following someone other than an officer class because anyone can and will take it without major overhauls to how you can select it. Use common sense and don't follow a guy into an open-ground stand-up fight on an entrenched (fenced) enemy." -Poorlaggedman

I couldn't agree with you more on this point. All too often in battle right now, I hear people saying "where's an officer" or "we need an officer" when in truth they don't need an officer, but a leader. Anyone can grab the officer slot and try to start bossing people around, but that doesn't necessarily make them a good leader. I don't have an answer for this problem, but I think more organized companies can help. For instance, if our company has trained on certain firing drills etc. we don't really need someone, playing an officer slot, coming in and trying to tell us every little order in battle, but instead coordinate a general plan of battle or working with them instead of trying to run our company would work much better. Then we can operate as a company the way we have trained and still coordinate with everyone around us.

[Lightfoot]

Maybe a better solution might be to down grade the Officer class so it is primarily a leadership role and mostly useless in a fight. This would at least make it a choice by people who actually want to help coordinate the fight. Maybe give the Officer class some enhanced communications with in the game but limited ability to fight.

Maybe brain storm some ideas to make them work like:

Officer voice commands being echoed down the line.

Significant restrictions on their use of pistols.

Tag the officer with in game statistics so you could quickly figure out if he was experienced or just screwing around in the game.

Make swords a poor weapon for melee. In combat they were seldom used since they were more symbols of the Officer and a means of signaling the troops.


I don't know any way they could block users from using external communications but it would make the officer a necessary part of the tactics if they were the only ones capable of that type of communication.


Anyway the general idea is to make the Officer something no one would want to be unless they really wanted to "lead" the troops.

[Hinkel]

Maybe a better solution might be to down grade the Officer class so it is primarily a leadership role and mostly useless in a fight.

The limitation of 6 rounds per revolver makes him pretty useless already, if he faces a full line of 30 soldiers for example.

Besides that, rambo officers will get reduced in the future with adding some new features (like a desertion, if he is not attached to a formation).
Pretty sure we will try out different things, once we have some other needed features added :)

[DaMonkey]

I'm on the NA side, and try not to play Union, but I have noticed a lot of the same of what you're describing when I did have to be Yankee. At least when I'm on, they either don't have a clear leader, or they have a bunch of small-company commanders who spend more time deriding each other than coordinating against the enemy.

[John Cooley]

I'm on the NA side, and try not to play Union, but I have noticed a lot of the same of what you're describing when I did have to be Yankee. At least when I'm on, they either don't have a clear leader, or they have a bunch of small-company commanders who spend more time deriding each other than coordinating against the enemy.

And THERE is your Historical Accuracy! heh

NOTE:
When we start to actually Play the game, as opposed to testing it, many of these problems will fade away.

Skirmishing can, will and must happen but we are in the Line Battle testing phase so what I tell our guys is ...
- Enjoy it for what it is ... a chance for camaraderie, honing shooting skills and practicing Friend/Foe identification.
- Test often and we will move onto the next phase more quickly.
- This is NOT the game we will be playing but rather a small portion.
- Have fun and be patient.

[Bleddyn]

we are in the Line Battle testing phase

Actually the current phase is called "Skirmishes Closed Alpha Phase I".

8882

These are skirmishing maps we are currently playing. Line battle maps will be much bigger I believe. (I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.)

[Vulcarin]

The limitation of 6 rounds per revolver makes him pretty useless already, if he faces a full line of 30 soldiers for example.

Besides that, rambo officers will get reduced in the future with adding some new features (like a desertion, if he is not attached to a formation).
Pretty sure we will try out different things, once we have some other needed features added :)

OHHH I like the sounds of that desertion option on officer class. Maybe make that for NCO as well? they do get pistols sometimes as well.

[John Cooley]

Actually the current phase is called "Skirmishes Closed Alpha Phase I".

8882

These are skirmishing maps we are currently playing. Line battle maps will be much bigger I believe. (I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.)

Yeah we thought that too but being forced to do Line Battles has us leaning toward calling it Line Battle Testing Phase.

[Shiloh]

Actually the current phase is called "Skirmishes Closed Alpha Phase I".

8882

These are skirmishing maps we are currently playing. Line battle maps will be much bigger I believe. (I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.)

I'm curious about whether the individual map boundaries will expand when we're out of this phase, and more into a line battle phase? Of course this would be to allow large line formations more room to maneuver but I'm not sure whether that is necessary.

[A. P. Hill]

All the current skirmish areas are part of an overall single large 6 square mile map. When battle phase comes out the skirmish boundaries will disappear.

[Poorlaggedman]

Not a fan of the desertion thing at all. You're gonna have to explain to people in perpetuity to the point that it's a constant complaint. Why not just force everyone to be part of a formation or else be shot for desertion? It's stupid and it eclipses the original problems. Even the flag bearer having to be close or be shot for desertion will be a problem. I think it's opening a can of worms and will metaphorical whack-a-mole for the plethora of exceptions which are not considered or just reasonable people not wanting to be attached at the hip to group think formation movements. There's no leadership, no plans for leadership roles meaning anything or being respected so why would it have any other result?

Want to mutiny? Heck.... just everyone scatter and watch that officer keel over dead after 20 seconds. The least powerful person is now officially the officer in that situation. This isn't gonna work and it shouldn't work that way. I'd rather be shot in the back by an officer on occasion than deal with that level of silliness, all for a role that can't reload and essentially means nothing outside of close combat and an annoying icon it can place.

[TrustyJam]

Not a fan of the desertion thing at all. You're gonna have to explain to people in perpetuity to the point that it's a constant complaint. Why not just force everyone to be part of a formation or else be shot for desertion? It's stupid and it eclipses the original problems. Even the flag bearer having to be close or be shot for desertion will be a problem. I think it's opening a can of worms and will metaphorical whack-a-mole for the plethora of exceptions which are not considered or just reasonable people not wanting to be attached at the hip to group think formation movements. There's no leadership, no plans for leadership roles meaning anything or being respected so why would it have any other result?

Want to mutiny? Heck.... just everyone scatter and watch that officer keel over dead after 20 seconds. The least powerful person is now officially the officer in that situation. This isn't gonna work and it shouldn't work that way. I'd rather be shot in the back by an officer on occasion than deal with that level of silliness, all for a role that can't reload and essentially means nothing outside of close combat and an annoying icon it can place.

Hi there!

thank you for the feedback. We will test how it plays out (what the alpha is for after all) and make adjustments based off of that.

I’d be interested to know what sort of system you would think better? (You mostly just seem to attack the proposed idea (which will be tested, the system for it is already completed) and not offer much of an alternative).

I’m also interested in your statement about there being no leadership and no plans for the role to mean anything. This too seems overly negative, and frankly wrong - we have several plans regarding the officer class.

- Trusty

[Dutchconfederate]

You can't push everything in a system. Eventually similar minded folk will agree to fight each other in the correct setting to there liking. Eventually with the big battle mode different sorts of communities will form just the way it goes.

[Poorlaggedman]

Someone has to be negative. The majority of folks in this community now would be very pleased simply with a platform to do line battles, something which they are already safe in knowing will never be threatened. I don't think most people believe in a functioning public server and yet that is crucial to the community growing, it certainly isn't possible in the other types of games these same niche gamers choose to play.

In order for officer roles to mean something, the player who occupies them has to be well-qualified. IMO the only way to do that is by a simple but complex democratic rating system (up/down) which allows people to spawn as a team officer or bump someone from that role. Since every bit of everyone's opinion averaged out matters so much as to how much you're respected I don't see too many variations of that working very well at all. Something good wouldn't cut it well, it has to be optimal. The less optimal it is, the more it just remains a class that gets a different weapon (which requires severe nerfing to be allowed in the game) in the same way a WWII game may give an "NCO class" a sub machine gun and a couple smoke grenades.

It's dangerous trying to make single players critically matter. It doesn't just open you to very effective trolling it also means when nerves are frayed that people will retaliate by doing their job poorly because they were yelled at and they didn't like it. Much better to set optimal conditions to make use of an officer and flag bearer and whatever and not try to necessitate it in order for the game to function well. Leadership in video games is an important but tricky thing. Twenty seconds is a long time for a flag bearer to run off with a flag before being suicided. What can you do? Have the flag spawn back at the formation again? What about the exceptions? What if he's left behind or AFK? Should the team get the flag back? Should be be TKd? Should you be able to seize the flag from an AFK player without killing a player? Just rhetorical questions. A spawn revolving around a player is scary.

[TrustyJam]

Someone has to be negative. The majority of folks in this community now would be very pleased simply with a platform to do line battles, something which they are already safe in knowing will never be threatened. I don't think most people believe in a functioning public server and yet that is crucial to the community growing, it certainly isn't possible in the other types of games these same niche gamers choose to play.

In order for officer roles to mean something, the player who occupies them has to be well-qualified. IMO the only way to do that is by a simple but complex democratic rating system (up/down) which allows people to spawn as a team officer or bump someone from that role. Since every bit of everyone's opinion averaged out matters so much as to how much you're respected I don't see too many variations of that working very well at all. Something good wouldn't cut it well, it has to be optimal. The less optimal it is, the more it just remains a class that gets a different weapon (which requires severe nerfing to be allowed in the game) in the same way a WWII game may give an "NCO class" a sub machine gun and a couple smoke grenades.

It's dangerous trying to make single players critically matter. It doesn't just open you to very effective trolling it also means when nerves are frayed that people will retaliate by doing their job poorly because they were yelled at and they didn't like it. Much better to set optimal conditions to make use of an officer and flag bearer and whatever and not try to necessitate it in order for the game to function well. Leadership in video games is an important but tricky thing. Twenty seconds is a long time for a flag bearer to run off with a flag before being suicided. What can you do? Have the flag spawn back at the formation again? What about the exceptions? What if he's left behind or AFK? Should the team get the flag back? Should be be TKd? Should you be able to seize the flag from an AFK player without killing a player? Just rhetorical questions. A spawn revolving around a player is scary.

A voting system has been discussed internally before - it is certainly something we might look into in the future. A voting system is only as strong as the playerbase on the server in question though (unless you wish it to be a game wide reputation system which is quite a different matter altogether). Throughout the year of skirmishes I have seen my share of high ranking officers of larger companies go on various rambo sprees for different reasons. They'd be able to continue to do so with a voting system simply because they have the majority of the team behind them.

A flag bearer out of line for too long being despawned (and dropping the flag) will result in the flag laying on the ground for a set amount of time with a marker for his teammates. After the set amount of time is up the flag despawns from the gameworld and the flag bearer class is now available for selection again (the team is made aware of this by a short in-game message).

A spawn revolving around a player is indeed scary. We've spent a lot of time tinkering and tweaking this system and we'll most certainly have got something wrong which will be highlighted when we bring it into testing I'm sure. :)

- Trusty

[CptData]

"People need to become comfortable with following someone other than an officer class because anyone can and will take it without major overhauls to how you can select it. Use common sense and don't follow a guy into an open-ground stand-up fight on an entrenched (fenced) enemy." -Poorlaggedman

I couldn't agree with you more on this point. All too often in battle right now, I hear people saying "where's an officer" or "we need an officer" when in truth they don't need an officer, but a leader. Anyone can grab the officer slot and try to start bossing people around, but that doesn't necessarily make them a good leader. I don't have an answer for this problem, but I think more organized companies can help. For instance, if our company has trained on certain firing drills etc. we don't really need someone, playing an officer slot, coming in and trying to tell us every little order in battle, but instead coordinate a general plan of battle or working with them instead of trying to run our company would work much better. Then we can operate as a company the way we have trained and still coordinate with everyone around us.

Yes, indeed. The officer role has only one big advantage over non-officers: pick one and you can draw a line on the ground. Besides that, it's just a revolver with 6 shots (once they're gone, they are gone) and a fancy uniform. By the way, I hope revolvers get an option for real reloads - give 'em 2 or 3 extra drums. Reloading the drum itself didn't happen in the field, it took simply too much time. And replacing the drum also took considerable time, so even if our officers get extra drums, they can't rambo.

I remember a couple of battles as Reb when Paioletti led his units as a private. That's right: the guy pick'd the standard soldier class and still was able to lead his unit, even without the feature "line drawing". Because the he knows what he does, he comes with at least a dozen boys of his regiment which know the drill already. Also it helps he has a remarkable voice (Union troops also have one or two outstandingly voiced guys, I just don't remember them) so if you hear the man, serious sh*t is about to happen. And it works surprisingly often. Same for LaBelle, I guess.
So yeah, a well known guy that's respected as a leader is able to do something. I just wish we had more of them instead just a couple.

By the way: I'm naming those two guys as "positive examples". At least I didn't have any issues ever with 'em and in fact they're both my faves on Reb side. Union side does have some good guys too, but they appear to be less often active - or I miss their appearances.

[Lightfoot]

The limitation of 6 rounds per revolver makes him pretty useless already, if he faces a full line of 30 soldiers for example.

Besides that, rambo officers will get reduced in the future with adding some new features (like a desertion, if he is not attached to a formation).
Pretty sure we will try out different things, once we have some other needed features added :)

That is a big "if". Rarely does the officer do that. Usually he slips around the flank behind a group and the combination of pistol and sword wipes them out. This is possible mostly because unless one of the attacked happens to be faced so he can see the officer come up from the rear the group seldom knows someone is killing them one by one. And, all you have to do is die to reload.

Down grade the officers melee ability with gun and sword will force the officer to stay where he belongs. Supporting his line of battle.

This could be further encouraged by giving some morale bonuses to lines with officers.

[Ezra Baldwin]

I saw in another post that they are working on adding VOIP identification, which will help some as well. There will still be plenty of people talking at the same time, not intentionally, but at least you will be able to see who is talking and know who is giving verbal commands/orders. Those that now rely on that "officer" figure, may not be so reliant in the future if they know who is actually talking and giving orders with VOIP.

[Shiloh]

All the current skirmish areas are part of an overall single large 6 square mile map. When battle phase comes out the skirmish boundaries will disappear.

That's when this game will elevate.

[Dutchconfederate]

That's when this game will elevate.

That's what I think also.

[CptData]

I saw in another post that they are working on adding VOIP identification, which will help some as well. There will still be plenty of people talking at the same time, not intentionally, but at least you will be able to see who is talking and know who is giving verbal commands/orders. Those that now rely on that "officer" figure, may not be so reliant in the future if they know who is actually talking and giving orders with VOIP.

Can't wait for that feature. Especially important to find out who:

- is giving orders. I had a battle when some random guy shouted orders and half of our unit got slaughtered in a pointless charge while the rest remained with their real CO.
- is repeating orders. The CO gives an order and the NCOs in the line repeat that order so everyone gets it. Usually only 2 or 3 NCOs are with any bigger line, but 10 guys repeat that order. It works and adds immersion 'tough, so I don't consider this as an issue.

I also love to see a feature where you can tune down VOIP depending on who says it. For instance, I'd love to give an NCO/CO +10db or reduce enlisted chatter by -10db. This also helps a lot to hear orders given by a CO or NCO. Hopefully the class is play'd by someone who knows the trade.

[Lightfoot]

That's when this game will elevate.

Hmmm.
Hope they have access to Summit so they can populate that 6 square miles with soldiers.

[Shiloh]

Hmmm.
Hope they have access to Summit so they can populate that 6 square miles with soldiers.

What's Summit? I think if we could get 200 soldiers per server by that time it would be pretty epic.

[CptData]

What's Summit? I think if we could get 200 soldiers per server by that time it would be pretty epic.

We have 150 players already and they hardly fill a battle field ;)
So if we get the full map at once, 200 players simply will get lost ...

[Shiloh]

We have 150 players already and they hardly fill a battle field ;)
So if we get the full map at once, 200 players simply will get lost ...

Don't get me wrong... more would be epic but I don't think technology can handle that yet. ;) So will we still have skirmish areas or different spawn options so that the two forces can meet without having to walk for miles searching?

[Stalin]

Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but there will always be a market for regiments to play on public servers and do interesting things to ensure that a fresh flow of recruits is kept up, otherwise eventually those shut off regiments will simply die off over time.

[John Cooley]

Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but there will always be a market for regiments to play on public servers and do interesting things to ensure that a fresh flow of recruits is kept up, otherwise eventually those shut off regiments will simply die off over time.

Agreed
II Corps will never fully abandon Public Servers as it is a great source of Recruits that we can evaluate in action.

[Stalin]

Agreed
II Corps will never fully abandon Public Servers as it is a great source of Recruits that we can evaluate in action.
I am also sure you won't be the only ones doing it either ;)
But to keep on topic, i do not believe there is any reason why public players should be worried about regiments "abandoning" public servers"
I think there will be a healthy mix between organised events and regiments on public servers on this game when it gets closer to full release due to the target audience of the game being enthusiasts or people who want something more serious. As there are in similar games I am sure there will be at least one community who will pick up the "public event" style where a privately owned server is open to public players and regiments alike.


union side is they all are mostly paper companies

This is largely due to the fact these companies are pre-established groups with people waiting for the game to be later in development before playing, most likely for gameplay and financial reasons. I mean $70 is a lot to ask for from members if you are a large group asking them to move over already, not to mention it would be expecting too much too early from the game considering it is still in a testing stage. At this current moment I really don't see a problem with "paper companies".

[John Cooley]

Lol Agreed
Also many of the Paper are arty and cav waiting

[zzman305]

Normally I don't like to revive "dead threads", but I think this is the best place to post this (and this forum isn't letting me post threads until I reach a specific post limit so I couldn't post a new thread anyway).

The reason why is because I noticed something dangerous today when I went to try and play War of Rights. Note that I said "try". I didn't get to play. Allow me to show you why, the following screenshots were taken by War of Rights public players yesterday night while attempting to join War of Rights matches. While some of the hours they are taken aren't clear, via private messaging I have been told that the majority of them we're taken during prime play hours.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1818522255
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1819467138

Thread from which screenshots we're acquired from
https://steamcommunity.com/app/424030/discussions/0/3140616601481162800/

Anybody see the trend here? The OP's worry last night became a complete reality. Non-regimental players universally and totally barred from participating in the community and playing the game via passworded servers for the majority of the nights NA playtime hours. I myself can say that I waited for a half-hour before giving up and playing Squad. I'm hoping the regimental's that rule the roost on this forum aren't foolish enough to see the obvious problems this causes, both for them and their regiments AND for Campfire in the long term. I have spoken on one occasion with TrustyJam about said issue, but he didn't really give me any answers to solving it. And to be honest I really don't know if I would have an answer if I was in his shoes either. The only answer I can think of is that it lies with the Regiments to solve this problem before it gets worse. Though whether or not any of you actually intend too is up in the air in my opinion. I have seen trolling and griefing in WoR's, I know those server passwords are for a reason, but cutting off literally the entire community who has not joined a clan? I cannot think of a more debilitating and real threat to this games success. Continue down this path and word will get out and WoR will suffer because of it.

Open the servers. Let us play.

[zzman305]

I am not disputing the gist of your post, zzman305, but I will add some context:

In many instances, the purpose of the server passwords is not to keep "Non-regimental players" out. It is actually to keep other regiments out.

Often, two-to-four regiments are having a scheduled match. Other uninvited regiments sometimes gate-crash en masse and then the invited regiments cannot enter to play their scheduled match. This leads to dissension on Discord, and kicking anyone to make room leads to quarrels. Hence, admins use passwords to bar uninvited regiments, not to bar "randoms." Sadly, an unintended side-effect is that "randoms" cannot enter the server.

One possible solution to this issue is to raise the server's overall number of player slots above 150. If War of Rights had 300 slot servers, the entire community — non-regimental players and all regiments — could play together and all fit on a single server. (This would be amazing and glorious.)


The 1stCav server hosts the community event on Friday nights. We do not password our server during the event. Everyone is allowed in; "any gun can play (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062429/)."

1. Yes, the gate-crashing by other regiments is something I probably didn't consider. But at this point I'm wondering if isolating the entire non-clan community is worth the exchange.

2. While I am appreciative that 7th Cav holds open server nights, the fact of the matter is that we really aren't the ones who are deciding which server gets played now are we? You can try and populate your server as much as you want, and I'm sure some nights you'll get it fairly high, but right now this game in its current form does not play well without a minimum of 60-70 players. The mechanics don't work, the teamwork ceases, and the game fails utterly. I have had a Campfire dev/admin literally say to me that "small matches aren't fun" in WoR and he is absolutely right. I'm glad your clan is taking an extra step to mitigate the problem. Its brave of you to do so. And I respect 7th Cav not just in WoR but in its other games as well. Your routinely the only Post Scriptum Server I play on. But with all do respect O'Rourke, I don't believe 7th Cav has the ability right now to carry that weight on its own, nor does it have the strength. We need the larger clans to acknowledge this problem. The ones who ROUTINELY control the flow and play of players without question. You know who I'm talking about. They're in the screenshots.

I have a life, I have a job and a career. I don't have the time to devote to a clan of civil war reenactors no matter how much I love the game and the time period. Alot of other people are the exact same. And this game doesn't exist in a vacuum. WoR has competition, maybe none from this specific time period but there are certainly plenty of teamwork based tactical games that can eat people's time. I see WoR players I know all the time playing Squad, Post Scriptum, and ArmA. Remember what I said in my first post? I didn't get to play even though I wanted to devote my time to WoR. I gave up. I played another game. So did plenty of other people. That's how games die.

If last Sunday is an indication of a trend, there will be no War of Rights non-clan community. Then (shortly) afterwards they're won't be a community at all. And then you'll be Tannenberg.

[PAIOLETTI]

Normally I don't like to revive "dead threads", but I think this is the best place to post this (and this forum isn't letting me post threads until I reach a specific post limit so I couldn't post a new thread anyway).

The reason why is because I noticed something dangerous today when I went to try and play War of Rights. Note that I said "try". I didn't get to play. Allow me to show you why, the following screenshots were taken by War of Rights public players yesterday night while attempting to join War of Rights matches. While some of the hours they are taken aren't clear, via private messaging I have been told that the majority of them we're taken during prime play hours.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1818522255
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1819467138

Thread from which screenshots we're acquired from
https://steamcommunity.com/app/424030/discussions/0/3140616601481162800/

Anybody see the trend here? The OP's worry last night became a complete reality. Non-regimental players universally and totally barred from participating in the community and playing the game via passworded servers for the majority of the nights NA playtime hours. I myself can say that I waited for a half-hour before giving up and playing Squad. I'm hoping the regimental's that rule the roost on this forum aren't foolish enough to see the obvious problems this causes, both for them and their regiments AND for Campfire in the long term. I have spoken on one occasion with TrustyJam about said issue, but he didn't really give me any answers to solving it. And to be honest I really don't know if I would have an answer if I was in his shoes either. The only answer I can think of is that it lies with the Regiments to solve this problem before it gets worse. Though whether or not any of you actually intend too is up in the air in my opinion. I have seen trolling and griefing in WoR's, I know those server passwords are for a reason, but cutting off literally the entire community who has not joined a clan? I cannot think of a more debilitating and real threat to this games success. Continue down this path and word will get out and WoR will suffer because of it.

Open the servers. Let us play.
Hey ZZ just saw this now, sorry for the late response. I host WoR Community Events on Sunday and Monday. This past Monday (event in question) we had 3 Servers open, 2 of which were with organized units, the third being the II Corps Community Server (hosted by II-1st VA) for random players and pubbies. Generally on Mondays i will keep the server without a password but due to the request of many units within the community we kept it shut for competitive gameplay. However a few guys that are not with a regiment were active during event due to the fact that they are team players and moreover bc they were part of my 6th LA steam group which gives out the server name and password. Most Mondays will be open to the public but speaking frankly my #1 reason to put on a password is the fact that the game crashes so often, especially with a larger server that regimental players, and often myself cant get back into the main battle/event of the night. Add me as a friend on steam ZZ and i will get you involved in the big fights. I don't care if u want to join my regiment or not, the objective is having a ton of fun, kicking ass and following commands.

......1 thing no one should forget is that we all were "pubbies" at 1 point in this game, it will not grow if the new comers don't feel welcome. I try extremely hard to make sure that all players in the game feel welcome and at home when fighting with my 6th Louisiana Tigers/ Fighting 5th Virginia/ 1st Virginia Inf & Cav (*Stonewall Jackson's II Corps*). I also make it a point that if i meet new guys that are deadset on playing Union we can get them squared away with a great regiment such as Tylers 9th NY, Staples 1st Cav, or Pix Apollo's 14th Brooklyn..... Again we did have the 3rd server open for everyone, that i do believe maxed out at 80-85 at one point but, speaking frankly with a 150 man server i already need to split the organized units into 2 separate servers (sometimes 3 on Sunday as it is the largest event in the game), don't feel set aside if the third (II-Corps) server is the only one open as the cost for a server in this game is astronomical ($1300 USD per year) and II Corps, thanks in part to the generiosity of the 1st Virginia under Lt. Col. Billy has shelled out the cash just to make sure yall have a moderated server to play on.......it also gives yall newcomers a chance to take officer unabridged and learn how to lead a bit, or even as an enlisted man how to execute an objective, how to shoot, you learn the maps, tactics ect ect............

***To ZZ or any players in WoR that would like to be part of the A side in the fights, add me as a friend on steam or anyone frankly in the 6th LA and I will make it a point to get yall involved in the action. Even in the Big Competative Events of the Week yall are always welcome to join so long as you guys can follow orders and be an asset to the team you play with.***

-Colonel Paioletti (Stonewall Jackson's II Corps) 6th Louisiana "Tigers", "the Fighting" 5th Virginia, 1st Virginia Inf/Cav

[Tyler28256]

Hey ZZ just saw this now, sorry for the late response. I host WoR Community Events on Sunday and Monday. This past Monday (event in question) we had 3 Servers open, 2 of which were with organized units, the third being the II Corps Community Server (hosted by II-1st VA) for random players and pubbies. Generally on Mondays i will keep the server without a password but due to the request of many units within the community we kept it shut for competitive gameplay. However a few guys that are not with a regiment were active during event due to the fact that they are team players and moreover bc they were part of my 6th LA steam group which gives out the server name and password. Most Mondays will be open to the public but speaking frankly my #1 reason to put on a password is the fact that the game crashes so often, especially with a larger server that regimental players, and often myself cant get back into the main battle/event of the night. Add me as a friend on steam ZZ and i will get you involved in the big fights. I don't care if u want to join my regiment or not, the objective is having a ton of fun, kicking ass and following commands.

......1 thing no one should forget is that we all were "pubbies" at 1 point in this game, it will not grow if the new comers don't feel welcome. I try extremely hard to make sure that all players in the game feel welcome and at home when fighting with my 6th Louisiana Tigers/ Fighting 5th Virginia/ 1st Virginia Inf & Cav (*Stonewall Jackson's II Corps*). I also make it a point that if i meet new guys that are deadset on playing Union we can get them squared away with a great regiment such as Tylers 9th NY, Staples 1st Cav, or Pix Apollo's 14th Brooklyn..... Again we did have the 3rd server open for everyone, that i do believe maxed out at 80-85 at one point but, speaking frankly with a 150 man server i already need to split the organized units into 2 separate servers (sometimes 3 on Sunday as it is the largest event in the game), don't feel set aside if the third (II-Corps) server is the only one open as the cost for a server in this game is astronomical ($1300 USD per year) and II Corps, thanks in part to the generiosity of the 1st Virginia under Lt. Col. Billy has shelled out the cash just to make sure yall have a moderated server to play on.......it also gives yall newcomers a chance to take officer unabridged and learn how to lead a bit, or even as an enlisted man how to execute an objective, how to shoot, you learn the maps, tactics ect ect............

***To ZZ or any players in WoR that would like to be part of the A side in the fights, add me as a friend on steam or anyone frankly in the 6th LA and I will make it a point to get yall involved in the action. Even in the Big Competative Events of the Week yall are always welcome to join so long as you guys can follow orders and be an asset to the team you play with.***

-Colonel Paioletti (Stonewall Jackson's II Corps) 6th Louisiana "Tigers", "the Fighting" 5th Virginia, 1st Virginia Inf/Cav

Another thing to point out is with the ever expanding size of WoR regiments we are forced to lock the servers to get all of our members into the match, and if we open it to public players and our men can't get in we'll look even worse having to kick people out of the server to fit our guys. Since our men comes first in our eyes. One thing is for sure and it's wanting everyone who owns the game to feel welcome to play. However, at the designated days and times that our units have these events we want those who joined us to be guaranteed to get into the fight. Directly following the designated events I know my 9th NYers enter the other non-passworded servers to play around. Also what is going on is no different from what happened in the mount and blade mod (First Manassas). Passworded event servers for organized units happen in any game involving clans.

[zzman305]

Thank you for your response Paioletti, you have always been an excellent representative of this community whenever I play with you and you have once more demonstrated this today. The more time I've had to think on this matter the more I realized that the problem is a combination of factors instead of simply "regiments choosing to isolate themselves", in that regard it'll probably only be resolved through feature updates and even larger servers. And that will only be solved with time and coding. That being said I will take you up on your offer. I still love this game for all its problems and believe in its immense long-term potential.